Results 41 to 58 of 58
Thread: [RPS] A Call to Arms
17-03-2013, 09:27 PM #41
No, silly mondays is for silly stuff. This would be for a normal squad play day or stratgir. We do need 8 volounteers however.
17-03-2013, 11:37 PM #42
Agreed. It is not for silly Mondays but maybe next Thursday? I don't think we'd need to do this for all squads either just do it in whichever one we end up in and see how it works. We need a channel admin to be able to set priority speakers though and currently, only Cooper has that privilege. I can do it on the new server though. MrEclectic too, I believe.
Anyway. I'd be up for trying this next Thursday.
19-03-2013, 11:52 AM #43
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
I think the supreme giraffe idea could work, I feel like I could handle tracking ~8 squads progress. I wouldn't be doing much else, but that's fine.
I also wouldn't want there to be a SG - > PL -> SL tree. I'd want to give orders direct to squads. The ingame PL could just be the "secretary/XO" role we've talked about (and really needed this last C2A, Nick spent far too much time doing admin) However, a 9 (or even 11) way command chat is not a good idea. SLs are going to spend far too much time listening in to irrelevant sitreps.
For this kind of thing, I'd obviously have to set up many more binds, but I'd probably like to deal with pairs of squads - this is often a pretty effective unit size, so having a little 3 person relay (SG, 2 SLs) could work quiet well. So say, Echo and Foxtrot would be a preferable grouping for 2-squad objectives. I'd also like to be sat off in my own "command channel" with probably 2 other people, who would have low CD scythes and be my eyes, as dedicated scouts. If we were organized enough, it would be great to see the dedicated CAP squad back too.
19-03-2013, 12:01 PM #44
These all sound like very good ideas to me. Would love to try this, especially combined with Ridebirds CO/XO split for squads.
I also agree that coordinating 8 or 10 squads and a couple of scouts should be no serious problem as long as you don't have to be doing anything else, like shuffling people about in squads.
19-03-2013, 04:26 PM #45
Ok, so bare with me here.
Obviously this idea has it's downsides, namely that there would no longer be the use of PWPs, nor squad colours, and effectively, no more UI bravo, charlie and delta squads. But personally, i dont really see that as a big problem or loss. The main reason behind my thoughts here is the point CMaster raised about PL Admin.
Adopting this 'individual squads' structure would effectively eradicate all forms of UI admin. You wouldnt even have to invite people to the squads if they were set to 'Outfit Only'. You'd just organise squad setup prior to event launch, seperate off into the respective squad mumble channels and then anyone who arrives later on can just jump into the squads as the evening progresses. The current setup also means having one slot in the platoon (usually Alpha) being taken up by a PL, who is basically combat ineffective. In contrast, at least this way there will always be the potential for full "fighting" squads of 12.
Jumping back slightly. (to address the issue of not having the PWP and not being able to see where squads are on the map.) As long as the Giraffe Commander is clear and precise when communicating with SLs (when, how and where he wants them) then it shouldnt even be an "issue", it should be just as effective. - An example being when i PL'd for 2nd platoon last thursday: I asked all SLs to get their maps up whenever i was assigning them orders. That way, when i called out their objectives, they could then immediately put down their SWP and head out. If ever there was a moment when a SL was unsure about their objective, they simply asked me to verify.
- PL role expanded
The PL would effectively be moved to their own (command) squad. Now becoming the "Company Commander" or "Supreme Giraffe". Ideally that squad would comprise of (as others have said) the Comms Officer, 1 or 2 scouts, and could potentialy be expanded to incorporate squads from other outfits. Leading to (perhaps) even better inter-outfit coordination through the in-game /platoon or voice comms. Which is a nice little hypothetical bi-product.
So, with some elements of Platoon UI being sacrificed, the emphasis would shift more onto Mumble comms. Which, as refrenced in a previous paragraph, shouldnt be a problem to us at all. We're getting better at sitreps and communication with each event. Plus, this could hopefully incourage a bit more "independent squad leading", which i know a few of you are looking to see a more of. As long as they sign in with the Commander/CO in their channel to let him/them know where they are and what they are doing, it should be fine.
Instead of using the "CTA extra squad channels" how about we just add those sub channels onto the current list of 'Giraffe Squads' and name them Echo, Foxtrot, Golf, Hotel, India and Juliet. (It goes upto Juliet as i believe that two and a half platoons was our capacity at one stage last thursday). This way we have everyone in the same sub-channel, which makes for easily finding/retrieving people who may be in the wrong mumble.
Once people are in those squads in mumble, they just need to go on the in-game squads list, sort by outfit, and join for their respective squad.
RPS - Command HQ
RPS - Alpha
RPS - Bravo
RPS - Charlie
Clear, direct and simple. If you d-con or have to restart, then you can just jump right back in, without any hassle. If you arrive later, you have a list of squads that arnt full to join, jump into the respective mumble and away you go.
Last edited by NickWhite; 19-03-2013 at 04:33 PM.Steam - Nick
19-03-2013, 04:37 PM #46
I think that is a bit too confusing for individual squad members and I still think a CO is an outright bad idea - at least if we aren't using my proposed call-in system that we have yet to test out.
A different take on your idea - if we use a CO - would be to use callsigns. Have individual squads as you said, but just let Alpha PL1 be Giraffe 1 and Alpha PL2 be Giraffe 5 etc. That way only SLs and PLs need to bother but we can still name the squads on mumble and in-game like this:
Alpha PL1 (Giraffe 1)
Alpha PL2 (Giraffe 5)
Not using squad colors and the waypoint could be quite confusing, but I do think we should use the platoon waypoint less and squad waypoints more. After all, if we are playing in squads (it seems like most of us prefer that now on most occassions) we should follow the squad waypoint, and not bother with PLWP.
edit: Oh, I also think your point (which you didn't make clear but it's in there in the way you organized things) about using individual squad recruitment is something we NEED to do. On all squad nights. PL should not have to move as many dudes. Let's do that on thursday shall we?
19-03-2013, 06:16 PM #47
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
I'd strongly argue for a surpreme giraffe in multi-platoon settings, mostly because i think that a singular vision behind the night's shenanigans is a very positive thing. Keeping track of upwards of 10 squads is a challenge, definitely, but it also makes things easier in a way. The SG can decide to assign 10 targets for 10 squads (mircroing that would be a pita) when a scatter offensive is needed, or restructure and increase pressure by sending two or four squads per target, if there's a heavy fight.
Also, i completely agree with the proposition to number squads through. It makes things much easier when there's more than a platoon. I'm not sure when we're going to be ready to post our stuff in the official forums (the pseudo recruitment acknowledgment), but we may or may not get more people eventually (i'd certainly hope so), and it'd be great if we used a system that was scalable. Anyway, i'm all for trying out new stuff!
19-03-2013, 07:38 PM #48
Its something i wish i didnt have to do as a PL, moving people about. I think my idea simplifies it to be honest.
It's more dependant on the SL exchanging and listening to information from other SLs if he/she wants to know what's going on outside their squad. (In oppose to relying on seeing purple, black and orange dots around different facilities to know who is where) But that's the whole point in the role? They should be able to harvest that information and turn it into battlefield intel.
[Youre in Echo squad as a giraffe. All you see is your squad members and the squad waypoint/orders from your SL.] Simple. That's all it ever should be for people. Not confusing at all.
Like i said above, the SL would know where the other squads are due to being in command channel and hearing the Company Commander issuing multiple orders. So, squads arnt going to be in the dark unless the SL chooses not to tell them.
Other than that, the giraffes should just focus on completing the squad objective. Isnt that what StratGir is all about anyway? I fail to see how anyone would find that confusing just because theyre not in the platoon version of in game squads.
All the squads in-game would be "Alpha". So you'd have up to 9 or 10 of them. If i issued you as Echo SL, as long as you remember that, then for the sake of your squad members you just refer to your squad as Echo, then move on the objective that's been issued.
This is just to combat that specific problem anyway, i'll micro manage because i have to... But untill they sort out the Platoon system to hold more than four squads, or to not stop people from joining when alpha is full, i think this could improve it at least.
Command channel mumble
Company Command, Comms Officer, Alpha SL, Bravo SL, Charlie SL, Delta SL, Echo SL, Foxtrot SL, Golf SL, Hotel SL, India SL, Juliet SL... However many we had or needed. In just one big whisper list.
They all know what eachother are doing. Where they are heading. They can talk between eachother, and the Commander can issue specific orders also. The Comms Officer can inform SLs that there is already a friendly outfit coming to support them. This should all substitute for whatever is lost not running in a platoon UI system.
As for CO (Comms Officer?) we should always have one of these. Their role is vital for outfit co-op.
Not sure what you meant RIDEBIRD by... "Have individual squads as you said, but just let Alpha PL1 be Giraffe 1 and Alpha PL2 be Giraffe 5 etc. That way only SLs and PLs need to bother but we can still name the squads on mumble and in-game like this:
Alpha PL1 (Giraffe 1)
Alpha PL2 (Giraffe 5)"
To me that's just even more confusing.
Last edited by NickWhite; 19-03-2013 at 07:45 PM.Steam - Nick
20-03-2013, 09:00 AM #49
CO is the one who listens in on command chat, gives sitreps and receives orders and intel from the supreme giraffe and other COs. When CO receives an order, it and any pertinent intel is relayed to XO who determines how to achieve the objective. XO is the squad leader in game, XO plops beacons, sits in the squad channel and directs the action in greater detail. The supreme giraffe and possibly all COs are made priority speakers so that others are muted slightly when they're talking. This way, SGraffe and the COs can have discussions and information exchange on command comms without impacting the quality of squad leading noticeably. The CO will be out of the squad chatter whenever there's anything going on in command comms, but they are not responsible for the executive orders for the squad.
Basically, the CO offloads the comms and coordination duties off of the SL so that s/he can focus on leading the squad without being bothered by command comms interposing on the squad chatter. In a group of 8-10 squads, SL can't be in the command loop or we'll go insane.
the only problem I can see is that we're gonna need twice as many people in "leadership" positions, but on the other hand, anyone with a decent grasp of English could be CO.
EDIT: this could be implemented on a squad-to-squad basis, so that if someone wants to both lead and perform command comms duties themselves, they are able to.
Last edited by EsotericReverie; 20-03-2013 at 09:14 AM.
20-03-2013, 09:24 AM #50
As for Mumble channels, in Cooper's absence, we should probably go to the other Mumble server, where I and MrEclectic also have admin privileges for the RPS subchannel. I've got most of that setup already, just not exactly like your suggestion, though that is easily fixed
Regarding singlesquads rather than platoons, I do agree that it would cut down on the management aspects, but I think that losing the visual feedback of the squad icons on the map is going to make a difference. The map is going to look mighty empty for the supreme giraffe. I'm not saying it's not going to be worth it; it may in fact be a decent trade-off.
20-03-2013, 10:54 AM #51
The numbering is much easier as it means you are still bravo squad in pl2 and not some other random military name. We can't entirely ditch the in-game organization. Squads are simply numbered by their order in the platoons - fifth squad = alpha in pl2.
Using some made up names and not connecting these to ingame squads will be confusing for all involved. I also think not seeing the squads you are working with on the map will make people feel disconnected, which is the number one complaint on strat nights.
Regarding CO, a single vision and that one person controls everything relies completely on intel which 90% of us are still not good at. It means the CO will sit in warp and rely completely on people describing things. I still don't think that is a good idea and that decentralization is the way to go.
Regarding comms in squads, it was Sigildorns idea. I think that it will work, but that it will be extremely hard to find 8 leaders per platoon. If we can it is superior though.
20-03-2013, 11:19 AM #52
I too think this could be an issue. It is not so much an issue for those of us who generally play in some form of leadership position, but for those who are not on command chat, it can be difficult to know what's going on, not having the other squads on your map will only accentuate this problem.
Have they not fixed the bugs with multiple squads in a platoon having recruitment enabled?
But seriously, I think this could improve our squad play by a huge amount. One of the serious problems with the current setup, with PL and all SLs in one channel, is the information overload of listening to two channels at once. At the same time, being able to have some discussion in command chat is very useful, or at least I really like being able to discuss strategy with my SLs when platoon leading. Separating tactical leadership from command in squads should enable us to do both effectively.
Lately, we've seen both an influx of somewhat experienced players, and more and more of our own "veterans" starting to take on leadership roles, such as when Qazz did an admirable job as PL on Indar after Ridebird this Monday. There are lots of people in RPS now who are capable of one or both of these roles, we should be able to manage 2 out of every 12.
21-03-2013, 03:38 AM #53
I don't follow how the two man squad leading will help. The comms guy is still exposed to the chatter of his own squad while trying to chat in command channel - except now the chatter is worse because the tactical orders and battle chat are being issued by someone else so can happen at the same time as command chatter. At least if it's one guy he's doing one or the other.
-------------------- This separates two different topics ----------------
The bit below got rather over long and I'm not sure it's very clear.
If I might suggest the following for large (more than about 80-90 people) nights.
Platoon 1 (Not open for recruitment) "Company Command"
Alpha1 - The Supreme Giraffe (Although I think Zeppelin Leader - ZL - is a better name and goes with the balloon leader name...)
(No Alpha Squad) - But see below
Bravo1 - The Outfit Liaison Guy (Windbag)
(No Bravo Squad) - But see below
Charlie1 - Air Team Leader
Charlie Dedicated Scythe and Lib crews
Delta1 - Special Giraffes And Tactics (SGAT)
Platoon 2 "RPS Giraffes"
Normal Strat Giraffe "Rifle Platoon"
Platoon 3 "RPS Public"
A Public open Platoon with RPS SL's and PL
Extend Rifle/Public platoons for size.
Command Tree (ZL and Windbag in one channel)
Delta Giraffes (A channel with a SL sub channel)
Air Channel (As above)
Rifles as per strat Giraffes - four squads with SL sub channels
Public - one massive channel but the PL and SL's are all in a sub channel so can talk among themselves - the PL might need to be in a sub-sub channel if the SL's don't want to hear the ZL direct.
The ZL and Windbag have a button to talk to the PL's of all platoons, they might have a separate linked button for the Air and Delta or that might be one button each or one button for all. They also need a everyone button and possibly an all SL's button. By putting them as squad leaders they get command and orders access in game without having to actually lead a squad.
ZL issues overall targets and instruction. He has the Windbag in the channel with him so they can talk Empire and Outfit level tactics. PL's implement his instructions calling on the Outfit assets - Air cover and Delta - as needed. The ZL uses Delta as his personal gap filler - possibly fighting along side them if he fancies getting his hands dirty, ditto the Windbag.
This structure means that no-one has to talk to more than two levels, the PL's are only talking to the ZL and their own SL's the SL's are doing the tactical leading with their squads and talking to the PL. This is the key bit, the SL's are doing the majority of the talking in their channels but they are NOT talking to each other too much, I would suggest they still have the shout to all SL's in their platoon but that they also map a direct to PL key since most of the chatter is really PL to Squad and Squad to PL not intrasquad.
Platoons are able to work together to attack bases or spread out under their own PL's direction, with the SL's taking much more general initiative. I would see the PL more as a chief SL in this setup - relaying the ZL and giving out squad objectives then leading his own. The ZL can work his platoons as his units and doesn't think about the squads, but he has Delta and the air guys to command directly and fight with.
This further expands a little since I thought that in Alpha squad of the command platoon you put "spare" leaders (perhaps one or two), that way they are in on all the leader comms chatter and can take over a squad or PL job as needed fully briefed. They can be the driver of a ZL tank/sundy or a scout scythe (very helpful!) while they wait, they would sit in the command mumble channel to be best informed (this would also give the ZL more people to bounce ideas around with and be more social).
Also Bravo in the command platoon is the home of dedicated Galaxy pilots, they have a squad marker controlled by the Windbag making inter-platoon and inter-outfit collections and drops easy.
If these squads were to appear then I would suggest Bravo get their own mumble channel which the ZL can shout to as a whole rather than having a separate leader sub-channel since they aren't really a squad they are just bunched up in game to use the waypoint. They in turn can shout to him and the windbag as needed - but talk among themselves for social reasons. I would suggest the Gal pilots also need to be able to shout to all SL's (perhaps outfit) just in case of bad drop-zones - but use it sparingly!
So the ZL (and the Windbag since they share a channel) has a maximum of the Windbag and his spare leaders in channel plus the PL's and Charlie and Delta leaders shouting at him. Each PL has only his squad leaders and the ZL and Windbag shouting and his own squad in channel. Each SL has only his squad and his PL - since he is doing most of the tactical command it's better not to be distracted.
This should mean that there is less cross talk, however it comes at the expense of many more mumble short-cuts to direct traffic where it is meant rather than across groups. At each step up the tree you get more people shouting to you. The principle is that no-one is trying to co-ordinate the efforts of too many sub-units - a ZL with direct control of squads as outlined above would be complex and involve the ZL microing too much IMHO and is fighting against the already limited in game tools.
TL;DR - Grible goes off on one about comms, he thinks everyone should map every key on their keyboard to a different channel and possibly get a second screen just to keep track of it.
21-03-2013, 09:18 AM #54
The SL currently has two responsibilities:
- Command chat; receiving orders from PL, relaying intel, asking for instructions, requesting reinforcements etc. Sits in SL channel (in the command loop).
- Tactical lead; directing the squad on the ground, managing loadout balance, adapting to battlefield conditions, putting down waypoints and squad beacons etc. Sits in squad channel (out of the command loop).
These two responsibilities fight for the SLs attention and managing both at once can be a chore and a half. Especially tactical lead, for those of us who go heavy on that thing (not everyone does, and this is okay), tend to suffer from having to handle command chat too.
Separating this into two roles leaves the SL (whose responsibility is the tactical lead) free to manage the squad and maybe even play the game, without being constantly bothered by the command chatter.
The "comms officer" listens in on the command chat at all times, but is not as bothered by it, because s/he has no other important duties. The comms officer can relay orders and requests from higher up at a time when there will be minimum impact to the SL. The balloon/zeppelin leader cannot do this, because s/he has no idea whether there is any chatter in the squad.
The comms officer will probably be slightly less effective than the other troopers in the squad, because of this, but better her/him, than the actual SL!
I hope this was clear?
I realise that not everyone may like having comms duties or tactical lead delegated to someone else, instead preferring to do both things themselves, and I respect that. I personally really think this could be good for those of us who find we want to do more with the tactical lead aspects than we are able to handle while simultaneously managing command chat. Also, please note that this can be implemented or not on a per-squad-basis without affecting anyone else.
I think Ridebird and I shall try this setup tonight. We can report on how it worked out for us.
21-03-2013, 02:28 PM #55
I'm interested to see the results of your test.
My Ideas above are more about cutting down cross talk - hearing orders not for your squad - I personally don't mind chatter, in fact I hate BL under squad comms setups, but I understand I'm in the minority here! I intended to make squads more cohesive and autonomous rather than platoons, building on the idea that the ZL is in charge and the PL's are really only handling admin. Some mix of my thoughts with the no platoons except command structure outlined above me might work quite well, but I was keen to keep squads in groups even if they aren't in in-game platoons so that you can divide up and still have some cohesion and so that the command net doesn't become overloaded.
I think my central thrust was more towards the ideas floated about having separate shouts for each SL by someone above - but keeping the PL level command.
Also I would holdout for the command/specialist structure since it frees up the Windbag/Comms man too, and provides a pool of air assets - How often do we say "a lib would be great here" but by the time a crew has assembled and flown over it's too late?
Also I like airmobile units. And frankly if we are this large then we should be taking the lead in empire tactics picking up and dropping other people's platoons for them as well as our own.
Edited for clarity and expansion also cos now I have a keyboard not a phone!
Last edited by Grible; 21-03-2013 at 03:20 PM. Reason: Keyboard!
21-03-2013, 03:25 PM #56
- Join Date
- Feb 2013
Alright, for what its worth, this is a problem I have also encountered at a Forgotten Hope 2(battlefield 2 mod) tournament called World at War(bfewaw.com).
The maps we play are at most 4km in size(16 square km) but most are in the 1/2 km range. Time is limited per round, and usually 10 to 12 rounds are played on a single map(10/12hours of play per night).
First off, there is a divisional staff, consiting of a general and related staff, usually about 4 people sitting in one channel deciding on the strat based on what they observe on the field of battle themselves and the intel they get from the infantry, tank and air squads. They also form a in-game squad themselves that is used to probe enemy flag positions or defend a so called backflag(further from the frontline, less likely to be attacked, or easy reinforced).
This divisional squad is usually filled up to 6 people with admins and the airforce(usually on 1/2 people per round).
The divisional squad starts of with general orders at the start of the round(over CC, Channel Commander, TS3 feature). They first declare orders coming through. at this point squadleaders(captains, luitenants) have time to silence the squad members. Orders usually last about 1/2 minutes max.
each division usually has about 3 or 4 infantry squads consisting up to 6 people, one captain and one luitenant. They are both on CC, so that if one might miss orders or vital comms the other can take over, this is also usefull if the captain needs to meet with the divstaff for whatever reason.
The tankers have the same layout, expect that all of the tankers are listening in on CC, this is because they usually operate as lone wolfs supporting infantry and need to be able to quickly communicate with the squadleaders.
CC can be very chatty, rounds can go fast, reinforcements might need to be shifted around, or clear indications of a big enemy push are being seen. Those with the highest rank can call everyone to silence, for obvious reasons.
In general not much is missed. Remember that this system is NEEDED for 32 players(per division). So less then 3 squads in PS2. Offcourse the gameplay is much faster but still.
One problem we would have is that no one is always SL, or PL.
What I do agree on is that a PL might need 2 people to assist him in leading. especially on busy nights!
22-03-2013, 01:23 AM #57
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
Good news everyone!
The bug with randoms being able to join the platoon if more than one squad is recruiting APPEARS to have been fixed.
We tried it tonight and the only none-outfit character was a single BURP member who I guess somebody invited.
22-03-2013, 08:00 AM #58
Aha! Finally! That has been one of the most niggling little annoyances...