Project Reality Forums

As the CO player, you know that Project Reality is a competative dynamic.

In your own words, how to define a victorious PR team?

In your own words, how to create the victorious PR team?

Individual skills + using tactics that you know work for your players = winning team

What L4gi said, plus always maintaining the initiative and not letting the other team tell you how to play. Eventually in a 4 hour game they'll figure you out if you sit back and you'll end up running around and if you never had any initiative then they'll just walk all over you.

The players have to be good, and good together, but the CO has to use them properly too.

And don't forget luck. Luck wins many games too. Just ask L4gi about the 3 cache Area Attack on Ramiel.

Individual skills + using tactics that you know work for your players = winning team

Logical i guess, make sense to me, so in case your up for it, (hope so), some few follow up questions, for all of those upcomming CO players out there, wanting to hear what to do creating that future winning PR team:

1. What if your individual skills dosent match the tactics you know works for your players?

2. How to overcome such an obstacle/challenge, creating convergence in the team, where there is only divergence as described in the first question?

What L4gi said, plus always maintaining the initiative and not letting the other team tell you how to play. Eventually in a 4 hour game they'll figure you out if you sit back and you'll end up running around and if you never had any initiative then they'll just walk all over you.

The players have to be good, and good together, but the CO has to use them properly too.

And don't forget luck.

Ok, please correct me should i be wrong, but basically the equation to me, now sounds like something as follows:

Individual skills + using tactics that you know work for your players + always maintaining the initiative + not letting the other team tell you how to play + not going on the defense for all/most an entire round + luck

So if thats the case, and i do understand you correctly, a few follow up questions, should you be interrested? I hope you will.

Again, my motive is partly to try and understand some other CO players out there, but also to create a bit more activity, in this game-function-area, where the key to the entire game, (imo), is hidden:

Ok, questions

1. Where to deploy team-cohesion in the deployed equation, if it should be deployed at all, in regard to creating that winning team?

2. Always maintaining the initative, dosent that like - in genereal at least - cost tickets?


Allright, thanks for deploying some replies. Hope you will follow up and others will join.

Personally, I dont really look at tickets, so the equation Michael posted is pretty much spot on.

PFunk wrote:Just ask L4gi about the 3 cache Area Attack on Ramiel.

HHHNNNGGG every time I get reminded of that.

Michael_Denmark wrote: 1. Where to deploy team-cohesion in the deployed equation, if it should be deployed at all, in regard to creating that winning team?

The best team cohesion comes from winning. If you keep losing its hard to make that united group feel strong.

2. Always maintaining the initative, dosent that like - in genereal at least - cost tickets?

Everything costs tickets. It may directly cost you tickets to attack, or at least maintain your preferred posture, but in the end not dictating the tempo of the battle means you end up losing ALL your tickets.

Example: C8 NATO held off L4gi's Cata for a good hour on Jabal by holding East Beach. We just annihilated everything they threw at us. Literally they couldn't get through. KDRs were absurd. But we sat back, cnofident in our situation. This let the other team decide how they were going to approach us. I waited too long to send out probing forces to attack other parts of the map. This meant that when we finally made a mistake they had their whole team to throw at it, whereas if we'd been throwing some stuff at the other sides of the map we would have kept them from being able to commit so strongly to exploit a successful attack, even if the probes ended up in total ticket loss of the probing element.

Even in defense you can maintain initiative by representing other intentions. The lesson from Jabal was that if you allow the enemy to figure you out 100% then they can find a way to beat you. Always keep their situation changing so that any intel they have is incomplete by definition because they will KNOW that you're already starting something else that they haven't even seen yet.

[quote=""L4gi"]Personally, I dont really look at tickets, so the equation Michael posted is pretty much spot on[/quote]

Copy


[quote="PFunk""]The best team cohesion comes from winning. If you keep losing its hard to make that united group feel strong..[/quote]

Yes any row of defeats can make it harder to create cohesion. However, should you as CO have been able to deploy a learning-culture on your team, it will be less harder in my experince.

Everything costs tickets. It may directly cost you tickets to attack, or at least maintain your preferred posture, but in the end not dictating the tempo of the battle means you end up losing ALL your tickets.

Example: C8 NATO held off L4gi's Cata for a good hour on Jabal by holding East Beach. We just annihilated everything they threw at us. Literally they couldn't get through. KDRs were absurd. But we sat back, cnofident in our situation. This let the other team decide how they were going to approach us. I waited too long to send out probing forces to attack other parts of the map. This meant that when we finally made a mistake they had their whole team to throw at it, whereas if we'd been throwing some stuff at the other sides of the map we would have kept them from being able to commit so strongly to exploit a successful attack, even if the probes ended up in total ticket loss of the probing element.

Few questions:

1. Did you use your entire team to defend East beach, while your opponent simultaniously used his entire team, to attack your defense?

2. Did you use a probing force of more than 2 full standard squads?

I need some more info to understand your conclusion here, cause to me, using defense as the main tool, can be the way to control the tempo and the rythm of the battle.

If possible could you please deploy a map or video from that Jabal battle?

Even in defense you can maintain initiative by representing other intentions. The lesson from Jabal was that if you allow the enemy to figure you out 100% then they can find a way to beat you. Always keep their situation changing so that any intel they have is incomplete by definition because they will KNOW that you're already starting something else that they haven't even seen yet

In principle I agree although question to me, is how to deploy the representation of other intentions, than simply just sitting back on ones alpha and being defensive?

Is that done through methods like probing, sweeping, team-sized counterattacks, or something different?

***

Thanks for the reply, sorry for replying so late.

Michael_Denmark wrote:Copy




Yes any row of defeats can make it harder to create cohesion. However, should you as CO have been able to deploy a learning-culture on your team, it will be less harder in my experince.

I actually think the best solution is to make it a fun experience. People will stay and keep trying if they believe in the people. I've seen people stay and be together and laugh and have fun with a string of defeats.

Belief and hope come from the camaraderie of the team. Lose that and keep losing battles and it will dissolve without a doubt.

1. Did you use your entire team to defend East beach, while your opponent simultaniously used his entire team, to attack your defense?

I used my entire team to defend but my opponent used all but one element of his to attack or fuel the attack as far as I know. One of his squads was at West Beach.

2. Did you use a probing force of more than 2 full standard squads?

I never did send out anything. I was planning to wait for the area attack to use it against West Beach defenses but it was right as that became available that we lost.

I need some more info to understand your conclusion here, cause to me, using defense as the main tool, can be the way to control the tempo and the rythm of the battle.

Defense has no control of the tempo if you're purely defensive. If you only sit and wait to repel. However by presenting him with attempts to attack other areas you deny him the ability to be certain of his own situation. If you are on the defensive you can take his moves, observe them, draw him in, then hit him in a vulnerable flank to destabilize him. Also if you destroy his push it opens your ability to counterattack, especially if you plan to do it at an opportune moment. Its a delicate balance maintaining initiative on the defensive because you are far more vulnerable to paying for mistakes.

You can end up in an overly confident defensive mindset and then find yourself overrun before you even realize it with no where to fall back to. As they say best defense is a good offense and my error on Jabal was to not push at attack to throw off theirs sooner.

If possible could you please deploy a map or video from that Jabal battle?

I'll see if I can find a BR for it.

In principle I agree although question to me, is how to deploy the representation of other intentions, than simply just sitting back on ones alpha and being defensive?

Is that done through methods like probing, sweeping, team-sized counterattacks, or something different?

Its done through whatever your instinct for the moment tells you is going to work. How many units you can commit to whatever move in whatever terrain you see around you with whichever random AAS you have to fight for in whichever given terrain environment using whatever quality of men (good, bad, excellent, average) at whichever juncture in the battle you feel is right or in need of a counter move.

To stay on defense and do nothing but kill what comes into your kill zone is like playing Chess and never making a move, only letting your opponent make one and then taking whichever pieces of his walk into a one move kill. Its like never maneuvering for the checkmate, only taking whichever pieces he essentially offers you. You have to play a chess game even if you're not overtly attacking. Like a boxer on the ropes waiting to hit his opponent as he tires himself out purely assaulting.

Thanks for the reply Pfunk.

Ok. Its been a while since a discussion has been running in the CO forum, so ill try and restart it with a thought related to the creation of the winning Project Reality team.

Does size matter

Will a clan or a tournament-team, or any similar pr team, have an advantage when it outnumbers an opposing team, like for instance clan A has 32 players, thus just enough to man all positions in a round, while clan B has 64 players, thus more than enough to man all positions in a round.

Does size matter when it comes to create a winning team?

if you want to see an epic battle check out <enter name - which i currently can't remember - of map with russians attacking idf in choppers from freighers>


OT:
also, i think that individual skill is paramount as you need effective units that can accomplish a given task without losing too many tickets. this brings us directly to the realm of "CO" staff, namely to the importance of squad leaders who are responsible for the training of their men. without good SLs any team will fail. SLs are the eyes and ears of the CO as well as a defining factor for the combat strength of the units commanded by them.

you also need a good climate in the team and SLs that know how to play together. if the CO is to micromanage everything stuff is gonna go wrong at some point. also the SLs and the CO should have a good working relationship (love is not necessary) where the CO knows when to listen to his SLs and the SLs know when to stfu and do what they're told . for this it is necessary to know each other fairly well.

Michael_Denmark wrote:Does size matter

Will a clan or a tournament-team, or any similar pr team, have an advantage when it outnumbers an opposing team, like for instance clan A has 32 players, thus just enough to man all positions in a round, while clan B has 64 players, thus more than enough to man all positions in a round.

Does size matter when it comes to create a winning team?

Yes and No.

64 (using the numbers of your example) players to choose from doesn't automatically mean you will have the better team.

It`s all about skill.

First: Team skills:
If the 32 players are used to play together, know what they are doing and react faster and more effective they will win - even if they have only 25 players.

Second: Individual skills
Given the team skill level is comparable and both bring 32 players to the battle. Having 64 individuals to choose from will give you an advantage. You can now have a look on the individuals skills and create units according to their deployment. (I.e. a defensive unit full of patient players) And more important - you have more possibilities to deploy troops due to more possible combinations of good unit groups. Meaning you can have best choice players in (i.e) a good defensive unit and a good armored unit.
Whereas having 32 players will mean little to no choice - with a small chance that your 32 players just have the needed variety of skills. But in most cases your good defensive Squadleader will be a good armor player too (i.e.) and you will have to choose where to deploy him.

General_J0k3r wrote:if you want to see an epic battle check out <enter name - which i currently can't remember - of map with russians attacking idf in choppers from freighers>


OT:
also, i think that individual skill is paramount as you need effective units that can accomplish a given task without losing too many tickets. this brings us directly to the realm of "CO" staff, namely to the importance of squad leaders who are responsible for the training of their men. without good SLs any team will fail. SLs are the eyes and ears of the CO as well as a defining factor for the combat strength of the units commanded by them.

you also need a good climate in the team and SLs that know how to play together. if the CO is to micromanage everything stuff is gonna go wrong at some point. also the SLs and the CO should have a good working relationship (love is not necessary) where the CO knows when to listen to his SLs and the SLs know when to stfu and do what they're told . for this it is necessary to know each other fairly well.

I would love to see an epic battle, so when your remember, please deploy the link in this thread.

I agree that individual skills are paramount to a great deal of things on the victorious team. Collective skills are in essence part of those individual skills too.

I believe that the CO is responsible of how well trained the players are on a team, since the logic's from the CO is forming the logic' the units bring into play. The squad-leaders are a vital component in that process.

Climate is very important to creating a victorious team. Also, not an easy thing to create with the overall present PR material. Thus still a challenge today, maybe a historical lesson tomorrow? Who knows how PR will develop in the next few years to come?

Any micromanagement from the CO must be founded in a solid reason. Cause as you point, it can go wrong when deploying that type of leader-style. On the other hand, when not doing so in a needed situation, it can go wrong too. Its a balance.

Micromanagement require as minimum that the CO carefully explains why it is being done. I have several times told people on my two teams, that I would deploy micromanage should they not follow orders. Not once has it been fun for me as a player, to say that to the other players on the team, filling out other functions than I did.

A good climate between players, -regardless of rank, is to me manifested as everybody respect every-body. Respect their personality, their opinion and freedom of speech on the team. Except, however, when it comes to personal related stuff like people being bullied by others, due to for instance their nationality, their race, their age, their specific PR experience or lack of the same, and so forth. As PRT CO i have experienced players, or groups of the same, being bullied with all of the above and more.

I don't agree it is necessary for any one on a team to know each-other fairly well. I agree that i often is a bonus, but not that it is necessary in any way at all. In my army, here in Denmark their is a saying, that I as a soldier must be capable of team working with any other soldier. Period.

Such a principle require that people can behave and deploy empathy, thus an emotional skill, also being the big tabu-word in these PR forums.

In regard to shutting up, well, yes and no.

In general nobody should shut up as I view it, but instead respect when someone has his or hers speaking-time. Interrupting is not that way forward.

However there are situations, in battle mostly, where there is no time to debate stuff, but only to follow orders. Those situations are though rare. Fortunately.

In the end, when experiencing a situation where a squad-leader simply should shut up, it is the commanders responsibility. Nobody else's.

Commanding in real life or in Project Reality is not easy at all. Creating the victorious team, is also not easy. Cause change is the only constant factor.

Bonsai wrote:Yes and No.

64 (using the numbers of your example) players to choose from doesn't automatically mean you will have the better team.

It`s all about skill.

First: Team skills:
If the 32 players are used to play together, know what they are doing and react faster and more effective they will win - even if they have only 25 players.

Second: Individual skills
Given the team skill level is comparable and both bring 32 players to the battle. Having 64 individuals to choose from will give you an advantage. You can now have a look on the individuals skills and create units according to their deployment. (I.e. a defensive unit full of patient players) And more important - you have more possibilities to deploy troops due to more possible combinations of good unit groups. Meaning you can have best choice players in (i.e) a good defensive unit and a good armored unit.
Whereas having 32 players will mean little to no choice - with a small chance that your 32 players just have the needed variety of skills. But in most cases your good defensive Squadleader will be a good armor player too (i.e.) and you will have to choose where to deploy him.

So do you think numbers will mean something when the 32 players do not know each other, do not know what they are doing (like keep on attacking even when being decisive behind in tickets) and react slower (to example enemy sweeping operations) and being less effective (like example not being able to exploit successes in their attacks)?

In other words, does size only matter when the skills are equal on both sides in the battle?

Like 16 players versus 32 players, all having equal skills?

Michael_Denmark wrote:Thanks for the reply Pfunk.

Ok. Its been a while since a discussion has been running in the CO forum, so ill try and restart it with a thought related to the creation of the winning Project Reality team.

Does size matter

Will a clan or a tournament-team, or any similar pr team, have an advantage when it outnumbers an opposing team, like for instance clan A has 32 players, thus just enough to man all positions in a round, while clan B has 64 players, thus more than enough to man all positions in a round.

Does size matter when it comes to create a winning team?

Yes its a necro, so shoot me.

As for size versus quality. I have one anecdote that can speak volumes about this topic.

In the last and utterly idiotic campaign of the PR World Cup I was an SL on Team Canada and we were fighting against Team USA in a scrim on Muttrah. We had lots of attendance issues while USA had full attendance. Numbers for teams were something like:

USA: 32
Canada:12-16

You would think that we would have had our asses handed to us. However in the course of about 2 hours our team, with average coordination but generally a high level of motivated squad level play, managed to wipe the floor with USA.

Reasons for Success - Canada:
We were on the same page. No squad was behaving ignorant of the other, the CO had us geographically operating in such a way that we could be mutually supporting but not overlapping and making ourselves easy targets.

Reasons for Failure - USA:
As I understand it poor level of individual squad leadership by an experimental Platoon Leader system, their squads never seemed to hit with a unified punch. Their armour was careless and easily destroyed by man operated AT.

Notes:
This was far from a PRT level affair. The overall quality of both teams was so low by PRT standards that the only thing that can be gleaned from this is to say that numbers are irrelevant to overall team performance as a decisive indicator. Numbers at this level do not matter. In theory a good squad of 4 to 8 could annihilate a team of 32 under the right circumstances.

As others above have said individual skill matters as well as the leadership of the team's overall strategy. If squads are sent piecemeal into action team size has no bearing because the individual firefights are between units of 6 to 10 and at this level individual skill of squads and soldiers and the small unit leaders makes all the difference. In addition to this there is also the negative effect of poor local level leadership, ie. an organizing force like the PL, which as I understand it from conversations after the scrim was a part of the issue.

The only time numbers would make any difference is in terms of units larger than 32. A single platoon of say 32 players against a Company sized element of 150 would be a much harder situation, but even then historically there are indications of small units holding off bigger ones because of quality of leadership, skill level of participants, and terrain and situational advantages held by the smaller unit.

Copy on your anecdote Pfunk.

Michael_Denmark wrote:As the CO player, you know that Project Reality is a competative dynamic.

In your own words, how to define a victorious PR team?

In your own words, how to create the victorious PR team?

I'm going to tackle this from a planned organized scrim (I've had three with TG with a record of 2-1 {shoulda won that one too ^^ but thats another story})

What defines a victorious team?

-Teamwork, cooperation, efficiency/skill and most of all desire.


How do you create this team?

-No matter what you can't create the team. You shape it but the people in the end are what create it. For me, in my organized scrims, I slowly found out that you can't just place anyone in any role they wish, they have to be good and you need to know that.

For me I know a good deal of the people who are on TG. I always play with new people and try to keep a record of what I think they excell in. Basically though I decided that I would just pick my squad leaders and allow them to hand pick their own squad based on the role I gave them.

The most important role the CO has in shaping the team is the Battle Doctrine and initial planning stages. He must communicate his plans with his troops, specifically his SLs (who then can communicate it to his troops), explain the roles expected of these troops and relay that he needs absolute professionallism in it.

Basically, the CO must look at a Battlefield and create a plan around it, the assets, and the specialties of his troops.

For Shijia Valley I saw a map with few assets and a good deal of shelter for the infantry. I interpreted this to mean that Armor would play a smaller role and that Infantry, more specifically Mechanized Infantry due to mobility, would have the most success. However, realizing that I wouldn't be running many Tanks and that could be a weakness if the British used them aggressively I also created a small specialized squad whose sole purpose was to stalk out enemy armor with a VN-3 and H-AT. These two decisions are what I feel are the most input I had in the victory, the rest was my troops tireless devotion to gaining back our land!

(As an aside, one reason I am a TGU instructor is to be able to pick up and seek out the best of the best or at the very least be able to teach possible troops enough so that three tanks don't lose against one at the enemy's last flag which was nuetral {my only loss})

ytman wrote:Basically though I decided that I would just pick my squad leaders and allow them to hand pick their own squad based on the role I gave them.

Thats pretty much the way to do it. Squads, especially over a long period, become little societies unto themselves. They can be very tight knit. In this respect the traditional delegated military structure seems to work exactly as it should. You don't stick your nose in someone else's business, even if you're higher up, unless they're making a total **** of it. Independence with purpose, like a squad role, or an objective, is better than micromanaging and getting it in that perfect balance that you think will work as you watch them creep along the map from 1000m in your UAV wondering why they get their butts kicked.

The squad is scared. Don't fuck with your SLs unless you have to. Then its the hardest job a CO has to bin one.

I always like to be outnumbered. Gives you more targets. The other team will be busier looking for your men while you have more to shoot at You can disapear more easily. However, when they have pinned you down than you will notice the difference in manpower

cyberzomby wrote:I always like to be outnumbered. Gives you more targets. The other team will be busier looking for your men while you have more to shoot at You can disapear more easily. However, when they have pinned you down than you will notice the difference in manpower

So don't get caught.

I think the rule is generally in all combat to never be the one fired at first, always strive to be the one who observes the enemy first and who initiates the engagement on your terms, meaning terms which denies the enemy the same advantages you have.

That universal means for a smaller squad that you don't shoot stuff you can't kill and you use that smaller size to achieve faster movement and more stealth cause you have fewer guys to be spotted and you can make crossing much faster or fit into small spaces without being nade bait.

Its a toss up! But I do always like the effect of having two squads near each other shooting in the same direction. 2 m249s lighting it up with 10 more rifles firing, its pretty sexy while it lasts.

ytman wrote:What defines a victorious team?

Pro skills and good players under a commander they trust and listen to. Trust me, im an expert!

L4gi wrote:Pro skills and good players under a commander they trust and listen to.

Thats the recipe in the broadest most encompassing way I've seen it put. This statement is like the Constitution of good team building; everything you say and do in detail flows from the basic meaning of this statement.

Now the second sentence... I will neither do the first nor agree to the second.