Project Reality Forums

First let me state that this was scattered and collected from a couple threads. Assuming class limitations are possible and that these are ideal conditions (32v32) please reflect on my ideas.


"The USMC has 13 man squads.

They are made up of 3 fireteams and a squad leader.

A fireteam has:

Fireteam Leader - M-16A4 w/203
Rifleman - M-16A4 (often with an ACOG x4 scope but not always)
Assistant Automatic Rifleman - M-16A4 (carries the spare ammo)
Automatic Rifleman - SAW

You take three of those and add a squad leader and you have a squad of 13 men. I think the game's "squads" should be renamed fireteams and allow attachments of two Marines for a new "squad" or fireteam of 6."

Taken from this thread:http://realitymod.com/forum/showpost.php?p=45983&postcount=20
Lets see that makes
3 m203 grenadier fireteam leaders
6 Riflemen/Assistant AUto Riflemen (m16's for the sake of the game)
3 SAWs
1 Squad leader with either m16/m16 with m203

thats 13 people now scale that down to 6 player squads.
The riflemen have a 2:1 ratio on the saw gunners and a 3:2 ratio on grenadiers. (assuming the squad leader takes an m203 -being generous again)

I even did some more research to find that in one platoon there would be 1-3 medics (corpsmen) assigned by the navy if you were lucky. SO EVEN FOR THE SAKE OF GAMEPLAY, I say put 1 medic per squad when in fact you normally wouldn't have one.

So I concluded that each squad should be 1 grenadier, 3 riflemen, 1 medic, 1 saw gunner. That is 6 people. Now you have to factor in AT's, if you would want them as a seperate support squad you would have to call on or if they would be in your squad for your convenience, and obviously within the game. You need some way to counter Armor within your squad.

So my compromise was to put an AT in every other footsquad by swapping out an MG because people would cry if there were no medics (but in real life there would be almost none). Now if you suggested that a squad composed of 1 grenadier, 3 riflemen, 2 MG's, I couldn't argue with you because that would be a little more realistic than what I initially suggested. So my initial suggestion was even generous based on the information I collected.



After this post I further revised and compiled this:



This only applies to full infantry squads. Support squads and vehicle squads would be different. This is the basic mainstay of any force.
There are 2 types of squads: MG squads and AT squads
Odd numbered squads are MG
Evens are AT

MG squad composition
Unlimited Riflemen
Limit 1x grenadier
Limit 2x MG gunner
Limit 1x Medic

Mg becomes available on 4th slot
Medic becomes available on 6th slot (yes they are rare)


AT type squad
Limit 1x grenadier
Limit 4x riflemen
Limit 1x MG
Limit 1x AT
Limit 1x Medic

AT available from second slot
MG available 6th Slot
Medic available 6th slot
This way it is possible to deploy without an AT, but an at is only available every other squad. So either deploy with it and be prepared, or someone will have to die and respawn with a reduced chance of taking armor out. It also allows your squad to be customizable to be more attack minded or defensive.

In games with a very low number of players, like the sort we see currently, weapon restrictions could seriously damage play. If one side has seven players in two squads they could field only one MG, while if the other side had eight players, they would have two MGs, or an MG and an AT. Once you determine what the enemy heavy weapons are, its a simple matter of pulling out the appropriate counter. Kill the AT gunner with small arms and then dominate a team without machine guns for forty seconds, kill the MG gunner with an APC cannon and then dominate the field all over again. Assuming 8v8, a decent match, a squad with an AT gunner and an MG versus two MGs would be dominated by the firepower, and the AT gunner would likely be completely useless until he could respawn as an MG. At that point, savvy teams would grab the armored vehicles and slaughter everyone but the machine gunners, forcing them to remain without AT weapons. Such a rigid, predictable system could cause powergaming and exploitation of the sort that a balanced-kit proposal would not.

And your suggestion only covers the USMC. What about China and the MEC? How will your plan scale to armies equiped not only with different weapons systems and capabilities but also armed and organized to fight entirely different forms of war? Do these armies even operate on the squad level, with sergeants leading combat groups, or do the Chinese and Middle Eastern Coalition forces prefer or have to use the cruder officer-level command systems that are better suited to less educated, authority-following, ill-trained armies? Even if we assume they were perfectly capable of NCO-level command, nations as advanced and educated as Great Britain still fielded troops in very officer-centric units in the early part of the century. Effective and sophisticated squad combat on a level such as the USMC may well be beyond Chinese or Middle Eastern fighting men.

Further research and speculation would have to go into other factions. You set it up your argument against me so easily just to knock it down. If you read carefully 7v8 would be a very fair match as there are unlimited Riflemen classes available.
1 team would have a full MG squad setup.
1 grenadier
3 riflemen
2 Mg's
1 medic/1 more riflemen.

Plus the 1 other squad leader on the same team (grenadier for this example as the heaviest firearm available)

The opposing team would run a mirror squad of the first squad. +2 in the next squad
That squad would be
1 grenadier
1 riflemen (not AT because these people would want firepower)

I fail to see any imbalance you speak of.

So players will always be forced into a squad until it is full, then a new squad made? What about clan members or friends who wish to form their own squad? Skilled and capable spec-ops who need to operate independantly from grunts for steath while completing team objectives? What about a 6v6, in which both teams will have to split their one and only squad in practice just to keep both offensive and defensive teams? If your squad leader is an idiot and you cannot form your own squad, are we to teamkill him until he resigns?

Contrary, if you do allow multiple squads every player will simply become their own squad leader, geared with an M203/GP-40. The heaviest firearm available, as you say. How is that not just as unrealistic as an entire team of squadless Assault? Are we to kick players who play the game too well by finding holes in forced kits and squads and exploiting them?

A good idea for competitions & tournaments with large numbers of people, but I would vote against it for general play.

NikovK has mentioned a few good points, an some that I can tell you about from experience.

We have to find a way of encouraging team play without forcing restrictions on people. When it comes down to it this is one bit of the game that we are not able to make completely realistic.

Players have to be ably to freely create there own squads as NikovK mentioned on a 6x6 match things become a lot easier if you have two squads, one for defence and one for attack.

Since we cant force people into squads that makes weapon restrictions redundant.

I've already said it but ill say it again, we cant force people into squads or weapons, people don't like it and will either leave or TK to get the weapon they want.

We need to find a way that encourages people to use all available classes without excessive using a particular class, the best way to do this is make each class dependant on another class. NikovK made in my opinion the best suggestion to solve this problem: http://realitymod.com/forum/t3227-my-op ... quads.html

"I've already said it but ill say it again, we cant force people into squads or weapons, people don't like it and will either leave or TK to get the weapon they want.

We need to find a way that encourages people to use all available classes without excessive using a particular class, the best way to do this is make each class dependant on another class."

Fully agreed, Eden.

maybe the game can suggest to a player what class to be (based on this research) or prompt you to make/ join a squad? (just like it tells you what flag you have to capture next.)

if i was forced into a squad or class i wouldnt' like it. Also, leaving it up to the players makes for some interesting squads,that may not be 'right', but work out.

I really enjoy these ad-hoc, defensive "heavy weapon" AT and Support squads.

No ones being forced into squads. IF they want to have 5 different squads with one player each, they cannot spawn on squadleader and they are limited in weaponry. This gives incentive to actually join a squad. I fail to see why this wouldn't work for general play. AA does it well, and we don't have brats crying because they don't get the gun they want.

AA does it well, and we don't have brats crying because they don't get the gun they want.

Uh, actually ....

Played it couple weeks ago, there was this one guy. 63 honor, wouldn't stop TKing me till I gave up the AR position in my squad.

Regardless, I think hard coded kit limitations are a touchy subject. There is potential in the reality of it, and in the fun of working as a squad. But sometimes people on a team just DON'T work together ... no matter what you do, it just doesn't happen. Being stuck on a team like this would be horrific if there were hard-coded kit limitations.

I do agree that something needs to be done about the rampant "kit whoring", 5 out of the 8 kits aren't even used ... it's all Support Medic Anti-Tank ...