Page 1 of 1

PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 00:34
by QuickLoad
I was going to make this a suggestion but I haven't 100% thought it through and the suggestion thread feels like it has little room for error, so I came here to discuss it.

I understand that modern squad leaders are their own RTO's with their own long range radios on their back, but for example, back in WW2 and V they had RTO members inside of their squads.

Could this be implemented as a new kit?

The RTO has access to all other squads & HQ(commander), while the squad leader and other squad leaders have access to squad comms only.

I feel as if WW2 and V aren't as hectic as they could be.. hell, insurgency playing as insurgents is more hectic than either of those.

Anyways, thoughts?

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 01:15
by sweedensniiperr
I'm pretty sure this was discussed when vietnam PR was more hip...

As a kit? Doubt it.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 02:06
by Katyusha
Sounds cool but it probably wouldn't change anything when it comes to communication.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 03:05
by JohnnyPissoff
I dunno I think it's a pretty good idea on many fronts:

- Releases the SL of another burden. It's not just him having to talk. He also has to answer. Not only does that take a few brain cycles, it also interrupts the more important duty; taking care of dire matters at hand under fire.
- Dedicated communicators learn and know the art of communication. A skill set in its self.
- Great duty for the newer less battle skilled players. Gets them in game fast with less "manual" reading time.

Only drawback I foresee is his getting (dead dead) and having to replace him in battle. But then that happens when medic dies dead.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 04:31
by anantdeathhawk
Or there could be comm systems that we could construct just like MG nests or ATGMs,that would ensure communication upto a certain distance, just like powerlines relays power from one place to another.And if the comm systems are down in a particular area,there will radio silence,having no comms would also be a nice thing, although there will be type chat,so this might not work.But, that radio operator kit might work.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 12:40
by CAS_ual_TY
Teamspeak. People would use either that or teamchat. Thats why you can still talk when dead. Nice for competitive, but wont work when pubbing

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 13:24
by PatrickLA_CA
I think adding any kind of restrictions to the current communications system, even if for a realistic purpose, will only lower the already low level of teamwork and communication between the squads.

It is a good idea that can work in the PR Tournament for example where both teams can agree that TS or any other third-party comms software won't be used.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 13:42
by Cossack
Suggestion out of suggestion section...

And its hard coded.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-03 19:59
by SkyEmperor
It's already hard sometimes to communicate with the other squadleaders to set up a plan or something, radio operators will only make it worse.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-04 11:19
by Mineral
Suggestion outside of suggestion forum. Also doubt it's the first time it's suggested to implement radio operator kit. Doubt it's something we would do, especially as it would only really fit into PR:WW2 or PR:V and would take a lot of work mumble wise, something we don't like to touch :) .

It would transfer one of the important aspects of being a SL away from him. Same way we also don't take out squad channel for insurgents or WW2. Communication is key to teamwork, removing any part of that in a significant way would suck IMO.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-04 14:56
by Vista
This is WAYY too milsim and does not bode well with PR's current gameplay.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-04 17:02
by bahiakof
I believe that greater focus on Project Reality is not the "REALITY", but teamwork, not only in a squad and also the whole team.

I still think it lacks some adjustments so that teamwork is implemented with greater relevance in the MOD still see many players playing as if they were in BF4.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-04 19:40
by QuickLoad
In my mind it was something of making the squad leaders less obstructed standing in a single spot with their map open and chatting away with SL's when he could be combat-leading the squad.(infact this is what makes squad leaders isolated from others, becuase they're either: A. busy fighting, B. busy communicating; atleast for the early stages of them.)

It also felt more realistic in WW2/VN times, but I understand the restrictions and spahgetti of mumble.
It'd be an awesome mechanic, but I understand the restrictions.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-05 00:20
by moses3
sl are important

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-05 04:08
by theDaarkness
yes please make a radio operator so I dont have to hear the incessant useless information spouted over all squad leader channel.

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-05 08:46
by H.Maverick
Why not just let someone else lead the squad and work as the RTO, and then have the Breacher or something work as the actual squad leader

Re: PR: radio operators?

Posted: 2016-11-06 10:40
by Rhino
This has probably already come up but afaik, the radio operator back in the day, was more of a maul just to carry the heavy radio for the CO, and keep the radio in check etc, but the CO would be the one who actually picked up the mic and sent the orders over the radio when he needed to, and the radio operator would just be the COs shadow so the radio was there w/e he needed it.
Image

As such, our current system is best, with possibly just for realism sake have a kit like the point man (could be renamed to radio operator tbh, since we were struggling to find a better name for a Vietnam era "breacher", since one didn't exist back then :p ) just have the radio on his back as part of his kit geom but wouldn't have any function.