• 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/

Compiled Squad/Fireteam Ideas - Realistic Brainstorming

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
W

Witzig

Grizzled Veteran
Jan 16, 2006
2,189
52
Germany
#1
Basically i want to collect all Squad/Team related Ideas in this Thread, as long as they are brought forward with thought and mature language. The Goal is a realistic Way of implementing Squads/Teams and the Commander Functions necessary, without debalancing the whole Game. This might make it necessary with some Ideas to change existing Maps to make it work.

What i like to know from someone in the Know, is how Bots get assigned to Squads/Teams in Ostfront (they form up Squads/Teams if enough are present).

So now we go down and seperate different Types of Squads/Teams, since there are several approaches to implementing them, i will sumarize them shortly:

-Squads/Teams based on Realistic Fireteams: Basically the Fireteams are preset by the Map Designer and are made up in historic Fashion, depending upon Weapon Selection (MG/Gruppenf
 
Last edited:
#4
I think the more important question is, is any of the squad talk possible on U2.5, without seriously 'hacking it' and hampering performance.

I just don't recall ever having seen a U2.5 game that used any type of squad structure. Doesn't mean it's not possible, mind, just that it hasn't been done yet :)


This goes along the lines of 'things for the U3 project', IMO. Not squashing the brainstorming, just taking an honest look at effort-in to result-out. If the game doesn't already support squad type set ups, then the end result for ROOST wouldn't be worth the hundreds of man hours that it would take to design, implement, test, retest and all that.


To the best of my knowledge, TW hasn't made any comments pro/anti 'squad', to answer your question.
​
 
Upvote 0
#6
Ron said:
Does anyone know where tripwire stands on the subject of introducing squads or do they feel they're not needed.
Click to expand...
It is something we have thought about - not too much as yet :) Its an area we'll be thinking through in more detail over the coming months.

It is hard to come up with a nice, simple solution that can be used on both public and clan servers, with anything from just a few players up to a full 32.

So we're listening :)
 
Upvote 0
#7
I imagine something like a combination of America's Army and BF2 for RO.

Begin by deciding what would historically be in a small squad during WWII. Then, make a selection screen divided into 2-3 squads. Have each postion (weapon) in a squad selectible by only one person. That person can either keep his weapon or swap it with another person if he feels generous. Then, squads should close and open depending on the amount of people in the server (ie: make it so positions in B and C squads can't be selected when a server is fairly empty). This would keep a team from having 3-4 snipers or mg's when only 5 people or so are on the team.

That is basically how AA is now, but RO should take it one step further. VOIP should have separate communication for squads. The commander should be able to set objectives and rally points for squads. Also, the squad leader should be able to have direct VOIP contact with the commander so arty can be called in (simulating field radio contact with high command). The squad leader shouldn't be able to set rally points or objectives because their role is to carry out orders, not to dictate strategy.

The one thing a squad leader should be in sole control of is spotting arillery for the commander to call in. Obviously, the amount of arty for a map would need to be adjusted if there are going to be 2-3 squads at one time. Close arty support was very common for squads in WWII and a combat effective squad leader (SSG) would be quite used to calling in strikes.

Spawning on a squad leader should not be implemented. Having a team member die in battle would simulate the dwindling of force amount and the great need to keep your squad members alive during batle. If a squad leader wants to regain his force strength he needs to either fall back and get replacements or hold his position and wait for reinforcements. This should help keep squad members and leaders from doing "stupid stuff" because they are counting on each other.

One thing I would like added to the game to help complement this type of squad system would be several non-armed transports for each side. The way things are now, trying to keep a squad together is way too difficult because of the size of some maps. Once a few members of a team die, the squad gets spread out because the people respawning take too long to get back to the front. I can understand why there aren't a lot of half-tracks and scout-cars with mg's running around, but a few unarmed vehicles like kubelwagens or even lorries would work great.

If adding transports is out of the question, maybe allowing team members to spawn closer to their squad leader's current position would be the solution. The squad member would still have to run a ways to the front, but this would simulate reinforcements being dropped off by transports closer to the action.

Just some thoughts!
 
Upvote 0
#8
Well if the UT engine can handle vehicle chat why not squad chat?

But , in all these discussions of squads , commanders abilities etc. one thing is being over looked IMO.

The implimentations would enhance the game play BUT..it is SOOOO dependent on the players on the server being willing to join in and listen/obey.

Even now , knowing full well that an organized team supporting one another can easily win against an unorganized group of players , it's hard to try an impliment any kind of team work let alone get anyone to pay any attention to any of the commanders current abilities.

They will even run into an artillery barrage after being warned to pull back or not enter the specific region you are about to bombard.
 
Upvote 0
#9
[CoFR]BeerHunter said:
Well if the UT engine can handle vehicle chat why not squad chat?

But , in all these discussions of squads , commanders abilities etc. one thing is being over looked IMO.

The implimentations would enhance the game play BUT..it is SOOOO dependent on the players on the server being willing to join in and listen/obey.

Even now , knowing full well that an organized team supporting one another can easily win against an unorganized group of players , it's hard to try an impliment any kind of team work let alone get anyone to pay any attention to any of the commanders current abilities.

They will even run into an artillery barrage after being warned to pull back or not enter the specific region you are about to bombard.
Click to expand...

I fully agree. It does depend a ton if the players want to work together. The goal of this, I think, is to give everyone the necessary tools. If people don't want to use them, then that's a shame. But, I believe if the tools are there then it will give more insentive to work as a unit than there is now.

I have to admit that even with all of BF2's arcady features, it highly surpasses RO in teamwork in 90% of games played. When I played BF2 there was just about always some coordination between players in achieving objectives and even using some effective combined arms. I believe this is because there is a bigger emphasis on giving people the necessary features to form squads and implement them in BF2 than in RO.
 
Upvote 0
#11
gonzman said:
As far as the squad systems go I think they are only effective at 64 players, If you squaderise the game at 16 players per side (tops) it's going to take from the platoon level feel by linking you directly to an even smaller ammount of players.
Click to expand...
Platoons have a commander (usually a lieutenant) and then fire team leaders (NCO's). This kind of division was used in WWII and it would be very historically realistic to divide a 16 member sized team into smaller fireteams. When the server has less people in it, the game could automatically close off teams and thus simulate a single fireteam against another single fireteam. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

That said, 64 player servers would be awesome in RO.
 
Upvote 0
#13
Witzig said:
They said, if there is a way to implement this in a Realistic Way, they will do this, and this Thread is to get opinions how to do it, not if someone likes it or not :)
Click to expand...


Oh I'm totally indifferent to it, just not if it's going to cause strain a strain on the game. I was just trying to answer the last part of the post is all, seems the devs have spoken ;)
 
Upvote 0
#14
How bout fireteams are both half of a reinforced squad, that would make the squads to be just about 6-8 players per fireteam and then there are Snipers separately.

example:
Fireteam 1:
4-6 Rifkemen
1-3 smg's
1 Mg

Fireteam 2:
5-7 riflemen
1-3 smg's

Or in the other hand you could make the "defencive fireteam" and "offencive fireteam" when there would be:

Fireteam 1 "offence"
1-2 rifles
4-6 smg's

Fireteam 2 "defence"
6 rifles
1 smg/sniper
1 mg
 
Upvote 0
#15
karhuwaari said:
How bout fireteams are both half of a reinforced squad, that would make the squads to be just about 6-8 players per fireteam and then there are Snipers separately.

example:
Fireteam 1:
4-6 Rifkemen
1-3 smg's
1 Mg

Fireteam 2:
5-7 riflemen
1-3 smg's

Or in the other hand you could make the "defencive fireteam" and "offencive fireteam" when there would be:

Fireteam 1 "offence"
1-2 rifles
4-6 smg's

Fireteam 2 "defence"
6 rifles
1 smg/sniper
1 mg
Click to expand...

Yup, that's what I suggested above. Thanks for breaking down the numbers because I was too lazy to do it!
 
Upvote 0
#16
CaptRanger said:
I fully agree. It does depend a ton if the players want to work together. The goal of this, I think, is to give everyone the necessary tools. If people don't want to use them, then that's a shame. But, I believe if the tools are there then it will give more insentive to work as a unit than there is now.

I have to admit that even with all of BF2's arcady features, it highly surpasses RO in teamwork in 90% of games played. When I played BF2 there was just about always some coordination between players in achieving objectives and even using some effective combined arms. I believe this is because there is a bigger emphasis on giving people the necessary features to form squads and implement them in BF2 than in RO.
Click to expand...

What about speeding up capture times for squads that have their members alive and together?
 
Upvote 0
#18
Squad system:

Assault team: (5/6 players)
Teqnique - Teamlead - Semi auto
Kaare - Semi auto
Kurtkaare - SMG
WItzig - SMG
Leifern - Engineer w/smg
Open slot - [Boltaction]


Fire team (supression team) (5/5 Players)
WEbster - Teamlead - Semi auto
Vera - Bolt action
Sasha - Bolt action
Lobo - Bolt action
Vitaplex - Bolt action

Support teams: (3/3 players) (no teamleaders)
Firehawk - Sniper
Imsdahl - MG
NOkia - MG

Armour Team 1: (3/3 players)
Skidmark - Tank commander/gunner
Mephisto - Driver
Heith - MG

------------------------------------
* In the beginning of a round you choose team and then class within that team.
IE if you wanna join as MG you are automaticly on the support team.
* The members of a team may votekick a teamleader (server option)
* Team may votekick members for ill behaviour.
* The teamleaders have their own VoIP channel
* Each team has individual Squad VoIP channels
* Members in a team will see teamtags on their squadleaders at all times
* Members in a team will see Voip Icon within 50m
* Support teamtags will be visual for all within 100m(?)
----------------------------------------------
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#19
Lo all, first post on these forums but i thought i would add my own ideas into this thread ;).

I like the idea of having squads because im often in a situation of 'where the hell was everyone !! ><'. I think it needs to be less specialised though. I would say that anyone can form and lead a squad to prevent players from occupying specific classes which could do this. Working in a squad would have benefits, it would essentially pass on any score made by anyone in the squad to everyone else but only if the other players are within a certain radius and/or line of sight. However perhaps how frequently a player gets points for another players achievements could be modulated by the amount of points the receiving player has gained himself.

So if the CO of a squad (the one who set up the squad in the first place) kills 3 opponents he would pass on an equal number of points to the squad. These points would be distributed according to who got the most kills while been in the squad. So if there were 4 other players in the squad, the 3 highest scoring ones would each get a point.

This encourages squads to stick close together and to act and fight as a squad. It also encourages players to return to the squad (i like an afore mentioned idea of displaying the location of your squad leader on the map or hud).

Perhaps the radius players have to be to their squad leader could also be adjusted within level properties, who knows :).
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu