Squad structure

[QUOTE=Slip]
Hey Tarrnation,
I'm still moving forward with a training outline to work on with my family and friends (I have family members that are special forces that are interested in playing but, are currently deployed) so we can be effective at PS2. Let me know if this is of use and I'll keep them coming...

Also, this is a work in progress so, any input would be GREATLY appreciated as no one person knows everything & I'm sure there is a way to apply the same basic tactics to armor & air but, I'd not be the best to work that angle.



An effective Squad has a least 2 FireTeams.
An effective FireTeam has at min 3 troopers… 4 is better, 5 is best.

It's Important that we designate Team Leaders & Sergeants in front of everyone and hammer into a privates skull they LISTEN to their TL or Sergeant immediately because weather or not a TL or Sergeant has made the right choice is not relevant… SPEED & UNITY is the most crucial factor when operating as a squad.

Various roles for a FireTeam Trooper.
	1. Rifleman
		a. Can be TeamLeaders & Sergeants
		b. Light Assault
		c. Engineers
		d. Medics
	2. Medic
		a. Can be TeamLeaders & Sergeants
		b. Obviously Medics are the only class in PS2 that fit this role!
		c. If using "overwatch" maneuvers its best to keep 1 medic in each fire team.
	3. D.M.R. (Designated Marksman)
		a. Infiltrators
		b. Engineers
			i. With a Battle Rifle
		c. Heavy Assault
			i. With a Battle Rifle
		d. Medic
			i. With a Battle Rifle
	4. Grenadier (Underside Grenade Launcher)
		a. Only available with Gauss Compact S
			i. Light Assault
			ii. Engineer
			iii. Medic
	5. Heavy Gunner
		a. Heavy Assault

Some things not considered in this FireTeam set up that I would like help with is Specific cert load out requirements to be effective… (I only know what's best for Engineer) & The CC (Crowd Control) Factor that comes into play… laying tank mines, claymores, turrets, etc… I feel we need a designated role in the squad for that and if that’s the case maybe Engineers need to be excluded from fulfilling the DMR role? IDK maybe I'm overthinking it.

Here is a video I used as reference:
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aziRcxocCHE[/url]
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tarrnation]
While "fireteam" assignments may work well in real life, I'm not sure if/how this will effectively translate ingame as I've found that it's best to be versatile - especially considering that certain situations call for certain squad dynamics. One example would be an armor column rolling in on your position which may call for the entire squad to switch to a class that has an AT rocket launcher (heavy/MAX) or AT turret/mines (Engineer) or pulling armor of our own in order to eliminate the threat. Same could be said if we were to suddenly encounter a zerg of enemy aircraft in which case AA would become a priority.

There are also other things that come into factor like nanite availability. Suppose for example, your squad has 4 maxes, 2 engineers, 2 medics, 2 infiltrators, and 2 heavy assaults and the entire squad is suddenly wiped out while inside of a sundy due to a tank mine or something just moments after deploying. the guys who were maxes will no longer be able to afford max suits so others will have to step in and fill that role for a while.

That being said, I don't agree with assigning "static" roles to any squad. However, I do agree with making them more structured as in having a certain amount of each class by default (assigned on the fly) and playing on the strengths and preferences of each individual person in the squad then drilling everyone to be ready to switch roles at a moment's notice if necessary. This way, we are apt to maintain our capability to adapt to any situation that we might encounter.

I also agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that our spec ops members should have it drilled into their skulls not to question their orders. On the other hand however, it can be helpful to have the entire squad keeping an eye on the map periodically (whenever they feel like they have a free moment to) and making observations such as "XYZ is under attack to our northwest" or "TR/Vanu has taken the lead in territory control" as this could prove to be vital intel that our squad leader(s) may have overlooked but they should be trained not to get upset if their "observations" are ignored/overruled. This way, we are able to maintain order and the cohesiveness of the squad. Anyone who displays such problems should be dealt with swiftly and perhaps be required to go through training again before they are allowed to participate in another spec ops mission.

Oh and as a general pointer for squad efficiency: unless we wind being large enough to have entire squads that are designated to fulfil certain infantry/armor/air roles (which I'm sure we eventually will), I've found that it's best to roll with more of a "mixed" squad that has like a 4-6 man "fireteam" to capture points and are backed up by 2-3 skyguards for air defense and having the rest in armor/air vehicles to protect the mobile spawn point (sundy/galaxy/valkyrie) and can park/land if necessary to hop out and support the fireteam on the ground. This is especially necessary when fighting inside walls/structures that render armor/air ineffective.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Slip]
I guess I envisioned smaller groups, to reduce chatter… the original Planetside allowed squad leaders to communicate on a squad leader only channels, while still being in the same voice chat room… allow me to explaine myself better by painting a bigger & more general picture here…

My concept of 2 Fire Teams as 1 squad 4man (8)
	1. Sergeant
	2. Team Leader
	3. Private
	4. Private
	5. Private
	6. Private
	7. Private
	8. Private.


So there's about 18 people on… ok decent group but, w/o an uber spec ops squad I don’t think we do well taking territory & in my experience so far very few of our guys are effective at "boots on the ground" fighting… I think we can be more effective through "influencing" the war's direction & Success by controlling the ground & air between bases… jumping from the armor to take a capture point gives the enemy a chance to slip a through and deploy a Sunddie or Gal drop… by dividing into smaller separate groups take on different specific roles I believe we would have more success in our battle space. 0-8 members on = armor, 8-16 = armor + air, 16-24 = armor + air + Spec Ops… Armor + Air + Spec Ops = AllYourBaseAreBelongToUs… at lease in my old, original Planetside Outfit that was the case…

8-16, That can easily be an armor squad and air squad… for example (I prefer to start with an air squad first then armor set up but, many in the Outfit like to run with Armor)

Air…
	1. Sergeant (Reaver)
	2. Team Leader (Liberator pilot)
	3. Private (Liberator's bomber)
	4. Private (Liberator's gunner)
	5. Private (Reaver)
	6. Private (Reaver)
	7. Private (Liberator Pilot)
	8. Private (Liberator Bomber/gunner)
That's 2 Maned Liberators & 3 Reavers… IDK how you would best structure AA & Air to Ground load out and who would do what but, if air sticks relatively close to armor column I'm sure that Reavers could equip all Air to ground weaponry & we'd rarely loose good pilots.
Armor…
	1. Sergeant (Supply Sunddie with AA guns)
	2. Team Leader (AP Vanguard Pilot)
	3. Private (AP Vanguard's AI Gunner)
	4. Private (HEAT Vanguard Pilot with AA gun)
	5. Private (AP Vanguard Pilot with AA gun)
	6. Private (HEAT Vanguard Pilot with AA gun)
	7. Private (AP Vanguard Pilot)
	8. Private (AP Vanguard AI Gunner)
So, that's 1 Sunddie with AA & Ammo supply (providing perfect place for air to land and heal/repair) surrounded by well 4 well Manned Vanguards told to patrol enemy territory. Just between a base the blueberries are taking & a base the Enemy has (that is next) marked with a way point… @ a place like this map reflects:


Now, let's say there are 24 people on… like last night. There would be all kinds of action and I bet with a little training we would have all kinds of fun with excellent K/D ratios to boot!

I'm the type that wants to be with the Spec'd out experienced squad that's very serious & goes into the base clears it out and holds it… (Holding should be relatively peaceful once cleared because air & armor would prevent most of the Gal drops & Sunddies from making another successful deployment… making the Sergeant that leads Spec Ops the man with enough time at the right time of battle to dictate the next objective for the company.

	1. Sergeant (Rifleman)
	2. Team Leader (Medic)
	3. Private (MAX/Heavy)
	4. Private (Engineer)
	5. Private (Max/Heavy)
	6. Private (Engineer)
	7. Private (Medic)
	8. Private (Light Assault Grenadier)
Rules of engagement with squad beacon should maximize survivability… throw in a hacker & a good fully spec'd out "Spec Ops" team is bunches of fun…

WOW That's a lot to read… I need to get back to work… let me know what you think… I won't be offended if you're not all that excited about this I had most of this saved in OneNote under different tabs so I can get more detailed with it later on! LOL I'm a nerd like that.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tarrnation]
You're absolutely right... making smaller squads could be more effective. However, this also means that we will need more people who are willing to step up and lead squads. Hopefully after going through some trainings, we'll have more people who feel confident enough to do that. In the meantime though, squad leaders are few and far between so if we're planning on splitting up into smaller squads, we need to get the ball rolling on these trainings as soon as possible.

The capability to communicate effectively is also a huge factor. All I've seen announced so far is outfit chat so that means in all likelihood, there will be no platoon chat (probably no platoons at all yet) and no squad leader chat. If this turns out to be the case, it's going to be critical that we properly manage the few options that we have. Perhaps we could ask that outfit chat be limited to squad leaders only during ops and have squad leaders give an order to "clear comms" over outfit chat prior to transmitting their message which "should" stop the chatter in squad chat. It's still going to be difficult to tell where other squads are without any visual indicator on the map so effective communications amongst our squad leaders will definately be of utmost importance and the people who are stepping up to be squad leaders will probably need to undergo specialized comms trainings.

I do like the structure you mentioned in this last reply and for the most part, I think it has potential to be very effective in the field. There are a few things that I think need tweaking and those are:

1) Sunderers should have AI/AT loadouts and be escorted by 2-3 skyguards as it's far more effective to have some dedicated AA that's highly mobile and can stay back behind our tanks to spread out a bit and establish a "no fly zone" as opposed to having the AA on "high priority" targets like sunderers. Plus, 2 skyguards are much more lethal than 2 AA guns on a sundy.
2) I think it's okay to go all-out and have 12 man armor squads (the more armor in each "convoy", the merrier imho).
3) We've had some requests that liberators get their own squads as they need almost constant communication so we may need to re-think how we handle air squads.

Will probably need to give each liberator a "callsign" or something of that nature and use that to communicate with the pilots over outfit chat. Would be nice if they gave us "vehicle chat" but I guess we'll have to work with what we've got. Maybe we should give every type of squad their own callsign for that matter. An example being:

Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, etc = Infantry squads
Tango-1, Tango-2, Tango-3, etc = Armor squads
Rev-1, Rev-2, Rev-3, etc = Reaver squads
Lib-1, Lib-2, Lib-3, etc = Liberators
Hairy-1, Hairy-2, Hairy-3, etc = Harassers
Swarmforce-1, Swarmforce-2, Swarmforce-3, etc = Galaxies :)
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Slip]
Awesome! ALL OF IT... AWESOME! I was thinking we use Mumble "push to talk" for communication from squad lead to squad lead and just stick to 8 crew squad chat in the in game... If we utilize mumble that way we will need someone as dedicated "coms operator" in the armored column... my best candidate would be a gunner trained to communicate... maybe one way to request an air strike is to, pull up the map & drop a waypoint on the  area then screen shot with the share button & send it to the squad lead via PSN messaging? And, isnt there a way to play share where I can play PS2 and have a small window @ top right that shows a friend's screen on PS2? if so Seems like a good way to understand requests from SL to SL!
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Tarrnation]
It's been decided that we're not going back to using mumble so we can forget about that. It was just too much of a pain in the ass to manage with a large community like this for a variety of reasons:

1) Not everyone has a PC for a "proper" setup and the mobile apps are not all great either.
2) People were not happy about having to wear earbuds under their headphones.
3) ECHO!!!!
4) Eardrum-bursting feedback loops.
5) You have to be somewhat "smart" about the way you configure it - sadly, that's not a quality that all of our members have or have the patience to understand.

Taking a screenshot to request air strikes is a good idea! Not sure about the share play thing as I've never tried it nor do I intend to personally as I'm quite protective of my screen real estate! Feel free to try it out if you want though. ;)
[/QUOTE]