Gameplay question\poll on team numbers

[caprera 0]

My question is realted to the soldier's number in a single team.

I see many units limited to 6/8 men but combat photographs show many more, around 10 even for SFs indipendently by transport. Having started to re-organize setups on some units i wanted to ask about it... More men would be a problem to gameplay? And if Yes, how?

Thanks :)

[walker 0]

Hi caprera

ArmA II does not have any limits on group size. In the editor I can put in 20 plus units per group.

Any group size limits you have experienced are ones put in by who ever created the mission you are playing.

That said group management methods and theory dictates group size, especially with real humans in say MP. The military tends to work on infantry group sizes in the in the 2 to 8 range. Two or three or four buddy teams of two individuals form a standard fire team.

In the USMC you have three fire teams composed of 4, 4, 5. The five being the reserve element in the squad with the commander tacked on.

Heavy weapons units may be dictated by the weapons used, but generally they are also four person fire teams with two buddy teams. Usually composed of the heavy weapon person and loader ammo carrier as one buddy team and the other buddy team taking the duties of security team and spotters.

Sniper teams are two man buddy teams composed of the commander/spoter and the shooter.

In the Mechanised Infantry forces you have 6 man infantry squads composed of 3 buddy teams and the vehicle providing the support element making effectively 4 elements.

In other formations you find three four man fire teams with a semi detached squad leader and medic. This cuts the risk of of loosing command and control in battle; as the leader focuses on their own defense when the support element is deployed, to the detriment of overall tactical view and control of the squads defense.

The medic doubles up as close protection for the officer and provides secondary radio comms and it ensures the medic is not in the thick of battle rather that an aid station system applies; so that the casualty walks or is brought to the medic and if the medic needs to move to the casualty both the support element, if not deployed, and the casualties own element can provide security to, from and at the casualty location.

I favour the three element squad so as to form a tactical triumvirate two thirds maneuver while the third supporting command element over-watches the maneuver element providing long range fire support and awaiting any correct tactical moment of need to apply the reserve for tactical victory or defense.

I suggest you read Dslyecxi's excellent TTP it contains a lot of wisdom on these matters:

http://ttp2.dslyecxi.com/

Kind Regards walker

Edited February 11, 2010 by walker

[caprera 0]

Thanks for infos ;)

[CarlGustaffa 4]

For single player, a fire team sized unit is the most optimal for me. I would like to be in full control over my team as a fire team leader, but still being part of a squad. If squad is 9 or 13 men big (or even more) that doesn't matter that much. A 9-10 sized group if I'm squad leader, is about the most I'm able to control, but I would expect my AI team leaders to be able to give better commands than what is currently the case.

Since I'm forced to do both squad leaders tasks (not that many in a game) and team leaders tasks for more than one team, I'm quickly loosing control. If I find I have to use keys F11 and F12, I usually quit before I get started.

As for multiplayer and realism, I'm kind of flexible. If you're involved in a huge clan able to fill "boring roles", then I don't see why not. Most roles are first and frontmost being a rifleman, other duties tend to be secondary. But when you are a limited amount of guys, I see nothing wrong in "combining roles" in order to be able to solve the mission with less people, while trying to keep every role interesting to play.

So although I tend to go for realism, for me it just have to be sacrificed in order to make a mission playable and enjoyable. One or the other contains a huge area of grey, and I'm probably in the middle there somewhere. I don't mind "boring" missions myself, but I have to try to make my mission playable for "my guys" who consider themselves gamers and not professional soldiers. I tend to draw up a "mission philosophy" in terms of what I will allow or disallow as unrealistic elements.

To answer your question yes or no depends on your audience. Hard core elitist (go for correct roles and numbers) or more casual players (combined roles demanding less players). For coop, it is important to remember that more players tend to dictate less AIs to fight (to avoid stressing the server or net traffic). With less players, you might be able to pull off more interesting scripts server side and get away with it.

If I have to vote for either extreme, I as mission designer will have to vote the first option, despite "belonging" to the group voting for the second option as a player :)