team formation should be the following
-
Mcmahon48
- Posts: 31
- Joined: 2009-07-01 08:15
team formation should be the following
2 squads 6 tanks with 2 crew members required each with a squad number painted on the tank
1 heli and CAS combined 3 jets 3 helicopters
4 mech infantry (3 bradleys 2 crewmembers) 18 infantry to be transported by bradleys)
1 heli and CAS combined 3 jets 3 helicopters
4 mech infantry (3 bradleys 2 crewmembers) 18 infantry to be transported by bradleys)
-
Anhkhoa
- Posts: 710
- Joined: 2009-01-16 02:09
Re: team formation should be the following
Care to elaborate on why it should be like this....?Mcmahon48 wrote:2 squads 6 tanks with 2 crew members required each with a squad number painted on the tank
1 heli and CAS combined 3 jets 3 helicopters
4 mech infantry (3 bradleys 2 crewmembers) 18 infantry to be transported by bradleys)
And also...JETS AND HELIs, do not work together well in PR..as shown by Quinling, it just forces less and less infantry squads and more guys on assets.

Spaz: I once had a dream where my psychology teacher was 10ft tall and ate me, then she gave birth to me.
-
Spec
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 8439
- Joined: 2007-09-01 22:42
Re: team formation should be the following
What map are you talking about anyway?
-
Rudd
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 21225
- Joined: 2007-08-15 14:32
Re: team formation should be the following
ignoring that your setup doesn't add up to 32....2 squads 6 tanks with 2 crew members required each with a squad number painted on the tank
1 heli and CAS combined 3 jets 3 helicopters
4 mech infantry (3 bradleys 2 crewmembers) 18 infantry to be transported by bradleys)
I prefer trans and CAS to be seperate to avoid coms crossover, and the commander then can contact one squad for transport and resupply and one squad for CAS.
-
strima
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: 2007-02-10 15:04
-
Cheditor
- Posts: 2331
- Joined: 2009-03-01 14:35
Re: team formation should be the following
Surely that what map par kashan (which you dont get them at the same time) has 6 tanks :/
-
gaurd502
- Posts: 366
- Joined: 2008-03-22 14:59
Re: team formation should be the following
You have made many posts before. CAS with jets and Helis would not work together. I don't think we can pint sign on vehicles. I do not believe this should be enforced. If you want to have everyone playing in the correct divisions join a clan. Otherwise I don't see this happening. How long have you been playing PR?
-
IAJTHOMAS
- Posts: 1149
- Joined: 2006-12-20 14:14
Re: team formation should be the following
No, if the map doesn't contain these assets all hope is lost and efforts should be put in to negotiating an honourable surrender.strima wrote:Surely team format should be mission and map specific?



-
McBumLuv
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: 2008-08-31 02:48
Re: team formation should be the following
It's completely map dependent (and obviously limited to 32 players max, rather than the 36 you're proposing). On a map like Kashan (which I assume you're alluding to), I'd prefer to have only two infantry squads at max supported by IFVs, because if I knew the majority of the enemy was in armour, then the infantry couldn't really do much except be extra men to cap flags/secure areas such as bunkers.
Not to mention in this case FACs and more specialized infantry detachments (such as a Forward operating HAT group) are much more prominant and important in many respects than infantry than on other maps.
I'd prefer to see 1/3 the team crewing armour, a 1/3 as infantry and the rest divided into Air, AA, and IFV roles (that's nearly 6 tanks, a complete infantry squad and a few FACs/HAT positions, and 2 IFVs and 2 AAs and CAS jets crewed) as a general guideline on Kashan. But don't get me wrong, it's entirely situational.
BTW, that's what I'm guessing you're trying to discuss in this thread, but you could probably clear that up as the topic isn't really distinguishable. And welcome to the forums
Not to mention in this case FACs and more specialized infantry detachments (such as a Forward operating HAT group) are much more prominant and important in many respects than infantry than on other maps.
I'd prefer to see 1/3 the team crewing armour, a 1/3 as infantry and the rest divided into Air, AA, and IFV roles (that's nearly 6 tanks, a complete infantry squad and a few FACs/HAT positions, and 2 IFVs and 2 AAs and CAS jets crewed) as a general guideline on Kashan. But don't get me wrong, it's entirely situational.
BTW, that's what I'm guessing you're trying to discuss in this thread, but you could probably clear that up as the topic isn't really distinguishable. And welcome to the forums



-
Meza82
- Posts: 279
- Joined: 2009-06-13 21:26
Re: team formation should be the following
i disagree that tanks should have only two crewman each. this mean there is no HMG gunner. IMHO all tanks should be FULLY crewed (3 people) with gunner, driver, and HMG gunner. the HMG on tanks is very effective against helicopters and watch the rear and flanks.
Violence is power
In .308 we trust
In .308 we trust
-
[MPN]Slouch2
- Posts: 139
- Joined: 2009-04-15 06:03
Re: team formation should be the following
Mcmahon you need to stop posting suggestions which are not only meaningless without context or explanation, but plain idiotic. The balance of PR assets has been something that has been tweaked over some months. They're not about to change everything for a person who has just come across from vBF2 who thinks they know more about the game than the developers. Stop posting suggestions until you-
1) Play the game more.
2) Learn how the asset system works.
3) Learn the right place for these sorts of threads in the forums.
1) Play the game more.
2) Learn how the asset system works.
3) Learn the right place for these sorts of threads in the forums.
[img]http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/2084/medalbar.png[/img]
-
Dunehunter
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 12110
- Joined: 2006-12-17 14:42
Re: team formation should be the following
Also, CAS and transport separate...I agree on maps where you get a lot of both, but on maps like the old Karbala where you get two LBs and one apache, isn't it better to have them all in one squad so you can share info about AA etc.?
[R-MOD]Jigsaw] I am drunk. I decided to come home early because I can''t realy seea nyithng. I hthknk i madea bad choicce.
-
McBumLuv
- Posts: 3563
- Joined: 2008-08-31 02:48
Re: team formation should be the following
It's not so clear that this is a suggestion. I'd agree that it's a good inference, albeit it being placed in the General discussion forum (He hasn't reached the 25 post threshold yet, so that's probably why), but no other indication...'[MPN wrote:Slouch2;1094727']Mcmahon you need to stop posting suggestions which are not only meaningless without context or explanation, but plain idiotic. The balance of PR assets has been something that has been tweaked over some months. They're not about to change everything for a person who has just come across from vBF2 who thinks they know more about the game than the developers. Stop posting suggestions until you-
1) Play the game more.
2) Learn how the asset system works.
3) Learn the right place for these sorts of threads in the forums.
Other than the other badly worded suggestion threads, and the same attitude in them, and what the majority of his/her posts consist of, and--you know what, maybe you are right
Oh well, let's just derail this onto a slightly more sane topic, and continue discussing the best asset assignments for a general game of Kashan/other maps? It's the only possible way this thread'll become constructive



-
strima
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 2205
- Joined: 2007-02-10 15:04
Re: team formation should be the following
I bow to your superior reasoning and will now ceremonially burn my keyboard as a mark of respect!!!!IAJTHOMAS wrote:No, if the map doesn't contain these assets all hope is lost and efforts should be put in to negotiating an honourable surrender.
-
Snazz
- Posts: 1504
- Joined: 2009-02-11 08:00
Re: team formation should be the following
There's no choice, you must form your team as he says or else you'll be GUID banned immediately.
-
ralfidude
- Posts: 2351
- Joined: 2007-12-25 00:40
Re: team formation should be the following
All his posts are meaningless. Kind of like my first posts.
This 'team formation setup' is... meaningless, just like this post.
This 'team formation setup' is... meaningless, just like this post.

-
LeadMagnet
- Retired PR Developer
- Posts: 1372
- Joined: 2007-02-09 20:11
Re: team formation should be the following
This is a discussion forum, not a pulpit. As others have said your ideas reek of inexperience with PR and sound squad tactics. Play the game more and see how it's done before you try to enforce your views on the community. It's getting old fast.
“Without Warning, Sans Remorse”
-
wookimonsta
- Posts: 681
- Joined: 2008-08-31 13:16
Re: team formation should be the following
armed aerial vehicles should be seperate from unarmed ones, everything else just leads to confusion.
also, you should try and get a little more experience on the servers in different squads to get a decent overview
also, you should try and get a little more experience on the servers in different squads to get a decent overview




