[NC] RTRS- Operation Oregano

[Wafflynumber]

Right, we speculated a lot what this could be. We didnt notice anything. Was it a larger organized NC force on Indar or? We were sort of on our toes waiting for some gigantic NC offense somewhere

Proof of concept Ridebird. Theres more to come...

[RIDEBIRD]

Dun dun duuuuuuuuun

[Wafflynumber]

/ominousmusic "theres a storm coming, miller."

[eltdown]

I couldn't get back on again on Sunday after getting a phone call and then getting tied up with other stuff - I get the feeling I may have missed something possibly important here?

[Dominicus]

Nothing to see here, This is not the operation the Vanu are looking for.

Just wondering, might it be an idea to organise the squad around next time. We had 12 people, 6 heavy, 4 medic and 2 engineers. I wish to suggest the following (based on 12 man).

Alpha (part 1)
- heavy
- heavy
- medic

Alpha (part 2)
- heavy
- medic
-engineer

Bravo (part 1)
-heavy
-heavy
-medic

Bravo (part 2)
-heavy
-medic
-engineer

For the most part we act like we acted last time, but when we start cleaning a base up from the last resistance we stick in groups of 3. That way if we face a small pocket of resistance we can fight it more easilly. Also directing a squad becomes simplefied. The "leader" of a sub group does not have to give orders, he just moves around and his two budies stick with him. The platoon commander also has more freedom to send people around. And as I said, in big fights we just fight as one large group, but for the smaller tasks we can go around in a more organised way.

[Bankrotas]

This really depends on location, Dominicus. Attacking a tower and holding, I believe, 2xMax, 2x Engie, 2xMedic, 4x Heavy, 1-2XLight or Infiltrator.
Also HA and LA could swap a bit, 3 HA min though, least 2 people with shotguns.

[Dominicus]

I made the suggestion based on last sunday :P. But you are right, it depends on the location. Yet for a basic squad I think this works best. It can do well in any base, just certain compositions work better in specific locations. This is an allround set-up for almost any situation.

[Boffinboots]

No one reads my posts, do they

[Bankrotas]

No one reads my posts, do they

What posts?

[Dominicus]

No one reads my posts, do they

I assume you try to indicate the post about trying to run a strickt rank night? I would be up for one, to give it a try.

[Ayam]

The "leader" of a sub group does not have to give orders, he just moves around and his two budies stick with him.

I've found my most successful times have been pairing up with someone who doesn't know I've paired up with them. If people are able to stick to this principle, it'll work great. I've had some good runs just shadowing people.

[Dr.Evanzan]

I read your posts, Boffin!
(Well, sometimes, but I read the one you were talking about.)
Did you ever manage to try out some of the squad work?
I would certainly be up for what you and Dominicus are talking about.

Also, Ayam, you are a freaky stalker!
But in a good way.

[Boffinboots]

This post:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/foru...l=1#post258346

several of us have had this idea (separately, apparently) so I definitely think we should try it out. I'm off on holiday for a week though

[Onlylearning]

For the most part we act like we acted last time, but when we start cleaning a base up from the last resistance we stick in groups of 3. That way if we face a small pocket of resistance we can fight it more easilly. Also directing a squad becomes simplefied. The "leader" of a sub group does not have to give orders, he just moves around and his two budies stick with him. The platoon commander also has more freedom to send people around. And as I said, in big fights we just fight as one large group, but for the smaller tasks we can go around in a more organised way.

I like the idea a lot, it feels like it would help keep us as a group more focussed? (and I read your post Boffinboots, was thinking the concept sounded familiar!) but is there the possibility things might get a little hectic in the mumble channel? I know I'm still relatively new to the game but I'd rather have the ability to continuously check in with my 'squad' than have to keep an everlasting eye on the minimap. Plus each squad will definitely work better if they are in constant comms about the state of play around them (you know the usual shout outs of "oh **** oh **** enemy behind you... no the other behind... oh dear...") which would probably lead into having to use the sub group channels on mumble and change the feel of that group dynamic that's present at the minute.

[mickygor]

Could use proximity chat for that.

[Dr.Evanzan]

Yeah, I agree with Onlylearning.
I think the key to close teamwork being effective is constant communication with your squad mates.

We've found before when we've split a couple of squads across locations that comms becomes really confusing...
"Enemy Sunderer South"
"South where?"
"Is that at location X or Y?"

I imagine it would only get worse with multiple fire teams.

As Bastiat suggests, we could try in-game comms (although squad might be better than proximity if fire teams are split into different squads). It's a bit more painful to get working properly compared to Mumble but would allow us to keep Mumble clear for Platoon/Leadership chat.

I know the Vanu outfit have a complicated Mumble setup for strategic nights but I'm guessing RTRS folk will find that a bit much, at least at the moment?

[Onlylearning]

I know it's a pain but you could set up whispers among the fire team? If they're relatively small it wouldn't take too much time or effort and would ensure that if you have more than 4 fire teams (as Boffinboots originally brings up as an issue) you wouldn't cause complete comms confusion...

It's worth noting that lots of people still have intermittent issues with squad chat in game causing it to not work.

[Bankrotas]

Here's one more thing. 3 people isn't really a well rounded squad and we won't be doing any good with small groups, threesome isn't that effective, nobody is fully satisfied in fully participating. Though, we could run specialized groups, but 3 is only effective when taking a really small base. It's better have two 5-6 man squads, than three-four 4-3 man squads. Even in CQC situations, there are more than 2 entrances, you need to cover usually, which is best done by 2 per possible enemy approach.

[Onlylearning]

On that basis surely you'd be better off with one person "leading" the units then? Just to ensure cohesion?