Re: Squad Formations

**Strag** · 08-25-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

Total agreement. When a decent reality mod shows up, all this theorizing will be thrown out the window. We are adapting tactics to the game at hand, a game which is arcadey, flawed, and not realistic.

I'm also in total agreement with both of you. Another question to be raised, then, is:

Will TG adopt an official realism mod if one (or more) of sufficient quality should become available?

**digitalerich** · 08-25-2005, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by John CANavar

I dont agree with Tarpan on fairness issue. I dont see the unfairness in forming a regular group. It is the only way to achieve the level of organization and discipline we are after. What we are doing here is to bring together like-minded people with identical expectations/gaming styles. To have high expactations from a game is not wrong. It is a game for some, a simulation (in general sense, not as genre) for others.

I think both John and Tarpan have vailid points. I tend to agree with Tarpan that RL tactics don't really apply in as meaningful a way as some people think due to the gameplay mechanics of vanilla BF2. However, meaningful or not they are fun to use in game, if to sever no other purpose than to add atmosphere.

John, I agree that we are trying to foster a certain level and style of play here, but at the same time, if you want the community to grow (something I think everyone wants) there has to be some leway on the pubs. If Tarpan plays a whole game with a 5 man squad and won't let me in because I've never worked with him and don't know the tactics, he is fostering clique mentaility. This was one of the biggest probelms with the community of one of my all time favorite games, Tribes.

If we are talking about match play, then yeah formations are more useful. But really, with the speed at which people die and respawn, unelss you are taking time to regroup, formations will get broken up pretty quickly. It seems to me that adaptability is more important for a squad than formational tactics...but that is just my opinion and 'adaptability' is a little more nebulous than formations and thus is not conducive to a practice setting.

I think Tarpan hits a very good balance between tacitics and fun. Tarpan is never at a loss for people clamoring to get into his squads, and this speaks for itself on how fun it is to be a part of his squads. Wow, that was a longer post than I expected and I've probably omitted some points I'll get called out on. So to summarize...

RL tactics:
Fun? Yes.
Practical? Sometimes.
Necessary? Short answer is "No" but they will give you some level of advantage in some cases.

**John CANavar** · 08-25-2005, 05:51 PM

If the day comes when 1stMIP performs bad and even cause a game lost just because of its "different" game style, we will no longer join these scrims as a team.

And I dont think our style gives us a huge disadvantage. There is a good balance of organization/discipline advantage vs disadvantage of not using unrealistic game elements.

Even if they were not balanced, I would still play the game the way I enjoy and not participate in tournament-type games.

**Strag** · 08-25-2005, 06:06 PM

I've been thinking about something like this:

I'll explain it in detail when I have more time, but hopefully the picture (as vague as it is) will generate some discussion. It's an idea for a loose formation in BF2; the green dots are squad members. Think triangulation and rotation.

**Mateo** · 08-25-2005, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Strag

I've been thinking about something like this:

I'll explain it in detail when I have more time, but hopefully the picture (as vague as it is) will generate some discussion. It's an idea for a loose formation in BF2; the green dots are squad members. Think triangulation and rotation.

I get what you are trying to say, but now, I'm going to add a wrinkle; what are you going to do with the common "SL stays back for respawn" tactic in this rotation scheme?

**Trooper** · 08-25-2005, 06:44 PM

thats why i believe you are good to go if the SL is the squad sniper...recon and distante shots.

**Strag** · 08-25-2005, 08:28 PM

Keep in mind that this idea is mainly for squad attack and movement, since those are the two actions, if any, that are best suited to formations in BF2.

Originally Posted by TG_Mateo

I get what you are trying to say, but now, I'm going to add a wrinkle; what are you going to do with the common "SL stays back for respawn" tactic in this rotation scheme?

Try to keep him (along with everyone else in the squad) moving as much as possible during attacks because it's damn hard to hit and kill moving infantry in this game. I think of that circular diagram as a rotating wheel; the squad rotates around the point of attack while maintaining their general spacing as shown, collapsing and expanding as necessary to either back off from the flag or move in and take it.

During movement between flags, the squad would ideally maintain their dispersed spacing (and probably travel in vehicles), but there wouldn't be any need for rotation. Basically, they'd move across the battlefield in the shape of a triangle until they reached their attack objective, at which point they'd start moving around the objective in the circle. Movement is the key. Maybe bounding overwatch could be used, but in a circular direction around the attack objective -- the minimap would come in very handy for this.

I envision three two-person buddy teams, as indicated in the diagram by the close groupings of green dots (I and II, III and IV, V and VI). One of the two players in each buddy team would be a Medic (rifleman). The other player in the buddy team would switch kits between either Assault or Antitank as needed, depending on the task at hand. That way, if the Medic in a buddy team went down, the other guy could grab the Medic kit and revive him. Then the former Medic would assume the other guy's Assault/Antitank role. If both buddies in a team went down, they'd have to spawn on the Squad Leader and get back into position/rotation. (This is the type of stuff that could be drilled, if a team was looking for drills to perform.)

The Squad Leader would play as a Medic (rifleman), healing himself and his buddy as needed. The Squad Leader's buddy would play as SpecOps or Support as needed, using his C4 for demolitions or feeding his ammo packs into the rotation as needed. As in the other two buddy teams, if the SL went down, his buddy would take his Medic kit and revive him, and then the SL would have to rely on his buddy for health.

To keep things simple for everyone in the squad (especially the Squad Leader), one buddy team could be Alpha, and it would always stay to the Squad Leader's left. The other buddy team could be Bravo, and it would always stay to the Squad Leader's right. Rotation could be stopped and the formation could be pivoted around the Squad Leader so that different lines of attack could be taken depending on the terrain. There are all sorts of possibilities within this framework (and that's all it is -- a framework that everyone in the squad would be familiar with), and it should allow for plenty of adaptability and flexibility depending on the situation.

This is just a rough idea for a loose formation, for those squads who like to use formations. It could use refinement and improvement. I think it's a bit more suited to the world of BF2, but obviously it wouldn't work in every situation. Still, it keeps the squad spread out while maintaining (and triangulating) its firepower; it keeps the Squad Leader moving but makes him a more active shooter within the squad; it allows fires to be concentrated from multiple directions. The biggest difficulty I see is learning and practicing the rotation system, but, again, this is something that could be drilled (i.e. things like switching the rotation direction, maintaining good spacing, collapsing and expanding, reviving and healing, getting bodies on the flag, etc.). The squad could obviously transition to other tactics as needed.

If you think about it, a lot of squads are already doing this sort of thing in the game, but not in a very coordinated (practiced) manner.

**SmokingTarpan** · 08-25-2005, 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by digitalerich

If Tarpan plays a whole game with a 5 man squad and won't let me in because I've never worked with him and don't know the tactics, he is fostering clique mentaility.

Exactly the point I was trying to raise about fairness. Just look back to when I attempted to do the 3-man rapid squad. I had people griping at me the whole time I was in game because I wouldn't let them in. It even extended to the CO being pissy that I wouldn't let people in; and that was after I explained to him what I was doing and he agreed to go along with the plan. Hell, see the string of complaints about locked air squads, too.

Part of what's great about TG is that a total newcomer who isn't sure about the server can join any squad of regulars and have enough of a blast that they stop going to other servers altogether. How fast does that bonus go away once we start restricting our squads to people we already know because we want "tight" gameplay?

Also, as Strag (I believe) said, due to the mechanics of the game there is almost no such thing as stealth or open field combat. I have only been in a handful of firefights that didn't happen close to a flag. Ambushes are nearly a myth unless the enemy has no CO or is completely assetless. I think I have caught an enemy unit completely by surprise once in my entire time on BF2, and that was completely on accident.

I'm not saying formations are useless; I just believe there are more useful ways to work in BF2 given the pace and restrictions of the game.

**Strag** · 08-25-2005, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

....due to the mechanics of the game there is almost no such thing as stealth or open field combat. I have only been in a handful of firefights that didn't happen close to a flag. Ambushes are nearly a myth unless the enemy has no CO or is completely assetless. I think I have caught an enemy unit completely by surprise once in my entire time on BF2, and that was completely on accident.

Yep. Totally agree. And because of this, I don't see why we should be "sneaking" (when we're not really sneaking at all) around in tight formations that just make us easy targets for the other team. Since we know where and when we're going to fight, we should just move around the battlefield in fighting formations (spread out and ready to go), if we're going to use any formations at all.

**digitalerich** · 08-26-2005, 12:16 AM

Originally Posted by Strag

Yep. Totally agree. And because of this, I don't see why we should be "sneaking" (when we're not really sneaking at all) around in tight formations that just make us easy targets for the other team. Since we know where and when we're going to fight, we should just move around the battlefield in fighting formations (spread out and ready to go), if we're going to use any formations at all.

Yep, this is one area that I wish BF2 had something implemented. It would be cool if, say a Spec Ops could have a 5 meter "stealth circle" such that as long as he and whoever is in the circle don't sprint, they don't show up on the scan (but do on the UAV to keep with the RPS style) for example. Maybe we'll get some form of stealth dynamic in the expansion...here's to hoping. Formations or not, I think the best thing you can do in BF2 as a squad when assaulting is keep moving, but then I don't lead a squad that often, so that's only the opinion of a grunt.

**Beatnik** · 08-26-2005, 12:58 AM

Man I still have a lot to learn about being a more effective player...

I think the real strengths of a squad in BF2 are teamwork, having a clear point of focus (from SL and CO), and execution of orders. I have a blast playing with all types of players from some I remember as Tarpan's regulars to MIP members to the other squad hoppers, and those are the commonalities I've seen - effective squads know their role (individual and in relation to other squads), are quick to execute, and know how to have a good time with it. Those kinda sound like platitudes but that's been my experience.

I personally use one of a couple mixes of kits - 'general assault', 'general defense', and perhaps fireteam mix. 'General' meaning that any one kit can vary depending on the situation. I'm just not knowledgeable enough to get more micro than that at this point. It seems to me so far that keeping it simple is much easier for me to manage, but I could see diving deeper into it with people in the 7-th for example.

Getting back to my main point, I think the game as is is flexible enough where widely disparate styles of play can be effective and fun. Once a 'reality mod' comes though, that's where the formations and practice will really stand out.

**Turbo** · 08-26-2005, 10:15 AM

I think if they got rid of the scan function or made the reload time 5 minutes using formations would work better. I don't see the advantage yet because the CO is watching you at all times and can tell a defending squad when you are located. I think if the CO had more time in between his scans then their could be more stealth and the use of formations would be more beneficial.

**John CANavar** · 08-26-2005, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by SmokingTarpan

How fast does that bonus go away once we start restricting our squads to people we already know because we want "tight" gameplay?

Maybe I should put it like this.

1stMIP is a project. Basically it is "how far we can raise the bar for realistic playing without killing fun". Therefore it requires a lot of time, planning, practice, effort, discipline and dedication. I am spending most of time (not only gaming time, my whole life) working on this project. It is that serious and important to me.

A huge majority of players, even the TG community, would prefer a more relaxed, easy going playing. This project is not for everyone. It is for a minority of military simulation fans. I was lucky to find a couple of players I can work with together. They are in the team right now and putting a lot of effort into discussions and practice.

Did we do this behind close doors? No, I openly expressed my plans on this very same forums and invited all like-minded players (C-Team barracks). Some of them kindly responded that they cannot dedicate time/effort. Some didnt reply and some others joined the team.

We still play in other squads from time to time and share our experiences. We still sometimes leave our squad unlocked and try to give an idea about our concept. But if you consider the limited time we play as a team (only once a week), we have to lock the squad.

We share our ideas, experience and tactics on forums. We report back what worked great and what didnt. It is very sad to see that just because we are trying something different and taking it serious, we would be called "not community friendly"...

**Mateo** · 08-26-2005, 02:29 PM

Originally Posted by John CANavar

Maybe I should put it like this.

1stMIP is a project. Basically it is "how far we can raise the bar for realistic playing without killing fun". Therefore it requires a lot of time, planning, practice, effort, discipline and dedication. I am spending most of time (not only gaming time, my whole life) working on this project. It is that serious and important to me.

A huge majority of players, even the TG community, would prefer a more relaxed, easy going playing. This project is not for everyone. It is for a minority of military simulation fans. I was lucky to find a couple of players I can work with together. They are in the team right now and putting a lot of effort into discussions and practice.

Did we do this behind close doors? No, I openly expressed my plans on this very same forums and invited all like-minded players (C-Team barracks). Some of them kindly responded that they cannot dedicate time/effort. Some didnt reply and some others joined the team.

We still play in other squads from time to time and share our experiences. We still sometimes leave our squad unlocked and try to give an idea about our concept. But if you consider the limited time we play as a team (only once a week), we have to lock the squad.

We share our ideas, experience and tactics on forums. We report back what worked great and what didnt. It is very sad to see that just because we are trying something different and taking it serious, we would be called "not community friendly"...

Between the 42nd, the 7th, C-Team, the 531st, and Tarpan's squad, there are alot of teams that noone can get into.

I've been in the 42nd, now in the 7th, because I wanted to be sure that I could get into a squad of good players when I logged in. Now I log in, and I see one locked squad after another....I think it's not community friendly overall.

If you just found the servers, the signal is: welcome to tactical gamers, we only play with certain people.

My thought is that these projects are all well and good, on the private server. If you need to lock as squad to do what you want, then take it there. If not, keep your team open.

I form a 7th squad if I can't find an existing one. It's always open, anyone can join. I'm here to teach people the TG way, any server, not exclude anyone from the experience.

**John CANavar** · 08-26-2005, 02:37 PM

Strag,

I really liked the idea of "two person buddy team" ! It has great potential for offensive missions. That's the biggest part of the problem in BF2 because game's pace. I may suggest some modifications to it...

Thread Tools

Display