Project Reality Forums

This is not that big of a deal but i think its kind of silly that an officer, and a captain at that, is in charge of a single squad. It would be a lot more appropriate for the kit to be called "NCO kit", meaning a sergeant or corporal.

Again no big deal but i figured i would let you know because its driving a few of my Marine buddies crazy.

i like the idea of captian kit.. lol like squad captian. i think officer can still work though but i get where your going at ^_^

We'll need the CO kit that was suggested too in that case.

I agree,

PRSP uses the NCO terminology afaik, and I like it though its only a small thing.

Ironcomatose wrote:This is not that big of a deal but i think its kind of silly that an officer, and a captain at that, is in charge of a single squad. It would be a lot more appropriate for the kit to be called "NCO kit", meaning a sergeant or corporal.

Again no big deal but i figured i would let you know because its driving a few of my Marine buddies crazy.

I think it should be called "SL" kit, but I agree with you since Cpls and Sgts are who lead fireteams, which the squads in PR essentially are (since they aren't big enough to be convential squads). I don't know how the other foreign militaries do it, hence why I think "SL" would be better suited for it.

00SoldierofFortune00 wrote:I think it should be called "SL" kit, but I agree with you since Cpls and Sgts are who lead fireteams, which the squads in PR essentially are (since they aren't big enough to be convential squads). I don't know how the other foreign militaries do it, hence why I think "SL" would be better suited for it.

No, Sgts and Cpls lead squads, Lance Corporals and Cpls lead fire teams but in my company almost all teams are lead by Lcpls.

Ironcomatose wrote:No, Sgts and Cpls lead squads, Lance Corporals and Cpls lead fire teams but in my company almost all teams are lead by Lcpls.

Yea, my mistake, cus I used to have a LCpl as a Fireteam leader too lol. I agree with this change though and it shouldn't be too hard to do, only a small name change. What bothers me more ingame is when you're playing as Marines and your SL says "Follow me soldiers" lol.

I would not approve of that becouse of lots of armies, especially consripct based! , have consripts as group and platoon chiefs and not non commisoned officers. So just becouse USA decided to have grumpy 40 year old seargents as group chiefs dosen't mean that the rest of the world has it.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1180662']I would not approve of that becouse of lots of armies, especially consripct based! , have consripts as group and platoon chiefs and not non commisoned officers. So just becouse USA decided to have grumpy 40 year old seargents as group chiefs dosen't mean that the rest of the world has it.

I dont think any western armies put officers in charge of such small groups. Your talking about platoon level command, we are talking about squads.

I Disagree - a "Squad" in PR represents a Platoon in Real Life in my eyes - as there are only 32 people there in the first place, it's reasonable to assume that 6 people can represent a Platoon - or even a company. 6/32 is a fifth and a bit of the team - if you divide the tickets by 5 then it'll end up quite high (depending on map size).

P.S Officer works for whatever you think - there is always an Officer in charge of a squad or paltoon or company, just that Officer can be Commissioned (CO) or Non-Commissioned (NCO).

Ironcomatose wrote:I dont think any western armies put officers in charge of such small groups. Your talking about platoon level command, we are talking about squads.

You are reading me wrong. I said i don't approve of making the new kit name "NCO" since far from every army has none commisioned officers as group chiefs like US has, very many armies has consript corprals or consript seargents as group cheifs and not some military employed seargent.

The difference is that a state employed seargent is in the army for a long period but a consript corpral or seargent is a consript soldier doing the national military service mandatory training roughly the same time period as a consript soldier and is returnt to the civilian life at the same time as the soldier. For example in the Swedish system we do 11 monthe mandatory military training around the age of 19 then the group chiefs enters the military the same time as the rest of the consripts and then exits at the same time as the rest.

Most consript armies operate in this manner, officers usually only at the lowest platoon commanders.

Herbiie wrote:I Disagree - a "Squad" in PR represents a Platoon in Real Life in my eyes - as there are only 32 people there in the first place, it's reasonable to assume that 6 people can represent a Platoon - or even a company. 6/32 is a fifth and a bit of the team - if you divide the tickets by 5 then it'll end up quite high (depending on map size).

P.S Officer works for whatever you think - there is always an Officer in charge of a squad or paltoon or company, just that Officer can be Commissioned (CO) or Non-Commissioned (NCO).

Ok i guess you can think of NCOs like that. As far as a squad representing a platoon in game, it makes sense. Its up to the DEVs.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1180681']

Most consript armies operate in this manner, officers usually only at the lowest platoon commanders.

We do the same thing. Officers are platoon commanders at the lowest billet. Are you saying that a PR squad represents a platoon? If so then ok.

EDIT: Double post, merge em

Ironcomatose wrote:We do the same thing. Officers are platoon commanders at the lowest billet. Are you saying that a PR squad represents a platoon? If so then ok.

EDIT: Double post, merge em

No i am saing that group chiefs usually are consripts in consript based armies and not seargents that employed as a long time standing force.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1180689']No i am saing that group chiefs usually are consripts in consript based armies and not seargents that employed as a long time standing force.

We dont have any western conscript armies in game now AFAIK and the only other army that this change would effect is the MEC and they are made up so they can do w.e they want with them. In any case what does it matter if its a conscript Sgt or a career Sgt.

Ironcomatose wrote:We dont have any western conscript armies in game now AFAIK and the only other army that this change would effect is the MEC and they are made up so they can do w.e they want with them. In any case what does it matter if its a conscript Sgt or a career Sgt.

It is my understanding that IDF is going to be added and Chinas army is also consript based.

A portrait of the Israeli soldier - Google Böcker
Note that the authour there uses the term "NCO" even if the proper term should just be group or platoon chief or corresponding.

'Sirex[SWE wrote:[MoW];1180695']It is my understanding that IDF is going to be added and Chinas army is also consript based.

A portrait of the Israeli soldier - Google Böcker
Note that the authour there uses the term "NCO" even if the proper term should just be group or platoon chief or corresponding.

Im confused. From what im reading you are agreeing with me. The term NCO, exactly why it should be NCO kit.

I smell a bit of a language barrier

Ironcomatose wrote:Im confused. From what im reading you are agreeing with me. The term NCO, exactly why it should be NCO kit.

I smell a bit of a language barrier

Yeah i to think it's a language barrier which has to do that US and Britt military and language only uses NCO. While most conript or has been consript armies, Germany, Isreal, Germany, Sweden, China, don't use that term. Since a cosnript army NCO are consripts they are not viewd as a sub officer class and thus within the own language are not reffered to as NCO (empashise on the officers part), they are consripts.

The only thing remotly similar would be for exmaple the German term Unterofficier, aka sub officers. For example one of the things a NCO provides is soldierlife and leadership education for a newly commisioned officer, this need don't exist in a consript army since all the officiers has done military service as a consript.

It just says "Officer." It doesn't specify that he's commissioned or non-commissioned, so he could be either.

Trouble is it's used for every leadership position in the game, including the commander. Unless Murphy has shown up to the party and taken a giant sh*t in the punchbowl, stripes aren't going to be commanding a company.

And that icon doesn't mean a thing in the game context other than something that is identifiable on the "round over" screen.

But seriously, it was brought up before in DEV forums (maybe here too) and is being discussed.