Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's Talk Fireteams

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

  • Let's Talk Fireteams

    According to the Roadmap, we should be seeing fireteams implemented in September.

    With that in mind, I'd like for us to start discussing (and even practicing) tactics, strategies, and uses of fireteams, so that we can hit the ground running when they're rolled out.

    How can we best leverage fireteams for us to be more successful and/or have more impact on the battlefield?

    Here are some ideas for, and uses of, fireteams to get us started:

    1. More specialization. ie. Having a dedicated Breaching fireteam or, a dedicated support/transport/gunner fireteam for galaxies/sunderers.

    2. SL training. Being a fireteam leader would be a great way to learn the basics of organization, comms discipline, issuing orders and maintaining cohesion.

    3. Better organization for attacking/defending strategic objectives. ie. FT1 attack A point, FT2 attack B point, FT3 attack C point, FT4 occupy building at waypoint and provide over watch. Or, FT1 defend north, FT2 defend east, FT3 defend west, FT4 search & destroy enemy spawns.

    4. An easily manageable combined arms squad. FT1/FT2 Infantry, FT3 AA/AV, FT4 Support/Logistics

    Discuss.

    sigpic



  • #2
    Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

    Cannot wait.

    Obviously, there are going to be a lot of different ways to organize fireteams depending on the roles they might be playing on the field, but there are some pretty obvious uses for them:
    • Specializing a specific fireteam to a role in an organizable way
    • Leapfrog movements, covering fire, suppression, etc. Basically, being able to move more manageable pieces around will give us more tactical options in a pinch
    • Spreading the squad out while maintaining individual fireteam cohesion
    • Integrating vehicles into an infantry squad as a support element in a way that leaves them distinct from a command perspective


    My initial thoughts for a basic fireteam layout go something like this:
    • Each fireteam has a medic
    • All other roles are flexible, but will usually involve 1-2 heavies
    • Specialist roles in the squad are spread out amongst fireteams, like infiltrators, engineers (when ammo is the only concern) or MAX units
    • Alternatively, one fireteam is set up as a specialist support squad and the others are dedicated infantry



    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

      I have plenty to say but only have a minute at the moment to write. I advise for comms. that we do NOT institute that only fire team leads may speak in squad chat as the norm. Members should use best judgement to determine whats best to say in fire team vs squad, but I don't feel it should hard cap chatter as it does at the squad platoon level. My thoughts are that it will further dilute the situational awareness at the squad level and increase the reporting time significantly by adding another middle man. Unlike the platoon leader who is thinking at the strategic and operational level, the squad leader's responsibility is all things tactical for all his squad members. I do not feel that having fire team leads should absolve him of the responsibility to know the situation of all of his squad members at most times.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

        It's going to be very important to know when to use/when not to use fireteams. I think the specialized fireteam approach (Last Star bullet) should be considered for whole-squad activities (AV nests, Squad armor movements, etc:

        1) Support Fireteams - Engies and Medics can then communicate with each other without spamming coms to the other members of the squad. Example: Medic A goes down, alerts other medic so he can get a revive/grenade/extra help. Same goes for engineers. Squad-wide alerts still operate on squad chat.
        2) Vehicle Type Fireteams - Vangaurds, Harassers, Lightnings, air vehicle varieties, sharing a fireteam (For ground vehicles, AA role Skyguards and Walker Harassers can coordinate without talking over Ghost while he coordinates fire on armor targets) Spotting/etc still squad-wide.

        Obviously in an outright assault of a smaller base, the fireteams should be each self-sufficient for activities like tripping generators, etc. For most of these kinds of activities the Engineer is thankfully a very capable infantry asset, and therefore not a hindrance in having an extra (I think 3 engies in an infantry squad is excessive) providing turrets/reasonable firepower, as well as keeping Heavies happy with mountains of nanite-bullets. The Medic should obviously lay low, as that role will be the only one crippling to the force should it be taken out.
        MacKahan -- Mac-Kay-an In case you were curious. ;-)

        sigpic

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

          I should note that the notes I read, and correct me if I am wrong, say that we will get three 4 man fire teams per squad, and we will not be able to change that around (two 6 man fire teams is impossible).
          The question foremost in my mind is "what will bring the most tactical fun to the server?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

            Originally posted by Garthra View Post
            I should note that the notes I read, and correct me if I am wrong, say that we will get three 4 man fire teams per squad, and we will not be able to change that around (two 6 man fire teams is impossible).
            That was the last explanation, yeah. Some players suggested it be changeable, so we'll see. The Roadmap is rarely updated nowadays though so it may or may not even arrive in September.

            Originally posted by VLAD View Post
            I have plenty to say but only have a minute at the moment to write. I advise for comms. that we do NOT institute that only fire team leads may speak in squad chat as the norm. Members should use best judgement to determine whats best to say in fire team vs squad, but I don't feel it should hard cap chatter as it does at the squad platoon level. My thoughts are that it will further dilute the situational awareness at the squad level and increase the reporting time significantly by adding another middle man. Unlike the platoon leader who is thinking at the strategic and operational level, the squad leader's responsibility is all things tactical for all his squad members. I do not feel that having fire team leads should absolve him of the responsibility to know the situation of all of his squad members at most times.
            Agreed. It makes the most sense to be treated on a lowest necessary channel basis as proxy and squad VOIP are already. [Indeed, voice macro is still my favorite for common and polite call outs since it can be tuned out or spoken over.]

            Originally posted by TonyMac View Post
            It's going to be very important to know when to use/when not to use fireteams. I think the specialized fireteam approach (Last Star bullet) should be considered for whole-squad activities (AV nests, Squad armor movements, etc:

            1) Support Fireteams - Engies and Medics can then communicate with each other without spamming coms to the other members of the squad. Example: Medic A goes down, alerts other medic so he can get a revive/grenade/extra help. Same goes for engineers. Squad-wide alerts still operate on squad chat.
            2) Vehicle Type Fireteams - Vangaurds, Harassers, Lightnings, air vehicle varieties, sharing a fireteam (For ground vehicles, AA role Skyguards and Walker Harassers can coordinate without talking over Ghost while he coordinates fire on armor targets) Spotting/etc still squad-wide.

            Obviously in an outright assault of a smaller base, the fireteams should be each self-sufficient for activities like tripping generators, etc. For most of these kinds of activities the Engineer is thankfully a very capable infantry asset, and therefore not a hindrance in having an extra (I think 3 engies in an infantry squad is excessive) providing turrets/reasonable firepower, as well as keeping Heavies happy with mountains of nanite-bullets. The Medic should obviously lay low, as that role will be the only one crippling to the force should it be taken out.
            I favor the "fireteams should tend to be self-sufficient" option because that's where the benefit of slightly different approaches to the same task is at. Since the most comms-heavy traffic should be combat comms from all members, in my opinion, this would naturally move to fireteam level and only the SL, FTLs and high priority - such as a Medic of one FT needing another to revive them - would need to go in squad comms.

            On the other hand in more dense fights, where each FT has less room to maneuver, we could see the evolution of dedicated offensive fireteams and support fireteams. Since the squad needs its full might to accomplish even specific tasks, and things may get even more hectic, specializing by role might make more sense in comms.


            I think I'm most looking forward to the potential for keeping the more independent classes, Infiltrator and LA, focused on supporting the squad via their own fireteam and leader. A lot of what they do is optimized for small numbers, not solo or full squads. Plus, as a SL being able to trust that part of your squad will open up tactics for coordinating flanking and breaching maneuvers.



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

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

              I am very excited for this as well. As Mr. Jengles mentioned, I wouldn't hold my breath for September, but I think even if the devs lag off we could still institute this.

              Initial thoughts:

              - This will be so incredibly useful for the (majority) of times we are only running with 1 full squad. I've noticed an issue sometimes where although we are moving together very well, it actually ends up hurting us because very good players can get in positions to wipe out two or three of us and if they have just a few (say 4) very good players who know how to position themselves we can be at a real disadvantage. It's like when I play solo and pop over a hill to see a squad bunched up, so much excitement because it's like shooting fish in a barrel. On the other hand if I pop over a hill and see a squad but there's a guy further down he ridge I didn't see, he'll pop me and save the squad from multiple casualties. It's all about positioning. Fire teams will allow for so much more freedom of movement for a single squad. I have tried to implement this in every shooter I have played but it can prove difficult without the proper game mechanics. Think the American's vs. the British during the revolution.

              - I'm not 100% sure how comms will work when the in game mechanics are introduced but my initial thought is proximity chat when a fire team flanking maneuver is being conducted or potentially with class specific fire teams chat is just kept to absolute minimum since the roles will be specialized and similar. That type of comm.s can be turned into an SOP. (IE medic SOP is for the medic to call out the person they are moving to revive (prox. chat) so the others stay away or calling out certain areas which they will cover for revives. Squad chat is reserved for a medic calling himself down etc.)

              - More flanking! More organization allowing for combined ops (fire team consists of an AA squad while rest of the squad rushes the building etc)

              Can't wait!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                Just to throw this out there, concerning communication and squad/fireteam management:

                Since we don't have a fireteam VoIP channel (yet), we could use our TS server. Any registered member should be able to create temporary channels.

                We could also run one squads worth of infantry but, separate it into a 4 squad platoon with each squad having 4 members. This method would probably be preferable since each FTL would have access to waypoints and in-game VoIP.

                sigpic


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                  Originally posted by Mindkill View Post
                  Just to throw this out there, concerning communication and squad/fireteam management:

                  Since we don't have a fireteam VoIP channel (yet), we could use our TS server. Any registered member should be able to create temporary channels.

                  We could also run one squads worth of infantry but, separate it into a 4 squad platoon with each squad having 4 members. This method would probably be preferable since each FTL would have access to waypoints and in-game VoIP.
                  True. I always liked the separate TS channels and using channel commander in battlefield. That system worked flawlessly and I know on op nights VCO uses something somewhat similar so that their Sl's/PL can communicate while ducking out the entire PS2 sound. This is worth looking into. I also read snippets on the forums suggesting that most of the better outfits (like TIW, DA, Recursion etc.) use teamspeak completely in place of ingame VOIP. Might be worth looking into in the future as we don't run too many pubby squads anyway.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                    Originally posted by Hero View Post
                    Might be worth looking into in the future as we don't run too many pubby squads anyway.
                    This is something we ought to be trying to change. Public squads are our only effective source of recruits, and we need recruits to maintain the outfit.



                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                      Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
                      This is something we ought to be trying to change. Public squads are our only effective source of recruits, and we need recruits to maintain the outfit.
                      Just got done running one! After a weak first batch of recruits (Mindkill can attest to that, us two saved that amp station single..err..double-handedly!) the squad filled up again and we had a few people with mics and everyone was listening. Unfortunately we only had two ghost caps until we were forced to move to Cairn Station on Hossin because that was the only fight around. I hate tower fights they are just farm fests and so was this. We did have a good moment where we flanked their armor zerg with a sundy but because the resource system is borked they just pulled it all again so it was all for naut.

                      VOIP was screwed I could barely hear anyone and they could barely hear me (everyone sounded super sped up and I could barely make out anything anyone was saying) but there were still a few good fights.

                      I forgot to make a recruitment pitch ( :/ ) but I will try to lead more pubby squads in the future because I definitely agree with you!

                      Edit: Forgot the best part! When we first started up it was me, Crimson, Mindkill and VTS and we trekked through some mountains and denied a squad and some infils the high ground and then moved in to help the blueberries take the point. That was a fun little run.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                        BUMP! I am resurrecting this forum topic! [MENTION=59167]VLAD[/MENTION] [MENTION=16189]starstriker1[/MENTION] [MENTION=26828]Mindkill[/MENTION] [MENTION=29978]MrJengles[/MENTION] [MENTION=14750]vts[/MENTION] [MENTION=6101]Hero[/MENTION] (though I know you left TG PS2, your input is still valuable and welcome).

                        I would like to get more input from you guys on this topic. Two heads are better than one, and we have even more than two in TG, so all the better for us! :)
                        I have listed some basic issues I want to address and examples, but FEEL FREE to post something else if you have other thoughts on effective use of fireteams.


                        ------------------

                        1.) What configurations of fire teams do you think would be most effective for TG to use in PS2? (Assume for purposes of this exercise a fire team is FOUR (4) players.)

                        Here are three examples: Light Infantry Fireteam -- 2x HA, 1x MED, 1x ENG. Effective because it is self contained, cheap and simple to use.
                        Light MAX Fireteam -- 1X MAX, 1XHA, 1X MED, 1X ENG. Effective because it is self contained, 1 max is not too expensive but brings firepower.
                        Heavy MAX Fireteam -- 2X MAX, 2X ENG. Effective because it brings heavy firepower and sustainability with 2 engineers, but weak b/c no medic.




                        2.a) How can we best integrate fireteams into our squad while moving from one point to the next and why?

                        Example: Traditional military infantry formations such as traveling overwatch (one team behind the other seperated by 50-100 meters can engage and respond to threats without getting the whole squad wiped by a grenade.




                        2.b) How can we best integrate fireteams into our squad while holding a point?

                        Example: Assign each fireteam an entrance to cover.




                        2.c) How can we best use fireteams at an organizational level?

                        Example: Stolen from Mindkill, train new people to be Squad leaders.



                        ---------------------------------------------------
                        Thank you all for your input and ideas!
                        Garthra

                        PS
                        I am going to be filming some small TG fire team videos, if you are interested, post here.
                        The question foremost in my mind is "what will bring the most tactical fun to the server?"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                          I think there's a few objectives we're trying to fill with fireteams:
                          • Flexible, convenient organizational division for finer grained distribution of troops. Too often a 12 man squad is sent to do a 4 man job, or an entire squad has to be maneuvered at once when you'd rather be able to do a bounding overwatch or maintain a rear guard.
                          • The ability to more easily specialize a smaller group of troops than a full squad
                          • Reduce cognitive burden on the SL by allowing them to focus on the bigger picture instead of wrangling individuals. This, I think, is going to take the form of squads caring about things that are currently mostly ignored, like individual troop placement and sector assignments or providing C&C over a specific sector during a room hold, etc. In other words, I think SLs will end up doing mostly the same job (perhaps with a bit better focus) but we'll have more command within the squad.
                          • As mentioned, provide a low-stakes, low-barrier of entry leadership position for cultivating new leadership talent.


                          Along those lines, here are my answers:

                          1) Fireteam composition

                          I think we should be looking to our standard fireteam setups to be independently viable, flexible, self-contained units, to facilitate their fine grained distribution and assignment and allow for independent operation if the situation calls for it. In practise, that means a medic and engineer as baseline. We'd also want specialist fireteams for doing a very specific job, at the cost of independent operation. In between the two, we'd probably want our typical squad to be built of three generalist fireteams with minor specialization in each, so that we can assign the squad to the task best suited to it BUT also be able to retask them to anything else should we need them in a pinch.

                          Here's some ideas (the first two will look very similar to Garthra's):
                          Generalist Infantry: 2HA, 1ENG, 1MED - The heavies and engineers form solid infantry and AV units, with an attached medic to keep them up or assist other fireteams when required.
                          Generalist MAX: 1MAX, 1HA, 1ENG, 1MED - Basically the same as above, but with a MAX slightly specializing the squad (and providing a bullet soak and extra punch)
                          Generalist Infantry (long range/recon): 1HA, 1ENG, 1INF, 1MED - Trade out a heavy for an infiltrator. The squad can either be a long range suppresion/AV setup (in which case, you might even trade out the other HA for a second engineer) or kitted out for close range where the infiltrator will be focused on hacking/recon.

                          And for specialization:
                          Mech. Infantry: 3ENG, 1MED, Vehicles - Using one or two Harassers or a Sunderer to support the rest of the squad. I'd mainly envisage it as moving like a regular infantry element except with small arms resistance, enhanced mobility in a pinch, and heavier vehicle mounted weapons. I've used Kobalt equipped vehicles for this purpose in the past to provide long-range suppression. With 3 engineers and 1 medic, it's also a fireteam well equipped to abandon vehicles and wade into a fight if necessary, or to keep their vehicles in good repair. Would even
                          Light Assault: 4LA - A fireteam allows us to integrate LAs in a reasonable, team oriented way that allows them to maneuver together. Would be very handy as part of a breaching element attacking from above or popping flashbangs, or as overwatch in dense urban areas.
                          Sniper/Guerilla: 4INF - A fireteam build of infiltrators can move as a group behind enemy lines or on the fringe of a fight. Snipers would be able to put nasty suppression down at long range and surprising angles, and engaging at closer range would allow SMG or stalker cloak use for some really obnoxious behind-enemy-line disruption that could be very tough to track down.
                          Galaxy: 3ENG, 1MED, Galaxy - Gunners and pilot for a squad Galaxy, providing local air support and enough firepower to keep the Gal alive post-drop. The medic allows for triage during pickup and leaves the team viable if it needs to bail or ground pound.
                          Valkyrie: 4ENG, 2 Valkyries - Gunner and pilot crews for two Valkyries, able to coordinate before/after dropping off two fully independent fire teams.
                          Room defense: 2ENG, 1MAX, 1MED - Engineers with AI turrets and prox mines paired with a close quarters MAX loadout and a medic, ideal for locking a room down. Those of you who remember the breach testing remember how scary a combo that is. ;)

                          Something we also need to consider is "where's the SL/PL in all this"? Ideally, an SL will be a member of a fireteam, not the leader, though I expect in practise they'll manage their own fireteam. The PL, though, should definitely neither be SL or fire team leader, and should be subordinate (within those organizations) for the purposes of moment to moment movement. What role do they take, then? It can't be a critical one that keeps their nose out of a map... they slot most elegantly into HA, ENG, or INF roles. Same deal for SLs.

                          2a) Fireteams in movement
                          It obviously makes bounding overwatch easier, as well as travelling overwatch. It's also possible to fan the fire teams out into a line or triangle formation... the former for widening the base of fire, the latter for keeping a team in the back for overwatch/plugging gaps in the line as needed. It's also easy to set a rearguard.

                          2b) Fireteams in defense
                          During building holds fire teams can be assigned different sectors, which simplifies the organization in a point hold with multiple rooms or entrances.

                          2c) Fireteams in organization
                          I think the possibility of a less intimidating leadership position is a great way to get people eased into the job and gradually work up to squad or platoon leadership. It's also potentially a stumbling block for us if we have as much trouble getting people to lead fireteams as we do squads... though it's also something I'd be far more comfortable voluntelling someone to do.



                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                            I know I left TG a while ago, but I still like participating in the discussions here. I think the specialized fireteams are a great idea. They offer leadership opportunities to players who are more experienced with support tactics. For example, I would never want to squad lead but I could handle leading a small sniper or light assault team to support the main unit.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Let's Talk Fireteams

                              Star striker has listed most of the ways I would think of using fire teams. Over than the default two heavy , medic and engineer team, it will be highly situational and I could easly see deploying an all LA team, an all infil team, or really almost any combo.
                              Communications, Cohesion, Confidence.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X