• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Weapons per squad.

Like Dwin posted before, i believe this is quite accurate
example of typical Grenadier Company.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/toe/GerGren/grenadier_company.htm

Comapny have 3 rifle platoons

each have
1 SL
6 Rifleman (one is mg assistant)
1 MG
1 Assault Trooper

That means 27 soldiers
3 SL
18 Riflemen (Part of those can use semi/sniper-rifles)
3 MG
3 Assault Trooper

5 left so we can add (incomplete) Heavy MG squad

1 SL
1MG
2 Riflemen

and finally

Company Commander

So
8 Smg's
4 Mg's
20 Riflemen (including semi and sniper -rifles)

http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/43_organ/kstn_1176d_15-12-42.html
From there you can find german heavy tank company in december 1942

http://niehorster.orbat.com/011_germany/42_organ/kstn_0138c.htm
And motorized rifle company in november 1941
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I hope that squad layouts are somewhat left free. So for instance in competitive play people can fit together squads in the best way they seem fit.

Sure we have fire teams in the game so you have an assault and suppress group. But I think in the end it will be more logical for a squad to be formed of alike people.

Like a rifle squad that is flanking and trying to give fire support from there, and an assault squad that actually goes inside the building.

I think it should be a standard squad layout and then the officer can move people between squads, but ultimately the individual players should have the final word to put themself in their squad of preference (if you play with friends).

So if the officer doesn't want to mix with the squads there is a standard and if players want to play with specific players they have this option.

I think this would bring a bit more variation and be fun gameplay wise. Too bolt heavy and the squad easily gets overrun etc.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think it should be a standard squad layout and then the officer can move people between squads, but ultimately the individual players should have the final word to put themself in their squad of preference (if you play with friends).

So if the officer doesn't want to mix with the squads there is a standard and if players want to play with specific players they have this option.

I think this would bring a bit more variation and be fun gameplay wise. Too bolt heavy and the squad easily gets overrun etc.

I like that idea, some leaders may want to mix it up, while others would want diversity.

I imagine it would be safer to mix rifles and smg's in a squad, but putting all your SMG's in one squad would throw a powerful punch. It just depends on the strategy/map.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I think it should be a standard squad layout and then the officer can move people between squads, but ultimately the individual players should have the final word to put themself in their squad of preference (if you play with friends).

So if the officer doesn't want to mix with the squads there is a standard and if players want to play with specific players they have this option.

I think this would bring a bit more variation and be fun gameplay wise. Too bolt heavy and the squad easily gets overrun etc.

How brings it more variation in game play if the squad set-ups are set in stone.

If like in tanks squad leaders could say what people are needed in his squad and lockout certain classes. Then a squad leader would have the ability to decide what works best for him and adapt for different maps and situations.

I think if anything it brings more variation and fun game play wise to allow variation in how squads are set up.
 
Upvote 0
Zetsumei said:
How brings it more variation in game play if the squad set-ups are set in stone.

If like in tanks squad leaders could say what people are needed in his squad and lockout certain classes. Then a squad leader would have the ability to decide what works best for him and adapt for different maps and situations.

I think if anything it brings more variation and fun game play wise to allow variation in how squads are set up.
Depends upon how it is done. It may be viable as an option for clan play, but the general population needs a little more handholding. Otherwise, it'll become completely unbalanced and un-team oriented. An example would be the sniper fest that some BFBC2 maps became.

Giving the Squad Leader total control over loadouts will more than likely result in a complete disaster. As an extreme example, teams may likely end up being either 100% combat engineers or have absolutely not coherency at all with respect to the map being played. Even if the SL does a good job, someone is going to be dis-gruntled because they don't like role left to them by the SL (or because "I don't like what is left of the SL loadout. He made a stoopid team and I can't play what I want." /ragequit)

If you're saying that squads can consist of whatever mixture of classes available from the loadout of the map (as determined by the mapper), I have no qualms abou that. But allowing the SL to pick and choose the classes he gets (within that pre-determined loadout), opens up a can of worms. For example, what if there are but two combat engineers available for the map and one SL wants them both. What if the other SL needs or would like one? That gets pretty sticky.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Depends upon how it is done. It may be viable as an option for clan play, but the general population needs a little more handholding. Otherwise, it'll become completely unbalanced and un-team oriented. An example would be the sniper fest that some BFBC2 maps became.

Giving the Squad Leader total control over loadouts will more than likely result in a complete disaster. As an extreme example, teams may likely end up being either 100% combat engineers or have absolutely not coherency at all with respect to the map being played. Even if the SL does a good job, someone is going to be dis-gruntled because they don't like role left to them by the SL (or because "I don't like what is left of the SL loadout. He made a stoopid team and I can't play what I want." /ragequit)

If you're saying that squads can consist of whatever mixture of classes available from the loadout of the map (as determined by the mapper), I have no qualms abou that. But allowing the SL to pick and choose the classes he gets (within that pre-determined loadout), opens up a can of worms. For example, what if there are but two combat engineers available for the map and one SL wants them both. What if the other SL needs or would like one? That gets pretty sticky.

Maybe the platoon leader should be able to select how many classes per squad, for example, there can be up to 9 SMG's per team, the platoon leader can select whether he wants a whole squad of smg's, or wants to distribute them across the squads. The same could go with lmg, if the team got 3, he could put them in each squad, or put them all in one squad.

Like I said before, having distributed classes would be "safer", while putting all the smg's in one squad would be risky but would pack a serious punch ETC.

I think their could be 3 default team make ups....

Standard platoon, with 1 officer, 1 sniper, 1 10 man squad made up entirely of smg's, 2 10 10 man squads with 1 MG, 1 squad leader with smg, and the rest riflemen.

Mixed platoon with 1 officer, 1 sniper, and 3 10 man squads each with 1 MG, several smg's, and mostly riflemen.

CA platoon, with 1 officer, 1 sniper, 1 10 man squad with squad leader, MG, and mostly riflemen, 1 8 man AT squad made up of sappers and AT with smg's and pistols, and 1 12 man conginent of tank crewman.

And then of course tank only maps...
 
Upvote 0
Giving the Squad Leader total control over loadouts will more than likely result in a complete disaster. As an extreme example, teams may likely end up being either 100% combat engineers or have absolutely not coherency at all with respect to the map being played. Even if the SL does a good job, someone is going to be dis-gruntled because they don't like role left to them by the SL (or because "I don't like what is left of the SL loadout. He made a stoopid team and I can't play what I want." /ragequit).

Logically there are total map load outs and that shouldn't change. I just think that how the map load out is mixed over the different squadleaders shouldn't be fixed in any way. If anything if a squad leader is an bastard then everybody should be able to leave that squad leader and just join someone else.

If anything if you want cooperation among squads then the squad sizes should be severely limited in player amounts. Good teamwork with a group of 8 people is difficult as communication can easily get cluttered, teams of 4 people are probably the easiest to manage while remaining a respectable size.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
How brings it more variation in game play if the squad set-ups are set in stone.

But I didn't write that they are set in stone. I said it should be up to the officer and individual players where the players have the final word.

In the beginning of a game there should however already be squads setup, so people don't have to think about getting in a squad everytime they join a new game. You have the right to choose but you don't have to.
 
Upvote 0
I always like the way AA had squads unlock as more people joined a server. One of the reasons this would be good for HOS is that you wouldn’t start a server that isn’t full yet with everyone having a specialized weapon and 1 or no riflemen.

Officer(unlocks after 2 squads are full)

Squad A
Leader
Smg
Smg
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen
Squad B (unlocks after squad A is full)
Leader
Smg
MG
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen

Squad C (unlocks after squad B is full)

Leader
Smg
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen
Riflemen

Sniper (unlocks after squad A,B are full)
 
Upvote 0
1 sniper per team, maybe 2 if its a long range map.

I think in real life a squad was made up of riflemen, with one heavy MG and the squad leader had an SMG.

Of course they eventually started to give out more SMG's, and eventually there were entire squads equipped with SMG's.

I'd like to see it where on earlier maps squads are mainly made up of riflemen, but later on in the battle maps should have squads should have more SMG's since they were highly sought after after the CQC. And then of course one squad should be made up entirely of SMG guys!

Of course I'd like to see semi auto rifles issued sparingly, with many Soviet squad leaders using SVT's. And the Germans should actually get limited numbers of PPsh's later on in the battle since they were highly sought after and used alot by the Germans.

If germans get ppsh's later, they should also get svt 40's.
 
Upvote 0
I think it started off as one per squad on both sides, but when the Soviets realized their MG's had less firepower they upped it to 2 or 3 per squad.

2 per squad would be sufficient because the German MG's do have more firepower, so it would balance out more and be realistic. Just like my suggestion of having some PPsh's for the Germans.



Thats a good idea, but if there was no limit it might become unbalanced, like a whole platoon of SMG's, and also it would encourage more weapon swapping, like, oh here comes a tank, so EVERYBODY switches to AT.



Thats for the whole war though, the thing with the SVT was it was too complicated for most Russians, so it was often used by veteran soldiers, NCO's, and certain units like Russian Marines. In fact I would like to see on the grain elevator map, sinces its Russian Marines, have the riflemen be able to choose between SVT and Mosin.

I also think German heroes should get SVT's since they were highly sought after, and we're talking about a game with no G43's and very little MP44's.

ppsh's/svt's being sought after would make more sense if the playeer looted them off of fallen enemies.
 
Upvote 0
The standard German squad around 1942 would have one MG34, a squad leader with MP38/40, an assistant squad leader with either a K98k, another smg or if available a G41 and the rest riflemen with K98k. However, due to capturing weapons/getting issued more smgs for close combat that equipment was not as set in stone as one might imagine.
About the SVT40: IIRC in the beginning of WW2 this was the standard weapon for soviet squad leaders, until the PPsh41 was produced in big enough numbers.
 
Upvote 0
That would lead to a LOT of balance problems and would be a complete pain in the behind to filter from your serverlist.

Well give a limited number of classes, and you can distribute them as you wish.

Say your team gets 3 MG's, you can put 1 in each squad or all in one squad, or if your team gets 9 assault classes, you can put them all in one squad or distribute them.

But not where its like you can have a whole team of smg's or AT ETC.
 
Upvote 0