How to enchance Team play?

[Victhor-ASH]

How can I look at the map if there are 30 players in my team and I can't figure out what player is part of my squad. Really what logic should I use to find the squadmate. Why not remove the squad and commander feature and let only the highest rank player in the game to have binoculars and call artilery.

What would be the reason of adding squad functions in the game if they aren't used properly. Why not remove the squad managemnt tab and make it only to talk by microphone. It is pointless to come with this ideea because you will keep saying that it wouldn't work but what I don't get is why there are hundreds of games which have visible squad members and work like a charm why wouldn't Red orchestra 2 be one of them? Oh don't say Realism we start again the MKB/AVT discussion. Or why would we need 3 types of artilery: mortar, heavy artilery and rocket artilery if almost no one uses mortar. Why not add only one artilery and make the mortar to be deploayable. And make more use of the binocles.

 

[ross]

How can I look at the map if there are 30 players in my team and I can't figure out what player is part of my squad. Really what logic should I use to find the squadmate.

Find the squad leader marker. If you find him, you find your squad. If you don't find your squad, you can assume they either just spawned, are pinned down, or don't care. Stick with your SL.

Why not remove the squad and commander feature and let only the highest rank player in the game to have binoculars and call artilery.

This is just about the worst idea I have ever heard in my life, from both realism and gameplay standpoints

What would be the reason of adding squad functions in the game if they aren't used properly. Why not remove the squad managemnt tab and make it only to talk by microphone.

Even if the SL is only using the mic to communicate he is still a rallying point for his subordinates and can fulfill a useful role to the commander by giving them their own orders, spotting arty, or even providing a forward spawn point.

It is pointless to come with this ideea because you will keep saying that it wouldn't work but what I don't get is why there are hundreds of games which have visible squad members and work like a charm why wouldn't Red orchestra 2 be one of them?

BECAUSE IT ALREADY WORKS

Oh don't say Realism we start again the MKB/AVT discussion. Or why would we need 3 types of artilery: mortar, heavy artilery and rocket artilery if almost no one uses mortar. Why not add only one artilery and make the mortar to be deploayable. And make more use of the binocles.

Mortars are for killing troublesome sniper/MG nests or cutting off a narrow chokepoint. Artillery is for area denial. Rockets are for clearing a large area immediately before an assault. Look, someone who spends most of their time playing Commander actually knows how to use artillery, amazing! Spend less time posting about how the game is too hard and more actually playing it or learning from good players and maybe you'll have less trouble. Experience trumps hand-holding rubbish every single time.

Thanks for not starting this post with "yes but" at least.

 

[EvilHobo]

Yes but in my opinion Red Orchestra is a game that does not need squads and never did. Players don't follow chains of command that the game forms, players follow chains of command that they create. This has been my experience with the series for 6 years. Ostfront did not have squads but people worked together in groups if they felt like it, not because the game told them they had to. They found each other because, if they wanted to, they communicated their positions. You should not force anything. The game can only encourage things to happen. I certainly hope that the game is able to encourage terrible people to go away.

FYI, as far as I know, squad members show up as green dots on your map and non-squad member friendlies are blue dots. No problem there, just your lack of awareness.

Players coordinating can be a beautiful thing. But the occurrence of such comes rarely. The game already has, as ross and others have mentioned, the means for players to communicate and coordinate if they so choose. Nothing more needs to nor should be done. I still believe game-built squads to be a blight upon the game not only because they are formed arbitrarily most if not all of the time, but because I worried that their inclusion into the game would lead to precisely a wasteful discussion such as this one.

Back to the titular topic: if you want to enhance team play, you have to play with team players.

 

[Proud_God]

Yes but in my opinion Red Orchestra is a game that does not need squads and never did.

The great advantage I see in squads is for the Team Leader: he can give more meaningful orders like: squad A attack objective B, Squad B check left flank, etc. This was not possible in RO1.

 

[ross]

Yeah, that's pretty much how I use it. Being able to say "one squad hold this, one go here" leads to a hell of a lot less confusion than "need some guys here... some guys there too... oh, balls, not that many". As it is, SLs can either actually lead their squad or be the commander's eyes; the commander can even leave it up to them if he wants. There's no need to abolish the SL and commander class, and no need to add any further control to them, either. They work just fine as they are because they can swing either way depending on who's using them.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

It leads to confusion and you can't type all the time for what a squad needs to do or where it needs to go something needs to be done to pull some weight for the leaders. Also I don't see the point of this function: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198045170754/screenshot/595846901626918583/?

It is supposed to make all squads function individually as as squad and be asigned orders by the commanders. It doesn't work at all. It is useless. Maybe it if you could see your squad members easyer instead of having them as green dots on the map also have theyr names in green but also use some feature to see them from far away.

When I played this match my team was getting killed like stupids because they didn't knew when to follow orders and what to do when asigned to theyr squad. It is too time consuming to type or to shout at your teammates to do something, these features should be used instinctively. Because for now nobody uses theyr squad to use theyr given orders.

 

[ross]

IF YOUR TEAM ARE IDIOTS THEN IT IS NOT THE FAULT OF THE GAME, AND CHANGING THE GAME WILL NOT SOMEHOW MAKE THEM ANY LESS IDIOTIC

YOU are the only person who wants this. YOU are the only person who seems confused. Nobody else has any trouble with this. The problem is YOU, not the game. I get along just fine as a squad leader, or when I am in a squad. I constantly see squad leaders issue orders, which their squads follow.

In any case, as EvilHobo said above, the game should not force players to stay together as a squad. It is their choice, and it shouldn't be taken away from them - especially if you get stuck with an incompetent moron of a squad leader.

Go play BF3 if you love it so much. This game is about TEAMWORK, not staying close to your little squad at all times. They are not always the same thing.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Dude have you read the post. I pointed out the reason why there is no need for a squad system because no one uses it. If all people think like you why are there such a large amount of players on the servers? If all people agree with you why isn't Red orchestra more popular than Call of duty?

To give you an example Counter strike didn't needed huge merchandise to make it famous. It was easyer to play and very user friendly. What you are suggesting is uterly stupid. You just want to copy the Ro 1 functions because you think they would work better in Ro 2. But why do you think they wouldn't? Maybe you fortold the feature in a cristal ball yay? So any game should be made as real as Ro 1?

What teamwork are you talking about a new player doesn't even know what mechanics to use or open the mic. If we all think like you the game should be only populated by veterans. Because it is too mainstream for you to have easyer mechanics to orientate in this game. You don't need easy mechanics just realism. But too much realism doen't really mean a game would be played by many people. If you try to play with 5 friends and play as a squad it is so annoying to orientate with your friends that you will be forced to play with the teammates you find. SO what is the reason of having in the first place squad mechanics?

 

[ross]

Dude have you read the post. I pointed out the reason why there is no need for a squad system because no one uses it.

EXCEPT PEOPLE DO USE IT, STOP MAKING UP UTTER CRAP. I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE USING IT. MY FRIENDS HAVE SEEN PEOPLE USING IT. JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY IN THIS THREAD EXCEPT YOU HAS SEEN PEOPLE USING IT.

(Sorry to mods/other users for the obnoxiously large text, but I just don't know how else to try and force this into his skull.)

If all people think like you why are there such a large amount of players on the servers? If all people agree with you why isn't Red orchestra more popular than Call of duty?

BECAUSE CALL OF DUTY IS A DIFFERENT GAME THAT APPEALS TO A MUCH WIDER AUDIENCE: CASUAL GAMERS. People who care about historical accuracy and teamwork will always be less in number than people who only own a console or PC to play with friends and only play CoD because it is so easy a lobotomy patient could play it.

To give you an example Counter strike didn't needed huge merchandise to make it famous. It was easyer to play and very user friendly. What you are suggesting is uterly stupid. You just want to copy the Ro 1 functions because you think they would work better in Ro 2. But why do you think they wouldn't? Maybe you fortold the feature in a cristal ball yay? So any game should be made as real as Ro 1?

Are you even reading my ****ing posts? How dense could you possibly be? THIS GAME DOESN'T NEED TEN MILLION PLAYERS TO BE A SUCCESS. IT IS AIMED AT PEOPLE WHO ENJOY REALISM AND HISTORICAL ACCURACY. You clearly do not enjoy these things so please just go away.

What teamwork are you talking about a new player doesn't even know what mechanics to use or open the mic.

If they are literally too stupid to open the controls menu and check the keybindings before they play then they shouldn't be on the internet, let alone playing this game.

If we all think like you the game should be only populated by veterans. Because it is too mainstream for you to have easyer mechanics to orientate in this game. You don't need easy mechanics just realism. But too much realism doen't really mean a game would be played by many people. If you try to play with 5 friends and play as a squad it is so annoying to orientate with your friends that you will be forced to play with the teammates you find. SO what is the reason of having in the first place squad mechanics?

If the game caters to retards, retards will play it. If it caters to the longtime fans and other intelligent life forms, new players with more than two brain cells to rub together will play it. Your argument is so astoundingly stupid I actually cannot quite believe you actually mean what you are typing. I want to think this is some kind of elaborate joke, seriously.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

You are a

People use mortars yes but it is so rarely used that I can't really see it in-game. So why wouldn't I use it rather than use the big guns. I know it has smaller reload time but people want to get kills and like that they get more kills. If I wanted historically ww2 game I wouldve bought Hearts of Iron. I don't think that Action mode makes the game such an elaborate and inteligent game from Call of duty it is rather copying it.

Yea why not make the game complicated and remove all the features. So that we have only the guns? Would that be realistic enough?

 

[ross]

Mortars are used all the time. Everyone but you sees it and agrees. We must be playing a different game or something; I am playing "Red Orchestra 2: Heroes of Stalingrad". How about you?

 

[captain pain]

I see mortars almost nonstop in nearly every single round I play when the map has artillery support.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

Yes but the point is why add 3 types of artilery? Why not add the mortars for manual usage like in Ro 1? Because in a real life scenario if you have to choose between those you surely would choose the largest artilery possible. Many players use artilery just for scoring kills they don't bother unsing mortars at all.

 

[ross]

BECAUSE ALL THREE TYPES ARE USEFUL FOR A COMMANDER WHO IS NOT AN INCOMPETENT MORON.

Mortars are precision artillery to destroy small groups or sniper/MG nests while allowing friendly troops to move close by.

Artillery is for area denial, cutting off a large space for a length of time, so you can move friendly troops in using it as a shield.

Rockets blow the crap out of everything in a huge area, destroying the enemy defensive positions and allowing your troops to attack into the target zone immediately after the last rocket hits.

THINGS SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN OUT OF THE GAME JUST BECAUSE YOU - ONE PLAYER OUT OF THOUSANDS - ARE TOO IGNORANT TO KNOW HOW TO USE THEM PROPERLY.

 

[captain pain]

Because of exactly what ross just said.

 

[Victhor-ASH]

I dont know what servers have you played but ive never seen players use mortars for a long time.

 

[Cwivey]

I used them yesterday. Worked quite well infact.

 

[Clowndoe]

Actually, by the same logic, since rockets are actually rare, then we should just put drivable trucks with katyusha launchers on them.

 

[ross]

I spotted for a commander who used mortars at least four times in one round yesterday. And I used them myself the day before that, and the one before that, and most of last week too.

People use mortars all the time. The problem here is that you are delusional.

 

[r5cya]

no one uses mortars? coulda fooled me. i drop another salvo, the second the timer runs down. i think this guy is playing on empty servers. that would explain why he thinks there's no team work and no one uses the mortars. he's the only human there.