Re: C-Team Barrack

**CymBa** · 07-19-2005, 02:58 AM

Oh gee and there I was thinking it all went pretty well. Especially on the Dalian Plant map that we won very handily. Once I had a safe base from which to get a Helo, and a good Gunner, Plisskin, I could really support you guys. Anytime I wasn't going for a particular target I'd try and find u guys on the map and help out where I could. It felt like the best of both worlds, I get to target with my gunner, which made us lethal, but I was still in touch with a ground squad for when they needed that delicate Cymbian touch :>

But now that I think about it, that must have been hell for you Can. When I'm squad leader I sometimes get confused when both my squad members and the commander are talking so I can imagine the hell it was when u had to listen to me and the other teamspeak guys as well!

Well I've been thinking about it and I might have an idea that'll make things easier. Especially since I think this method has a LOT of promise, we just need to tweak it a bit.

I'm not sure about how it is in the modern military but I remember from those old war movies that the squad leader was NOT the one with radio. You had a comms officer whom the squad leader would give an order to relay to whomever, whether for air support etc. So how about this: We all get into TS like before however Can, you and everyone else MUTE it in-game except for a designated AIR SUPPORT LIASION. He and I will be the only ones who talk directly to each other via TS. That way if you need air support just tell him to call me and then he will be responsible for spotting the targets, telling me where u guys are etc. That way, Canavar, you only have the usual 2 channels and he has 2 channels as well, but you won't have to worry about the details of coordinating with me and can instead focus on squad tactics.

Also I need to remember to keep things quiet on my TS, no matter how elated I am

**BudahMan** · 07-19-2005, 05:25 AM

Originally Posted by CymBa

I'm not sure about how it is in the modern military but I remember from those old war movies that the squad leader was NOT the one with radio. You had a comms officer....

You are basically talking about a Forward Observer (my old job). The F.O. carried the radio and coordinates artillery or close air support. The squad leader would talk to the F.O. and ask for a strike, then the F.O. would work out the details over the radio. A good candidate for F.O. would be a sniper or antitank. Someone who can stay a distance and spot out targets.

also is the server 1.02 yet?

**saik0** · 07-19-2005, 09:08 AM

Warning: Long post. I tried (and failed) to keep it as stuctured as possible. Why the hell cant I make bulleted lists, or indent!

Last night was a bit rough. But remember C-Team, it was not a failure. It's a game, when things go poorly we have the luxury of being able to respawn. We will learn what does and does not work and adapt. As long as we had fun, then it was a sucess, even if we got our tails whooped. Anyhow, my first experince with C-Team reinforced what I already knew, I am absolutely horrible at leading men into battle. Somehow I do OK as commander though. My usual (basic) priorities in a squad are:

1. Keep SL alive at all costs. Especially when on the offensive.
2. Watch evryone's current health status.
3. If a squad member goes down, (removing oppposition first) revive them.
4. Dont die!
5. Kill the enemy.
6. Pepper the area with health kits when theres no immediate threats.

I understand fireteams in theory, but it was very different in practice. I'll give some feedback from the short time I was able to play with everyone tonight. It was far too difficult to keep track of everybody, the SL has a big green number, but the map makes no disctinction for anyone else. I spent a good portion of time figuring out who was where and several times it led to my death and that of my team mates. Also, as mentioned I was forced into a role I'm specifically bad at, not making excuses though, mea culpa on that one for not mentioning it. Medics should probably stay away from the role of fire team leader, when in front are more likely to fall in battle first. You may as well have a Assult guy with no armor or grenade launcher in front, because thats what I felt like. There was a few times Bravo team would try to flank a position, only to be greeted by a full squad of 6. After taking out 1 or 2 guys out it didnt take long for the other 4 to catch on and blast the 2 of us. Futhermore, C-Team needs to use smoke for cover alot more ofen than we did and always pop smoke when having your squad exit an APC too, it saves lives. We should overwatch when advancing under fire. And it's my personal opinion that a 2 man fireteam is weak (in BF2 that is, though i've had about an hour of playtime in fireteams). Another problem was an excess of VOIP radio chatter. And lastly I think a huge issue is micro-managing 2 or 3 difeernt fireteams constantly, with my short expence with fireteams they have worked best when a squad leader assigns the team leader and members ahead of time, and then continues to work as a traditional 6 man squad. When the time comes to perform a flanking manuever it's as easy as calling it out and then splitting. Or another possible solution: The 8 man squad.

First, traditional military squads are 8-12 men. 12 men is usually far more than you'll ever need to perform a given task in the Battlefield universe, but 8 might be just right. You will almost always have 2 extra men that whatever you're facing, and those 2 men wont be excessively missed by the rest of the team. This is how it's done: Two seperate squads of 4, acting as two fireteams and using Teamspeak to coordinate with eachother. It simplifies a few things, and complicates a few things.

Strengths:
Instead of 1 mobile spawn point, we have 2! It's mathematically sound!
Everyone will know where both fireteam leaders are, both on the map and over their heads with will be assigned an in-game squad number. No more frantically looking around to see names.
With 2 more people the specialists wont detract from those doing the bulk of the combat (riflemen).
They could be split further on-the-fly by the fireteam leader by just using names.
Two fireteams of 4 is IMO alot more effective in BF2 than three fireteams of 2.

Weaknesses:
Requires everyone to have teamspeak running, and working. Some people were having trouble last night, but I think it could be overcome.
With TS theres no way of knowing who is talking. However, as we play together more we should be able to recognize voices better, and using TS over the in game VOIP should be used mostly for orders and requesting air support. I think alot of the chatter could be reduced, if the "whole squad" needs to know something theres still TS.
2 people have to communicate with the commander instead of 1. Although it's an option for Bravo leader to mute the commander's VOIP in game, and just have John handle eveything from the top down. No problems as long as the CO is aware.
The only real problem I see is that of current objective. Alpha would have to relay the objective to Bravo using TS with stuff like "we're going to spawn at out southeast base and attack the flag west of it." Unless we all learn the "names" (Hotel, Cnstuction site, etc) that can get tricky.

I'm trying to think outside the box here, I think it could work. While it might be more complicated at first i think with some time in practice it would actually simplify things. Give it some thought, imagine the different possible kit "line-ups" for each fireteam. It opens up the potential to have 2 Organic AA troops, thus increasing effectiveness against vehicles without decreasing it with infantry. Each could have an assult and a medic as riflemen, only 1 has to have a support really, and you still have have a ton of kit flexibility. Let me know what you all think

__________________________________________________ _________________

Other random stuff here:
Keep the VOIP orders as concise as possible. "Fireateam A we're flanking left, Fireteam B flanking right." Can be reduced to "A Flank left. B right."
"Move to" commands are great for squads, but can be hell for someone in the commander seat.

**saik0** · 07-19-2005, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by Strag

Not bad Strag, but looking at the big picture it's impossible to keep control of all the flags on operation Clean sweep from the MEC side. And most of the time you can be certain the US will be hitting your airfiled hard, as it's the most obvios stategy for them. It completely turns the tide of the battle, giving you something like a total of 4 jets, 3 choppers, TOTAL air superiority, control of the enemy UAV, radar and arty, all the while giving you a tank, and a APC and a place to launch a ground assult on the other flags. Operation clean sweep can be total hell for the MEC side. From a strategic viewpoint one of the best things you can do is let the US waltz right on in to that western-most base and take it, what you'll likely see is a large scale push on the next flag to the east. If you tried to hold it you'll end up with a bunch of sqauds in boats and a blackhawk taking flags in the center that have more valuable assets with no opposition.

(That is the most frustrating map for a CO as far as I'm concerned. The MEC needs that east airfiled to be a UCB for any sort of balance)

**Strag** · 07-19-2005, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by saik0

Not bad Strag, but looking at the big picture it's impossible to keep control of all the flags on operation Clean sweep from the MEC side.

Agreed, and normally I don't like playing on that map. But once we were assigned to defend the Control Center flag (as MEC), C-Team settled in and had a lot of fun doing it. The graphic I made was only meant to depict our defensive setup from that night. I'll gladly leave the big picture stuff up to the poor Commander who gets stuck running the round on that map.

**Sabre Six** · 07-19-2005, 10:43 AM

Let's not forget that it is a game. Our families are not going to abandon us if we don't get it perfect. Besides perfection is something seldom achieved and arguably not achievable.

You are experiencing the watered down, virtual version of the fog of war. Battle is confusion and frustration. Things never go according to plan. Communication is always difficult.

Our active duty folks rehearse and train quite vigorously to get things as good as they can be knowing full well that it will still be difficult and confusing.

The good news for us is that it is just a game. A way of escaping and hopefully relaxing for a couple of hours. It is not our profession and there will be no long term negative ramifications of our successes or failures.

Small unit leaders always struggle with communication. It is very difficult to control fire teams on one net and keep the platoon leader and other squad leaders informed on another. At some levels beyond the squad there is at least another radio net to be monitored as well. Not too mention the recurring jump to another network to coordinate with an adjacent unit or orchestrate a passage of lines.

Strag and I are working up some stuff to consider to make comms more efficient. But I must warn you that our comms aren't really that bad. I've been on much worse networks. We are dealing with other perceptual limitations which compound the problem. We can't see each others facial expressions. We can't give hand and arm signals (which greatly reduces normal command and control radio traffic). The list goes on.

More to follow when time allows.

**Faultline** · 07-19-2005, 11:29 AM

Hope I haven't missed the boat on this but if possible I'd like to pop in with C-Team and work with you guys when I can. I've played with Hephador and Cymba several times and we've all worked well together (I think

). I'm usually a medic but will be any class asked of me and do my best.

**Strag** · 07-19-2005, 11:56 AM

I was having trouble last night getting both Teamspeak and VOIP to work at the same time. Teamspeak actually worked fine for me the whole time, but whenever I would try to speak over BF2 VOIP, all anyone could hear was static. After a few minutes of struggling with it, I disconnected from Teamspeak and just used the BF2 VOIP by itself. I know from what others have said that BF2 does not like Teamspeak running alongside it, and I definitely experienced that last night.

It seems like a lot of the issues we have so far with comm involve the integration of Teamspeak and BF2 VOIP. If we could almost completely switch over to Teamspeak, it might make things easier for the squad. I don't know how practical this would be because it'd eliminate voice comm between the Squad Leaders (in Teamspeak) and the Commander (in BF2 VOIP). Maybe Squad Leaders could just use the in-game responses ("Accept" or "Decline" assignments) along with typing to communicate with the Commander(?).

Can felt overwhelmed last night, and that makes sense because of all the tasks he was trying to manage. I really like Cymba's and BudahMan's ideas of using an F.O.\liaison, and saik0's idea of using two coordinated squads as fireteams sounds very interesting. Basically these ideas all lead to the splitting up of tasks within the squad, which, after hearing Can's report from last night, we obviously need to do. While under stress in the game, we're each only going to be able to handle a couple of tasks, and part of that includes identifying targets and shooting at them (not to mention staying organized and communicating). Saber Six's comment on the Fog of War makes a lot of sense, so the more we can simplify things for ourselves, the better. What we've got started sounds great so far -- let's hash out more ideas on this.

Cymba, I couldn't hear what was going on with the coordination between you and Can, but I DID notice that almost every time a chopper came in and supported us, it was you flying it. That part seemed to work out well, indeed.

**Sabre Six** · 07-19-2005, 12:33 PM

I haven't had trouble running TS with VOIP. But I think migrating to TS for the majority of comms is and idea with merit. I need more basic information on running TS, binding keys, voice activation, and switching channels. If we can hash that out and make it simple to do in game. I think we will be well on our way.

**Strag** · 07-19-2005, 12:45 PM

Sabre Six, last night I wrote up a "how to" for setting up Teamspeak, binding keys, etc. I held off on posting it after we played, though, because things didn't seem to work out. I'll get it posted up here this evening so we can talk about it more.

**Strag** · 07-19-2005, 01:03 PM

Another thing, and maybe Can is already gathering this information, but if everyone (who hasn't already done so) interested in playing with C-Team could make a post and include the following info, I'll get it compiled in a list for us all to reference:

<Name on the TG forums>
<Name in BF2>
<Name in XFire (if you use XFire)>

Here's my info:

Strag (TG Forums)
Strag[46&2] (Battlefield 2)
bjvannatta (XFire)

**Hephador** · 07-19-2005, 01:06 PM

Yah Cymba's support on Dalian was excellent. And I really like his idea of shifting the air support communication to another squad member. It would make things a lot less stressful for Canavar (or whoever is SL at the time).

I'm also partial to saik0's suggestion of using fireteams only to perform certain maeuvers like flanking or attacking an objective from different directions. However, I'd really like to practice how we've been doing it a little more first with maybe a little more structure. Such as how far Bravo team stays behind Alpha team when moving to a new location, moving from cover point to cover point and things of that nature.

I can vouch for Faultline. I've played with him a lot and he's a player who would definitely fit into what we're trying to do.

All in all, I had a blast last night. Just hope next time we can put six together for an extended period of time to get used to the system and hammer out whatever kinks there may be.

My Info: hephador on forums, in game, and on xfire

**Faultline** · 07-19-2005, 02:01 PM

My info:

Forum ID: Faultline

BF2 ID: Faultline or -|TLD|-BennyHinn (the latter I finally just registered so I will continue with it)

Xfire ID: bennyhinn

**Faultline** · 07-19-2005, 02:03 PM

Strag what program did you use to make that picture with the flag defense setup?

**Sabre Six** · 07-19-2005, 02:56 PM

I'm not sure how relevant everyone will find it and there are a couple of other threads that this might be relevant to but what follows are some excerpts from FM24-18 regarding Procedure Words used to shorten and simply radio traffic.

I'm not saying all these have to be used. Some will be irrelevant, others though may help us.

I do, however, believe we need to get into the habit of using conventional radio telephone procedures such as:

"CAN this is SABRE SIX, over."

SABRE SIX this is CAN, send your traffic over."

"CAN this is SABRE SIX, "

...this way the recieving station and the transmiting station are in sync. Also, if CAN is doing something else...you will have to wait until he can acknowledge.

That kind of stuff is used for routine traffic or consolidation and reorganization exercises.

Combat messages are different. The game has the built in functionality for that. Spotting on the commo rose, for example, takes the place of the standard Contact Report:

"CONTACT TROOPS NORTH, OUT"

You guys may here me say that from time to time out of habit. At the same time I'm spotting them so they will show up on the map...which is a huge advantage in developing the enemy situation.

Contact reports are short and OUT...no response is expected and the transmitting station is going to be busy with ACTIONS ON CONTACT...another thread. When time permits the transmitting station will follow up with a SPOT REPORT. Spot reports are more specific information about the contact...SALUTE format. Size, Activity, Location, Unit, Time, and Equipment. This is also handled by the Spotting function. Cool we just saved a ton of traffic by using the commo rose.

OK here are the PROWORDS...

From FM24-18

To keep voice transmission as short and clear as possible, radio operators use procedure words (PROWORDs) to take the place of long sentences.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Procedure Words:

ALL AFTER
The portion of the message to which I have reference is all that which follows.

Probably won't use this. An example might be:

"CAN this is Sabre Six, SAY AGAIN ALL AFTER (SHUT UP), over"

CAN would then repeat everything that followed his last "SHUT UP"

ALL BEFORE

The portion of the message to which I have reference is all that precedes. Same idea.

BREAK

I hereby indicate the separation of this portion of the message from the rest.

Normally means I'm going to stop for a second and then continue. Used so that one transmission doesn't go on to long and allow easy triangulation of location. For example.

"YADDA YADDA YADDA, break"

"YADDA YADDA YADDA, over."

CALL SIGN

Guess. We will struggle a little with this. But as others have mentioned we have to do the best we can with short versions of the user name.

CORRECT

Guess.

CORRECTION

An error has been made in this transmission. Transmission will commence with the correction. For example.

"CONTACT TROOPS NORTH, CORRECTION SOUTH, OUT"

EXECUTE

Do it now. Kind of like GO, GO, GO. Units usually have there on version of a code word for Assault. It can be just about anything almost always repeated three times for clarity. But by convention the final assault is ordered with "ASSAULT, ASSAULT, ASSAULT" The last thing you want is for the assault to be poorly timed or communicated...everyone needs to know we are committed.

EXECUTE TO FOLLOW

Wait, I'll tell you when to do it. Kind of a prep command. "PREP FOR ASSAULT", "STANDTO", "STANDBY for ASSAULT" all kind of the same thing.

FLASH, FLASH, FLASH

Everyone shut up…I've got something important. Not to be used lightly. Flash priority traffic is defined by the leader. Normally reserved in real life for Nuclear, Biological, or Chemical attacks.

I READ BACK

The following is my response to your instruction to read back.

I SAY AGAIN

I am repeating transmision or portion indicated.

MORE TO FOLLOW

Transmitting station has additional traffic for the receiving station.

OUT

End of my transmission to you and no answer is required or expected.

OVER

This is the end of my transmission to you and a response is necessary. Go ahead, transmit.

READ BACK

Repeat this entire message back to me exactly as received.

ROGER

I have rec'd your last tranmsission satisfactorily. Please don't say Roger WILCO. And ROGER THAT is annoying to actually. Just ROGER will be fine.

SAY AGAIN
Repeat your last transmission.

SILENCE

Cease transmission on this net immediately. Silence will be maintained until lifted.

SILENCE LIFTED

Guess.

SPEAK SLOWER

Guess.

THIS IS

This transmission is from the station whose designation immediately follows.

WAIT

I must pause for a few seconds.

WAIT OUT

I must pause longer than a few seconds.

"CAN this is SABRE SIX, over"

"This is CAN WAIT, OUT" (should come in handy when you are feeling overloaded CAN.)

WILCO
I have rec'd your signal, understand it, and will comply.

WRONG
Your last transmission was incorrect.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Like I said just some ideas out of the manual. I don't think we should have folks swing on the yard arm if they don't use it. Some of the normal stuff will help. If we all practice the same methods communication will get better.

Feel free to throw tomatoes at me. It'll be alright.

The other piece of concise VOIP is code words for normal stuff and acronyms. You know that the military is known for the acronyms.

Charlie Foxtrot (don't tell me that you don't know what that means)

Lima Lima Mike Foxtrot (LLMF)

This is not good. When my three tank reported this status at NTC none of us were very happy. It means "lost like a " well the MF should be self explanatory.

Often I would control fire and set conditions for opening direct fire. If the conditions were met someone would report "ROY ROGERS"...his horses name was trigger you know. Anyway, that was a fun way to say...here they come start the fire commands.

This is limited only by our creativity.

Thread Tools

Display

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Re: C-Team Barrack

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Project Reality: ArmA2 v0.15 -...

Rayne's Eye on Independant Gaming:...

Panzer Corps Named Wargame of the...

Two New Multi-Mission Events for...

Tactical Gamer Podcast Series - TG...

Recent Blog Entries

More Feedback from YouTube Viewers

:d

The Best Video Feedback

Beyond SOPA: ACTA, WIPO, and the...

Common Mistakes: #10