Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

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

  • #16
    Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

    Originally posted by Wicks View Post
    ...it isn't the best idea to overly role play to the detriment of effectiveness
    Were you answering me or UNKL or both of us? I'm not going to knit pick but I have a differing view of what that term means. To me, playing your role means just that, acting line a GL or FTL would be expected to act. Was the dicussion of role playing alluding to the fantasy version of role playing?

    It also really depends on the needs of the players at hand during the mission. Some nights in the ARMA community, we have players who need to be given instuctions in laymans terms and other nights, we have a bunch of veterans including TGU instuctors and we have a much more "feature rich" method to our operations.

    The gifs are awesome, by the way, I really like seeing those things broken out in "black and white" animations.

    Is there a happy medium on field tactics versus virtual field tactics? Sure(an unspoken given). Each scenario calls for different results.

    We have an event mission slated for the end of this month that is almost Based around breaching and the proper way to handle each objective.

    Would love your input on [MENTION=17094]Wicks[/MENTION], would you like to assist us in our preparations, in an advisor role, so to speak. Meaning, you don't have to play, but [MENTION=109039]Noyava[/MENTION] will be leading the breach team and maybe this is a good opportunity to brainstorm or help realize the lessons learned in this thread.

    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


    • #17
      Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

      Maybe it will help if I share the thought process when I am looking at tactics to apply in the games I play. The first thing I do is look at 'application'. How applicable is it to the game, the game engine and the situation? Can it be done, how can it be done, perhaps most importantly should it be done?

      To answer that you have to look at what you're trying to achieve. Are you trying to solve a problem or perhaps work more effectively? If it's a problem how does that problem/scenario correlate to the real life scenario the game is emulating? Maybe it's something as simple as a shooting or movement technique. You then draw parallels between the game and real life and adapt the tactic or technique within the parameters of those parallels, discarding what doesn't fit, what isn't possible and isn't expedient (without sacrificing the spirit of what you are doing for expediency's sake). This in theory should leave with you a game specific solution that is both effective and realistic.

      Now realism is a goal in and of itself however it's much more than that. This is problem solving 101 to some extent. If you have correctly drawn your parallels between the game specific scenario and the real one whilst eliminating the superfluous elements you have a ready made solution that you know has been tested and proven in the real arena. This is no different to problem solving in any other walk of life. If I have a solution in one area that I can adapt to a similar situation elsewhere most of the work is done and I can then focus on polishing the execution.

      Example - Suppression. A simple yet highly effective military tactic, surprisingly underutilized by many players even in realistic games. However most players I know with a lot of experience will attest that when used correctly it is a devastating component of fire and maneuver. Real world tactic = effective in game tactic.

      Within the adaptation process you streamline it to suit your audience/environment in a manner that doesn't tie them up in knots, confuse them, have them referencing Wikipedia. Running through this process with every procedure and tactic you consider is a natural and desirable thing to do and the inevitable by product/s are simplified processes that can be followed with ease. However, first you need to have the discussion and put some thought into it.


      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

        @Dimi re role playing. I don't have strong feelings either way. I was adding to Paine's clarification of his earlier comments where he explained how our views were fairly aligned. I presume from the content of his posts that essentially he was saying it may not be effective to role play in the more traditional sense.

        Regardless not the topic at hand nor the purpose of the thread and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole any further. Here to talk tactics. I saw the mission stuff, may sign up if I am available, happy to talk to anyone about this sort of thing anytime. No expert, just an enthusiastic amateur with an almost unhealthy appetite for the subject.

        Anyhoo, back on topic.


        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

          Originally posted by Wicks View Post
          Agreed, agreed. Just didn't want people to fixate on the "don't worry about tactics" and "lone wolf" killing you parts of your post, which could serve to undermine the discussion.

          Controlled speed is crucial. Hence the value in discussing this stuff to establish a shared baseline of smart play. That shared understanding is what alows you to up the tempo. As opposed to just barrelling about as you say.

          With you on role play, not a fan per se but if people enjoy it good luck to them. I'm much more interested in utilising smart, effective real world stuff suitably adapted. Hopefully the adaptation is a given as its all mouse and keyboard after all.
          I didn't say don't use tactics! I said "don't get bogged down by tactics".

          A lone wolf killing a "tactical porcupine" is an example I will stand by as a useful case study in this balance we are looking for. The CQB methods used in clearing through a building or urban area, where guys stand directly next to each-other covering sectors (illustrated in the GiFs early in the thread), is not useful in SQUAD.

          The mouse and keyboard, not-clunky "feel" of SQUAD means that in a split second a guy can go from sprinting down an ally to full auto, accurate fire. It's not COD, but it isn't ARMA either. Even a settled, experienced player in that porcupine watching that sector might lose the 1v1 shoot out. More certain is that an enemy player waiting in a window or bush will win the 1v1 shoot out against a guy in a close formation moving and watching a direction. This means everyone around him is dead too, because they were standing right next to him and don't have the time to react to the threat.

          In urban areas, move in a less controlled, spaced out way that can be dynamic. Tactically. :)

          Dimitrius: "Take a Knee" is a phrase often heard by an army infantryman before being told to do something they really, really would rather not do.
          Stay together, communicate, don't give up.

          sigpic

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

            [MENTION=27635]Paine[/MENTION], we are in agreement, replying to two people at once is making this difficult that's all. It's about adapting some of this stuff to the game if you want to.


            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

              Originally posted by Paine View Post
              Dimitrius: "Take a Knee" is a phrase often heard by an army infantryman before being told to do something they really, really would rather not do.
              Ah yes =)

              Thanks for answering WICKS.

              Good discussion here.

              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


              • #22
                Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                Originally posted by Paine View Post
                A lone wolf killing a "tactical porcupine" is an example I will stand by as a useful case study in this balance we are looking for. The CQB methods used in clearing through a building or urban area, where guys stand directly next to each-other covering sectors (illustrated in the GiFs early in the thread), is not useful in SQUAD.

                The mouse and keyboard, not-clunky "feel" of SQUAD means that in a split second a guy can go from sprinting down an ally to full auto, accurate fire. It's not COD, but it isn't ARMA either. Even a settled, experienced player in that porcupine watching that sector might lose the 1v1 shoot out. More certain is that an enemy player waiting in a window or bush will win the 1v1 shoot out against a guy in a close formation moving and watching a direction. This means everyone around him is dead too, because they were standing right next to him and don't have the time to react to the threat.

                In urban areas, move in a less controlled, spaced out way that can be dynamic. Tactically. :)
                If I may return to focus on the steak here and not the peas, the above comment is a really good jumping off point for talking about appropriateness and adaptation.

                Stacking up in the traditional/reality based method does have it's weaknesses and isn't appropriate in every situation. In fact as suggested it may have very limited viability. So why is that and is it an absolute?

                Well imo it's situational, much like it is in reality. I think Paine is absolutely correct in saying that you are extremely vulnerable to something as simple as a lone individual stumbling on you or rounding a corner and hosing you down. So why would you do it? Why would you ever consider that 'tactic' and in what situation? (not advocating using a close stack, but the examination of the tactic is what's important).

                Well one scenario I can think of where you may want to stack, however briefly, is breaching a compound...if you have overwatch from another squad. I would say it's pretty much a given that you don't cluster like that unless you have good security, you need someone watching you, the exits and ideally the internals of the compound as you approach (however you intend to assault). You may want to have people gather briefly at your breach points, even if only for a second or two, so that you can flood the compound rapidly and overwhelm your opponent.

                I see time and again people in all sorts of games trying to breach in one's and two's at best, often singly from two different breach points. Almost trying to chip away at the defenders one target at a time. This simply presents one target at a time to entrenched defenders who are alerted at the first shot.

                The problem is they have a defensible position with more cover, can revive more easily in relative safety in comparison to you and may have some form of spawn/ reinforcement mechanism. Assaulting individually unless extremely well coordinated is more often than not kill feeding. The assault will falter against decent opponents and you'll have a helluva time reviving. So in that sense there is some value to being able to put two men through a doorway almost simultaneously. Harder for one defender to track two targets that split, harder still if they are both shooting back. Couple this with another breach elsewhere with 2-3 shooters and then the defenders have problems. So some form of regrouping and staging before assaulting can be advantageous if you agree the merits of putting more than one body into the breach at a time.

                Essentially, for me at least, it's not that the specific tactic has no place in squad it's that you have to evaluate the whole process and utilize what will work and adapt the rest. Not just because you 'have' to do it realistically but because there is proven merit in the principles. They just need to be adapted to the scenario. I'd argue that if you had no knowledge of the stacking process beforehand you would probably arrive at a similar conclusion through problem solving after a few casualties from going in one at a time. It's logical isn't it. I'm moving into an objective with a potentially unknown layout, via a breach that will most likely be contested by an entrenched opponent, screaming "hi ho silver away" and hoping for the best may not cut it. I need someone with me for the extra gun and extra target, how do I arrange that? So maybe the principle is sound, the purpose for stacking in that case has some merit, it's the execution that needs adapting.


                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                  Wicks that last post and the previous discussion regarding the validity or the appropriateness of a particular tactic to a situation is the crux of an issue we deal with in TGU. Don't worry, not going to derail this fine thread. I have content for this original topic too.

                  But first, why this discussion is so important is that it does challenge some apparent "truisms" of MOUT that I can see deserve a much closer quartering. In examining each approach you learn more than room clearing but you also learn much more about effective sectors of fire, about coordination, about weak spots, weapon control, about exposure to fire, individual movement techniques...in this simple exercise of clearing a room it becomes quite complex when you break it down. After going through considering each of these posts, which I'm still need to catch up on, a player will have many more tools and more ways indeed of applying them.

                  In Arma you can shoulder the weapon on either shoulder, and then lean. Been doing that a lot more now and in that also become much more aware of how much of my player I've been exposing even though I was slicing the pie. But the same lesson is paying dividends as I move around the battlefield otherwise (although my death streak last night would argue otherwise). "Lessons, they are lessons", I tell myself.

                  The animations is THIS post are incredible. Ghost1Bravo, come back to TGU buddy.

                  Let me share with this discussion an example of what I've been lead to believe is the standard approach. This is the TGU MOUT slide presentation that I had been preparing for our MOUT course. I must now, and I thank you all for it, completely rewrite it.

                  TGU DRAFT MOUT Course Presentation
                  |TG189| Unkl
                  ArmA 3 Admin
                  189th Infantry Brigade Member
                  SUBMIT A RIBBON NOMINATION OR CONTACT AN ARMA ADMIN
                  Thank You To our Supporting Members -
                  "Place your playable units and do your tactical barbie" - Roque_THE_GAMER

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                    Unkl that draft is excellent!

                    I don't think there's need for throwing the baby out with the bathwater just yet, it's a great bit of work. I think the key is adaptation which is something you stress throughout and a inherent quality of being flexible and fluid.

                    To return to a micro example for a moment and look at adaptation. One of the simplest things that I wanted to improve when playing Arma 3 was entering a room. No specific set up/scenario in mind other than the room is most likely occupied by hostile forces and no hostages etc. So I wanted to be able to get one man in or at least open the door and immediately clear the threat the door and make the fatal funnel a little less fatal.

                    To do this in Arma 3 you have the interaction menu to open the door. This is a sort of scroll and click type operation and that takes time. The manipulation of game controls somewhat parallels the actions you would have to take in real life in that there are mechanical steps to opening a door and you can only do one thing at a time and time is the killer here.

                    The problem is the second that door opens someone is going to send a bunch of rounds down range, at you. What if you want to pop the door and then frag the room before entering. That's another weapon manipulation in game (and real life lol). Then you have to get your weapon back up and get your sight picture back. So the question then becomes how can I do it faster. What needs to happen at what speed. Ultimately the question becomes like a bad joke, "How many men does it take to open a door?"

                    Well in my opinion, in this simplified scenario, the answer is three!

                    One man crouches to the hinge side of the door. This is your doorman for want of a more glorious title. His sole job is to pop the door and then step back and get back on his primary weapon. The second man positions himself in such a way that he can carry out his sole primary purpose, tossing a frag into the room from a crouched position. He then steps back a smidge and gets his gun back up. Simultaneously, as the door is opening, your third man immediately engages the threat to the door. He can do this from a few feet back if needs be but his rounds should follow the door opening almost instantly and if needs be over the head of the guy tossing the frag.

                    Frag goes off and Doorman is then first into the room as he has his weapon up by now. Alternatively the 'fragger' and 'door man' can pie the door from opposite angles if there's adequate space. Lastly you could simply push your primary shooting straight in on the back of his rounds if the situation demands it. All situational, all to be determined by the Squad/Team Leader at the time, based on the relevant factors. Very teamwork focused, faster and more effective than trying to do it all yourself like it's a singleplayer game and something of a hybrid of RL techniques and what works in game.

                    Very simple example but I tested it and it actually works pretty well.


                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                      [MENTION=38102]Unkl[/MENTION] Ya I would probably be interested in getting involved w/TGU. I don't think I have ever attended an event but have "creeped" time to time on some of the forum posts.
                      Also like Wicks said, I wouldn't abandon the work you put in. I'm a believer in learning those basic room clears just like in your presentation AND THEN having the students take a step back and start putting the questions into their heads "When would we do it this way?" "When would we not want to do it this way", ect. Then start introducing some more advanced and alternative ways.

                      I concur w/ [MENTION=27635]Paine[/MENTION] , don't let tactics bog your element down. Use the training/templates as a guide to "structure chaos". When I'm playing Arma or Squad with random people I never push hard on any CQB tactics other than an occasional "Lets High/Low the corner" or "PIE off those doors". Sometimes in game I'll randomly find myself next to another friendly that by his word usage that we are on the same page and then we can flow throughout a structure bouncing off each other, but this is rare.

                      However, like [MENTION=17094]Wicks[/MENTION] has said TG is about bringing this type of play into video games. Even if you don't create elements that are hitting on all cylinders and have SOPs developed on all these situations its always good to train to a higher standard because then the lower standard is that much higher.

                      Like I said before, most of my time in public servers I'm very vague about tactics and manuevers. Most of the time a simple "Keep flowing towards the objective, bound and cover for your buddies!" is what I leave it at.

                      When I'm playing with my "boys" its a different story. Most of them are fellow 11B & 0311 infantrymen and we actually practice a lot of this stuff over and over to where we have developed SOPs for our group. We will stack on doors and do things very similar to real life. Since we have worked on it together we don't get bogged down. For example a "real" stack on a door shouldn't be a long drawn out process. It should be predetermined which entry point your moving to. When the team gets to the entry its a quick "tactical pause". Last man immediately says "4 up" to ensure we didnt lose anyone on the way and then its an immediate breach. BUT that takes a lot of time and practice for a team to get on that level. If a group isn't familiar with each other that process would usually end up with 4 guys moving to an entry, standing there way too long and then catching a NOOB Tube that kills all of them.

                      Lastly here is an Urban OPs SOP video the group I'm in put together for the new guys that join. You'll see some things in it where we have adapted real life tactics into Arma with things like who opens the door, who tosses the frag/flash, ect.

                      https://www.youtube.com/embed/BRd0ey...JQ6KFQlMzAkbNi

                      *******How do I Embed videos on this forum????

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                        Wicks, I do think that two or three guys breaching through the same door after a few frags is a good tactic that works in the game for all the reasons you said. In practice, after separating the fire support guys from the assault guys, achieving this is pretty simple.

                        I say "Everyone throw one frag first", then "go go go" after the explosions. ideally fire support is suppressing buildings we've identified as dangerous during.

                        Numbering a stack or assigning paths in the compound isn't really something that is practical in the time you have, i find. However, telling one guy specifically to go one way, works: "John Wiles go Right". Then you go a different direction. The rest are free to react in the door based on where we call out targets.

                        Here's a tip when entering an enclosure: (hold the applause on the quality, thank you, thank you)


                        Here's a game-specific question, what do we do about barricaded entry points?

                        Right now the only way to do it is to have your guys shovel down the barricades. So, place fire support in a position that is able to shoot into the compound with GLs and Rockets on the other side of the barricade to prevent counter-shoveling, then place two guys on shovel-down and the rest to cover them/throw nades when fire support is reloading.
                        Stay together, communicate, don't give up.

                        sigpic

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                          [MENTION=27635]Paine[/MENTION] yeah the current implementation of barricades/defences and their deconstruction is a pain as regards assaulting. I'm hoping as Squad evolves we'll get more options like demo and maybe a ladder.

                          I don't have much to offer above what you said. Get 2 squads involved. Suppress the compound heavily, keep up a stream of frags over the wall and smoke the entrances so a couple of foolhardy heroes can crawl forward and start shoveling.

                          Ideally you want to create a right old racket and sustain it to provide cover and distraction as your 'diggers' burrow their way in. Not particularly elegant but if their really dug in with no open entrances you're pretty much left with siege tactics lol.

                          If there is an open entrance I'd try and get eyes on the inside of the compound from elevation if possible, assuming we're talking about a fob. Dependent on numbers and foot traffic you might be able to sneak right in there if you can approach from a blindspot. Requires a fair bit of discipline, good approach work and a degree of luck.

                          If it's a bit busy with regular spawns and people exiting through your entry point or if you're suspicious its being guarded I might get someone to pop smoke close by as a distraction and then whack a lat through the door. Should cause a bit of shock and awe and kick up a fair bit of dust. Ideally put at least 4 guys through the door right behind the lat and have them sweep the compound.

                          I'd also have a couple of lads pull security on the outside somewhere, maybe a little out of sight. They can then act as a qrf if the enemy is smart and has a satellite RP nearby.


                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                            Not sure if someone else has thought of this, maybe I can take credit for bringing this tactic to squad from irl, let's call it ...

                            Paineless Entry
                            1. Place an "assault radio"
                              -close enough to the compound you are attacking so that you can place ladders etc
                              -close enough to the support fire position that you can place ammo at their possition (for rocket and GL reloads).
                            2. Have fire support engage the compound with lots of things that go bang and twang while assault moves in and places ladders/sandbages/ammo for nades
                            3. Have one or two on the assault team pop up on ladders outside the barricade for precise fire
                            4. Almost instintaniously breach from another ladder, connecting wall, or rooftop.



                            TLDR, mess up defenders as much as possible with explosives while avoiding the doorways entirely.

                            EDIT: I forget to emphesize, the entire list above should be done in 2-3 minutes, as quickly as possible, otherwise you are just going to get your fire support position overrun and/or your assault team shot while they are digging ladders.
                            Stay together, communicate, don't give up.

                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                              Liberal usage of smoke, too.

                              "You milsim guys are ruining the game."
                              |TG-42nd|Wicks-Today at 4:47 PM

                              No it was fine mate I'm just an *******

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Re: Dynamic entry vs Limited Penetration!

                                Originally posted by disposableHero View Post
                                Liberal usage of smoke, too.
                                If you are trying to rush the position and you think you have more bodies, maybe.

                                But Smoke on entry has a few disadvantages:
                                Tells them when and where you are attacking
                                Conceals the defenders as much as the attackers

                                Use it as a distraction instead. You know where they are, they don't know where you are going to attack from, don't give up that advantage! Throw it where you won't be coming from.
                                Stay together, communicate, don't give up.

                                sigpic

                                Comment

                                Connect

                                Collapse

                                TeamSpeak 3 Server

                                Collapse

                                Twitter Feed

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X