Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

    I would like to ask which you think is better. Two or three Fireteams in a squad.

    A squad with two Fireteams would be able to split evenly and half making it easier to keep track of who is in which Fireteam. Also this would mean that there's only one other person that is in command other than the SL. This would keep the hassle of having to have three other people in a leadership role as a squad leader should be able to easily run one of the Fireteams if there's only two Fireteams in a squad. With two Fireteams you can assign one to the left and one to the right and it is easy to split your attack. Valkyries to become less of a hassle as you only need two of them. Two teams during bounding over watch is easier than three.

    Three Fireteams in a squad makes it easier to be precise. The Fireteam leaders would only be in charge of three other people at max. It's easier to have Fireteam formations with four people. And from what it sounded like in the future they will be implementing three Fireteams of four in each squad. Three Fireteams also work better with armor setups.

    Both of them have their cons and pros but I'd like to know what you guys think.
    "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

  • #2
    Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

    For general infantry work, two fireteams, definitely. A six-man FT squad comp of 3 heavies/1 Engie/1 Medic/1 FTL's choice gives a lot of flexibility and firepower. A four-man FT forces you to cut something. Sure, there are going to be situations where a four-man team (or even a two-man element) are going to be appropriate, but in general, 6 men work best. I've been on plenty of four-man fireteams, and it sucks.
    sigpic

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

      IIRC, this is how the Canadian military operates (6 man "sections" with the first lead by the SL), whereas the 4 man fire team with 2-3 FTLs is the American approach. I'm not sure what the rationale is that lead the two militaries to these different decisions.

      That said, I'm definitely more inclined towards a sections based approach myself. 6 people is a sturdier element able to handle more tasks in an independent fashion, and means we only need one new leader (where leadership is often a precious commodity). Two elements also just feels like enough most of the time; I can definitely see situations where I'd want three elements to play with (in particular, armour and air ops), but by and large two will do the job and have substantially less overhead.



      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

        Do you think eventually moving on to a three team based squad would be the goal, or is two fine for now?

        I just feel like all the "official" info on Fireteams has them run in three groups.

        Also, I'm wondering what the difference between, point man and Fireteam Leaders. Are they the same person or can they be different?
        "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

          Also, I'm wondering what the difference between, point man and Fireteam Leaders. Are they the same person or can they be different?
          The point man is normally a heavy or MAX who lead the group to an area.

          Some squad leaders act as a point man asking the squad to follow them.

          Most assign a point man for the squad to follow.

          If the SL is point man, makes first contact and dies, there is no leader to counter this.
          If the assigned point man goes down, the leader can see this and has a chance to react.

          The same may apply to Fire teams, the fire team leader could assign the heavy as point man.

          When running armour I normally assign a point man or scout (vanguard or harasser) depending on who's skills are available at the time.
          Last edited by vts; 03-13-2015, 01:22 PM. Reason: Did not add quote

          (6..~)Z Z z z....

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

            So would it be safe to say that the leader should be a engineer? I feel this seams the best class suited for the job.

            Also, a Canadian Fireteams is made up of two people. These two people are paired for fire and movement. Than two Fireteams make up a Assault group. With two Assaultgroups making up a section of eight people.

            The concept of the fireteam is based on the need for tactical flexibility in infantry operations. A fireteam is capable of autonomous operations as part of a larger unit. Successful fireteam employment relies on quality small unit training for soldiers, experience of fireteam members operating together, sufficient communications infrastructure, and a quality non-commissioned officer corps to provide tactical leadership for the team.
            "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

              I think ideal Fireteam size in PS2 changes based on the nature of the operation.

              In conventional squads I'd say two of 4-6 persons, or you can pull off three if you have 10 or more. In other, slower games, I enjoyed running three fireteams to a squad of 12. In PS2 firepower is important and most of TG's style play seems to be long to mid range combat and not close combat (where command and cohesion breaks down based on the much faster evolving situation of threats). At this level, on infantry sides, if you wish to be well prepared for all threat types, you probably need about 5 players to a fire team.

              You can shorten or increase FT sizes obviously based on mission purpose though.

              The biggest issue with FTs in PS2 is the risk of attrition. If you are with the SL its not a big deal when you go down; spawn on his Beacon. If you are with another group and they can't get you up it's going to be hard to get you back in the proper position, and if your role was mission critical well now that whole FT is compromised.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                Does that mean we need to come up with a different layouts for Fireteams dependent on size?
                "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                  I'm just thinking of this in terms of using the minimum number of overwhelming forces in very specific local areas. You want to split up your squad in such a way that each element can still win the fight it's dealing with. So 4 man fireteams are best against individuals and duos, while 6 is best against 3 or 4 enemies. Any more enemies than that and you need fireteams supporting each other against the same targets, rather than covering different sectors.

                  Scaling that up slowly (assuming you can have access to more than 12 people) you'll find that the best sized fireteam will alternate between 4 and 6.

                  Ideally you could do both; have third FTL and members who could, at a single command, pair off and fall in behind the other FTLs or break away and merge into a third FT again. Of course, that's the most complicated for training (I wonder if there are any real life examples?).


                  This is where I have a big issue with 4 man fireteams in 12 man squads. You can't pair them up. Your tactical choices are: 12, 8 and 4, or 4 x3. The second and third options work well as long as the enemy is generally sparse and possibly focused on defending one area. The moment two of your FTs need help in their sectors you either have to fight as a 12 and sacrifice the mobility or go calling on another squad for help - whether they split a FT off or send everyone.

                  From this view I'm thinking 4 man fireteams work far better if each squad is actually comprised of 8. Then one squad would be enough for small scale fights, while two squads acting together would have both mobility and sturdiness. Of course, this wouldn't translate to PS2 very well.



                  Given that our biggest challenges will be facing organized squads, the small size of buildings and limited tactical options, plus a bit of leeway for not being hard trained soldiers, I have to say I'm beginning to favor the 6-man fireteam.



                  |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                    I've been in two "milsim" outfits prior to TG, and each did the point man/FTL thing differently.

                    The first (SPV on Waterson) used separate people for each role. Often the FTL was the engie or medic, although that was usually because of which classes people were certed into. The point man called formations and had the option to change orders based on his appraisal of the situation. One advantage of this system is that experienced point men were logical candidates to become FTL/SL. In addition, an experienced point man could help a new FTL/SL from being overwhelmed. Key to making this work is effective communication by the point man.

                    The second outfit (SMG on Emerald) consolidated point and FTL in a single person. The only exception was if the FTL was an engie or medic, in which case the FTL would designate a Heavy to lead us in. Having a single person made the FTL/SL role THE hardest job in the outfit.
                    sigpic

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                      Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                      I think ideal Fireteam size in PS2 changes based on the nature of the operation.

                      In conventional squads I'd say two of 4-6 persons, or you can pull off three if you have 10 or more. In other, slower games, I enjoyed running three fireteams to a squad of 12. In PS2 firepower is important and most of TG's style play seems to be long to mid range combat and not close combat (where command and cohesion breaks down based on the much faster evolving situation of threats). At this level, on infantry sides, if you wish to be well prepared for all threat types, you probably need about 5 players to a fire team.

                      You can shorten or increase FT sizes obviously based on mission purpose though.

                      The biggest issue with FTs in PS2 is the risk of attrition. If you are with the SL its not a big deal when you go down; spawn on his Beacon. If you are with another group and they can't get you up it's going to be hard to get you back in the proper position, and if your role was mission critical well now that whole FT is compromised.
                      That's why the second FT needs enough Medics, and why every FT should always be able to be backed up if need be. So I don't like the idea of an odd number of FTs. As you said, it's not consistent with PS2's speed.



                      |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                        Originally posted by MrJengles View Post
                        This is where I have a big issue with 4 man fireteams in 12 man squads. You can't pair them up. Your tactical choices are: 12, 8 and 4, or 4 x3. The second and third options work well as long as the enemy is generally sparse and possibly focused on defending one area. The moment two of your FTs need help in their sectors you either have to fight as a 12 and sacrifice the mobility or go calling on another squad for help - whether they split a FT off or send everyone.

                        From this view I'm thinking 4 man fireteams work far better if each squad is actually comprised of 8. Then one squad would be enough for small scale fights, while two squads acting together would have both mobility and sturdiness. Of course, this wouldn't translate to PS2 very well.



                        Given that our biggest challenges will be facing organized squads, the small size of buildings and limited tactical options, plus a bit of leeway for not being hard trained soldiers, I have to say I'm beginning to favor the 6-man fireteam.
                        This brings up and idea that I had never considered. What if we did 8 man squads and worked with two platoons instead of one. This would effectively give more control over how much force we bring to bare on a certain point. Not to mention giving more spawn beacons, waypoints and overall control of our men. I really am intrigued by the idea but I'm busy calculating damages of vehicles at the moment to put this idea to a better analysts.
                        "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                          Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                          So would it be safe to say that the leader should be a engineer? I feel this seams the best class suited for the job.
                          That depends on whether you want to lead from the front or from the rear. As SL I also tend to be the point man because I like my squad to be aggressive, which means HA. I stay alive because our Medics are awesome. A good alternative is to use a point man to lead the charge but to still be near the front yourself. I've noticed Garthra do this even when he's playing HA so he can stay alive and focus on other things.

                          Occasionally, particularly when playing defensively, I may switch to Engineer or Medic as leader. The one major downside of being a Medic is that you either have one less Medic to revive the SL or one more Medic total.

                          Originally posted by MatthewDaManiac View Post
                          This brings up and idea that I had never considered. What if we did 8 man squads and worked with two platoons instead of one. This would effectively give more control over how much force we bring to bare on a certain point. Not to mention giving more spawn beacons, waypoints and overall control of our men. I really am intrigued by the idea but I'm busy calculating damages of vehicles at the moment to put this idea to a better analysts.
                          The major problem with moving to 8 man squads (or, indeed, 4 man "squads" in order to replicate FTs) is that they are not supported properly in-game. Squads are "up to 12 people" and either open or closed, nothing in between. So it would vastly increase the micro-management for "SLs" as they have to constantly open/close recruiting.

                          Plus, your best chances of getting blueberries to join is to appear at the top of the squad browser by being 10 or 11/12.



                          |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                            Obviously this would work blueberries. But it's an interesting fact that PS2 is a numbers game. 8 TG guys against 12 random's should work just fine or at least be relatively equal and if it's not you can simply have another squad join you and then he would be more than the enemy.

                            I often feel that 12 people are too much should just be sitting at a cap point. But say you use eight people to hold the Point, it wouldn't be wasting guys and then you can simply calling one more squad to help would put your total to 16 when the fight got more intense.

                            Yes this would take some organization but mostly on the platoon leads part as he is the one who will be moving people from squad squad. You would also have to have a commanding officer who is running the two platoons. And yes while this is more challenging I can see some really amazing things coming from it.
                            "When attacking a stronger opponent, Attack swiftly and with full force at their weakest point— take them out before the can react, or Fall back and engage in guerrilla actions,” Spartan 117.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Two Fireteams in a squad VS three

                              Poking my head in here to offer a perspective from other TG titles. We will often base our organization based on what leadership we have at hand in ArmA. This will often lead us to the tactics and strategies we use.

                              Having a discussion about what is ideal is a great starting point for a shared understanding of the issue and this thread is a continuation of that age old topic of how to fit the real world tactics with the in-game reality.

                              One point about having 3 fire teams in a squad that get separated and too far from the squad beacon seems to point to a different problem. That is squad cohesion....if you have 3 teams then the leaders of those teams in a traditional sense should be placing the soldiers in positions that are supporting the entire squad security and thus you can't be out of effective range of direct fire support. That means your not very far away. If they are, then your fire teams are operating more as separate squads.

                              Just my two cents and don't mean any intrusion and admit I may have jumped in without the full background...love the threads you guys have here by the way.
                              |TG-189th| Unkl
                              ArmA 3 Game Officer
                              Dean of Tactical Gamer University
                              189th Infantry Brigade Member
                              SUBMIT A RIBBON NOMINATION OR CONTACT AN ARMA ADMIN
                              "We quickly advance in the opposite direction and take cover in a house on the SW side of town." - BadStache

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X