Project Reality Forums

"Squad 1 and 2 get some MGs, snipers and a recoilless rifle on the southern side of the valley, Squad 3,4 and 5 hold out around the known and get some IEDs on the roads, Squad 6 build some hideouts west of the known, squad 7 and 8 ambush anything coming down the main road to the south west."

In a perfect world PR should be like this, afterall PR has the squads, the commander and the communications required. So why don't we get any proper team control and communication like this? I've started this thread so people can discuss what makes it hard for them to work as a team (not including working as a squad) and hopefully see what solutions some people can come up with. just to clarify this is a discussion about working as a team as opposed to working as a squad. feel free to discuss your opinion on the matter and what you think works or doesn't work or even why there isn't a problem at all with teamwork at the moment, I'd like to see other peoples take on the matter.

Simple really. It all starts with the commander and squad leaders willing to take and follow orders. But since this is PR and not the military, you hardly see it played that way.

Important thing for teamwork (not squadwork) is having a commander.
He has the overall view and sees things from a distance?

The problem for squadleaders is, that they always see the battle from their particular pov.
When I am squadleading and moving up to the next flag, I always try to make clear which squad is defending and stay behind, and which one will attack with me. Its the squadleaders that need to talk to other squadleader to get things done.

If the SL is too busy holding his own squad together, nothing will happen. Because being SL is a already very busy job, creating teamwork is even more communication. Thats probably why we often see only squadwork, but no teamwork!

Squads who don't want to work with others are perhaps the biggest issue imo. You always get the odd squad who has no mics or doesn't speak the same language as the rest of the team, or even the rare "leet"squads who refuse to follow commanders orders and just do their own little mission instead.
Another issue would the the lack of capable commanders, self explanatory.
And finally i would say that on public servers this will almost never happen. It is simply to hard to control 50 people who all have their own ideas about what should happen and even when there are plans they often fall apart along with the team.

Welcome, welcome to 2014 .

This is one of the major problems in PR. Inter-squad communication and teamwork is generally at a good level. People follow orders and work together to achieve goals set by the squad leader.

However teamplay beetween squads usually does not exist. This is very rarely there is a commander that actually leads the battle. And even if there is a commander, most of the squad leaders wont follow his orders but instead go along with their own plan.

This problem can be solved if:
1. Squad leaders are forced to follow commander orders by server admins. Uncooperative SLs are kicked.
2. Cabable commanders step up and lead the battle.

Heh.

I'm a commissioned officer in a western army, have been for a long time now. Co-ordinating something on the scale of a PR battle is nothing, but I rarely go anywhere near commanding because I have no trust in subordinates to know wtf they're doing.

Trust is the currency of command, and it doesn't exist in PR.

It is a combination of a lot of things that make overall strategy futile.

Like mentioned above the lack of trust and respect combined with point of view and the fact that it is a fast-paced game and then you have communication problems and language just as the icing on the cake.

All that combined is the recipe of disaster, therefore people tend to keep up an organised squad and say fuck-it-all to the rest of the team as they drive by.

The only solution to this problem the way I see it is if a team of 10 organised people (9 SL and 1 Commander from a clan for example) take charge of the server and all the squads. This however is called an event and it is not a public match anymore.

Squad leaders are the key, iGi used to intentionally lead multiple squads, we prefered to have each clanmate alone in a squad with 5 pubbies rather than group ourselves into an uber squad. (iGi was also the first community to use mumble and make public events based around it btw)

Next time you join a server with friends, perhaps try it? Each of you make a squad and work as a single unit. Things suddenly become alot easier.

What Happen ??:

I'm gonna to try to be a better squad leader with better strategy on Obj's instead of hitting it head on like i see others in PR doing countless times . Sometimes people you gotta think outside the box and do stuff the other team is not expecting I try my best sometimes to do such.

[R-DEV]Rudd wrote:Squad leaders are the key, iGi used to intentionally lead multiple squads, we prefered to have each clanmate alone in a squad with 5 pubbies rather than group ourselves into an uber squad. (iGi was also the first community to use mumble and make public events based around it btw)

Next time you join a server with friends, perhaps try it? Each of you make a squad and work as a single unit. Things suddenly become alot easier.

That's a really good idea I'm actually surprised that more teamwork orientated players/clans don't do this, it seems so obvious. Unfortunately players are the most unpredictable/unreliable element in a game, personally I think modifications to gameplay is the best method of altering players mentality when it comes to things like teamwork. For example COD discourages its players from using teamwork through its insanely quick combat and personal character upgrading mechanics, on the other hand PR encourages its players to work as squads through kits, communications and slower, more tactical combat.

The heart of the problem is that PR doesn't encourage teamwork to the same degree that it encourages squad work. For starters squad leaders are largely blind as to what other squads are up to, seriously hampering team coordination. On top of this all squads are mostly identical meaning they don't have different strengths and weaknesses which in turn means they don't have any need to rely on each other. last but not least the commanders orders are just a nagging opinion as opposed to a direct order from a higher authority.

If squad leaders could see the orders all other squads have on the map, all squads had different capabilities (ie, weapon squads, sniper squads etc.). and points were orientated around proximity to the commanders orders not only would teamwork be more accessible but it would be more essential. Im not sure as to how possible those mechanics would be to implement in the BF2 engine but even if one could be implemented teamwork would be that small bit easier to coordinate.

A couple of years ago, there was this initiative of players wearing certain "tags", so in-game you could identify players that were teamwork oriented and all. I believe it was "#" as the clantag. You might be able to reintroduce that, as players that are willing to lead a squad or something.

Just an idea though .

People play the game to have fun, and it is simply not fun to lie in a 'covert ambush' for 2hours in case an enemy tries to cap the flag you're near.

Basically, once you start to subordinate yourself to the team or the overall game (i.e. you sacrifice your fun to contribute to your team's chances of winning), your fun level just drops off enormously. Unless you're a milsim type or a role-player.. But most players aren't.

Couple this with squad leading, and a 'strategic' squad leader will consistently and tactically place his squad in the most boring, drawn out, tedious positions on the map, in order to cover for the rest of the team's fun seeking and aggression. This means that not only he but 7 guys under him get bored as hell.

I've played a few organised games in the past, and found them so boring that I won't do it again. Camping a flag in order that the enemy can't rush it is important, but it also meant hours of no action. Slow, set piece attacks and planned gradual retreats are realistic and quite admirable, but again, I don't enjoy camping an opening in a wall for 30mins in case the enemy chose to flank.

Coupled with the fact that you simply don't know how good the other SL's are (it's hard enough managing an unruly and impatient squad), and attemts at team cohesion, inter-squad manouvers etc all tend to be superficial. The SL's are almost always overworked in PR because they have to micromanage 7 guys who just want to shoot at the enemy (which is absolutely reasonable in my book).

I'm a great believer that the SL should be more empowered in PR and the overall battlefield greatly simplified in order to make it more rewarding for an SL to both be 'tactical' and fun.

Mikemonster wrote:Basically, once you start to subordinate yourself to the team or the overall game (i.e. you sacrifice your fun to contribute to your team's chances of winning), your fun level just drops off enormously. Unless you're a milsim type or a role-player.. But most players aren't.

The truth has been spoken

Those that want to be tactical often suffer the consequences of seeing the rest of the team get all the action, so it automatically discourages people from doing the right overall tactical thing.

How often haven't you seen every single squad attack and leave the flag undefended, only to spot the chat rage about why they just lost that flag again for no reason.

The thing is that if you are a defending squad you may see action within 2 min or 2 hours, but if you join the main assault you are 100% sure that you will get some action.

Perhaps some closer distance between each defend/attack flag could make it more enjoyable defending. Then you could at least enjoy the fireworks and maybe even support from a range without completely abandoning the flag although it would make every flag very difficult to flank

Bad servers is why.

Clans that run servers today only care about asset rules so none can steel there tanks and shit.not enforcing chain of command.

Trooper, please explain what you mean when you say 'not enforcing chain of command'?

Like TG did. Resigning SLs that do not follow commander orders. Great rule that should be on every server.