Airstrikes Via Teamspeak Open Thread

[SmokingTarpan]

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.

Alright then, how about this.

Why should Team A with no Teamspeak be at a forced disadvantage against Team B that has Teamspeak?

If I lose because my team is totally unorganized and worthless, fine. But if I lose because the opposing team is using something not native to the game in order to gain an advantage, that becomes very not cool.

[Shakermaker]

Hi, I am totally new on these forums (got referred by Thanatos @ TotalBF2.com) and it seems that the first thread I clicked seems to be a pretty hardcore discussion. I hope I dont foul it with my noobishness but here are my 2 cts.

Direct communication between a squad-leader and a jet (or jet-squad) seems like a pretty good idea to me. It is also done in real life and it works pretty well there . I agree that the link-up between squad-leader and pilot should go through the commander, otherwise pilots would run the risk of being spammed with requests for air assistance.

[Zigrat]

i have a buddy how is a scout/sniper and did a year in iraq. he told me they regularly talked directly to airmen for strikes..... oftentimes he told me the air crew would deny ordinance for fear of collateral damage (esp if it was in a area with homes and mosques and stuff) and instead just strafe the crap out of it (which i guess is more precise)

[John CANavar]

i have a buddy how is a scout/sniper and did a year in iraq. he told me they regularly talked directly to airmen for strikes..... oftentimes he told me the air crew would deny ordinance for fear of collateral damage (esp if it was in a area with homes and mosques and stuff) and instead just strafe the crap out of it (which i guess is more precise)

I would guess, airmen were checking back with HQ before acting on their own. But that's just a guess...

[Arf]

I think in BF:2 the jets are too limited of a resource to be in the hands of so many people. The ground squads should be spotting vehicles and aircraft for the jets if they want them bombed. That way even if the Commander is idle at least the Jet Squad Leader can make an educated decision as to where to send the jets (this is what I've been doing when Commanders ignore the Jet Squad, it's partially effective).

It would be nice to be able to talk to the ground squads once in a while just for the sake of precision and safety. For example jets can’t see infantry so when we’re coming in for a bombing run it’s a real bad idea to choose that time to try and C4 a tank.

[StrikeFear]

Alright then, how about this.

Why should Team A with no Teamspeak be at a forced disadvantage against Team B that has Teamspeak?

If I lose because my team is totally unorganized and worthless, fine. But if I lose because the opposing team is using something not native to the game in order to gain an advantage, that becomes very not cool.

If your team doesn't have access to the very same "advantage," I'd say you might have a reason to contest it.
Since we don't divide teams up by who can use TS and who can't, I'd guess the playing field is pretty balanced with users and non-users on each side. (Drugs? )

Furthermore, I don't think this nice little communication idea is going to unbalance the game to the point where one side wins because of it. The 1stMIP is already doing this for inter-squad comms and platoon organization, and doing it well by all accounts. But I don't think anyone would claim it wins the game for them.

I think in BF:2 the jets are too limited of a resource to be in the hands of so many people.

No one said that by setting this up, the Jets squad would become the personal gopher of all the squads. What the Jets squad does is up to the SL of the Jet squad, not the other SLs. How well they're used has nothing to do with whether we can efficiently and smoothly we communicate airstrike needs.

The ground squads should be spotting vehicles and aircraft for the jets if they want them bombed.

Yes - that's what currently happens most. I hope you're not suggesting we continue operating at substandard capability...


And finally ... what sort of comms goes on in real life .. well, just doesn't have anything to do with whether we should or should not at TG.

[John CANavar]

The 1stMIP is already doing this for inter-squad comms and platoon organization

in fact, we gave a break until solid squad tactics and procedures are established. 1stMIP has been playing as a single squad for a while. We will work on platoon tactics and procedures in the next stage. As mentioned many times, crawl > walk > run is the best approach to follow

But even then, it was/is never our intention to use it as an advantage to win a game. In fact it slows us down but we dont care. We like serious, military role playing and communication is a huge part of it. This is the bottom line I guess, playing a game the way you enjoy it...

[Arf]

I think you misunderstood me. I have no problem with jets being used as a gopher squad; I think it's how they should be used. The problem is that someone needs to prioritize the requests because the jets can't fill them all. Since the Commander is the only one that can see the entire battlefield at any time and the designer of the strategy it makes sense that it should remain in his hands. To me the problem is that many Commanders don’t pay enough attention to their Jets and expect them to make a difference by randomly encountering the enemy.

So I don't think ground squads should be calling in air strikes directly from the Jet Squad. I believe they should feed the information to the Commander who should then allocate the jets. I would like a way to communicate with the guys on the ground so that we could coordinate better.

For example Squad A and B are defending against a vehicle push. They inform the Commander. Since Squad B isn’t in an important location they’re told to fall back while jets are sent to Squad A. The jets are told to help Squad A defend the flag, right now it would be nice to be able to talk to Squad A. Once the vehicles are destroyed Squad A could tell the jets if they’re clear or need more help. Since the jets can still strafe infantry the ground squad could direct their runs (IE: they’re hiding in that building or their Squad Leader is under the tree on the ridge) and the jets would be much more effective.

[Wulfyn]

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?

This for me is the crux of the problem and my main concern. You are basically providing a way to ignore or circumvent the CO if the CO is not to your liking. And I can see it being abused (a squad that shouldn't be doing what it is getting support from the air squad without the CO knowing about it for example).

I think that efforts are better spent teaching new CO's on how you like to be used rather than finding shortcuts. Sorry :-/

[Mishkan]

Why can't we just have a channel on teamspeak for squadleaders and the commander and they can all debate strats there... and the commander is the only one that gave give the go ahead though

[Pokerface]

I think that efforts are better spent teaching new CO's on how you like to be used rather than finding shortcuts. Sorry :-/

Hear, hear.

[John CANavar]

To me the problem is that many Commanders don’t pay enough attention to their Jets and expect them to make a difference by randomly encountering the enemy.

good point. I am looking forward to hearing the following orders:

CO: Squad 3, position to NE of center flag and wait for my signal
CO: Air Support, destroy all enemy assets on center flag
CO: Squad 3 get ready to move
...
booommmm booommmbbb
...
CO: Squad 3, move in right now !

[SmokingTarpan]

Furthermore, I don't think this nice little communication idea is going to unbalance the game to the point where one side wins because of it.

How much unbalance is too much? This concept need not provide landslide victories to throw things out of whack.

We've seen games that come down to a matter of 2-3 tickets. If a side using Teamspeak wins by that few tickets due to an outside advantage, is that fair? I say no.

If you could accomplish this idea with in-game mechanics, I would have less of a problem with it (I still don't like that it provides opportunity/excuse to bypass the CO). But when you start using a 3rd party program to give yourself any advantage over the standard crowd, that's uncool.

[StrikeFear]

I think you misunderstood me.
So I don't think ground squads should be calling in air strikes directly from the Jet Squad. I believe they should feed the information to the Commander who should then allocate the jets. I would like a way to communicate with the guys on the ground so that we could coordinate better.

Ah yes. I see your point. Now see mine: If the CO wants to allocate Jets, that's fine. He can do so. He always has priority control. That will be great, for the 5% of times that you get a CO who uses Jets well. For the other 95%, there's TS, see?
In the meantime, sounds like you're agreeing with me on one point: it would be nice to have GroundSL <-> JetSL comms for fine control of support, yes?

You are basically providing a way to ignore or circumvent the CO if the CO is not to your liking. And I can see it being abused (a squad that shouldn't be doing what it is getting support from the air squad without the CO knowing about it for example).
I think that efforts are better spent teaching new CO's on how you like to be used rather than finding shortcuts. Sorry :-/

Don't be sorry. I respect your opinion. But you are mistaken. No doubt about it.
Your 1st sentence: A jet squad (any squad, actually) can ignore the CO orders if they don't like them - with or without a new TS comms avenue. Why would you blame bad squad leading on an additional comm channel? That makes no sense.
Your 2nd sentence: If the jet squad and the CO are in agreement that the jets will support the squads directly, and a squad is not obeying the CO, and for some reason the CO doesn't have an admin kick the SL, all the CO has to do is tell the jets not to support that squad. The Jet SL can (and should, by SOP), inform the CO whenever he is about to comply with a strike request. You're making stuff up here. You're imagining that the Jet squad has cut all comms from the CO and is at the bidding of the SLs. That's crazy. And I've been very specific about explaining that that is not the case. Makes me think you're not reading my posts.
Your 3rd sentence: I agree COs should be better educated. Are you suggesting that if we have, say, 4 things we can do to make gameplay better and more effective, we should do only 2 of them?

Why can't we just have a channel on teamspeak for squadleaders and the commander and they can all debate strats there... and the commander is the only one that gave give the go ahead though

That's an excellent suggestion, but has 2 main disadvantages:
1. Causes confusion in that some SLs will be on TS and some will not. So some players never hear the conversation and the info has to be relayed and repeated. This is especially bad if the CO is missing. It's also tricky, because SLs and COs often leave/enter their positions.
2. We would need 6 new channels: Svr1USMC, Svr2USMC, PrvUSMC, Svr1OpFor ... you get the idea..

I still don't like that it provides opportunity/excuse to bypass the CO).

Everyone, at all times, has the opportunity to ignore CO orders. We could be requesting airstrikes on TS right now, in the main channel. That objection is invalid.

But when you start using a 3rd party program to give yourself any advantage over the standard crowd, that's uncool.

This objection may be valid. If so, then it isn't just about airstrikes. It's about 1stMIP, and it's also about coordinating squads via TS when they don't have a CO. It would eliminate those options as well.

[Pokerface]

This objection may be valid. If so, then it isn't just about airstrikes. It's about 1stMIP, and it's also about coordinating squads via TS when they don't have a CO. It would eliminate those options as well.

Everything you're arguing for could be solved by the CO making better use of her jets (and foot soldiers, really). This is complicated medicine that is treating a symptom, and not the illness.

Phrases like "when they don't have a CO" are the real issue: what is the team doing without a CO? How do you expect a team of 30 players to operate without someone with an overview of the whole map situation? If your team doesn't have a CO, the fix isn't to have multiple TS channels so that SLs can talk; it's to have a CO.

Perhaps a flyboy could take the reins of the whole team for a few maps and show people how a CO uses air assets to their fullest.