Fireteam Tactics

**H-Hour** · 07-09-2004, 09:14 PM

I've gleaned a lot of thoughts on this off of various people, mostly Leejo. So these aren't all my theories here.

It seems to me that JO really rewards a herd mentality. Loners are easily picked off, even when working as part of an overall strategy, but a cluster of players staying close together seem to have a good survival rate. With that in mind, I think we stand to gain a lot by setting up fireteams in game, and working hard to stick together and act as a few clusters of strong forces. When I say stick together, I generally mean sticking very closely together. This concentration of firepower seems to be quite effective. A few of the benefits are:

1) Coordination becomes easier as 15 individual players act as 3-5 fireteams. We don't have to process 15 friendly locations, or coordinate their movement at the same time.

2) Units can bring more varied firepower to the table at any time. By organizing their kit loadouts any fireteam can be prepared to handle ground/air/water vehicles, infantry, snipers, etc.

3) Overlapping arcs of fire and multiple friendlies around at all times makes it much easier to pick off those singles, so if the enemy surprises you and takes you out, there is a high probability that the rest of your fireteam will hone in on that enemy and eliminate them.

I see two basic approaches to setting up these fireteams. The first is the Objective Units method and the second is the Full Force method (titles are fun).

Objective Units
This method would involve setting up fireteams based on a role within the overall strategy. With this method I imagine having 4-5 different teams filling out different roles under the direction of an overall leader. While the individual fireteam members would stick very closely together, seperate fireteams could set up multiple attack points on a target, or multiple modes of attack on a target. Fireteams and their individual composition will be adjusted according to what's needed, but here are my ideas for same bosic setups to start:

Assault Fireteam:
1 rifleman with AT
1 gunner
1 medic
1 rifleman, engineer, or sniper according to needs
This group would be the primary assaulters. They will generally be empowered to use land or water vehicles as necessary to reach their target and would be responsible for taking objectives. Adept at putting strong firepower on a range of targets when they stick close together, they are the brunt force behind assaults. The medic will be asked to take a supporting role and stay safe as much as possible, because a medic in the field can extend the survival rate of the whole team. The medic can also act as a forward target designator for other teams.

Force Multiplier Fireteam:
1 sniper
1 medic
1 or 2 engineers or riflemen according to needs
This group would act as the eyes and ears for all our teams, primarily our assaulting teams. During assaults this team could place sniper fire on targets in the area, place mortar fire on the target, or provide overwatch against air defenses or enemy reinforcements. Depending on the needs of the time, this group could use multiple snipers or engineers. This group will need to be flexible and adept at surviving in the field a long time.

Base Defense Fireteam:
All according to needs
Some group is going to need to act as base defenders. This group would be the largest and would generally consist of a lot of firepower with a few medics or engineers thrown in as well. This group would need to be able to break themselves into 1, 2 or 3 groups depending on how many bases needed to be defended at a time, and which bases are getting hit the hardest. While not the funnest role, it is important.

Air Support Fireteam:
Engineers
Medics
This group would be the most dispersed of the fireteams. They would act in support of all other fireteams, in a wide range of methods: transporting assaulting teams into position, providing aerial support with forward targets, being a fast reaction force for bases in danger of being overrun, quickly moving base defenders up to new bases, acting as a roving medic when possible, improving the eyes of forces on the ground, and keeping other aerial targets from becoming a major threat. They would also be responsible for preserving our aerial vehicles so that assaulting forces don't need to waste a helo getting to the target. They would need to be adept at staying alive while in the air, and would need to learn when to back off of a target to not risk a bird (depending on vehicle respawn rates at the time).

The basic concept behind this setup is that with different fireteams working in coordination, you can quickly be flexible while ensuring that you're maintaining a concentration of troops at all times. Individual fireteams are empowered to work in their own ways.

The downside to this plan is that it requires a large number of people and a lot of organization.

Full Force
This concept is much simpler, involving a defending group and an attacking group. The benefit of this method is to concentrate power heavily so that our positions can be held at all times, and our attacks are difficult to thwart. The downside is that to remain as tight fireteams we will need to give up some flexibility of movement. This concept is good for smaller teams when breaking up into too many fireteams will disperse our firepower too much.

Wow, this turned out to be ridiculously long. Sorry about that. Anyway, I think this fireteam thing could be a big step forward in our general organization skills. I'm not looking to set anything in stone, but by starting to work with fireteams we can hone our strategies and skills with fireteams. I think concentrating power into teams at all times is going to be extremely important to winning this game.

**Mirfee** · 07-09-2004, 10:47 PM

Preach it loud brother! I am with you all the way. I like your thinking; it's plainly evident that you've put a lot of thought into this. I'd be eager to try and work on putting ideas like this into practice. Hell! I've been *waiting* to do that since long before I joined TG. If only a fraction of what you suggest (or other ideas) becomes SOP, I'l be an even happier man

leejo · 07-10-2004, 02:10 PM

Good stuff! I'm particularly interested in developing our combined arms skills - once we get good at using APCs to protect dismounted troops to protect the APCs, etc., we'll be in really good shape.

FUNKED1 · 07-11-2004, 09:59 PM

I'd love to do this kind of thing.

Fodder · 07-12-2004, 12:19 AM

The other night I was playing on one of the Convergence servers and saw this fireteam of 4 medics and maybe two riflemen/gunners moving in a truck...it was all over so quickly, it was *sniff*...beautiful.

jex · 07-12-2004, 09:29 AM

Remember that base defenders don't always have to be in the base to defend it. If the base is on flat ground with hills surrounding it, take some grenade jeeps, some snipers and stingers and surround the base and wait.

The enemy will see no one in the base and will probably run for it, forgoing any coordinated attack because if they can reach the base quick enough, they may get it. Now the defenders can see into the base from the hills. When mr Tango walks in, you kick his ass out!

Once you have done that move location so they never quite know where you'll be.

Also drive all the vehicles out and randomly place them within the zone circle and just beyond it. When they blow up they'll leave some nice cover all over the landscape. This'll help hide your working vehicle on the premise that 1 lone jeep on a hill sticks out but 1 lone jeep amongst 10 blown ones isn't so easy to spot on a cursory glance.

Make sure you aren't scanning from the jeep either - you're too easy to spot. Instead dismount and crouch by it, use your bins and when you see the enemy, jump into the gunner seat and take them out.

Also clays around the area will work wonders.

I really wish we could get a big game going with TG'ers working together. That way we can really organise a game. Things like clays don't work if your team run by them and set them off. However, if all the team are on TS, then you know what avenues to leave the base by.

Karma · 07-12-2004, 12:34 PM

I have been toying with the notion of combining H's 2 styles referred above: with 3 fireteams, each equipped with a few medics and various others weapons. 1 fireteam would take responsibility for defending B base, while Fireteams (FT) 2 and 3 would assault C base using supporting arcs of fire. Once C base was secure, FT 2 would set up a perimeter while FT 1 redeployed to attack D base with FT 3. This leap frog approach would continue, theoretically permitting 2 fireteams to quickly and efficiently asssault a base.

leejo · 07-12-2004, 12:46 PM

I think that's great, but I also think we should focus a bit on attacking the other side's mobility. As the Army saying goes: He who gets there the firstest with the mostest wins.

If we know where their big e.q. spawns, we should pound the hell out of those spots to deny the other side the ability to move quickly and to bring armor and cannons to the fight. Succeed in that, and you win the fight. So I guess we need to combine the effective small arms tactics that we know and love with an effort to gain and maintain air and sea supremacy. That's how I see it, anyway.

**TG_Bear** · 07-12-2004, 03:50 PM

We could use Engi's and mortars to pound the PSP's. The advantage is you can do it at a good standoff distance.

Two engi's and one spotter can cause a lot of chaos with some well aimed artillery.

=Sarc= · 08-16-2004, 12:25 AM

I was thinking a bit more about comm protocols and fireteams. Today, I was defending a base with Riyker and Shadowrip and it was very good fun. We did very well and had great communication. The rest of the team did a good job of attacking other bases and we easily won. The base we defended never turned over despite the numerous attacks from .50 cal jeeps, snipers, and riflemen.

After that good round of fun, I realize it's quite effective to stick together in small groups. It doesn't matter too much what classes comprise the group. Today, it was two riflemen and a medic with an occasional switch for something specific. I think we can keep things simple by assigning players to fireteams responsible for a base. If the base has to be captured, then that fireteam will be on assault. Once the base is captured, they switch to defending the base just captured.

The important part is keeping the fireteam players together and fireteams on separate channels. This way communication is much better. On separate channels, they don't even have to communicate to the other fireteams. It's obvious when teams should move up and it should be up to the fireteam when they should go into transition. Simple text messages can relay important decisions between fireteams such as which base a fireteam will attack/defend.

There doesn't really have to be a head commander to control all the fireteams. The overall goal is the same and understood among players. A head commander is useless and too much responsibility. Each fireteam can function properly by picking a task and sticking together. When a fireteam picks, "Defending Objective Bravo" as their task, it contributes to the overall goal without need of another fireteam. As long as players operating in the same area are on comms with each other, it should result in a cohesive team. It may be needed to program TS hotkeys (Move to next/previous channel) to easily move between channels. It's too bad that JO isn't Alt-Tab friendly to allow on-the-fly channels but there are three JO channels that should be good enough.

Opus · 08-16-2004, 05:30 PM

What bugs me a bit about the comms is that I (and many others it seems) can't simply alt-tab out of the game and access TS without crashing the game. Even the windows key doesn't do the trick. The reason I bring this up is that if we do go on separate channels, we can expect to be stuck on them for the duration of the game, unless ppl want to exit, and then come back in.

=Sarc= · 08-16-2004, 06:19 PM

I know that Riyker has hotkeys set up to switch to the next/previous channel. The only thing is you don't know what channel you switched to. I think if we set up the hotkeys and use the TS Overlay mod (displays TS info in game) it should help a lot with setting up proper comms.

**luna** · 08-16-2004, 07:04 PM

There's a TS overlay mod?

coldbore · 08-22-2004, 08:02 PM

I agree with the tactics Luna. You have nailed what we do in the military almost to a tee. However, the use of claymores and satchels to defend is unmeasurable. I don't know how many a player can place at once(with reloads), but they are one of the best defense tactics. As an military engineer, I can say they work. If you place them at choke points or places you know the enemy are comming through, it will get em. One thing I saw on a map somewhere were guys who's sole job it was (on an island map) to place satchels on the bridge and monitor them for enemy traffic, then blow em. But the best thing about claymores is they don't have to have you around to work. Safe huh.
Fire teams are the best way to go. A couple of riflemen for distant targets, and a gunner for those close in ones with a medic or two would be great. A mortar team within 100-150 mtrs of the objective would be devastating. Using a sniper team to spot for them. The sniper team would be a sniper and a spotter. The spotters sole role would be to look for tartgets as well as watch his partners back. Even if they placed clays in a pattern behind them to prevent those sneaky from behind kills.
A medic team would be nice too. Of course, they would need to have a gunner or rifleman to cover for them while working.

The one big thing that I have noticed in my few years of gaming, is this.......... too many people worry about just getting the kill numbers up. See em, get em, and run into anything hoping you shoot them before you die. Not very realistic in real combat. It is more like, not the quantity of kills, rather the quallity. I have gone through so many rounds with only a dozen kills, or less. People talk you down till you point out their 15-30 deaths and my 0-2. Luna has a good plan with all the fire teams and their rolls. What we need is participation to pull it off. That and people who will stick to a set plan. The results would be rewarding.

=Sarc= · 08-22-2004, 10:05 PM

What's this plan, Luna?

TeamSpeak Overlay was posted by flux a couple of months ago. It has gone through several revisions since the post. The current alpha version is pretty stable with JO.