Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

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

  • A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

    Fellow mission makers,

    I would like to keep this brief. I feel that the method of grouping units that has been popular lately makes squad- and fireteam-leading more difficult than it should be. An example of a squad format that I just played through:

    Squad Leader
    Fireteam 1 Leader
    Fireteam 1 Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 1 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 1 Rifleman (M136)
    Fireteam 2 Leader
    Fireteam 2 Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 2 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 2 Rifleman (M136)

    My problem with this format is that the fireteam leaders become superfluous. I was 1FTL, and never once actually issued an order to my unit, because the squad leader barked everything out over group channel. This sucks! Not only was I unable to do my job, but the squad leader got bogged down by having to manage 8 other guys. I propose we switch formats to this:

    Squad Leader

    Fireteam 1 Leader
    Fireteam 1 Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 1 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 1 Rifleman (M136)

    Fireteam 2 Leader
    Fireteam 2 Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 2 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
    Fireteam 2 Rifleman (M136)

    In this format, each fireteam is its own group. My theory works like so: each squad moves to its own Teamspeak channel, so that all 9 men can talk between each other. However, since each FT is separated, it turns Group channel into a fireteam-only method of communication. This rocks! Now, the squad leader only has to worry about 2 guys (fireteam 1 and 2 leaders), and each fireteam leader only has to worry about 3 (their unit). Best of all? A squad leader can turn channel commander on and use TS to relay orders he gets from command to his FTLs.

    Thoughts?

  • #2
    Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

    On paper this looks great, and I'm sure it can work, but last time we did this it caused massive comms problems, mostly because people are used to "old-fashioned" squads. It was one of HOTMACHINA's missions, the one with the initial attack on the airfield (Overload?), and I believe it used the default F2 fireteam layouts. Squad leaders couldn't find their squads, squad members couldn't find their SLs, and FTLs didn't know what to do. We eventually managed to figure it out, but it involved a lot of people getting field promotions or getting moved to other squads simply because no one had any idea where they belonged.

    It's still a good idea, but it suffers from the fact that, in the end, it's a hack to overcome A2's limitations, and causes problems in other areas (such as the lack of squad member diamonds, where applicable).

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

      How about something like this:

      1-1-A
      Squad Leader
      Fireteam 1 Leader
      Fireteam 1 Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 1 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 1 Rifleman (M136)

      1-1-B
      Fireteam 2 Leader
      Fireteam 2 Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 2 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 2 Rifleman (M136)


      Or this:
      1-1-A
      Fireteam 1 Leader(Squad Leader)
      Fireteam 1 Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 1 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 1 Rifleman (M136)

      1-1-B
      Fireteam 2 Leader
      Fireteam 2 Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 2 Assistant Automatic Rifleman
      Fireteam 2 Rifleman (M136)


      The SL/FTLs could communicate through TS and grunts should have the TS muted.

      Sapientiam Autem Non Vincit Malitia

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

        The current setup is used by US Army Infantry squads. You have the SL to give direction to the two fireteam leads and only them. Then the fireteam leads take charge of their guys and roll out. I think its more of a micromanaging problem than a structure problem.

        [unit][squadl][command2]

        KnyghtMare ~You could always tell the person holding the gun to your head you would like to play on a different server...

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

          I am with cttoide. FTLs wanna do their jobs. But SLs also wanna do their job as well. With the proposed format managing a squad becomes extra hard. Also soldiers do not have chevron-ed diamond to guide their general sense as a team.

          I think from squad leader's perspective it is easier to keep everybody together and keep the fireteams separate in relative to SL position is better than everybody trying to figure out which one of those undiamonded people are your SL... From FTL perspective it does sound appealing to make it organized. But it is a organizational nightmare from Squad Leader's perspective.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

            Scope's suggestion works very well, I can say this from experience.

            It does, however, require that the FTLs be able to move without a green diamond to follow. The structure described is the standard structure when using the F2 framework as a template, and F2 also provides a simple way to enable markers to label teams on the map (ASL, A1, A2... BSL, B1, B2). This helps if an FTL really doesn't know where his fireteam is located in relation to other fireteams in his squad or SL, but it still requires the FTLs to be more observant rather than chasing a green diamond with stripes. Grunts will not notice much difference.

            I was never too happy with having the SL and FTLs in the same fireteam either... the squads seem too small for that (usually the 9 man structure that Scope mentions). I think SL should lead a larger group (three fireteams) and each FTL should lead three infantry. The other way, 3 leaders are leading 6 grunts... which doesn't seem like a good leader-follower ratio. I would be happier if the 9 man structure was at least expanded somewhat with another fireteam.

            This is more along the lines of the Marines "Rule of Threes"

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organiz...ombat_Elements

            Just a matter of preference.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

              just a realism note change that Assistant AR to a M-203 man, the M249 is not a crew served weapon, I carried my own ammo in iraq, 2 800 round bags (200 rnd Assault packs). One backpack on me one in my ruck or molly pack addon. The only thing someone carried for us was our spare barrel bag. BTW is barrel changes coming to arma?

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                Originally posted by Boondocksaint View Post
                just a realism note change that Assistant AR to a M-203 man, the M249 is not a crew served weapon, I carried my own ammo in iraq, 2 800 round bags (200 rnd Assault packs). One backpack on me one in my ruck or molly pack addon. The only thing someone carried for us was our spare barrel bag. BTW is barrel changes coming to arma?
                Holy s***.

                So basically, if you're in charge of the M249 you had better be genetically crossed with a Clydesdale horse.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                  When you think about it with all the load bearing technology out there... It wont feel like a lot while walking or running but it will feel like a ton if you try to get up from laying on your back or sitting down... but back to the topic lol
                  Scopes Idea would be fantastic if this werent a public community and all the SLs could depend on their FTLs to lead the squad as a whole through the mission or had the mindset that anyone in a FTL position knows what to do as an FTL. You only find that kinda stuff at private communities
                  but we can always give it a try
                  Last edited by Jack Bauer; 02-07-2010, 11:43 PM. Reason: spelling mistake

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                    Heres how it works best IMO, a group of 8:
                    Squad Leader
                    Fireteam 1 Automatic Rifleman
                    Fireteam 1 Grenadier
                    Fireteam 1 Rifleman
                    Fireteam 2 Leader(M136)
                    Fireteam 2 Automatic Rifleman
                    Fireteam 2 Grenadier
                    Fireteam 2 Rifleman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                      With response to the chevron dilemma, ACE2 features, by default, group markers. If left enabled, isn't this better than chevrons when it comes to managing a group? As a squad leader, all one would have to do is glance at the map to see where each of his individual fireteams are positioned.

                      At any rate, this is no hard-and-fast rule. But I'm beginning to refuse playing as a fireteam leader when that leader is inside a larger group, because the potential for micromanaging is just too great. As most missions are set up now, having 9-14 men in a single squad is ugly, incoherent and usually a game of follow-the-leader.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                        Personally, and I know I'm not there to be able to back this up via Teamspeak or anything, I use a 9 man Squad with sometimes another man as a corpsman or combat firstaider. I think that as a Rifle Section/Squad the best use is to have them all in the same Squad as per Scope's initial diagram.

                        Really the issue comes down to leadership and the ability to command and control. If you have a single squad leader trying to micromanage your right, a FTL's position is superfulous. That being said I'd like to address the issues I've noted in this post.

                        Squad Grouping: With 9-10 guys all in the same squad I think that is the best way to go because of incompetence (and I don't mean in the negative way) of persons that cannot either read maps, have effective situational awareness, or those persons whom may still be nay-sayers about TS vs VON (not to bring that up again). This allows for overall command and control, AND if all else fails the Squad Leader can say "Ok, guys we're all over the place, regroup on me" and he can readjust his squad. It helps to ease the burden of situational awareness and gives a solid back bone for the FTLs to fall back on if they are lost.

                        Communications: As per the 9-10 man diagram, the Group Level Chat should be used by the Squad Leaders and FTLs only, unless someone is calling out a contact. This is an enabler on several folds. Firstly it allows for the Squad Leader to communicate his orders/instructions down and everyone can listen, thus allowing for more situational awareness among the lower levels and vice-versa with the FTLs communicating up/asking questions etc. Second, if the FTLs have to communicate something to their fireteam on Group chat for whatever reason, it allows the SL to oversee what the FTL is doing ensuring that the SL's intent was properly communicated. Third, don't forget you can type. I'd rather type in group something than on side or command. The FTLs first line of chat in game should be at the Direct Chat level, they're fireteam (situation dictates) should not be further than the reach of Direct at any time.

                        Layout: Every mission is different, never assume there is one set standard for any given task. What if your Mechanized, Motorized, Dismounted, Weapons Detachment, enemy is Infantry, enemy is Armour, Air threat is high, etc. All these things should be taken into consideration before you even step off. Never go off one set standard ever. No situation can be the same. Further to that, if someone spawned in as a "Rifleman (M136)", that DOES NOT MEAN HE MUST BE THAT WAY, all he has to do is change his weapon (mission dependent) and then BAM!, he is something else.

                        Now, don't get me wrong, there is no ultimate right way to do things. Heck the whole Teamspeak as a Squad Level comms that Scope mentioned can be exceptionally useful.....if you have the experienced leaders. Not everyone here is at the high level as some, so I say play to the lowest level and gradually bring that level up as the competency improves.

                        I'll close with this. The issue here Ladies and Gentleman is not the set-up, or the break-down. It is the ability of the person in command at any level. If you know you micromanage a lot and like to lead, be an FTL. If you like to see the bigger picture, be the SL, and if your a Monet, Da Vinci, or Michaelangelo, then CO.....or quit playing games and make some money with your stick figures, whatever. Know your strengths and weaknesses and play to be the role that suits you. I think there is no issue with set ups, just know yourself and then pick your role.

                        P.S. Boon, our ARs carry they're spare barrel, as well as the 1600rds, 1 x M72 66mm, 2 Frags, 2 Smokes, 6.5L of water, and then there Armour and stuff......**kisses**

                        Pro Patria

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                          Originally posted by Zedic View Post
                          Personally, and I know I'm not there to be able to back this up via Teamspeak or anything, I use a 9 man Squad with sometimes another man as a corpsman or combat firstaider. I think that as a Rifle Section/Squad the best use is to have them all in the same Squad as per Scope's initial diagram.

                          Really the issue comes down to leadership and the ability to command and control. If you have a single squad leader trying to micromanage your right, a FTL's position is superfulous. That being said I'd like to address the issues I've noted in this post.

                          Squad Grouping: With 9-10 guys all in the same squad I think that is the best way to go because of incompetence (and I don't mean in the negative way) of persons that cannot either read maps, have effective situational awareness, or those persons whom may still be nay-sayers about TS vs VON (not to bring that up again). This allows for overall command and control, AND if all else fails the Squad Leader can say "Ok, guys we're all over the place, regroup on me" and he can readjust his squad. It helps to ease the burden of situational awareness and gives a solid back bone for the FTLs to fall back on if they are lost.

                          Communications: As per the 9-10 man diagram, the Group Level Chat should be used by the Squad Leaders and FTLs only, unless someone is calling out a contact. This is an enabler on several folds. Firstly it allows for the Squad Leader to communicate his orders/instructions down and everyone can listen, thus allowing for more situational awareness among the lower levels and vice-versa with the FTLs communicating up/asking questions etc. Second, if the FTLs have to communicate something to their fireteam on Group chat for whatever reason, it allows the SL to oversee what the FTL is doing ensuring that the SL's intent was properly communicated. Third, don't forget you can type. I'd rather type in group something than on side or command. The FTLs first line of chat in game should be at the Direct Chat level, they're fireteam (situation dictates) should not be further than the reach of Direct at any time.

                          Layout: Every mission is different, never assume there is one set standard for any given task. What if your Mechanized, Motorized, Dismounted, Weapons Detachment, enemy is Infantry, enemy is Armour, Air threat is high, etc. All these things should be taken into consideration before you even step off. Never go off one set standard ever. No situation can be the same. Further to that, if someone spawned in as a "Rifleman (M136)", that DOES NOT MEAN HE MUST BE THAT WAY, all he has to do is change his weapon (mission dependent) and then BAM!, he is something else.

                          Now, don't get me wrong, there is no ultimate right way to do things. Heck the whole Teamspeak as a Squad Level comms that Scope mentioned can be exceptionally useful.....if you have the experienced leaders. Not everyone here is at the high level as some, so I say play to the lowest level and gradually bring that level up as the competency improves.

                          I'll close with this. The issue here Ladies and Gentleman is not the set-up, or the break-down. It is the ability of the person in command at any level. If you know you micromanage a lot and like to lead, be an FTL. If you like to see the bigger picture, be the SL, and if your a Monet, Da Vinci, or Michaelangelo, then CO.....or quit playing games and make some money with your stick figures, whatever. Know your strengths and weaknesses and play to be the role that suits you. I think there is no issue with set ups, just know yourself and then pick your role.

                          P.S. Boon, our ARs carry they're spare barrel, as well as the 1600rds, 1 x M72 66mm, 2 Frags, 2 Smokes, 6.5L of water, and then there Armour and stuff......**kisses**
                          Yeah but there is a misconception here. I don't carry stuff I don't need lol like water scotch works just fine

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                            Thats only cause they only expect you to carry your gun, not use it you big mule you **kisses**. Thats why they let you get drunk on a patrol...ever wonder why they have that rope around your neck? lol

                            Pro Patria

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: A Fireteam Proposal for Mission Makers

                              As zedic said, it boils down to command and control styles. I prefer to have entire sections in one group this way it is clearly differentiated in the lobby screen. If I have competent fireteam leaders I like to take a detached approach and just monitor them and correct them when they are doing something which interferes with the execution of my intent. If I have passive or otherwise weak fireteam leaders I like to micromanage what is going on.

                              I like to be able to see everyone who is in my section through the GUI, especially important for JIP missions.

                              Also keep in mind that fireteam leaders are unnecessary in some situations - if the squad is operating as a single element for tactical reasons then the fireteam leaders have a reduced responsibility. In army sized sections I am more prone to command the squad as a single element, especially in a situation in which other elements are unable to support me, or the squad is needed in a line to maximize frontage and fire output.

                              FTLs become really important with bounding overwatch, especially for USMC-sized sections.
                              Last edited by tyrspawn; 02-08-2010, 03:53 AM.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X