Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • =VG= SemlerPDX

      VETERANS-GAMING is a Member Supported Community!   01/03/2021

      Special Thanks to all of our Supporters in 2020!!   Your contributions have gone a long way to helping keep systems and servers running, and VG can't thank you enough!  The current monthly costs total just over a hundred dollars a month, depending on usage traffic, and you all have helped reach that in nearly every quarterly goal of 2020.  This is YOUR community, and it shows!  Please help maintain this momentum in 2021 - VETERANS-GAMING appreciates your continued support!!
Sign in to follow this  
=VG= Acro1

Forbid Trans Inf and mixed squads

Recommended Posts

Trans Inf is one of those squads that just doesn't fit into PR. With the recent talks about how a team in PR should work together as a team, this seems like one of the things that should be given some thought. IMO this should be an official rule.

 

TL;DR:

Mech Inf (2 APC crew + 6 inf) is a plausible combo squad for which we established a rule. On the other hand, Trans Helos/Tanks/AntiAir should be available to support the entire team. Having a private pilot for your squad is like playing Vanilla BF2 where nobody cared about another squad's needs.

 

Reasons to not allow Trans Infantry, Anti-Air infantry, etc:

1) Non-optimal functioning of an asset due to private piloting or disregarding other SL's requests.

2) Assets remain unused after respawn because the pilot decides to do field infantry work after dying.

3) Tensions between legitimate Trans/ Tank/... squads and Trans Inf/ Armor Inf because both claim to have the right to a vehicle.

4) 'Squad Mingling' leads to more Vanilla-like playstyle with less desire for teamwork.

5) Great tendency to park air assets near capzones, going inf and switching back to pilot kit. This brings a huge risk of losing the asset.

 

Opinions greatly appreciated, as always ;).

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as Melon said. There is only one joint squad that is accepted, and that is Mechanized Infantry (1 APC + 6 infantry); and even in this case, you are not given any priority rights to claim any APC/IFV asset you want.

 

If a dedicated APC squad already exists, either:

  1. An APC squad exists, capable and manning every APC available, properly: Mech Inf. squads do not receive an APC, do not have any reserve asset rights even if APC squad loses a vehicle and a new one will be respawning, and any Mech Infantry squads are immediately treated as Regular Infantry squads.
     
  2. An APC squad exists, but currently do not have the manpower to man all their assets: Mech Inf. squad ASKS the APC squad lead if an APC is available for your Mech squad. Mechanized squads do not have claiming rights to any APCs the Mech inf. squad may want to use; they are given the APC that the APC Squad Leader gives, such as if the APC Squad Lead had already arranged plans to use the IFV [M2 Bradley] back at base for a crewman member that may currently be driving a Stryker, LAV, or Amtrak, due to another Squad requesting Armor support but the [M2 Bradley] was not available at the time of support request; and such said crewman member is returning to base to retrieve the [M2 Bradley], leaving the Stryker, LAV or Amtrak for the Mech Inf. Squad, with confirmation from APC Squad Leader.
      - (Any APC/IFV unit may be substituted within the brackets [ ].)
     
  3. A proper APC squad does not exist: Mech inf. is free, but limited to only 1 APC of choice. Asset rules still apply; IFV's (Any "APC" with a dedicated 50 caliber weapon system or higher onboard) require both a driver and gunner. If a proper dedicated APC squad is created, even while a Mech Inf. squad may still be using an APC/IFV unit, that dedicated APC squad, upon creation, is immediately given all rights regarding all APCs/IFVs assets. They reserve the right to withdraw usage of any APCs/IFVs being fielded by Mech Infantry squads within reason (request withdrawal may be delayed if the Mech unit is in combat, and will remain delayed until the firefight is finished; at which the APC/IFV must return to base or the agreed drop zone), especially if it's the only IFV for the map. At which, standard 2 or 1 will take effect. If you don't want to lose your APC/IFV unit, make a dedicated APC squad or join the properly named APC squad. If the dedicated APC squad receives enough manpower to man all their respective assets properly and becomes a full squad, any remaining APCs/IFVs being used by any other squad(s) or persons are all subjected to be claimed for the APC squad, even if any other squads or persons "held the APC unit longer". Properly named dedicated APC squad reserves the highest priority for these assets.

Remember, you MUST name your squad "Mech Inf." CLEARLY within your squad name correctly, in order to be acknowledged as a Mechanized Infantry squad. "Alpha, Bravo, Foxtrot, Echo, ect." are squad names for Regular Infantry squads, and is not a proper Mechanized Infantry squad name. You will be considered asset stealing and punished accordingly if you take an APC with these default names. Keep in mind, your primary role is still Infantry, so do not fuss if you only receive low performance APCs. The APC squad may require the higher end APCs/IFVs to provide support for the entirety of the team. You get what you are given.

 

Any other type of joint squad is void, and is treated as a Regular Infantry squad.

A joint-asset squad may be considered if less than 5 human players are present on the server, and is severely overrunned, out-numbered and/or out-manned by the opposing force. This is an exception and not an established rule. Asset rules are still in effect, and if an asset squad is properly created, they are immediately given their associated asset rights. Above this human player number, dedicated assets squad(s) must be created.

As with any of the rules, the human player count mandating the required creation of dedicated asset squads are left ultimately to the judgement and decision of the senior Administrator present, within reason. Such judgement and decision will be held at the integrity and responsibility of the commanding Administrator. If an Admin is not present, the default human player count "5" will be used.

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recon I wanna give you a hot tub full of blackjack and hookers for that reply :). Thank you A LOT for confirming what I thought and have been enforcing.

 

The main problem  is that not all players and not all admins know about the specifications you provided. Can we maybe stick this thread or put the detailed squad asset claiming rule into the coop server rules page?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Acromarts said:

Can we maybe stick this thread or put the detailed squad asset claiming rule into the coop server rules page?

 

On 10.08.2011. at 2:20 AM, =VG= BLuDKLoT said:

2. You willfully thieve any vehicle occupied or unoccupied that was not originally in your possession, OR the INTENTIONAL theft of a vehicle that has been assigned to a specific squads role, OR Intentionally cutting in front of other players waiting in line for any vehicle that is not assigned to a specific squad = KICK! (2nd Offense will get you BANNED!)

APC/IFV/ARMOUR squads have a priority over mech inf squads regarding use of an asset, if the vehicle is not in use/unable to be manned then mech inf squads can use the asset.

If original squad is full and there are unused assets, a second squad can be made.

 

That seems pretty clear to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" APC/IFV/ARMOUR squads have a priority over mech inf squads regarding use of an asset, if the vehicle is not in use/unable to be manned then mech inf squads can use the asset. "

 

To be honest I don't think that works in COOP.

APC squads are generally basically only interested in utilising APC firepower to eliminate enemies. Try calling for a ride with an APC SQD, you almost never get a response. Guys I know some of you kick ass driving us around but mostly APC guys want to shoot stuff and not doing what an armoured PERSONEL carrier should do. Ergo I think that MECH INF should have priority always. At least they will have a SQD LDR that will coordinate, can change kits and can wreak havoc on the enemy. 

By no means am I challenging the rules. But I do think it's worth my two cents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, =VG= BrakeGamer said:

Dependes who creates the squad first, if Mech Inf gets their squad up first, they got it, if APC is first then Mech Inf takes anything if there is anything left

Yeah. But I don't agree with that. To me APC is transport first. Assault second. I think ergo, as most APC SQD's are simply using the vehicle for their firepower, MECH INF should get dibs. Always. I know it's not the rules it's just my opinion. 

 

I mean  think about it. What's the bloody point of driving a 6-7 seater around for the only purpose of shooting enemies? Dips on MECH INF I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont see many ppl calling for APC rides, it's usually choppers. But the rules need to be updated to list transportation as a secondary role, or SOP for people in light armor like LAV squads, they must also serve as transport for ground troops, provide cover when requested, etc..It's what the thing is made for anyway.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good points there, but I think that kind of rule is more appropriate for Deployment, since its more team work oriented and when I think about it, a full Squad riding in a APC in coop, You gotta think about the AI, which snipes everything from 5 km with their little pesky RPG's. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, =VG= BLuDKLoT said:

I dont see many ppl calling for APC rides, it's usually choppers. But the rules need to be updated to list transportation as a secondary role, or SOP for people in light armor like LAV squads, they must also serve as transport for ground troops, provide cover when requested, etc..It's what the thing is made for anyway.  

Fair point Blud. But the the thing is that I actually don't bother to call for APC often. I depend on two or three awesome TRANS guys or my own humvees/jeeps/trucks/feet for transport. Personally I hardly ever play MECH INF but I have seen some guys do it as squad leaders and kick ass. Much more than a random guy in APC. Ergo my pledge to give MECH INF priority. From experience I just believe that it's a better team work experience. Again. My opinion. Not fact perse.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, =VG= BLuDKLoT said:

I dont see many ppl calling for APC rides, it's usually choppers. But the rules need to be updated to list transportation as a secondary role, or SOP for people in light armor like LAV squads, they must also serve as transport for ground troops, provide cover when requested, etc..It's what the thing is made for anyway.  

Also. In regard to the rules. I personally believe that APC should have a priority for moving squads from A to B and provide cover fire etc. Not the individual assault role they play at the moment. APC should always be support first. Again. My two cents. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, =VG= BrakeGamer said:

Good points there, but I think that kind of rule is more appropriate for Deployment, since its more team work oriented and when I think about it, a full Squad riding in a APC in coop, You gotta think about the AI, which snipes everything from 5 km with their little pesky RPG's. 

Yeah but it is like that in reality. Personally I don't play MECH INF often. But I have seen some guys do it flawlessly. It is a lot better game experience than just a guy driving an AAV on Muttrah to score some kills and get blown up. I'm telling you that playing MECH INF can be lethally effectively with the right people and thus because they're using the asset correctly and effectively should have priority.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like both uses but if we're sticking with reality those are crew served assets that do not ride alone on the battlefield but we can manage this however we like. I guess depends on if the server full, what map, etc.. I'm good either way really. Just saying that ppl who want these assets to use as they're intended we should help facilitate that, but for the others, let them do what they've been doing. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any APC/IFV squad who has a competent squad leader will glady lend one vehicle for the squad in order to aid the team as a whole, but I see more benefit of assigning APC/INF squad member under the command of INF squad leader (this doesn't mean letting him joining INF squad) instead of letting one of them take the vehicle. By doing this, you can not only have every single one of your squad members fulfilling their role as an infantryman, but also give the driver/gunner an objective assessment of the situation and environment. I have seen many cases where MECHINF simply asks their driver to rush into the flag and drop them off in order to minimize walking, and this caused countless armors to be destroyed by an RPG bot who spawned behind them. While Deployment uses armor as a speahead to cause a panic within enemy team, COOP is a place where we deal with rpg bots that can shoot through trees and hit it from an insane distance without even properly aiming.  Because of this, armor should be always behind inf, providing an overwatch and fire support from a safe distance. It's never meant to be a simple, disposable taxi cab, and we shouldn't use it like that.

Regarding Jersan's comment, there are situations where APC/INF's role is limited to fire support from a distance due to a situation they're facing. Do we really want APC/INF asset to be inside the first village flag in Operation Archer? Do we want them to be a spearhead on assault to Kuressaare in Saaremaa? There are situations where chopper ride is much safer than a APC/INF ride, and limited number of armored asset on certain maps make both MECHINF and APC/INF squad impossible to create. Case in point, APC/INF should always have the priority to strategize how to use their asset in order to maximize the usefulness of one.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys. It is absolutely fine by me either way. I am only stating that I have seen awesome effectively ran MECH INF squads who in my experience gave greate support and fire power. They in my humble opinion are far more effective and should thus get the claim to armour before the APC squad. 

I totally get why we can't tolerate Airmobile Squads but it seems to me that mechanized infantry should be the norm rather than the exception. 

Let's play a few rounds infantry and watch the APC guys get blown up trying to get a few kills. While we are desperately trying to take out tanks and anti-air to get a pick up from a great pilot. And often watch the APC dick around far away. 

It's not why they're there in my opinion. 

Play a fully coordinated MECH INF squad next and see how awesome it works.

Again. My two cents... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, =VG= Fastjack said:

I could life with the trans inf on vietnam era maps. But i hear already the complaining about this suggestion.

The problem with Airborne INF is that you 'HOG' a chopper. On Muttrah this can work perfectly. On most other maps it doesn't. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, it have nothing todo with what map the airborne tactic works good or not.

My reality point of view is,

the vietnam war was also the new era of warfare with introducing the helicopters as main transport. The US used tons of helicopters in vietnam to drop their troops and sofar i know was the cobra AH-1G and the cobra corsair the first attack helicopters that was used in vietnam war.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally when I'm leading an APC squad I have no problem giving one of my assets to Mech Inf for the sake of good teamplay, IF and only IF I know the other SL to be a good and cautious teamplayer. If they fuck up, they just dont get an APC again. Period. This is why the asset-claiming hierarchy is important.

 

An issue with Mech Inf squads, in my experience, is that they tend to use the Mech as a shield.  They position the APC in front of them to protect the infantry but putting the APC at risk. Obviously this isnt always the case, but still more often than should be good.

 

Though I agree that sometimes APC's tend to fight their own battles, it mainly depends on the Squad leader. Many good APC leaders will assign their vehicles to guard a squad or provide cover from a distance.

If someone in your squad does not follow orders, resulting in a disruption of 'team-flow', just kick them out.

I've kicked plenty of pilots and drivers out of my squad for not listening and flying off to do their own thing, endangering the asset in the process.

 

This is PR. You play for your team. COOP may be 'training' to some but teamplay is the most important trait one should posses and train.

 If your SL says to guard a crossing, there's a reason. If he says DONT FLY OVER DAM, there's a reason.  Imo, APC squads should still prioritize over Mech Inf so that it's always clear who has power over the assets.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On some maps i find the Mech inf has no right for an ACP or striker.

lately I had a huge discussion about mech inf on kokan. This because we only have 1 Striker and particular person always make a mech inf and uses it as personal transport for his squad. The Striker is in that case only use as an transportation device could and should be manned with a dedicated squad rather then functioning as an armed loggi 

Situation

On mapstart someone that loads fast makes Squad 1 named Mech inf and 2 sec later i make a striker squad. find that we still have rights over the Striker due to the rule that an asset squads have right over the asset. just because people load faster doesn't mean they can always claim as they please. I understand if we had 2 or 3 of these assets one could claim it but if there is only 1 I find that on loadup the asset squad keeps the right. Once in battle (+2 min from start) I agree that one could claim it with a mech inf squad. 

I would like to hear what the official stand on this situation is because its becoming an regular issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You think he use the Stryker for his personal transportation but in my eyes he use it for the whole 8 man squad to fullfill the job. There are enough logitruck (atleast one) so i ask me why the stryker should be used as amored logi? There is no need for an armored transporter when you have only one Stryker on kokan, his job should be the firesupport and not rolling around and taxing soldiers. 

There are enough gwagons and you can also build fobs to make the way closer to the front.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm personally in favor of deployment rule set up for mech inf having access to one, 2 - man APC/IFV. Currently, the set of rules we have for mech inf makes so many issues and problems as we can see from this thread.  Teamwork between Mech INf and APC squads just doesn't work on COOP most of the times. There are too many new players on and personally I would rather have my own personal vehicle in the squad  than to spend 10 minutes explaining to the other APC driver where to go and then to come back and pick up the other 2 guys that got left behind because we can't fit them inside the vehicle ( BF2 engine limit)

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with Ted on this one. It's already a pain locking your squad to facilitate solid infil and exfil at 7 just to use airlift effectively. But leaving 2 guys behind limits your squad to 6 if you plan to use APC squad in a low risk speedy sense. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×