Squad Leader and Pointman

StormTAG · 07-12-2009, 07:43 PM

Just a thought of a different kind of squad dynamic, I know some of us who end up leading squads aren't as good as some of our squad members. On more than one occasion I'll end up leading a squad with IHS members who have more experience in 2142 than I do in FPSes. So I've thought of the following...

When setting up the squad, have the Squad Leader define a point man. Point man actually "leads" the squad while the squad leader "commands" it. Squad leader can communicate more freely with the CO defining what the squad's objectives are strategically ("Alright, we're going for statue and the north side is lighter") while the point man actually leads the gunning SMs on a tactical level ("Let's go high side, watch for snipers across the way and get an IDS on the stairwell").

The idea here is twofold. One, it allows those players who are really talented killers to lend their killing instincts to the whole squad without them needing to worry about being the spawn point. Second, it allows the SL to focus more on staying alive, supporting his squad by being a spawn point and providing intel through the CO, IDS and probably the Otus.

Now the downside is that a lot of great SLs are quite capable of being the point man and the SL just fine. This is not really for them. :P The other bit is that the SL and the Point Man need to have good synergy and communication. The SL is giving the objective, the Point Man is defining the means to complete that objective.

So, let me hear what you guys think of this. It would require a different dynamic than the one I see usually played but I think it could have its advantages.

**Fruvous** · 07-12-2009, 08:03 PM

The idea is interesting. I definitely would like to see more dynamic squad play. However, something I think is fixed is the "SL is a dictator" - keeps things simple. Sure, suggestions are always welcome (and sometimes beneficial).. but having a pointman set in stone is like saying

CO: Does my prime SL have any advice? What is your awareness of the situation?
SL: My awareness is this. I think squads should be arranged like this.
CO: Alright! Let's do it!

That sounds a little silly to me.. COs are COs because they are concentrating on the global picture. Granted, SLs do this too, but their attention is divided and they don't have sattrack. Now, taking the CO who has a pointman SL and changing the positions.. the SL who has a pointman SM does this.

SL: Does my prime SM have any advice? What is your awareness of the situation?
SM: The situation is this. I think this is the best course of action.
SL: Alright! Let's do it SM who's a SL!

If the pointman wanted to lead a squad, wouldn't they have created a squad? Why does the SL not feel confident enough to be a SL? Shouldn't SMs concentrate on fulfilling an SLs order, and not giving the 'orders'?

Rather of relying on a pointman, I think the SL should rely on the CO.

**Zoraster** · 07-12-2009, 08:27 PM

this is actually kind of tough even for experienced players because the SL has a big number on the minimap... other squad members do not. That said, when assaulting a defended position, it's always a good idea to let someone go first if you have the time.

HenkeTheMonkey · 07-12-2009, 09:07 PM

This is a interesting way to run a squad, (need to try it out sometime) but I think you really need a squad with not just experinced players, but also who played togehter alot, who knows thier 'position' in the squad.

My way to do it (and of course the right way

)

I always lead when moving from point to point.

When charging a flag, I lead the way, util the last couple of yards, then the objective should be clear to my SMs, I hang back a bit, staying alive, stay as an spawn point, cover thier back.

In defence I tell my SMs to defend the flag/area, I hang back a bit, well, you get the pic.

TheDarkPenguin · 07-13-2009, 01:15 AM

Coming from a different view, I actually have tried to do this almost every time I squad-lead on TG, only because I do not have a mic, and I feel the frustration in knowing that the only time (be reasonable, you won't see everything) my whole squad could see all of my text would be on a titan match with 7 people on each team.

I like the points brought up by Fruvious, though I think they might be slightly exaggerated. The squad leader still leads (for instance, does kit assigning and orders), the Commander still commands (gives info and assets, along with orders), but, if someone (lets say Zhohar or Drbeat) is in your squad, you don't have a mic, and your squad is full of TG IHS members looking for an open squad to play in, and then you see them one by one leaving your squad for people with mics (has happened, for good reason)... you might want someone more experienced, and overall generally more skilled helping you along.

People like Torres and Oz would sometimes join my squad just to be supportive of me, giving insight and such, and others (such as Drbeat) would join my squad knowing previously that I am in need, and knowing I would request him/her to be a "pointman" of what you are referring to, and would happily and knowingly (:P) comply.

From my perspective (and please don't take these posts as a sympathy party), it sometimes can be necessary, and well worth the time and effort.

**black_Mirror** · 07-13-2009, 01:34 AM

If you have ever splitted up your team into two fire-teams like i do sometimes when i call things out like " "X" and " Y " with me supporting squad 1 assaulting that flag " A""B" and " C " is staying back here and hold the defence. "C" you will lead the defense, keep your men up to date with the incomes and stuff ".. this may sound well on the paper but it´s very hard to communicate well when both fire-teams are encountering enemy troops. Because since 2142 is a very fast game it´s all about speed. the speed you move, the speed you react and the speed you get your Intel ( what is most of the time the trigger for that moving and reacting thing ).
I am not going to say it´s a bad idea i just say from my experience it´s hard to work out.

Good luck

**DrBeat** · 07-13-2009, 02:30 AM

Not a bad idea, but as Mirror said, hard to do. You need a squad that is able to work together without direct SL involvement. With "greener" squads, leading by example is often the best way to keep your squad organized. It is easier to tell you squad to stay near you, rather then to assault a flag and expect them to stay organized.

Squad members, and even squad leaders, can get distracted by enemy targets and forget the objective at hand. I do it quite often. With "greener" squads, when you split them up, people shut down and often zone into their own player, focusing on killing and less at the appointed task at hand. The SL's job, is to keep the SMs together and to have them work together effectively.

**Fruvous** · 07-13-2009, 02:57 AM

black_Mirror brings up a good point on fireteams. This has worked pretty well in my experience.
Every once in a while for Cerebere defense, everyone is pushing command center. The back still needs to be protected to prevent capout, so I split up the squad with a pointman leading the second team. If one flag needs assistance, the other fireteam usually has decent flanking position.. and if not is only a grenade's throw away

**Gorhaut** · 07-13-2009, 08:18 AM

One thing that's important in my experience if you want fireteams to work is that your precise about who is doing what. Eg. "Gor, Zoraster, stay here and defend. Rest with me to Roadblock". What doesn't work as well is to say "Two or three people stay here, rest with me to Roadblock". May sound like it shouldn't make such a big difference since the sentences are similar, but it does. Particular if you play with people you don't know that well.

**Crux** · 07-13-2009, 09:06 AM

I think it is an awesome idea in theory. The problem is the speed at which 2142 is played. I think you'd end up with a communication jam.

SharinganTH1422 · 07-13-2009, 09:53 AM

It sounds pretty cool, and have actually considered doing something similar myself for the very reason that you state, but it ends up lengthening the chain of command, which slows down communication. I can see what you mean by SL being the strategist and the pointman being the tactician, but that's what the CO and SL are meant to do respectively.

Of course you then have the complication of who's in charge. If something suddenly changes on the field and the SL is hanging back and can't make the call, then it may fall to the pointman, which can cause problems as the SL is now following the pointman's orders.

Greyed · 07-14-2009, 10:07 AM

I think there is some merit to it if not to that greatest extent. I think the SL should designate a pointman to execute both the strategic and tactical goals if for no other reason than to get into the mindset of someone else being the one to face enemy fire first. IE, instead of Storm's concept of the SL giving the goal (Taking Junkyard) and the Point figuring out how (Flank far south around the buildings) the SL would do both (Take Junkyard, flank far south around the buildings) but the Point knows at the very least he goes first and the Squad knows he does not go first. I know a few SLs, some in this thread (and that statement includes me) have either had to be reminded other people go first or certainly need to be reminded that other people go first.

**jazy2** · 07-14-2009, 10:32 AM

I quite like the idea in a wierd way.

The SL would be more like a radio operator. Kinda like you'd see in a war film. Someone else would direct the "here and now" battle while the "radio operator" (SL) would talk to the CO about the next move. Staying safe and providing intel.

I think it could work in a very neat way. Good idea!

**Fruvous** · 07-14-2009, 11:31 AM

While playing, I've been thinking of situations where a pointman would've been helpful in those situations. Also, Jazy helped me to see where you're coming from.

I would definitely like to try it. I think my comm example wasn't good..
something more like

SL: We're on the assault of statue, we're entering south. [implied: I will stay in the rear... too often SLs die at front. Why should we risk this? Pointman, you take lead. When advancing, I will always take the safest task to support the squad]
PM: [implied: PM now has all SL priveleges when moving the squad] Move to the second floor, X-SM cover the stairwell. Grenades on flag. etc.
[meanwhile, SL is a little behind statue boundaries as a spawn and covering rear.. staying in medic's reach. He also keeps an eye on big map, keeping up to date with battlefield intel..]

The only thing I can see wrong this is, SL sometimes doesn't need to know everything that's happening on the battlefield. Sometimes, it might save the squad - say,
SL: Enemy movement direct from ruins to statue.

I will definitely play a few rounds with designated PM.

**PM07SNV** · 07-14-2009, 12:21 PM

I like the idea. I don't think it works much, but I like it. (I like it when someone is thinking outside the box). The Pointman just doesn't have the ability to set markers and stuff. You could only do this with people who understand what your doing though. It's hard enough to get some people to hold spawn, so asking them to follow someone else is asking a lot more than they might be expecting.

In reality, the SL is the best man for the job, and only in fireteams should you assign a secondary leader.

If you feel you have better people in your squad that could lead, who cares? They aren't leading now, and maybe don't want to. You are the man they must follow! If they don't like your orders/style, they might explain why they think it's bad, and you can only learn from this. Worst case they just leave and don't help you out, or you prove them wrong and do something amazing.