RTT Squad/Fire-Team System Design

Several Fans in the How will ArmA 3 differ from Arma 2, and ArmA? thread, have commented on the desirably of an enhanced Squad System and mechanics for ArmA 3, and I find myself agreeing that this is could move the franchise forward, make the game more accessible and appealing to a broader audience and add new feature depth to the game.

Historical Synopsis (skim or skip this if you're easily bored)

A little Historical Retrospective of Tactical Realism games that have definitive 'Squad System Machinery' features and design (in rough historical order of development not appearance) that would in this ArmA Fans opinion make for compelling addition to ArmA 3:

· Rogue Spear

· Ghost Recon

· Full-Spectrum Warrior*

· Battlefield 2

· Close Combat First To Fight

· SOCOM Tactical Strike*

· Elite Warrior Vietnam

· Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

Rouge Spear was unique for its Squad System that allowed every individual on a team in PvP MP to control an AI squad; this is one game mechanic that could be realized in ArmA 3 on a scale that could be truly impressive.

Ghost Recon inaugurated the Real-Time Tactical Map with a tool interface similar to some turn based strategy games that allowed for sophisticated squad formation, way-pointing, precise positioning and ordering AI squad members with ROE -- while this had little play in MP PvP some of it's ideas made their way into Battlefield 2's Commander's CCC interface.

Full Spectrum Warrior and SOCOM Tactical Strike have a shared *ICT pedigree, are not technically First Person Tactical Realism games, but inaugurated real-time tactical way-pointing in tactical gaming; using real-time machinery similar to but more precise then RTS games; but again only controlling an AI squad or fire team.

Battlefield 2 is one of the first games inaugurate real-time tactical way-pointing as part of a CCC Tool system for Squad Leaders and Commanders to way-point, command and support their squad, team, and mission on the map in real-time. While the execution at times is quite 'game like' the result in how it enhanced how the game was actually played in substantially more realistic.

Close Combat First To Fight, Elite Warriors Vietnam, and GRAW all too the ICT real-time tactical squad AI move and maneuver mechanics in new and more focused directions, simplifying, streamlining, adding more realism, and unique control features that make each system worth playing with if you haven't.

Squad Machinery For ArmA 3 Pet Wish Design Synopsis & Features

Summarily I'd like to see features and options for:

· real-time tactical way-pointing for PvE COOP games

· real-time tactical way-pointing for Squad Leaders in PvP (similar to BF2)

· real-time action markers for all Players (spotting, marking, orienteering)

· optional Command CCC role, for logistic support, controls of respawn/reinforcement system etc.

· game mode offering real-time AI squad control making every player an AI squad Squad Leader

· squad join channel system

In my pet-wish game-mode and scenario we'd see something large scale were every Player had an AI fire-team that they individually controlled, that were in turn commanded by a Squad or Section Leader, and supported and strategically directed, supported and commanded by a Commander.

If you died, you would assume the role of one of your fire-team and still lead your squad; if your entire squad got wiped out from a visit of a MOAB you'd go in a reinforcement cue till the Commander requisitioned a vehicle, or air drop to send you back into the battle where he needed you; but he'd have time constrained resources to do this to keep the balance of the game going.

:confused:

Hi Hoakster,

All of that is either already present (out of the box) or scriptable via mission editor. Its called warfare.

-k

Uh, you mentioned squad systems using examples of games that don't have realistic squad systems. More than that, you fail to mention America's Army 2, which has the most realistic squad system (a real squad structure):

You mention BF2, but that is really a fireteam. So do you mean every player controls an AI fireteam or an AI squad? That'd be a lot of squads in a server unless you have like only 5 or 6 human players allowed per server (a squad being a 9 man unit). And, then again, if this were in ArmA3 MP, it'd only be like one game mode out of several.

And mentioning a MOAB? There are no killstreaks. This ain't COD.

So in your game mode, there'd be multiple fireteams, which would mean multiple squads, commanded by one Platoon Leader? Who's military structure? Are we saying U.S. Army structure? If so, then you'd have 1 Platoon, 3 squads, 6 fireteams, right? So 6 TLs (Team Leaders), 3 SLs (Squad Leaders), 1 PL (Platoon Leader). So that would be only a 10-player server. What would you do for 20-player, or 30-player, or 40-player servers? Would those follow the same system? If so, then you'd have what, 2 Platoons for a 20 person server? 3 for 30? That's a lot of AI for just one side (BLUFOR vs OPFOR). Actually, realistically, there'd at least be an Assistant Platoon Leader (or Platoon Sergeant), so that'd be an 11 man server.

How about this: What would be a slight tweak to your pet-wish game mode:

How about 1 Platoon for a game server. All slots are able to be filled by human players. Slots that aren't are automatically AI. A player can jump in at anytime and replace an AI soldier. For modes that have respawn, AI respawn near their leader (so team members respawn near the Team Leader). This system would give you a 29 player server for 1 platoon (1 PL, 1 APL, 3 SL, 6 TLs, 18 team members excluding team leaders). Throw in a 30th player if you want a separate forward artillery observer to call in arty. Standard 30 person server for COOP. For PvP, that's a standard 60 person server. Scale down the unit sizes to reduce the number of players. So you'd have:

COOP

30 player server - platoon

9 player server - squad

4 player server - fire team

PvP

60 player server - platoons

18 player server - squads

8 player server - fire teams

------------------------------------------------------------

How does that sound?

whats wrong with the currend system?

why make a flexible system static?

every mission have its UNIQUE needed layout..

a Tank platoon have another layout as a infantry platoon.

the strengh of Arma is the flexibility you can create a infantry PVP mission or a lagescaled platoon operation

its all up to the missionmakers to create the realistic layout that you want

if you look in the Armaverse there are many realistic squadlayout based missions.

whats wrong with the currend system?

why make a flexible system static?

every mission have its UNIQUE needed layout..

a Tank platoon have another layout as a infantry platoon.

the strengh of Arma is the flexibility you can create a infantry PVP mission or a lagescaled platoon operation

its all up to the missionmakers to create the realistic layout that you want

if you look in the Armaverse there are many realistic squadlayout based missions.

Yes, that would be cool. You could have just a squad and have a tank platoon (or whatever the next lowest unit level is) and you could do this for whatever. The point is that BIS should include some default game modes with optional unit types/sizes. So that all of these variables are in the game from day 1. And this could apply for the mission editor's groups as well. So you don't have to sit and make your platoon from scratch. And mission designers don't have to worry about remaking the most popular game modes like Domination. Game Modes like Domination, known to be popular community game modes in ArmA2, could already be made by BIS and included in ArmA3. BIS could be proactive in designing multiplayer. Not just making the means for players to play MP (as in just adding the functionality), but including popular game modes (and not just COOP scenarios).

And the problem is that there is no existing, real unit structure that encourages unit cohesiveness and chain of command. To find that you have to join a community squad. Not everyone wants to do that. So implementing something like this would encourage unit cohesiveness. And, by no means would this unit structure layout be static. Of course it'd be good if it were customizable (so customizable that you could change the names of the unit roles, change how many positions in each unit level, etc)

Hi Hoakster,

All of that is either already present (out of the box) or scriptable via mission editor. Its called warfare.

-k

Hey kEnNyPoOpy!

Sure and you can script a Mexican hat dance, it's called a 'Hat Dance'... That doesn't mean that the 'Hat Dance' is going to appeal to anyone, get used or played to any extent -- especially if the interface is a more time consuming counter-intuitive effort then doing the real thing in the field would be...

As I pointed out in the How will ArmA 3 differ from Arma 2, and ArmA? thread my premise is based on the sense that I've always felt that there could be a PvP MP game between ArmA and and the Battlefield games, that could easily be more popular then either, and I'd prefer to see BI should it, then DICE or some Publisher owned and controlled Studio.

Uh, you mentioned squad systems using examples of games that don't have realistic squad systems.

Well, my premise was not the most 'realistic squad system'... Multi-Player PvP gaming is by definition intended to be 'a fair and balanced contest of skill' -- real warfare is always asymmetrical, all means to the greatest extent possible are exploited to obviate the skill of the opposing force, as well for your own forces mitigating the effects of their skill (or lack there of) on the certainty of outcome to the greatest extent possible.

The highest fidelity in realism is still only going to be had in asymmetrical single-player and coop games... And even with respect to fidelity in realism; what's more realistic: an interface mirrors realism but due to it's cumbersome affectation breaks game and time scale, and has unrealistic effects on game outcomes, or, a less realistic interface that creates more realistic game-scale time continuity and outcomes? I think both are fine as long as you understand your premise, but I'm pursuing the latter here...

You mention BF2, but that is really a fireteam. So do you mean every player controls an AI fireteam or an AI squad?

It could be either, wich would be contingent on how many Players and AI positions the engine could reconcile.

That'd be a lot of squads in a server unless you have like only 5 or 6 human players allowed per server (a squad being a 9 man unit). And, then again, if this were in ArmA3 MP, it'd only be like one game mode out of several.

It could be a lot of squads or fire teams on a sever, but ArmA maps are quite large, and not all objectives have to be on top of each other.

This could also be means of integrating larger (and more coordinated) combined arms operations -- again the mechanics may not be the most 'realistic' but the actual outcomes in how the game is played could be more so then fiddling with an obtuse interface. Or, it could be as you suggest just five or six player PEvPE, which could make for a really compelling game (with more to do then driving the support vehicle for forty minutes) for a small group of friends or a small pick-up game.

But my premise is one of accessibility, PvP that has more 'game appeall' and sets a nice precedent that might get followed in more mods rather then be fragmented by them.

:eek:

Squads go anywhere from 8-12 and sadly the squad system is the only thing AA3 did right.

No you should not be able to 3D spot in ArmA, that's where BF2 vanill/BF3 came in. Controlling an AI squad and all make a mission in the editor. If you want logistical support create an HQ and link some trucks to it and when you use the menu you can request a repair truck from your HQ. I've done it once, it's interesting.

If anything when it comes to structure a squad screen & maybe platoon or company similar to BF2's would go a long way with the management tools of Americas Army as a default example game mode/the ability to have more organized gameplay. On something like recruit/normal you could have names above peoples heads and all to get the people that aren't hardcore into the game while still having accessibility.

Not to burst your bubble either but real warfare is not always asymmetric. Look at Vietnam, Guerilla Warfare or "unconventional warfare".

However the emphasis on teamwork/cohesion is not there as mentioned above. Other games really enforce it but not always in the best way, simply putting together an easier to use system that's ready to go from the start will get more people interested. Having to press 1 button only to have millions of different reactions is just annoying. Thing's can be simplified whether it's by spreading the keys more which isn't a great idea. Or making thing's more of a situational based type deal which has been in the past suggested.

ie. i'm looking at a door knob I can open the door, I look at some other part and I can kick it in, I back up and point my gun at the hinges and blow it off, or I pull out my C4 charge and it allows me to attach them to the door.

Hey kEnNyPoOpy!

Sure and you can script a Mexican hat dance, it's called a 'Hat Dance'... That doesn't mean that the 'Hat Dance' is going to appeal to anyone, get used or played to any extent -- especially if the interface is a more time consuming counter-intuitive effort then doing the real thing in the field would be...

As I pointed out in the How will ArmA 3 differ from Arma 2, and ArmA? thread my premise is based on the sense that I've always felt that there could be a PvP MP game between ArmA and and the Battlefield games, that could easily be more popular then either, and I'd prefer to see BI should it, then DICE or some Publisher owned and controlled Studio.

Well, my premise was not the most 'realistic squad system'... Multi-Player PvP gaming is by definition intended to be 'a fair and balanced contest of skill' -- real warfare is always asymmetrical, all means to the greatest extent possible are exploited to obviate the skill of the opposing force, as well for your own forces mitigating the effects of their skill (or lack there of) on the certainty of outcome to the greatest extent possible.

The highest fidelity in realism is still only going to be had in asymmetrical single-player and coop games... And even with respect to fidelity in realism; what's more realistic: an interface mirrors realism but due to it's cumbersome affectation breaks game and time scale, and has unrealistic effects on game outcomes, or, a less realistic interface that creates more realistic game-scale time continuity and outcomes? I think both are fine as long as you understand your premise, but I'm pursuing the latter here...

It could be either, wich would be contingent on how many Players and AI positions the engine could reconcile.

It could be a lot of squads or fire teams on a sever, but ArmA maps are quite large, and not all objectives have to be on top of each other.

This could also be means of integrating larger (and more coordinated) combined arms operations -- again the mechanics may not be the most 'realistic' but the actual outcomes in how the game is played could be more so then fiddling with an obtuse interface. Or, it could be as you suggest just five or six player PEvPE, which could make for a really compelling game (with more to do then driving the support vehicle for forty minutes) for a small group of friends or a small pick-up game.

But my premise is one of accessibility, PvP that has more 'game appeall' and sets a nice precedent that might get followed in more mods rather then be fragmented by them.

:eek:

I'm thinking in terms of the amount of lag that would be. ArmA is a simulator, if there's going to be some fireteam that's called a squad, then call it what it is.

As far as asymmetrical gameplay in SP and COOP, why do you need to have an unrealistic system to have asymmetric gameplay? I don't get that part of your argument. I don't see how a realistic unit structure would negatively affect the gameplay. With a system like what I described, you could have your system and more. And servers could lock out whatever positions hosts wanted to reserve for AI. So human players would only fill leadership positions (your team leaders, squad leaders, platoon leaders). My suggestion would offer more flexibility while having a realistic unit structure. I fail to see how that would break the game mechanics.

@SGTIce: I like the CLS system and training in AA3. It was very instructional, and a med system where you actually had to put in practice some of what you were taught. There was that story of the AA3 player who saved someone's life after a car accident... It wasn't as good as AA2 but I thought it was still ok. Graphics were better lol. But, yeah, the squad system in AA2/3 is the best thing those games offer. AA2 is like between ArmA and tactical shooters IMO. And I'm with you. No 3D spotting. This shouldn't turn into BF3. The "game appeal" should come in with the animations/fluidity of CQC operations. That'd add to the game appeal. Movement would be a lot closer to the feel of standard FPS games (simply because of fluid movement and relative fluidity of CQB gameplay, which most FPSs have), which would make the game feel more like standard shooters, which would be familiar with a lot of ppl, especially newcomers. That's the extent of game appeal that there should be. The rest, simulator-appeal. The tried and true ArmA formula. Game modes based around operations.

Not to burst your bubble either but real warfare is not always asymmetric. Look at Vietnam, Guerilla Warfare or "unconventional warfare".

Burst my bubble? You imagine Vietnam was a historical represntation of symmetrical warfare? You are joking, right?

I'm thinking in terms of the amount of lag that would be. ArmA is a simulator, if there's going to be some fireteam that's called a squad, then call it what it is.

Lag, or latency anomalies are a function of net-code, not how realistic or unrealistic a game might be.

As far as asymmetrical gameplay in SP and COOP, why do you need to have an unrealistic system to have asymmetric gameplay?

You don't, I never said or implied otherwise.

I don't get that part of your argument.

You don't get it because that's not what I said, and there's no argument..

I don't see how a realistic unit structure would negatively affect the gameplay.

I don't either, why would you assume it would?

:eek:

Look at the big kids flame it out, show us your massive egos.

I think the best example of realistic unit structure would have to be the group "ShackTac". They use a realistic platoon layout with the only difference being a medic/corpsman at squad level. Now this is a clan of course and as antoineflemming already pointed out not everyone is going to want to join a clan/group just for some sense of realistic unit cohesion. I think the first problems with gearing players of any particular MP game toward working as a realistic platoon with a chain of command starts in the lobby itself. When you join any public server ATM you get a whole bunch of open slots. Now while all these open slots are structured into different groups and individual roles I think the fact that I can join and just jump into a random engineer slot on an empty team for example. There's also no guarantee that a public server will have enough players to make a whole platoon at any one time.

This is all fine of course, alot of pub servers don't really give a toss about realism and are just on to have fun. But at the moment if someone does want to have a more realistic game one night, with a proper chain of command etc. Their isn't really that much on offer from my experience without joining a clan and using a private server (which some of the newcomers to Arma3 might not be too keen on at first.) So to get to my point I think if the lobby was organized in a way that the chain of command was always maintained and AI could fill the empty slots to have a full platoon at all times no matter how many people were on the server it could be a good starting point for a more cohesive team without all the unfilled roles when the server isn't very populated. One way to organize the lobby in such a way could be to:

1. If the server is empty the first person signing in will only be able to select the role of platoon leader with all roles beneath PL locked and occupied by AI controlled by the PL with High Command at squad level. So one player on the server means that one player will be able to use 3 squads of AI with HC and have a team consisting of platoon sgt, medic/corpsman etc. who can be given orders in the usual way.

2. Once another player signs in they have the option of any of the squad leader roles or as the platoon sgt or other support roles under the PL's immediate control while the TL's and fire team member slots are still locked as they have no human leaders yet (apart from the PL with HC of course. but even then he cannot control his fire teams separately without the help of a Squad Leader).

3. A third player signs in, now he also has the option to join the PL's support team or take a squad leaders role and if the previous player took the role of SL he also has the option be become a FTL as both FTL's of one squad now have a human player commanding them.

I hope your with me so far...

4. Now let's say another 3 players sign in. They can also take any remaining support roles under the PL's direct command including SL slots. Lets say the precious player chose to be FTL. Now these three new players can actually make up the rest of the Fire Team if they choose.

5. Ok so now hypothetically we might have a PL, a SL, a FTL, an AR/MG, a Grenadier, and a Rifleman.

I think this could create a chain of command by not allowing a player to be a fire team leader unless said FTL has a human squad leader, or not allowing players to join as a rifleman if there is no human FTL for that particular role.

Now what happens when a PL, SL or TL leaves the server? I guess the PL would be replaced by the most "senior" SL (or just whichever SL has been online the longest). Of course if someone wanted to remain SL he could always offer the role to another SL, fast track a TL or fire team member if they wanted or even just use a voting system like in Warfare. So the problem with that then, is if there is no one willing to take on the role of the PL. Well this would be the exception to the locked slots with AI leader rule, if you've been on for an hour or so and your PL leaves but everyone is happy where they are then the role of PL is simply taken over by the AI (which could just be voted for such as in Warfare or similar). Then the next player to sign in will have to assume the roll of PL as no players previously wanted it. I guess having a voting system or some other sort of 'role switching' system would be needed and maybe even being able to vote to relieve a rouge PL from duty if needed and demote him to a SL, TL or whatever other available slot exists below the rank of PL. Then the PL would just go back to AI control.

I know this isn't the ideal system for a chain of command and there a probably lots of holes in it, but I think it (in theory) it could make game play on Public servers a bit more cohesive and Command & Control oriented. There could even already be a similar system in place out there in one of the many MP missions.

Well I guess at the end of the day it's up to the mission makers, but I think it would be good to see something similar to what's being discussed in this thread straight out of the box.

And thank you if you made it through all this! :)

I know this isn't the ideal system for a chain of command and there a probably lots of holes in it, but I think it (in theory) it could make game play on Public servers a bit more cohesive and Command & Control oriented. There could even already be a similar system in place out there in one of the many MP missions.

Well I guess at the end of the day it's up to the mission makers, but I think it would be good to see something similar to what's being discussed in this thread straight out of the box.

And thank you if you made it through all this! :)

I think the biggest flaw is the players themsevles. Forcing them into a structure will not work. I have played on quite a few domi servers, you will have lone wolves who will just go out and kill as much as you can, and then you will have other players who will say "anyone want to go do x?" and then they will join a squad and go and carry out the task. I think a squad based selecter based on something like in domi (or PR even) would be ideal, just put noone into a squad in the lobby, and just sort it out in game.

Look at the big kids flame it out, show us your massive egos.

Actually we are having a good, wholesome, peaceful discussion, while you are trolling with no contribution whatsoever to the discussion.

---------- Post added at 09:12 ---------- Previous post was at 09:04 ----------

I think the best example of realistic unit structure would have to be the group "ShackTac". They use a realistic platoon layout with the only difference being a medic/corpsman at squad level. Now this is a clan of course and as antoineflemming already pointed out not everyone is going to want to join a clan/group just for some sense of realistic unit cohesion. I think the first problems with gearing players of any particular MP game toward working as a realistic platoon with a chain of command starts in the lobby itself. When you join any public server ATM you get a whole bunch of open slots. Now while all these open slots are structured into different groups and individual roles I think the fact that I can join and just jump into a random engineer slot on an empty team for example. There's also no guarantee that a public server will have enough players to make a whole platoon at any one time.

This is all fine of course, alot of pub servers don't really give a toss about realism and are just on to have fun. But at the moment if someone does want to have a more realistic game one night, with a proper chain of command etc. Their isn't really that much on offer from my experience without joining a clan and using a private server (which some of the newcomers to Arma3 might not be too keen on at first.) So to get to my point I think if the lobby was organized in a way that the chain of command was always maintained and AI could fill the empty slots to have a full platoon at all times no matter how many people were on the server it could be a good starting point for a more cohesive team without all the unfilled roles when the server isn't very populated. One way to organize the lobby in such a way could be to:

1. If the server is empty the first person signing in will only be able to select the role of platoon leader with all roles beneath PL locked and occupied by AI controlled by the PL with High Command at squad level. So one player on the server means that one player will be able to use 3 squads of AI with HC and have a team consisting of platoon sgt, medic/corpsman etc. who can be given orders in the usual way.

2. Once another player signs in they have the option of any of the squad leader roles or as the platoon sgt or other support roles under the PL's immediate control while the TL's and fire team member slots are still locked as they have no human leaders yet (apart from the PL with HC of course. but even then he cannot control his fire teams separately without the help of a Squad Leader).

3. A third player signs in, now he also has the option to join the PL's support team or take a squad leaders role and if the previous player took the role of SL he also has the option be become a FTL as both FTL's of one squad now have a human player commanding them.

I hope your with me so far...

4. Now let's say another 3 players sign in. They can also take any remaining support roles under the PL's direct command including SL slots. Lets say the precious player chose to be FTL. Now these three new players can actually make up the rest of the Fire Team if they choose.

5. Ok so now hypothetically we might have a PL, a SL, a FTL, an AR/MG, a Grenadier, and a Rifleman.

I think this could create a chain of command by not allowing a player to be a fire team leader unless said FTL has a human squad leader, or not allowing players to join as a rifleman if there is no human FTL for that particular role.

Now what happens when a PL, SL or TL leaves the server? I guess the PL would be replaced by the most "senior" SL (or just whichever SL has been online the longest). Of course if someone wanted to remain SL he could always offer the role to another SL, fast track a TL or fire team member if they wanted or even just use a voting system like in Warfare. So the problem with that then, is if there is no one willing to take on the role of the PL. Well this would be the exception to the locked slots with AI leader rule, if you've been on for an hour or so and your PL leaves but everyone is happy where they are then the role of PL is simply taken over by the AI (which could just be voted for such as in Warfare or similar). Then the next player to sign in will have to assume the roll of PL as no players previously wanted it. I guess having a voting system or some other sort of 'role switching' system would be needed and maybe even being able to vote to relieve a rouge PL from duty if needed and demote him to a SL, TL or whatever other available slot exists below the rank of PL. Then the PL would just go back to AI control.

I know this isn't the ideal system for a chain of command and there a probably lots of holes in it, but I think it (in theory) it could make game play on Public servers a bit more cohesive and Command & Control oriented. There could even already be a similar system in place out there in one of the many MP missions.

Well I guess at the end of the day it's up to the mission makers, but I think it would be good to see something similar to what's being discussed in this thread straight out of the box.

And thank you if you made it through all this! :)

Well it'd all be customizable anyway. Servers that didn't want the chain of command system wouldn't have that. My idea of it was just so that this system could better facilitate unit structure for those servers that did want it. For servers that preferred to establish such a system in game, then they'd just disable that. For those who wanted a unit structure up front, well there'd be an option for that too.

As far as swapping roles, well AA2/3 had an option for requesting a swap of roles. That would also be available for such a system in ArmA3. Then, you don't have to ask someone else to be a SL. You can esimply press swap, and a notification would come up letting the other player know that someone wanted to swap positions.

This would be a completely customizable system so if someone wanted to lockout just one of the squad leaders, or lock out a rifleman, that'd be possible. It'd just give more flexibility to server hosts.

Actually we are having a good, wholesome, peaceful discussion, while you are spamming with no contribution whatsoever to the discussion.

Agree, I have no idea what that fella was on about... There is some apples and oranges discussion here though as 'Squad Systems' in games encompasses of a lot of features. For clarity: I don't think any aspect of a fire-team, squad, or a platoon system 'has' to be unrealistic to be accessible, functional or appealing to a larger audience; there are some features that do lend a form to function if you want a more realistic outcome in terms of game-play that may not look particularly realistic.

An illustration of this is would be ArmA's reticule system; there's nothing realistic about having a reticule in a game per se, but because we view a game or sim as a flat, distorted anamorphic projection from what is really a detached 'second person' perspective we don't have real world proprioceptive cues of where our weapon is pointed or how much it might be moving.

The features that I've been discussing and am most interested in the CCC acronym that fall under the aegis of a 'Squad System' are the 'Control & Communication' features. I assume the Command would be fairly realistic or at least a reasonable abstract of realism. But when it comes to 'Control & Communication' I agree with some would be ArmA Fans that regard ArmA's 'Control & Communication' features and interfaces as obtuse, awkward and incomplete.

:)

Dan;2128025']I think the biggest flaw is the players themsevles. Forcing them into a structure will not work. I have played on quite a few domi servers' date=' you will have lone wolves who will just go out and kill as much as you can, and then you will have other players who will say "anyone want to go do x?" and then they will join a squad and go and carry out the task. I think a squad based selecter based on something like in domi (or PR even) would be ideal, just put noone into a squad in the lobby, and just sort it out in game.[/quote']

Yeah there will always be players that just like to lone wolf, each to his own. This is just an idea for what is basically the structure a mission maker could use based on real life military structure while locking out certain slots under different circumstances to keep things organized for faster paced missions. This kind setup might only work on a specific mission if at all, I was thinking more along the lines of PvP when writing this. Thinking about it now what games like BF2 and BF3 give you as incentive to take the role of commander, or be in a squad is XP. Basically I would agree with you that forcing people into roles wouldn't really work without incentive and adding XP and unlocks to an ArmA game will probably (read: hopefully) never happen.

I think if there is an advantage to a system like this it's that everyone is pretty much on equal ground whether they're PL or FTL no one is ever really responsible for more than three other players/AI at one time, there's a reason the military do it this way IRL. That said, a bunch of players in a public server is not a well trained close knit unit of professional soldiers, but it might appeal to players looking for realistic PvP team structures like AA2 or AA3 (I wouldn't expect a game mode to have a PL fill out paper work!):p.

Well it'd all be customizable anyway. Servers that didn't want the chain of command system wouldn't have that. My idea of it was just so that this system could better facilitate unit structure for those servers that did want it. For servers that preferred to establish such a system in game, then they'd just disable that. For those who wanted a unit structure up front, well there'd be an option for that too.

As far as swapping roles, well AA2/3 had an option for requesting a swap of roles. That would also be available for such a system in ArmA3. Then, you don't have to ask someone else to be a SL. You can esimply press swap, and a notification would come up letting the other player know that someone wanted to swap positions.

This would be a completely customizable system so if someone wanted to lockout just one of the squad leaders, or lock out a rifleman, that'd be possible. It'd just give more flexibility to server hosts.

Of course! I totally agree it would have to be completely customizable. It might be used for PvP over COOP, as [EVO] Dan said, just putting no one into a squad in the lobby and sorting it out in game. This would obviously be preferable when doing missions vs the AI because players will want to do different objectives and you can't expect everyone to be locked into a role and agree on doing the same objectives. As it is now, with game modes like domi, patrol ops, etc. having/swapping roles isn't really necessary when changing roles is basically just going to an ammo box and swapping out your M4 for and M24 when you spawn. I can see it more as a PvP thing, so features like spawning on your fire team make it preferable to be part of a fire team, and being a SL you could spawn on either of your fire teams and call in support that isn't available to TL's and fire team members. So I'd agree this is really an option left to the admin depending on what type of mission they're running at the time.

The possibilities are endless really, I guess that's the beauty of the ArmA series though, even if you aren't happy with the missions that ship with the initial release you can pretty much create any scenario you can possibly think of to play instead. When it comes to new players though a lot may be expecting that what comes with the game is all there is in terms of MP if they're not familiar with the series, and might not stick around for all the great user missions that will be inevitably be made.

whats wrong with the currend system?

why make a flexible system static?

every mission have its UNIQUE needed layout..

a Tank platoon have another layout as a infantry platoon.

the strengh of Arma is the flexibility you can create a infantry PVP mission or a lagescaled platoon operation

its all up to the missionmakers to create the realistic layout that you want

if you look in the Armaverse there are many realistic squadlayout based missions.

True. Operation flashpoint 2 make something like that, 4 men per team, you cant add more that was the worst of that arcade game

I'm thinking in terms of the amount of lag that would be. ArmA is a simulator, if there's going to be some fireteam that's called a squad, then call it what it is.

As far as asymmetrical gameplay in SP and COOP, why do you need to have an unrealistic system to have asymmetric gameplay? I don't get that part of your argument. I don't see how a realistic unit structure would negatively affect the gameplay. With a system like what I described, you could have your system and more. And servers could lock out whatever positions hosts wanted to reserve for AI. So human players would only fill leadership positions (your team leaders, squad leaders, platoon leaders). My suggestion would offer more flexibility while having a realistic unit structure. I fail to see how that would break the game mechanics.

@SGTIce: I like the CLS system and training in AA3. It was very instructional, and a med system where you actually had to put in practice some of what you were taught. There was that story of the AA3 player who saved someone's life after a car accident... It wasn't as good as AA2 but I thought it was still ok. Graphics were better lol. But, yeah, the squad system in AA2/3 is the best thing those games offer. AA2 is like between ArmA and tactical shooters IMO. And I'm with you. No 3D spotting. This shouldn't turn into BF3. The "game appeal" should come in with the animations/fluidity of CQC operations. That'd add to the game appeal. Movement would be a lot closer to the feel of standard FPS games (simply because of fluid movement and relative fluidity of CQB gameplay, which most FPSs have), which would make the game feel more like standard shooters, which would be familiar with a lot of ppl, especially newcomers. That's the extent of game appeal that there should be. The rest, simulator-appeal. The tried and true ArmA formula. Game modes based around operations.

The only things I felt were done right in ArmA 3 were the Rifle training with the shapes/such & medical as always. They haven't failed me on medical yet. But the grenades and whatnot were terribly done. Americas Army 1/2 for the most part have been the best in most aspects of the game.

As long as the system is flexible, its fine by me :)

The only things I felt were done right in ArmA 3 were the Rifle training with the shapes/such & medical as always. They haven't failed me on medical yet. But the grenades and whatnot were terribly done. Americas Army 1/2 for the most part have been the best in most aspects of the game.

You mean America's Army 3... I agree with you. The thing that stands out the most is the CLS training. AA3 really should have been AA2 with updated graphics, sounds, and UI. I know ArmA3 won't have that much of simulation when it comes to healing people, but it'd be pretty neat if it had a med system similar to America's Army 3. And a training like AA3 (maybe an Armory scenario where you try out different weapons, vanilla and custom). Also, only thing besides cover system I'd like from GRFS would be something like their Gunsmith, only implemented into their armory system. It wouldn't be as detailed, but you'd be able to have some sort of system where you could see your weapon and the possible attachments in realtime (not just 2d menu objects). On that note, it'd be interesting but not terribly necessary if you could see the 3d models of equipment instead of just 2d images...

Wow I got offtopic... Back on topic. As far as the CLS aspect, I think it'd offer a greater dynamic to players who played as medics: in that platoon, squad, fireteam system, one rifleman could be a medic in some squads or fireteams. And it'd be cool if there was a training system for multiplayer like in America's Army 3. Some people don't like the idea of having to complete training to use a certain weapon or be a certain role, so it'd be a server option that hosts could turn on: either require training for certain roles, or don't require training for certain roles. The weapon systems/roles that would require training would be everything but a basic rifleman: grenadier, automatic rifleman, sniper, medic.

As long as the system is flexible, its fine by me :)

Well anything is fine by me, I'll be buying ArmA 3 regardless, though I do have some pet hopes and wishes that would see MP made more accessible and popular... I should probably point out the use of RTT in this thread refers to 'Real Time Tactical' as offered in games like Full Spectrum Warrior (which you can now download and play for free) and 2D RTT games like Close Combat Modern Tactics...

RTT game design revolves around realistic fire-team, squad, and even platoon level fire & maneuver tactics -- not only making use realistic fire/maneuver tactics accessible for play in real-time, but a game design where realistic tactics consistently prevail.

As mentioned in the topic post, some of the design concepts like streamlined tactical control and communication interfaces have made their way into first-person realism and tactical realism game's 'Squad Systems' -- including ArmA, but some games offer much better interfaces with respect to actually commanding, communicating and actually executing coordinated squad fire maneuver tactics.

I personally strongly dislike VOIP, I not only can't stand idle adolescent patter, or the lack of schooled communication like: "Yeah Dude, like totally, over there on the right some where, like a truck thing with some kind of gun." (an actual quote I saved from an ArmA 2 VOIP session) -- which not only dashes immersiveness but makes it clear meaningful communication is out of the question.

In contrast, Battlefield 2, and it's more realistic mods like Project Reality, and Forgotten Hope 2 as part of their 'Squad Systems' offer variations on simplified and streamlined fire-team, and squad level command and communication that is a one button button solution to all situations that at least has meaningful context relative output, and more realistic outcomes with respect to actual game-play.

In most of the ArmA and ArmA 2 MP games I've played (not that many I admit) Players were either too unfamiliar with the game, too lazy, or too busy 'Yeah Dudeing' it up in VOIP to actually effect any useful CCC, and fire-team or squad tactics were at best hit and miss, with 'miss' being the prevailing outcome.

In the larger context, I think the sandbox of ArmA is too challenging to most realism game Fans that either lack real military experience, or aren't totally neck-deep Military Science Geeks; and that a more focused, streamlined and accessible interface to fire-team, squad and/or even platoon level CCC would make MP PvP attractive to a larger audience, but better MP PvP games for everyone playing...

:)

That's all nice and I in fact support it, but unfortunately, especially with games with a scope of available options as Arma, 'streamline' and 'accessibility' are words that basically mean 'dumb down' for the casual crowd. Obviously, the casual crowd here is a stereotyped group of cave-dwelling idiots that can't fathom rational thought beyond "OMG QUIksCope n00B Hak0rZ!", which we all (hopefully) know to be untrue, but still, many good - generally PC game - developers have gone down that road and not returned, a fate, which we I do not want for Bohemia Interactive.

Man, I must have broken some sort of sentence length record with that post.

That's all nice and I in fact support it, but unfortunately, especially with games with a scope of available options as Arma, 'streamline' and 'accessibility' are words that basically mean 'dumb down' for the casual crowd.

Streamlined, simplified, and more accessible do not have to mean 'dumbed down' in the least. More efficient, streamed and simplified interfaces in no way implies 'simplistic'; take the instrumentation of a modern fighter aircraft and compare it to it's Cold War counterpart -- is the MFD 'going down a road of no return' to making fighter aircraft more accessible to your 'cave-dwelling idiots' -- I think not...

The fact that you can not use some of ArmA's interfaces with real-time, or even 'to scale' efficacy to execute the same action you could in the real world makes it pretty clear there's room for improvement. Add to this that a new Payer has to memorize a substantial game semantic that has nothing to do with realism, actual Military Science or jargon, and you have a learning curve that has nothing to do with over-all game or audience quality; it's just less accessible that it could be...

:rolleyes:

Streamlined, simplified, and more accessible do not have to mean 'dumbed down' in the least.

I know they don't, but the fact is that these words are now feared for their hyperbolic meaning.

Streamlined, simplified, and more accessible do not have to mean 'dumbed down' in the least. More efficient, streamed and simplified interfaces in no way implies 'simplistic'; take the instrumentation of a modern fighter aircraft and compare it to it's Cold War counterpart -- is the MFD 'going down a road of no return' to making fighter aircraft more accessible to your 'cave-dwelling idiots' -- I think not...

The fact that you can not use some of ArmA's interfaces with real-time, or even 'to scale' efficacy to execute the same action you could in the real world makes it pretty clear there's room for improvement. Add to this that a new Payer has to memorize a substantial game semantic that has nothing to do with realism, actual Military Science or jargon, and you have a learning curve that has nothing to do with over-all game or audience quality; it's just less accessible that it could be...

:rolleyes:

+1 Bottom line is this. It's understandable that people want to keep the level of complexity in learning ArmA games because, well, it's a simulator, so it just has to have a lot of keys, has to take a lot of time to learn, has to be complicated, etc, otherwise people will pick it up too early, and that means it'll be like COD or something. /sarcasm

Thing is, if it really is to be a simulator, as in simulate real life combat as close as possible, then honestly it shouldn't take a whole lot of key presses to do basic things like ordering someone to move to a wall or something. In real combat if you want to order someone to do something, you just say it. You don't have to pull out a manual, flip to your bookmarked page of commands, and give out an order (a comparable action to scrolling through menus to give a command). Giving orders, directing your squad to do a,b, and c should be as close to the speed at which you can give orders with your mouth as possible. Look at how quickly you can tell someone to move to a tree, for example. Doing the same thing in ArmA should be as close to that as possible. That's my rationale for wanting features like radial menus and stuff. AA3 proves that radial menus don't have to be simplistic just because they're radial menus. Radial menus work, they are quick to access, quick to get out of. Some people complain that it'll take of too much of the screen, that you won't be able to turn with your mouse (there's a whole 'nother thread where these arguments were brought up). But you'll be in and out of the radial menu so quick that it really won't matter. I bring this up here because Hoak mentioned UI, and good, effective, quick to access interfaces would contribute a whole lot to the speed and efficiency needed to give AI commands in a CQC situation.

I know they don't, but the fact is that these words are now feared for their hyperbolic meaning.

Ah! I understand... I have more then a few friends acquaintances whose enthusiasm for ArmA started to tank at the bind screen, and these aren't people of marginal intellect (among them Chemical Engineer and a Navy Pilot), just people that don't desire to commit the amount of time to a game that I and other ArmA\BI Fans are.

My hope is that BI will step up and and acknowledge the huge gap between between ArmA and the next most realistic thing which used to filled by games like Rogue Spear and Ghost Recon but today is virtually unserved by anything but that decade old game, and a few mods for other titles -- and it's no small audience if you count the sales and disappointment with the direction those franchises took.

I don't think there's any cause for alarm or worry of ArmA 3 being 'dumbed down', at it's core is the promise of a sandbox game platform and tools to take that in any direction. Give a more focused, accessible, game mode and feature design that met with the kind of success Ghost Recon did would be an everybody wins outcome.

:)

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:31 ----------

We posted at the same time, so:

Thing is, if it really is to be a simulator, as in simulate real life combat as close as possible, then honestly it shouldn't take a whole lot of key presses to do basic things like ordering someone to move to a wall or something. In real combat if you want to order someone to do something, you just say it. You don't have to pull out a manual, flip to your bookmarked page of commands, and give out an order (a comparable action to scrolling through menus to give a command). Giving orders, directing your squad to do a,b, and c should be as close to the speed at which you can give orders with your mouth as possible. Look at how quickly you can tell someone to move to a tree, for example. Doing the same thing in ArmA should be as close to that as possible.

Exactly. I also tried to get a Bind System Design Thread discussion going, to explore exactly some of the topics you mention.

That's my rationale for wanting features like radial menus and stuff. AA3 proves that radial menus don't have to be simplistic just because they're radial menus. Radial menus work, they are quick to access, quick to get out of. Some people complain that it'll take of too much of the screen, that you won't be able to turn with your mouse (there's a whole 'nother thread where these arguments were brought up). But you'll be in and out of the radial menu so quick that it really won't matter. I bring this up here because Hoak mentioned UI, and good, effective, quick to access interfaces would contribute a whole lot to the speed and efficiency needed to give AI commands in a CQC situation.

Yes actually pie menus showed up in games before AA3, but AA3 offers some really nice execution. What's more a lot of ArmA CCC interface 'stuff' could easily be made context sensitive, so a simple pie or radial menu can change what it offers based on where or how it's used (commanding a squad, what your pointing at, if your in a vehicle, mounted to a crew served weapon etc.) letting one button serve for hundreds of options or commands.

There's also the learning curve; there are many would be and worthy Fans of ArmA that do not have military experience, and/or are not Mil Science Geeks that are enthusiastic and perfectly willing to learn, but the burden of learning not just realistic virtual military skills and jargon (which is what they're actually interested in) but end up in the case of ArmA buried in the onerous chore of learning an entire game semantic that turns something fun and even educational for some into more work then they have time for.

:)