Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Squad or Section

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

  • Squad or Section

    The make up in a typical section is 8 players which actually works out quite well in the game/simulation environment.

    In this kind or organization you have one Section Leader and one Fire Team Leader. Each of these leaders is responsible for 3 additional infantrymen. The challenge for this Section Leader is that he is also a fire team leader. His fire team has to be very aware when he is busy doing Platoon level communication to higher. The platoon leader must also be understanding that the Section leader can be available for radio coms with a bit more difficulty.

    The section leader has to be the FTL for his 3 infantrymen on top of directing the second fire team. So he is juggling micro movements of individuals and the second team.

    The advantage in the game environment is that this allows for more teams as compared to the Squad organization where you have a Squad Leader and 3 Fire Team Leaders. This Squad Leader should have an easier time dealing with Platoon coms but now we have 13 or more players within one entity. With 16 players in two entities we can have more maneuverability and thus more tactics available to us.

    ArmA, just like any game, can only be a scaled down version of any actual organization. So it makes sense if we adopt this Section kind of organization in our missions instead of a 3 FT Squad kind of setup. The other challenge it presents is that you require more leaders per players. But this could be good, because each player has more direct access to leadership.

    What do you guys think if we move towards this type of organization more often?
    |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

  • #2
    An alternative is to scale down the squad. Reduce either the number of fire teams or how many make up a fire team.

    Reducing the number of fire teams to two gives you two four man teams with one sl (4+4+1 squad members))
    Reducing the number of team members to 3 gives you 3, three man teams (3+3+3+1)

    Just a thought. I believe giving the section leader two roles might be overburdening him, but maybe not.
    ​​​​​​​

    Comment


    • #3
      If we use the section idea, which I like, and we have 2 sections do we also have a platoon lead that directs the 2 section leaders or do we rely on the 2 section leads to coordination with each other?

      Comment


      • #4
        I've always been fond of the SL + FTL + FTL approach myself. I have a devil of a time communicating upstream and managing three FTLs. Two I can keep moving.

        I know the "rule" is 3 direct reports per person - But the SL has to communicate to either up to the PL, or laterally to another SL, often enough that giving him extra breathing room by removing the third direct report makes sense.

        Comment


        • #5
          I just remembered that a lot of the IFV vehicles allow for a crew + 8 infantry in the cargo.

          Man I hear ya Noyava, maybe we can script an "attachTo" command to the most expendable member of each team like maybe the Marksman or Unkl. That way you can put that 9th person outside sitting on the hull.

          Fire teams of 3 Crawlingeye? Interesting, so you would have in effect two buddies.
          |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

          Comment


          • #6
            I like SL + 2 FTL myself, though it can work with three fire teams if everyone knows what they're doing and there isn't a lot of chaos.

            Sections work well in certain situations though such as my Scorpion Ops missions, I use six man sections with three man fireteams.

            Current ARMA Development Project: No Current Project

            "An infantryman needs a leader to be the standard against which he can judge all soldiers."

            Friend of |TG| Chief

            Comment


            • #7
              I am a fan of the sl + ftl + ftl however my reasons are different. How many times are we losing ftl mid mission, or gaining players while afield. I feel it makes life easier to deal with if the sl can easily become a ftl also if the need arises. However is is seldom that we have enough ftl volunteers and I have recently resorted to volentold leaders. And amazingly have not really had an objection yet. Right wrong or indifferent that's my opinion.

              plus I believe someone said that some RHS vehicles can already be sat on?
              May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
              -- Gen. George S. Patton


              |TG189th| Cody

              Comment


              • #8
                I have been designating people to FTL status of late as well. It works out pretty good. If nothing else it reduces he number of people whose names I have to recall from 8 to 2 :)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Unkl View Post
                  I just remembered that a lot of the IFV vehicles allow for a crew + 8 infantry in the cargo.
                  Precisely the reason that I have been sticking with Section structure in mission design in vanilla. The game is designed with NATO structure in mind and the vehicles and helicopters are designed with that in mind also. Ghosthawk has 8 passenger seats as well as almost all APCs and IFVs on all sides.

                  Now that we have RHS and US assets, I am cool with the Squad approach. I prefer it when leading in fact.

                  That being said, I would say that it would be up to mission developer's vision on how their mission should be played.

                  Trying to drive one structure over another would be in vain in the end I think. Consider a mission with bunch of rebels banding together to rebel... Then you have no set structure at all... It would be up to the mission designer as he's the only one that knows what roles are needed to overcome the devilish traps that players must overcome together... Because the mission designer put the enemy there as well.
                  On a different note, as a mission designer and somebody who do not shy away from leadership I will say that CO, and PL positions are quite boring for me. Especially for those who are stuck with that team (Evidenced by the disconnects from my team who played with me as part of Platoon HQ team in Bread ops in the past few days. Those who cannot handle the boredom and the down time.) In RL being in CO element is actually desirable while in game being in PL team is very much boring... You can definitely feel this with the new push of PL role and the newest missions. Our "new regulars" just cannot adjust to the fact that you may or may not get the boring role. But at the same time they do not want to take leadership when it is clearly lacking...

                  I will criticize the players who are selfish in pursuit of action/fun yet full of avoidance of responsibility openly here and now. (Part of the original Arma SOPs... Read it... You will be told if you are not doing a good job. Deal with it.)

                  I understand that the admin team is trying to introduce some policies which would change the very nature of human behavior and personalities, but it is always the progress of individuals which change the experience for the whole of the community.

                  Anyway a bit of a rant on the lack of leadership and the lack to take it up and learn it from the new flock. TG has always attracted and flourished the best leadership and this kind of post pushed the few who has the potential.
                  Last edited by |TG| B; 03-31-2017, 10:38 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    If the vehicles in RHS allow for a SL,2 FTL kind of structure then I'm happy with that. That would give you a team of 10 with a medic.

                    The reason this has come up is really thinking about Tactical Gamer University and mission development. We see there being a need for a bit of standardization in roles, call signs, and such. Something simple that would allow some stability in the framework that would then allow issues of leadership to be explored by a) more players and b) with less complication and c) less consequence.

                    While I agree that really for platoon level operations in an infantry only deployment, the PL role does end up being a little boring because a lot of what the platoon leader would do is already set up by the mission maker. However, someone needs to coordinate squads and watch the big picture if you want to be effective with 2 squads or 3 sections.

                    Now once that gets dialed in by another generation of PLs, when all of us old timer PLs get our groove back ;), then I think the PL role becomes much more rich when we add in the motorized, mechanized, logistic and aerial components of combined arms.

                    That is not at all to say that this is a rule for mission makers. It just might be helpful for TGU content to be supported by mission makers to create that common framework for the next couple months and see if it has an effect on our in-game leadership development. I will put my chips, my efforts, on this bet that it will.
                    |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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      That is not at all to say that this is a rule for mission makers. It just might be helpful for TGU content to be supported by mission makers to create that common framework
                      Precisely this is what sounded off above other suggestions here. It isn't the strict rule of "this number equates to a squad" for all missions.
                      Rather, it is a suggestions for standard conventional missions with conventional organisation structures. If it's a non-standard mission parameter, say playing in other scenarios such as; rebels, reconnaissance centric missions, special forces missions, etc. Then surely the mission maker has a freehand at it.

                      A framework for TG, which would correlate to the TGU materials. Which benefits all. I like that idea. :P



                      TGU Instructor · TG Pathfinder

                      Former TGU Dean · Former ARMA Admin · Former Irregulars Officer

                      "Do not seek death. Death will find you. But seek the road which makes death a fulfillment." - Dag Hammarskjold

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Honestly as a mission maker some standards would be nice. I think we all know we have freedoms but some standard guidelines for general use would be helpful on a maker and a player front
                        May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won’t.
                        -- Gen. George S. Patton


                        |TG189th| Cody

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          We need a standard to deviate from! : )

                          Comment

                          Connect

                          Collapse

                          TeamSpeak 3 Server

                          Collapse

                          Advertisement

                          Collapse

                          Twitter Feed

                          Collapse

                          Working...
                          X