View Poll Results: Rethink the Inhouse squad position?
- Voters
- 44. You may not vote on this poll
-
Yes, I think we should have more focuses and less general squads
2 4.55% -
Mabey, I still like the general squads, but we need specialization
8 18.18% -
No, I like all of the general squads and they are fun
34 77.27%
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Discussion: Battlefield 2 / Battlefield 2 - Ranked Vanilla - Rethinking the Inhouse squad? - I think that the inhouse squad area of BF2 needs to be rethinked. I am
-
04-15-2006, 08:49 PM #1
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- MA
- Posts
- 3,571
Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I think that the inhouse squad area of BF2 needs to be rethinked. I am seeing all of these squads pop up that are "just another squad" working on general squad tactics. We have the 7th Infantry and the 42nd Recon who were the original squads working on basic and advanced squad manouvers. Then more squads were formed, all with the same focus, over 10 of them I think. I realize that squads are fun to be in, but do we really need all of these diffrent squads working by themselves on the same thing, perfecting squad tactics.
The Irregulars brought a new 7th Infantry squad that was accessable by non-supporting members, and that was very helpful and gave an insite of the workings of an inhouse squad to all new members.
The few inhouse squads I see that actually focus on a specific aspect of the game are the 4th, the 187th, and the 531st VFMA, which is inactive.
That leaves the the 4th and 187th that both work on stealth and SpecOps combat. The 4th also works on Sniper combat.
What I would like to see is to be able to say, "Look, I see a member of the 22nd Armored Combat, I know we can count on them to know how to handle tanks and APC's." Mabey even a 101st Airborn division that can not only fly helo's and jets, but are also able to teach new members what they need to know. Mabey an Infantry Support unit that works on the Support and Medic kits and how to support an effective assault.
My second point is that I would like to see more inhouse squad communication, even a once-a-month get together between all squads on the private server. We have to trust that icky hasn't changed anything
. This would teach a lot to each squad and how all squads can work effectively together.
I have just been seeing the inhouse system float away and new squads poping up all over the place. I suggest mabey a requirement, such as, what does your squad do/specialize in that other squads don't already do? We already have lots of squads that do basic and advanced manouvers, we need some new specialization.
EDIT: I have added a poll, it is private, but I would like to hear lots of discussion on this topic and why you voted the way you did.
Thanks,
Black death5
|TG-4th|Acid
-
04-15-2006, 09:03 PM #2
- Join Date
- Jul 2005
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Age
- 34
- Posts
- 2,380
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I guess it depends you your perspective. As I don't see anything that you have mistated and I like the way the in-house squads have developed. For me they aren't about "perfecting" a style of play. Rather they provide a nice sub-group of TG players that a member of an in-house squad can become somewhat closer with. I don't see any bad vibes between the squads.. we are still TG at the core, but I really appreciate the comraderee of the 7th members and the gently rivalry in what has become a rather large TG community.
I have zero issues with a squad wanting to specialize in a particular thing. If the 4th wanted to dedicate itself to armor combat, they are certainly welcome to make that their mission. That all fits well within the current in-house squad guidelines. Unless I'm mistaken, I think most in-house squads are happy to remain generalist and focus on some team identity not necessarily imparted by the Tactical Gamer crowd as a whole.
On your second point, I agree. I think we will see more of this as well when we get the TacMod off the ground. Those of us dedicated to working on that project will be planning a tourney of sorts and would expect in-house squads to play a vital role in that.
I guess to wrap up I would definately not support any requrements for specialization as you describe.|TG-12th| SHINER
-
04-15-2006, 09:09 PM #3
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- MA
- Posts
- 3,571
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I'm just trying to say that more mix would be good, instead of the same old general squad. I agree, general squads are loads of fun, i'm just saying that we have a load of them now and do they need to keep growing?
-
04-15-2006, 09:16 PM #4
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Ohio
- Age
- 29
- Posts
- 9,329
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
in house squads have a limit on the number of members they can have as a squad. The 2nd right now has around 17. Some are inactive due to RL, the rest are playing other games.
Im not sure i really understand this thread. Players create a squad so you can have team members you can rely on, chat with, and generally just have fun at the same games with.that sounds like a good idea trooper.
-Vulcan
-
04-15-2006, 09:18 PM #5
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- SF Bay Area, CA
- Posts
- 392
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I agree with Shiner. The way it is now is fine. If an in-house wishes to specialize, then that's their choice. If not, that's fine too.
I am mostly with the 33rd because most of our personalities are similar; that is, we like to talk and joke a lot while playing. And all of us are aggressive, which fits my play style. To try to force us (the 33rd) to change and/or specialize into something we're not would probably have me leaving the in-house squad system. Just my $0.02.|TG-33rd|Gunrack
[squadl][defense][assault][unit]
[at][tg-c1]
-
04-15-2006, 09:21 PM #6
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- California, Bay Area
- Age
- 36
- Posts
- 1,534
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
Keep them general. I think the in-house squads have the benefit of letting players have something to identify with and people that they can count on to play certain ways. Each squad is experienced (or will eventually be) enough to adapt to certain tactics- fast attack, solid defence, mobile units, coordinated attacks- its up to the squad to work together to focus where they need improvement so that eventually a CO can count on them to do certain things w/o thinking twice.
.
-
04-15-2006, 09:21 PM #7
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- MA
- Posts
- 3,571
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I'm not saying that you disband you squads now, I'm just saying that there seems to be a surplus of general squads. Mabey its fine how it is.
-
04-15-2006, 09:25 PM #8
- Join Date
- Dec 2005
- Location
- Sheffield, UK
- Age
- 37
- Posts
- 617
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
It also takes time for specialities to develop. Also, if the basic and advanced tactics have been already taken by other squads, what is left to do? Stupid tactics?
Not all squads are based upon playing style. Some of us just found kindred spirits within TG that we felt like teaming up with to work on some cool new tactics and maybe some other stuff like mods and movies.
[at][unit]
-
04-15-2006, 09:26 PM #9
- Join Date
- Apr 2005
- Location
- MA
- Posts
- 3,571
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
Exactly Nor, they will develop specializations so they can be distinguished from eachother in a combat situation.
-
04-15-2006, 09:47 PM #10
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
- Location
- Boulder, Colorado
- Age
- 24
- Posts
- 1,133
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
Specialization isn't really necessary with BF2 though, considering stuff like armor and sniper rifles hardly function at a simulation-quality level. Most of the players here are versatile enough that specialization really isn't necessary beyond air vs. ground.
-
04-15-2006, 10:26 PM #11
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Location
- Glendale, AZ
- Age
- 40
- Posts
- 3,023
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
Also if all the armor was in one place and easy to eccess there probably be more amor based squads but the game limits how "specialized" a squad can get and I think that also takes "some" of the fun away from playing the game. I don't think anybody wants to have to do the samething everytime they play in a scrim or tournament.
Also having general squads I think also increases the quality of play in general. The 12th I think has a very friendly rivalry with the 33rd. We like to fight with each other but love to bang heads with each other in fighting. Sometimes we look where they might be just to lock horns with them or even look for some of the guys from the 7th just to let them know we are around. Friendly competition is fun and that is what makes TG so much fun.
-
04-16-2006, 12:11 AM #12
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I don't overly understand the point of this thread either. I'm not interested in making any changes to the in-house squads. Their primary purpose is to promote small-unit cohesion and teamwork. Something that can move between different games while still providing that same cohesion.
They are doing exactly what we set them out to do.
Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.
-
04-16-2006, 12:12 AM #13
- Join Date
- Feb 2006
- Location
- cell H10 of life.xlsx
- Age
- 44
- Posts
- 3,660
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I think that the numerous generalized squads are fine. It's great if a squad wants to specialize, but I don't see that BF2 requires much of that vis-a-vis the kits/equipment beyond air vs ground.
If a squad wants to specialize in a type of tactic though then all the more power to them. I just don't see that specialization needs to be a focus of all (or most) squads.
Cheers.
|TG-6th| eGoatBoy
It is the rule in war, if ten times the enemy's strength, surround them; if five times, attack them;if double, engage them; if equal, be able to divide them; if fewer, be able to evade them; if weaker, be able to avoid them.
-
04-16-2006, 12:17 AM #14
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
- Middle GA, US
- Age
- 24
- Posts
- 1,537
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
Yuup, that's why if I ever drop the $80 to go SM, I'd try to rank up w/ u guys
Originally Posted by Gunrack
.
"This is a weapon of terror; it's made to intimidate the enemy. This is a weapon of war; it's made to kill your enemy."
-Col. Jack O'Neill, speaking of the FN P90
-
04-16-2006, 11:47 AM #15
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
- Under a Interstate 80 overpass near Paterson, New Jersey.
- Posts
- 1,544
Re: Rethinking the Inhouse squad?
I think being a well rounded player who can hop in a jet or armor or pound the ground is what makes a good in-house. So, my vote would also have to go with keeping them general.
But at the same time it would be kind of cool to focus some of the training on one thing, like tanks, or planes or helos. But the problem is, not all maps have these things. And the maps that do are pretty limited. Most maps have 1 or 2 tanks per side and a handful of planes and choppers. The only maps that have a lot of armor are the EF maps with the exception of the Great Wall. Those maps would be ideal for just armor combat but again, you'd still need a general squad to back up the specialized armor squad.
The way TG and its servers are now theres a good mix of everything from helo only squads to sniper squads. And everytime I look at those ingame squads they are always full of the same people. But on the ground level you have a lot of non-specialty general squads who can do everything. So its a good balance. I don't think the in-house squads need to change at all. If certain members of an in-house squad want to concentrate on just being specops and sneaking around to UCB's to take out assets then that just makes that in-house all that much more better.
Reply With Quote
Thread Information
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
Bookmarks