Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Men < Squads < Team. Make up of teams.

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

  • [GUIDE] Men < Squads < Team. Make up of teams.

    A team in PR can be thought of as an entity with a purpose or a goal. In order to accomplish its goal, PR allows the team with several limited resources. A rational team would be aiming to maximize the utilization of all resources. The team to successfully accomplish that would be victorious. I would like to open up this discussion of team makeup / squad purposes to maximize the utilization of resources. This is a discussion and thus opinions regarding this matter should be openly shared. The hopeful purpose of this thread is a to inspire players to take up the CO role, open a place for exchange of ideas in this matter, and to better our gameplay and enjoyment.

    Let us assume the following resources are available to the team. This make up is true for many BLUFOR teams in different campaigns in PR.

    Resources include:

    32 skilled men
    1 - 2 transport helicopters (Chinook, Merlin)
    1 attack helicopter (Apache)
    1 heavy armored fighting vehicle (Warrior)
    1 - 3 armed squad transport vehicle (Jackal)
    1 - 2 light small transports (ATV)
    1 - 2 Utility trucks (URALs)

    Types of possible squads:

    Mechanized Infantry:
    6 men as infantry (Medic, Officer - Squad Rally Point (SRP), Light AntiTank, Riflemen - extra SRP, Engineer, Heavy Gunner)
    3 crewmen (Commander, Driver, Gunner)

    Purpose: Main assault force. Frontline fighting force taking flags supressing FOs. With 9 people as its make up it can easily be transported around with its Warrior. As Warrior is a precious resource in PR, the infantry must protect them always.

    Problem: Maintaining and protecting the Warrior. An engineer could be able to provide limited repair. Rearming might become troublesome.

    Infantry:
    6-12 infantry (2 - 3 fireteams. Size is SL's preference)

    Purpose: Main assault force. Even without a mighty Warrior backing them, a full 12 men squad with cohesion will run over a mechanized infantry.

    Problem: Transportation of all those men. With this many people Squad Leader should plan for several Squad Rally Points to be available for the squad to be deployed in different places.

    Quick Reaction Force:
    4 infantry (Doing anything including building a FO requires 4 members to be in the vicinity)

    Purpose: The most flexible group of men. Get in and get out quickly type of guys. They can be building FO's, supporting other squads, performing rescue and med evacs, capturing flags, and stopping attempted flag capture. A Jackal or 2 ATVs would be ideal transportation for them. Little bird if available could serve them well. One ideal situation is for them to carry and maintain a heavy anti tank infantry. Many times a squad could face an armor without being able to engage it. QRF can quickly identify a safe location for them to take it out and take care of the problem.


    Attack chopper crew:
    2 pilot crewmen

    Purpose: Pilot and gunner of attack choppers talk a lot between each other. Constant chatter. So they deserve their own squad.

    Logistics:
    4 men minimum

    Purpose: Logistics can run transportations for the bigger squad. Build FO's into inpenetrable fortresses. Build defensive structures around a key flag. Rearm vehicles, squads, and weapons. Logistics are actually very busy men. Especially in PR.


    Mortar:
    1-2 max

    Purpose: Provide indirect fire support.
    Problem: Rearming

    Transport pilots:
    1-2 pilot crewmen

    Purpose: Handle and maintain chinook (2 men job, ideally) or Merlin chopper.
    Problem: Logistics can absorb this squad. Is it an extra voice on the command channel? Do they really need their own squad?




    So there are the possible squads with different purposes running around the battlefield. Hopefully mix and match of these types of squads would show up in game. So post your ideas about a team. Would you agree a QRF to have 4 men, or is 2 enough? 12 men infantry too big? Mechanized infantry or dedicated armor :icon5:

    Share away.


  • #2
    Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

    Here's my shot:

    Heavy Mech Inf[16-20 men]: This team is the big earner where available. The main assault force of any team should be well equipped in both manpower and armor. The idea of such a large team is the control offered. This could be seperated in half just as easily.

    Componenets:

    Two IFVs* [6 men]
    -The Workhorses. They cary supplies/troops to the field and provide a capacity to engage multiple types of targets and also force recon if need be. This is a combined element with one vehicle being considered the 'leader'.

    Two Fireteams [4-5 men]
    -The Breadwinners. These guys capitalize on the force the IFVs bring to the table. They clear out and secure the points with overwhelming numbers after they've been softened by overwhelming fire.

    One Command Element [2-4 men]
    -The CEO. This element is nessicary to stay alive and keep the rally point up, active, and maintained. Priorities is given to his vehicles' well being which can not be so easily replaced. Its on this element's shoulders to coordinate all other sections of the team so that they work like an orchestra and not just a bunch of noise makers.


    *Must be IFV class IAV. An APC is hardly capable of keeping frontline duties against an intelligent and equipped team.

    Comms classification:
    -Direct: open to all, forced to non-leading Fireteam elements.
    -Group: For Fireteam/IFV<->Command Element and each other. Only FTLs, Commanders, and the Squad Leader use.
    -Vehicle: Forced to IFVs

    Color Coding
    Command
    FireTeam1
    FireTeam2
    IFVs


    ================================================

    Rear Assault/Ambush Team (RATs): I have yet to try this team out and have mixed feelings on its use. Such a team would concievably be focused on hindering the supply elements of the enemy team. This means a large focus on "Anti-" class weaponry which is hard to maintain to my understanding. By its nature it must be small and compact but entirely efficient if not more than efficient.

    The heavier vehicles should not be engaged if possible. Just relay positon/route and aide in its destruction.

    Size: 4-5

    Components-
    1 Offcier<Rally>
    1 Anti-Air (if team has Air Transit) if not 1 Engineer
    1 Anti-Tank (Light prefferably, the single Heavy would be best on field)
    1 Rifleman (ammo)
    *1 Medic

    *by nature of its mission chances are if found the team will need to make a hasty retreat or suffer catastrophic loss with or without medic. Medivac/retreat is perhaps best option.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

      I'm going to add in one type of squad here that a couple guys on the server tried out last night.

      Ground Crew:

      The ground crew could conceivably be a part of the transport squad however these gentlemen used their own squad for it while they tried it out. Basically as the pilots set out on their transport or supply mission they'd load the supplies into the chopper and whatever else was required (anything from a spare tire to a small medical box to a full out FOB crate or two). As the choppers completed their mission in the field and were en-route to main they would tell the ground crew what supplies were to be required for their next run as well as whether or not fuel, repairs (or even a medic had the pilot or other passengers been wounded) etc. were necessary. Before the choppers had even touched down the appropriate supplies, trucks etc. were already in position to fill the choppers needs. This allowed the whole logistics time to be sped up enormously. Prior to the ground crew's existence in other rounds on the server the pilot himself had to shut down the chopper, run to the trucks initiate refuel, repair and then go get the towing tractor and go to the supplies, whereas with the ground crew this is all setup already usually before the chopper touches down in the first place as well as receive medevacs should they come in.

      The ground crew however should consist of a maximum of 4 people and anywhere between 2-4. (Please Note: None of the below people and their roles require a gun except perhaps the medic should he need to ride in the medevac chopper.)

      Person 1: Rifleman with 4 patches and one morphine and one adrenaline.
      Person 2: Same as above.
      Person 3: Same as above.
      Person 4: Medic to help in receiving medevacs or healing the pilot.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

        Apologies for not reading the OP clearly!

        I'll play along... but with my take on leadership in PR and map/team specified.

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

        For Eagle Claw as Takistan I'd have.

        West Infantry [10]
        Classification: Basic Infantry
        -Fireteam Alpha (4)
        -Fireteam Bravo (4)
        -Fireteam Charlie (2) (Command)
        Assets: Kits delegated by Squad/Fireteam Leaders-
        Allowed the following: 1x Light AT, 1x Medic, 1x Combat Engineer, 2x MG, 2x Grenadier
        Mission
        Assault West Line.

        East Infantry [10]
        Classification:
        Basic Infantry
        -Fireteam Alpha (4)
        -Fireteam Bravo (4)
        -Fireteam Charlie (2) (Command)
        Assets: Kits delegated by Squad/Fireteam Leaders-
        Allowed the following: 1x Light AT, 1x Medic, 1x Combat Engineer, 2x MG, 2x Grenadier
        Mission: Assault East Line


        Armored Support
        Classification: All Armored Vehicles
        -4 to 6 Personell (Crewmen)
        Assets: 2x BMP-2 + Shulka AAA
        Mission: To provide transport/support to both infantry team on a moments notice.

        Logistics
        Classification: Rearline FOps surveyor.
        -4 Personell
        Assets: Urals

        Reserves
        Classification: Motorized Fast Moving Infantry
        -4
        Assets: All Kits, 4 Wheeled Cars/Trucks
        Mission: To support the team in any facet needed. Initially a Rear Assault Team (RAT) with a mission of targeting enemy Helocopters before they can properly supply the British Frontlines.

        -----

        As this mission has Two seperate lines that branch of to TWO linked Locations East and West Infantry teams will coordinate between assaults and defense up each line.

        So East will go to Takmyr and hold while West secures compound and overwatch.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

          I am not really keen on 20 man infantry squads either tactically or politically (keeping the server happy). Tactically it is putting an awful lot of eggs in one basket. As regards public relations its key that you have everyone's buy in on this otherwise it looks like a massive exercise in ego. You are effectively saying "I am going to be in charge of 50% (if not more) of the infantry on the server". Kinda selfish if others don't want to play ball. If they choose not to you are still effectively hampering their chances of being combat effective due to lack of manpower available to them. I am not sure about people coming onto the server and telling me they are my Ground Commander for the day and to hell with my plans. Now whilst that may not be the intent, there is a danger that it will come across like that.

          I also appreciate that this discussion has relevance to highly organised games etc however I would advise caution when attempting this in public play. The concept layouts above are very nicely thought out and I personally would love to see even more experimentation on this front. Let's just be careful how we go about testing it, I don't want loads of reports of 'people not following orders' and counter claims or people issuing 'invalid orders' and being 'bossed around by self appointed generals'. You know what people are like:row__577:


          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

            Yesterday I wound up commanding 15 infantry when one of the terrible squad leaders ragequit and his squad who had been dying trying to take NW Crossroads on Zargabad AAS joined my two man squad which had successfully secured the point with nothing but crewman kits.

            I simply split the squad into four groups (sniper team, 5 man squad, 5 man squad and my 3 man officer, medic, javelin group.) Using the fireteam assignments I successfully got all yellow squad members in one capture zone and all blue squad members on another. By running interference with my own fireteam between the two points we were able to tie down the enemy while still capturing very quickly. We wound up losing a round that had been a certain loss by only 70 tickets (which I chalk up to our pilots). In that time I still was able to teach 14 people how to properly form a line, assault a hill, coordinate with mortars and light armour etc.

            For competitive gameplay that makes a lot of sense. If we were doing an event I'd expect there to be the maximum number of infantry in one squad not in several split into 'fireteam' squads. One platoon (understrength/full) with three internal alpha, bravo, charlie squads that can all see each others loation on the HUD. That makes platoon formations, lines, wedges etc. much easier to coordinate. Fireteam leaders in a large unit become squad leaders and the basic principles of fire and maneuver allow for much more tactical diversity, coverage and internal communication.

            I'm a big fan of the transition away from the crap 5 man elitist locked squad of dedicated jokers/pwners ripping around Ramiel in a HMMWV chasing their own quest. The larger units offer more tactical possibilities and move the scope of conflict up from the small unit to actual team participation.

            Ideally for events/competitive gameplay we should have 1x infantry platoon, 1x artillery fireteam, 1x armor squad, 1x logistics/headquarters squad, 1x air transport squad with the company commander facilitating coordination between the platoon, its transportation, fire support and supply rather than allowing 3 squads of infantry to function autonomously and compete with each other for supply/logistics.

            Obviously this concept will become even more important as we are able to get more players (more than the 32 per team current) onto the server.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

              The ground crew idea is almost impossibly helpful for aircraft, even one guy can cut down the time required between sorties by 25-50%. I think the optimal number is two guys; One medic and one rifleman. It's one of my new favorite roles in a game to play.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                Why ideally 1 infantry platoon?

                Bearing in mind even with expanded player numbers the amount of people is not to scale for the assets/area to cover. Factor in multiple objectives and you again have all your eggs in one basket. I would argue that dependent on situation it is equally valid to have two 'platoons' of infantry (obviously not to scale) that can allow fire and manoeuvre over a far wider expanse of terrain as they are not tied at the hip. In addition you then have the option of assaulting more than one objective if needs be.

                There is difference between tactical doctrine and dogma. All tactics need to be flexible and appropriate to the situation on the ground.


                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                  Let's remember the squad rally point that is meant to simulate a larger force, meaning that a squad of 10 or so would become a small platoon if you count those extra twelve rally point spawns.
                  ​​​​​​​

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                    Originally posted by Wicks View Post
                    I would argue that dependent on situation it is equally valid to have two 'platoons' of infantry (obviously not to scale) that can allow fire and manoeuvre over a far wider expanse of terrain as they are not tied at the hip. In addition you then have the option of assaulting more than one objective if needs be.
                    If you read carefully what I said, I described a unit which I lead that successfully -did- assault two points in simultaneity. If a platoon is split into 3 squads + HQ then it can feasibly attempt capturing up to three points with administrative support located at the least active.

                    Multiple squads is basically squad leader anarchy, promotes inter-squad competition and a culture of elitism or 'buddyship' especially if those squad leaders feel they are above the orders of an overarching commander who has not 'earned' respect (whatever that means). So by putting all infantry under the clear leadership of one squad leader who is answerable to one commander you cut out anybody who might have a problem with authority. At least with the big squad everybody is of the same status, not one unit of 6 players who have all been playing PR/ARMA forever and who don't respect anybody's opinion that they don't skype with weekly (thereby being prone to viewing themselves as more important than they are).

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                      Whoa, nice way to generalise fictional groups as a way to lend credence to your argument. Is a 6 man group any less desirable then someone apointing themselves Defacto groud commander and ordering around other players whether they like it or not. Teamwork works both ways, if you read what I said carefully I stated that this was fine as long as there is whole team buy in (I am mostly referring to public play, which I also clarified).

                      I haven't dismissed the notion of a large group of infantry, merely posited that suggesting there is a one size fits all solution is at best debatable.

                      Putting everyone in one squad does not mean "everyone has the same status" as you put it. In fact quite the opposite. Instead of multiple people and view points contributing to the chain of command (when asked) you have a CO perhaps and a Ground Commander. That is a very singular vision and in the extreme dismisses a lot of experience and knowledge.

                      one unit of 6 players who have all been playing PR/ARMA forever and who don't respect anybody's opinion that they don't skype with weekly (thereby being prone to viewing themselves as more important than they are
                      No idea where this came from however it is a fairly unnecessary and negative statement. The current ruleset, (cribbed from PR:BF) which I implemented here, clearly state that you must follow CO and SL orders, so the above should never be a problem.

                      Multiple squads is not squad leader anarchy, if it is, get a better CO and squad leaders.


                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                        Originally posted by Wicks View Post
                        I am not really keen on 20 man infantry squads either tactically or politically (keeping the server happy). Tactically it is putting an awful lot of eggs in one basket.
                        +1

                        I agree with Wicks on this one.

                        I prefer to see more than one squad per round. Rather than 1 OMFGP0wnzer squad. Besides, it just makes sense. Besides, imagine the when the said squad leader needs to issue orders when being attacked and flanked. Massive group chat failure. (Yes, only leader using Group would still cause issues)

                        Since, this is about a fictitious TOE.
                        Besides the typical 4 man fire team classes. I encourage the non-leaders to exclusively use Direct Chat. Only using Group if respawned or delivering important info.

                        But the layout of the squad will depend on what your primary and secondary tasks are. As Wicks mentioned "All tactics need to be flexible and appropriate to the situation on the ground."

                        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


                        • #13
                          Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                          Since we are on the subject of Squad organization:

                          I've had most of my successes attributed to 8-12 Sized squads with 10 being my ideal number in most circumstances. Its not that I can't manage more, its that I don't feel comfortable taking more than half the team in my one squad as wicks has said, too many eggs too few baskets. Now if player count went up to 50 a team I'd certainly pick 12 as my primary number.

                          The justification follows with the way I like to lead (2 Fireteams + one Command element) which is a delegation of tasks and transfireteam cooperation combined with its effectiveness by numbers/force. My idea is that any Attack Point needs only one fireteam within its radius, the rest of the squad focuses on supporting fire and manuever, and if need be attacking an enemy fortification nearby.

                          In my opinion I'd much rather prefer two 10 Infantry squads than one 15 and one 5.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                            Originally posted by 1n7r3p1d View Post
                            If you read carefully what I said, I described a unit which I lead that successfully -did- assault two points in simultaneity. If a platoon is split into 3 squads + HQ then it can feasibly attempt capturing up to three points with administrative support located at the least active.

                            Multiple squads is basically squad leader anarchy, promotes inter-squad competition and a culture of elitism or 'buddyship' especially if those squad leaders feel they are above the orders of an overarching commander who has not 'earned' respect (whatever that means). So by putting all infantry under the clear leadership of one squad leader who is answerable to one commander you cut out anybody who might have a problem with authority. At least with the big squad everybody is of the same status, not one unit of 6 players who have all been playing PR/ARMA forever and who don't respect anybody's opinion that they don't skype with weekly (thereby being prone to viewing themselves as more important than they are).

                            Having played ACE/ACRE, BF2142, and other titles with IHS squad members they have been a joy, they were friendly willing to teach, and allowed me to tag along with them all of the time even though I am sure at the beginning I was more hindrence than help to them ^^



                            Fate whispers to the warrior "You will not survive the storm."
                            The warrior whispers back, "I AM the storm."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Men &lt; Squads &lt; Team. Make up of teams.

                              Originally posted by 1n7r3p1d View Post
                              Multiple squads is basically squad leader anarchy, promotes inter-squad competition and a culture of elitism or 'buddyship' especially if those squad leaders feel they are above the orders of an overarching commander who has not 'earned' respect (whatever that means). So by putting all infantry under the clear leadership of one squad leader who is answerable to one commander you cut out anybody who might have a problem with authority. At least with the big squad everybody is of the same status, not one unit of 6 players who have all been playing PR/ARMA forever and who don't respect anybody's opinion that they don't skype with weekly (thereby being prone to viewing themselves as more important than they are).
                              I have no idea where elitism plays in to how we choose to structure squads. I remember quite well a round of Op. Sisiphys last night where my team of 10ish worked with your team of 15ish. There was some good coordination going on and I doubt it would have been more managable if you had 25 people under you.... Cooperation is teamwork wether in a squad or in a team. I let anyone willing to teamwork (and even those who don't) in my squads until I reach the limit of what I think is effective.

                              Also another reason to not do this and keep squads small is the Squad Leader Rally. By keeping squad sizes beneath or at 12 you at afford a reasonable mulligan to your squad as a whole. Personally I have no problem with the idea of a person in charge of all the infantry who is not the commander... I infact love the idea of subordinates under the CO who command whole sections of the team as this is a proper delegation of tasks. I've heard that CATA of PR-BF2 did this and they won their battles consistantly and stunningly.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X