=Sarc=

My point is we don't even need a leader because everybody can be self-automated. At most a leader should split the team into broad tasks like attack, defend and freelance. One of the downsides of GR is I think some players didn't want to lead. If we can create a system where we don't need a leader or a full-time leader, it will be more appealing to play tactically.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

IceCold

Agreed. Joint Ops doesn't require micromanagement. If one person steps up and says "3 people stay and defend charlie, 2 flank delta from west, 3 flank delta from east with Luna on overwatch for the attackers", it works. The smoothest victory I remember was when Riyker stepped up and led us with simple commands. We were outnumbered, but they didn't have a chance. When you coordinate your attacks (and defense) in very simple ways, you're pretty much unstoppable, regardless of the size of the teams.

FUNKED1

Sarc you gotta have a leader of some sort.
IceCold has the right idea.
Also on the big (150 player) servers I think you can get some benefit with a GR style team. Chinook carrying 3 fully crewed AAV + Little Birds deep in the enemy rear area on one of the big maps could kick some ass without diverting too much manpower from the front lines.

jex

There's only a point to having a Team leader if you are going to use tactics. If you're just going to run to the next capture point and attack it, then you just join the rest of the players on the server doing almost the same thing - except we use teamspeak and can call in enemy movements, etc.

By having an attack and defence lead, you can quickly and easily set up some method, as Icecold pointed out above, and be given a role to do. Imagine it like ghost recon, except it's against human opponents . Lead doesn't need to make it complicated either. A simple "medics at back, gunners at front, we'll assault from the west" is good enough and it can be built from there. It would be nice to have a massive, co-ordinated assault with APC's and Helo support but that's probably a pipe-dream.

Also no-one is asking for this to be the modus operandi from now on. I think a few of us would like to try it out just to see how it works out.

__________________
Jex

=Sarc=

I'm thinking we don't need a dedicated leader so that there isn't so much pressure on one player. It's tough to lead a mission in GR and when the mission fails the leader might feel bad at letting down 8 other players. In JO, you could be misleading 8+ players. I think we should keep it really simple and decentralized. Each player knows to take a base or defend a base. As long as players form small groups and come up with ideas to attack or defend. If a few players happen to respawn at default base one can say, "Hey, let's jump in a Stryker and attack." They form a group and execute the plan.

The problem with one leader is co-ordinating many players that can be spread across the map. We all know how easy it is to get split up while attacking. If somebody dies and has to respawn (ie: can't be revived), do we want the leader to give out orders to that player? What does the player do? It's best if the system is decentralized because the player can go find another group of players that are about to attack. What if the leader dies? Well, he can't lead very well if he can't tell what's going on. He can try to lead from a distance over comms but that increases comm traffic and he won't be making very good decisions. Should another player take over the leader's role? Who decides that? Is that done before the mission is executed? That takes too much time.

How many times in GR has it happened where the leader dies and the group breaks down? Not much if the group knows the objective. The leader dies and the group still attempts to get the job done. Sometimes somebody steps up to continue leading and sometimes nobody steps up. The plan is still the same. It's kill everybody and maybe do a little something else like plant a charge. It can be the same for JO but it's easier because the objective is always the same. Take over the next base. Everybody knows what to do and doesn't need a leader to say, "Hey, we're going to attack now." Of course players are going to attack. They want to attack and all they need to do is make sure they are all attacking at the same time. Plans can be dynamic. If a player at base gets in a helo and starts loading up on troops, he can say, "Hey, front line troops, I'm bringing reinforcements. Hold out a bit until I bring them in." Would a leader at the front lines thought of this?

I still go for a decentralized system where anybody can lead for a short period. It just has to be groups forming and disbanding as needed with very little need for planning.

I actually don't like the 150 player games too much. The numbers are too high, lag can be a problem, framerates can be a problem and it's just a nuthouse. And still, is a leader required to do this? What if somebody says, "Hey, let's all load up a chinook with vehicles. We'll go behind enemy lines with helo support and do some damage. Who's in?" Remember, there are players like Cing that don't want to be ordered. They want freedom of choice. There's also co-ordinating that. How long would it take to get set up? What if you have to pick up a player and you all get shot down by an enemy "spec ops" team? You start over again. I've played some games where we spend half the time trying to get to the same place at the same time all together. I find it more effective if each player gets to the objective by his own means. If a large group is discovered together, sometimes it's just a couple of stingers/AT/RPG shots away from wasting 10 minutes of preparation multiplied by the number of players on board. If one guy gets discovered and eliminated, there will be many other groups out there that have a chance of getting to the objective.

This works well with a small team. It worked nicely against Tactical Elite. For a larger team, I say we get multiple attack and defend leads (more for defend if there's more than one base to defend) and launch attacks that way. I find the game much better when working in groups of 3-5. The lead doesn't even have to say, "Medics at the back, gunners at front." Medics should know to stick to the back and heal as needed. They should be self-automonous. The gunners should know to distract as troops move. A member of the group only has to say, "Give me suppressive fire!" These kind of on-the-fly decisions are really effective. During the Tactical Elite match, Shadowrip suggested getting in a helo and attacking the next base. It was just on-the-fly when we were just took over a base. I was attack lead but he suggested the plan. A dedicated lead environment might discourage this type of play where a team can take advantage of a situation that suddenly arises. I didn't say much as a leader that match except to call for the defense team to reinforce.

I know some of us want to play tactically and some want to play "on-the-fly". I'm trying to think of ways to satisfy both types of players. I am discussing with the admins about setting up a tactics session where anybody can lead a small group in a defense mission. I find the best tactics come from defending. Everybody is in the same place and equips differently to be able to handle anything.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

CingularDuality

I think the game style is very realistic in requiring "on the fly" leadership, but I still think there's a benefit to having a leader guide the team. Nothing formal, and it doesn't have to be the same person the whole time, just simple guidance on the smart thing to do. It doesn't do the team much good if the entire team is attacking or the entire team is defending. You've got to do both at times.

This game requires you to be dynamic. Anyone who is inflexible will lose. Semper Gumby...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

=Sarc=

I know I don't really want to lead an attack team once it starts growing to 5+ players. It's just too much for me to think about. What I'm trying to say is we need a decentralized system where nobody leads a large group or the entire attack force. There should be many leaders (fireteam leaders) co-ordinating groups of 3-5 players.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

jex

In reality that'll probably boil down to 2 teams of 5 (att/Def) and a few scouts lol. Can we field enough players for anymore? I know you guys get to play with GWJ on Thursday nights and that looks like you get a fair few players there.

Well I propose we try out different methods. There's certainly no point in denying any of them until we try them out at least.

__________________
Jex

luna

Tonight is JO night- let's try some of these ideas out.

Hey Sarc- I like your point of leading no more than 5 ppl. How about we quickly at the start of a game just divide ourselves into 5 person teams with one leader for each? If people come in, they can simply attach themselves to a team and move with them. If each team dedicates itself to attack or defend, we can easily adapt to any map. When someone respawns, they can attach themselves to the closest team until they can reconnect with their original team, or go catch up with their team, or defend the current base until their team becomes available again.

Or something like that.

__________________
Resurgent's New Motivational Motto:
"Now train harder! Live inside your character! If it dies, YOU DIE! Focus!"

Jesus had a soulstone.

CingularDuality

I don't like the idea that "Rocket chopper leaving Alpha headed for Charlie" isn't going to be heard by the defenders on my team. I think one channel is the way to go...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Reaper81

I disagree Cing. When you've split your team into attacker/defender forces, you need (as defender) to know exactly what your team is doing and where. Once the attacking team suceeds (or fails/needs reinforcement), the defenders take up the crucial role of moving in and re-inforcing the now converted but not captured PSP. Once the defenders have settled in on the new point, the attackers can re-form and be assaulting the next point in mere minutes. We've used this quite sucessfully before and the key is co-ordinating the defense's actions.

CingularDuality

I'm sorry, what are you disagreeing with??? This is what I'm saying. The attackers and defenders have to be able to talk to each other. Putting them on seperate channels will severely restrict much needed communication, IMO.

And, on a side note, I don't think defenders should move up until your team is able to spawn in the new PSP. Just last night I saw our team moving up prematurely a couple of times and we got stuck with a great fireteam at an uncapturable PSP because our defense got spread out and wasted. To top it off, we had a difficult time pulling back from the now uncapturable PSP becuase ONE guy kept respawning and killing us one at a time before we could get back in our zodiac and skidaddle...

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

FUNKED1

When I was leading big flight sim fighter units I felt the same way. I ended up copying what the RAF & Luftwaffe did in WW2. I broke it down into the smallest units.
2 ships - Element
4 ships (2 Elements) - Section
12 ships (3 Sections) - Squadron
40 ships (3 Squadrons + 4 ship Command Section) - Wing
120 ships (3 Wings) - Group

Element lead reports to Section lead, Section lead reports to Squadron lead, Squadron lead reports to Wing lead, Wing lead reports to Group lead. That way each player only reports to one person. And each commander only has to address 2-4 people under him.

The 2nd man in each Element pretty much just followed his Element lead. Either right on his wing or in an aerial version of overwatch.

Sections were pretty similar. Usually the Element lead just followed Section lead or was in overwatch.

Squadron leader was the key man and he would give loose directives to his Sections. Red Section stay high, Blue Section engage bandits 3 o'clock, etc. This guy was like the leader in a TG GR co-op game.

Wing lead usually controlled an actual mission, and would move Squadrons around to concentrate force on the attack or cover a withdrawal.

Group was a non-flying person who was watching radar and coordinating the big picture.

Usually we broke down the comms as follows:

Each squadron had a channel. Only Section leads and Squadron lead would talk normally. Everybody else knew their job and would only speak with contact reports or emergency messages (warnings).

Then there would be two command nets. One for each Wing (Wing lead + Squadron leads) and one for each Group (Group lead + Wing leads)

One advantage we had over TS is that the voice function was integrated into the game, so we had a radio range effect. There was a "Guard" channel that all friendlies could talk on, that had a very limited range (visual range only usually). This allowed different squadrons to communicate directly when they became intermixed.

=Sarc=

I am very interested about the radio range. This is a feature that I've been dreaming about in a game. I didn't know it was actually implemented in one. The future of gaming is having built-in voice comms that can do this. I would die to have this feature in other games. It alleviates so many problems of being in different channels and setting up crazy keybinds. It easily allows a command structure that you just described.

A defender doesn't need to know a rocket chopper is reinforcing the front line. It doesn't affect a defender's objective, which is to prevent the enemy from taking the current base. If there's a problem with IFF, there are name tags. If there is a problem with name tags, then the defender needs to check the map and see it's a friendly. I don't see how not hearing this will be detrimental.

During TE's Tactical Elite match, not much was said between the attack and defend teams. Whenever the teams contacted each other was for status reports or reinforcement requests. The status reports were about how the attack is going and blah, blah, blah. It wasn't anything crucial except to see how the other team is doing. As attack lead during the match, I did request reinforcements from the defend team while taking over a base. This is crucial but doesn't really have to be done over TS. There are built-in voice binds to request help. If a defender sees this message, it most likely is an attacker requesting front line help taking over a base. It's the common use I've seen and it's the sole reason I use it. Although, with some simple pre-game configuring with TS, it won't matter if teams are on different channels.

I think the attack team should be the one calling the shots on reinforcements. If they think they got the base locked down and need defenders, they should call for it. If they don't think the base will hold, then they should probably try their best to hold ground while the defenders stay back as a precaution. The players that can best decide whether the defenders should move up are the ones that are at the front lines.

__________________
JO Guides & Tutorials
Team Element - It's who you game with.

jex

Continuing on from where sarc left of and to clarify further. Sarc led the Attack whilst Riyker led defence. We had seperate channels but both riyker and sarc set up a whisper key so they could talk to the other channel.
We basically had a SOP stating that if att or def lead whispered to us, we all stopped talking and would listen to what was being said. Sarc could not hear us, only riyker, so it was imperitive that comms were cut the moment either of them spoke to the other team so we/they could hear what was going on.
This allowed both teams to work independantly on comms, and we didn't have any chatter coming over that wasn't relevant to us. If attack had to get a message to defence, it would be transmitted via the team leader (sarc/riyker) and it worked exceptionally well and only the team leaders needed to rebind their keys.
With the advent of teamspeak overlay, we can now join channels easily too. This way if a squad needs to be bolstered, a member can be assigned and can quickly change channels and attach himself to the other squad.

So how did it go last night - did u guys play?

__________________
Jex