Airstrikes Via Teamspeak Open Thread

[Pokerface]

Originally Posted by StrikeFear

This thread is NOT a discussion of the concept. It is a discussion of a TS solution to this problem and others LIKE it. If you want to discuss the concept, start a new thread.

The IDEAL GOAL is to have some way for any squad leader to contact all VMFA-531 members on their team (thru TS) to request an air strike, and for the pilots to all hear it and for any of them to be able to reply back via TS immediately - all this without anyone hearing the conversation except the pilots and the SL.

In an attempt to abide by the StrikeFear's goal, here's the concept thread.

It's a lousy concept. Follow the chain of command.

If I get a CO complaint about jets and helos going off on their own in response to an SL asking over Teamspeak, I won't be a happy camper.

Squadmembers, tell your SL. SLs, tell your CO. COs, delegate as you see fit.

[Sabre Six]

I'm...ahh..sort of...hmmm...speechless. That doesn't happen very often.

I hope everyone's having a good day.

[Yer Mom]

Teamspeak is an alternative, at the most.

The easiest way I can see to ask for an air raid with the least amount of time lost on TS is to set up a switch channel button for every SL and switch channels. This puts us at a point where we have to have all the SL's create a hotkey, which won't work out that great.

I was thinking something along the lines of hosting an IM voice lobby for the squad leaders.

This, of course, doesn't apply to anyone who does not want to mess with it, but that will also exclude your squad from recieving air support.

Say we use Yahoo Messenger. I host a Yahoo messenger voice chat and other people connect to it. Squad leaders will simply say, "Squad 3 needs air support on the middle flag please."

Someone relays the message in game who is in the air squad and the bombing commences.

Just an idea, and an open post to share your ideas as well.

-Mom

[John CANavar]

My comments on this issue:

1) I support StrikeFear because he is trying to develop a communication system which may find various applications. We should all support creative and constructive ideas and help the development process. This system can be used under special circumstances with the knowledge and endorsement of all involved parties (such as an arranged meeting). Or it may even be endorsed by majority of TG COs and become public.

2) I will repeat my previous suggestion. As long as CO is able to relay requests, I would still prefer to send my request thru CO. He is the coordinator and should know ALL ongoing operations on the map. This does not mean I am against Strike's model. If there is no CO in the game or if CO is focused on a particular operation and prefers air-ground squad comm. to be handled by the SLs, this is going to be a great tool.

Not only that. Lets say request was sent thru CO. Then ground unit SL can directly contact the air support and give the details.

Sq3 Leader: "Commander request immediate air support on our position"
CO: "Squad 5, provide immediate air support for squad 3"
Sq3 Leader: "Air Support, we have 2 enemy armors inbound nortwest"
Sq5 Leader: "Squad 3, bomber is on the way, ETA 10 seconds"
Sq5 Leader (intra-squad comm): "Alpha one, approach position of squad 3 from northwest and destroy two enemy armors"

[SmokingTarpan]

I'm against this for three reasons.

1. I (and others) cannot be both on Teamspeak and in the game. If I'm on Teamspeak, my in-game voicecomm does not work.

2. SL's do not have the big picture, and cannot responsibly call in air strikes. Suppose Squad A is getting attacked by a tank, and calls in an airstrike. Meanwhile, Squad B is getting hammered by two choppers, a jet and an APC across the map. Squad B obviously needs the air strike more, but Squad A called it in.

3. Chain of command. CO gives orders to SL, SL gives orders to SM. Squad Leaders do not give orders to other Squad Leaders (air support requests are orders in actuality).

[John CANavar]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I'm against this for three reasons.

1. I (and others) cannot be both on Teamspeak and in the game. If I'm on Teamspeak, my in-game voicecomm does not work.

2. SL's do not have the big picture, and cannot responsibly call in air strikes. Suppose Squad A is getting attacked by a tank, and calls in an airstrike. Meanwhile, Squad B is getting hammered by two choppers, a jet and an APC across the map. Squad B obviously needs the air strike more, but Squad A called it in.

3. Chain of command. CO gives orders to SL, SL gives orders to SM. Squad Leaders do not give orders to other Squad Leaders (air support requests are orders in actuality).

1) But this is an optional tool Tarpan, not a requirement. If you dont like the idea or cannot use it, you will of course not use it. But why you are against others who wish to use the system? I didnt get that point...

2) Squad A only called it, thru CO or TS. that doesnt warrant a support. if there is a CO involved (as I suggested) he is going to decide where support goes. if there isnt a CO, SL of air squad will decide where it goes.

3) See number 2 please. support requests are NOT orders. They are just requests.

[Wyzcrak]

We've decided in the past that TeamSpeak and TG BF2 gameplay are not to overlap in any way. Strike, get approval from Apophis or Tempus to even discuss this (they can unlock this thread). Otherwise, follow the chain of command using the game's resources.

[StrikeFear]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

I'm against this for three reasons.
2. SL's do not have the big picture, and cannot responsibly call in air strikes. Suppose Squad A is getting attacked by a tank, and calls in an airstrike. Meanwhile, Squad B is getting hammered by two choppers, a jet and an APC across the map. Squad B obviously needs the air strike more, but Squad A called it in.

3. Chain of command. CO gives orders to SL, SL gives orders to SM. Squad Leaders do not give orders to other Squad Leaders (air support requests are orders in actuality).

2. You have a good point there. What you are essentially saying is that a CO who is aware and mindful and active about where to best employ the jet squad is better than leaving it up to whatever SLs have TS setup right.
Agreed.
However, this is very uncommon.
But I know that there is really a lot that players don't know about what goes on at 5,000 feet, because they rarely, if ever, fly jets, and especially not lead coordinated air squads. So I understand if you don't have the perspective the pilots do. I ask you to please trust an experience pilot, wingman and wingleader when I tell you what it's like in-game. And I'm talking to all the friendly ground-pounders, not singling out SmokingTarpan.

The CO's usual job is complete ignorance and apathy when it comes to the air squad. Sorry. Even on our server, that's the fact.
The next best thing, slightly less common, is a CO who gives you attack orders where he sees enemy vehicles have been spotted. That's only slightly helpful. I can see those myself, but at least this way I don't have to look at my map.
The next thing is a CO who knows where choke points are, knows where armor spawns are, and, given the current map/flag situation, tells us to attack there, reasonably expecting targets. This sort of CO is also likely to use us to soften flags the troops are about to attack. This is pretty good. Pretty top-notch.
The best COs I've seen so far are the ones who are REALLY responsive to their squads, and when that squad is getting hampered by a helo or needs help with armor, he tells us to go help out. On those occasions, we get the best job-satisfaction because we provide TIMELY help in a PIVOTAL MOMENT. And the squad accomplishes their objective.

Now, listen to that last description. The CO is acting as a middleman to the squads. Remove the middleman, while maintaining the COs authority, and you have the best possible response time, least possible repetitive comms, and the most effective and accurate close air support you can get.

And you get all that, even if the CO is basically oblivious to the jet squad (which is typical), or if he's too busy, or if he'd PREFER to delegate it (with some exceptions when he wants direct control).

The actual frequency of the incident you suggest is low. It's just as likely, that your 2nd squad would call in the airstrike first. Or, they might call it and when we hear how severe it is, we change targets. Or the CO could see all the enemy there, and he told us to go attack it. Or the 1st squad isn't calling in an air strike for every tank it sees, so the jet squad is just scanning for targets, and they'll NOTICE a grouping of enemy that big!

3. We're not talking about chain of command. We're talking about communication. Consider this scenario:

JetSL: "CO, you got a jet squad available. What are your orders?"
CO: "Keep good comms with my SLs and give them whatever they need, unless I tell you otherwise."

or how about this:

JetSL: "CO, jet squad is available. May I put us at the service of the SLs?"
CO: "Yes, I'm busy. Do that unless I have an explicit mission for you."

That's following the chain of command explicitly. This isn't about CoC. It's making for comms which will enable the troops to get better air support -

- when THEY need it
- faster
- with less comm clutter and relay through CO (if he so wishes)

[StrikeFear]

In fact, I can imagine this conversation occurring...

CO (to SL2, in-game VOIP): "Squad 2, assault and capture this flag. I am allocating the jet squad resource to you until you capture that base. Use them as you see fit to accomplish your objective. Copy, SL2 and Jets?"
Jets (to CO, in-game VOIP): "Copy, Commander. Jets for Squad 2. Squad 2, you have TS binds set up?"
SL2 (to CO, in-game VOIP): "Roger, boss. We have a player with TS binds set up. Commander, I'll let you know when we're done with the jets."

Then the SL proceeds to use the heck out of the air strikes.
After doing this a few times with a few squads, the conversation is a lot shorter:

CO: "Squad 2, you've got CAP for that assault."
SL5: "I have the Jets, roger."
Jets: "Jets on 5, over."

[Wulfyn]

Got a few questions:

a/ If 2+ SL want the jets at the same time, how would you propose how to prioritise.

b/ If the Jet squad is currently engaged with one squad, what would the protocol be for assisting another squad instead.

c/ What happens when SL's can't get on TS.

d/ Would this be done with helo's as well?

[SmokingTarpan]

It all boils down to one thing: when you give people a way to bypass the chain of command, they will.

We still have difficulties with people following their in game orders. Now we give them a way to communicate orders completely independently of the chain of command? For those that wish to call them requests and not orders, I present to you this situation:

CO: Air squad, I told you to assist at flag 2. Why are you at flag 5?
Air: Squad Delta said they needed us at flag 5.

This will happen, I guarantee it. It's hard enough to control squads with the current chain of communications. You even said it yourself: "The CO's usual job is complete ignorance and apathy when it comes to the air squad." That speaks to me of wanting to do your own thing if you aren't happy with the CO. I've been a personal witness to air squads led by highly reputable pilots not doing as told. Too many times I have requested air support, heard the CO order the air squad to my position, and watched from my death cam as the aircraft poked away at a completely different flag. Why should we open up an alternative excuse for not doing as told?

Also, using TS as an outside communication for in-game actions is rather unfair, in my opinion. People that aren't on TS are put at a disadvantage. Even if I wanted to talk to my air squad over TS, I couldn't- but the enemy squad I'm attacking is talking to their air squad. Thus, they receive a huge advantage over me because they have stepped outside the mechanics of the game.

The game has a communication system. If you want to be on TS to chit chat or to be able to contact admins, fine. But using it for actual in-game purposes provides ample opportunity for cheating and disruption.

Your intentions and ideas are noble, but very bad things have come from the best of intentions. I just don't see more good than bad coming from this.

[Legato895]

guys, lets just wait and see whats patched. it very well may be that ea gives squad leaders the ability to communicate with other squad leaders w/o going through the CO.

[John CANavar]

I can see your points more clearly now Tarpan. As a supporter of Teamspeak integration from the beginning, I need to re-think in the light of your concerns. I was especially bothered by the fact that it might be an unfair advantage against the ones who cant use TS/VOIP together

[StrikeFear]

Originally Posted by Wulfyn

Got a few questions:

a/ If 2+ SL want the jets at the same time, how would you propose how to prioritise.

b/ If the Jet squad is currently engaged with one squad, what would the protocol be for assisting another squad instead.

c/ What happens when SL's can't get on TS.

d/ Would this be done with helo's as well?

Good questions. I don't pretend to know all the answers - or how well each would work. But I can tell you what I would try first.

a/ We might split up if we have 2 jets, and hit both targets. We might try to apply each jet to the target it can handle.
If we only have one jet or can't split up, and we don't have any additional info from either squad, I might:
1. ask the CO - but ONLY if he's REALLY responsive and fast.
2. Gauge the situation on the map myself and determine which I think is more urgent and/or more important.
3. Help the one who offers us ice cream.
4. select the one that is closest to the re-arming airstrip
5. select the one that we can reach soonest
6. select the one that is in a lower AA-threat zone

Any of those might apply/influence our decision.
Have you any suggestions?


b/ I'm assuming you mean that Squad 2 has us on a mission, and suddenly Squad 3 gives us a request which we, for whatever reason, determine is higher priority/importance... We will notify squad 2 that their strike mission has been cancelled, and proceed to the new strike mission. We may give squad 2 an ETA on when we can be available again - but it's not likely to matter by then.

c/ They have a few options:
1. They can request air strikes through the CO.
2. They can have a squad member (sometimes those guys are often SLs ) perform the request
3. They can send me a flower-gram
4. They could stick a squad member in our channel as long as he keeps quiet except for requests.

If we didn't use this system, they'd only have option 1. (IF they had a CO who was capable.)
With the system, even if they're not on TS, they still have other options.

d/ I haven't given it any thought. It's not for me to decide. It might not be as effective (helos are slower). I have no idea. Why are you asking me so many questions? Why don't you just leave me alone!?!?

[StrikeFear]

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

For those that wish to call them requests and not orders, I present to you this situation:

CO: Air squad, I told you to assist at flag 2. Why are you at flag 5?
Air: Squad Delta said they needed us at flag 5.

I'm not contesting what you call them. Orders. Sure, that's fine if you want to call them that.
But they're not CO orders.

In the example you gave, the Jet squad is at fault. The system of communication does not relieve an jet squad from following orders anymore than the 1stMIP's relay system allows cooperating squads to disobey CO orders just because another MIP SL gave them conflicting "orders."

In the example above, the Jet squad leader has violated TG rules and should be reported. But that has nothing to do with communication.

By way of proof, consider that your example could have occurred just as easily if Delta and the Jet squad were communicating via text. The comms are not as convenient, true, but the same interchange can occur, and the same violation by the Jet SL could occur. The problem in your examle is not the comms medium, but the Jet SL.