Squad Layout

Home / INDEX / ASOR / Squad Layout

This topic contains 13 replies, has 11 voices, and was last updated by  Healy 4 weeks ago.

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #35343

    OneEyed
    Registered User
    black_dragon operator sotf1 donator dwf russia leader

    Achieving an objective is what you are supposed to do as grunts. Achieving objectives takes wits, strategy and intelligence. Killing people just requires pulling a trigger. – Jayvan, 2017

    It is very apparent that Discord is not the place for these kinds of discussions, so its time to breathe life back into the Forums, even for just a quick second.

    It has been brought up in general that a squad layout change may be in order. Some (admittedly myself and a few others) have mentioned that our current setup has given a singular squad way to much firepower than is neither necessary or challenging from a game play perspective.

    In terms of the squad’s current layout, here is the major problem:
    Due to our extreme firepower capabilities, ASOR as a whole has moved towards a “throw everything we’ve got at it and hope it dies” approach to its tactical gameplay. The threat of an MBT, IFV or even an entire platoon of enemy units has lost its effectiveness in posing a distinct and “terrifying” opponent to ASOR in general. We always have the ability to deal with opposition quickly and ruthlessly, regardless of our usual situation. It takes a whole squad wipe and a half to make even singular BMP or BTR the kind of threat that it should pose. This has several damaging effects on our gameplay and as a result, general enjoyment:

    1. Players have a lowered threat response to singular vehicle contacts and enemy squads, making gameplay duller and less entertaining. There no punch to the people we fight, its essentially the same as carving through lemmings in a Platinum game.

    2. Because this lack of response, mission makers are feeling the need to throw increasing amounts of enemy and assets our way to raise the treat level to a point where it becomes entertaining again.

    3. The lack of adversity we face in our ops is essentially being fixed by “more enemies” which has massive problems in of itself, including a reduced frame-rate and bullshit scenarios where we’re facing off against almost every piece of kit a conventional army would have in supply within a 3 hour window, making ops less immersive when you think about it for even a few seconds.

    What some of us are suggesting that there should be a fundamental restructuring of ASOR squads in an effort to nerf our capabilities out in the field. Reduced heavy weapons, reduced access to special kit, reduced ammo carry capacity, etc. This would all be done to pull the group back towards a more tactical method of play, and forcing people to think through what they need to do to complete their objectives, not just throwing squads at the enemy until we win.

    A setup I heard about through Instant Muffin then tweaked would look something like this:
    ————————-
    SQL
    Access to GL, Long Range, Does the thing that SQL usually does (maybe limit usage of all binoculars to SQL + FTL?). No access to disposable.

    MEDIC
    Its a CFA, no change.
    ————————-
    BLUE FTL
    Same access as SQL

    RFL x2
    Standard infantry dudes. Only one of these guys gets to have access to disposables at kit up, no one else does. No access to a GL,

    ENG
    Engineer. No access to disposable, or GL. Does the whole thing that an ENG does.
    ————————
    RED FTL
    Same access as SQL

    AMMO BEARER
    Same as RFL but gets to carry ammo. Probably the only “rifleman” who gets access to a backpack.

    LMG
    Same as current LMG

    AT
    Same as current AT
    ———————–

    Essentially the setup is designed to drastically lower the fighting capability a single squad has, effectively raising the threat level of enemies we come across. This will have the following benefits:

    1. More balanced and realistic game-play, enemies are threatening again.

    2. Mission maker ability to scale down the amount of enemy we face each op, which will benefit us frame-rate wise. Also gives mission makers to create intentionally unwinnable situations without filling a square kilometer with nothing but Bradley’s. (this is good for story purposes, you shouldn’t really win every time)

    TL;DR
    – Limit available kit to select roles to give them a distinct gameplay function with obvious strengths and weaknesses that can be complimented by the other roles present around them within the game. Its not exactly interesting and engaging gameplay when you can do everything yourself and the only threat you truly face is being outnumbered 10 – 1

    Of course, this setup isnt perfect and can probably be tweaked but I personally believe that it would be a good step forward to making ASOR great again (insert Trump meme here).

    PS. To the Dev team. I know jack shit about how things work your end and I know this is basically just more work for you guys but if there is any way I can help if we decide to go this route I’ll do what I can.

Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #35344

    Chang
    Registered User
    sql leader ftl black_dragon donator supporter

    A ‘lite’ version of what you are proposing is restricting all backpacks: LR radios for FTLs/SQLs and a small assualt pack for LMG/AT only.

    People going into ops with 20 magazines, 20 40mm grenades, a disposable and grenades is just bullshit and straight up not fun. Without a backpack, they can still take 20 40mm grenades if they want, theyll just have to be happy with making ‘pew’ noises with their empty rifles.

    #35345

    I’m in agreement. I’m not sure about the specifics of the layout, it’s not something I’ve spent a lot of time about but I think this could be a good change.

    One thing I’ve kind of noticed is the problem of too much firepower leading to more enemies actually compounds the simplification of orders on my end because the large numbers of enemies increases the risk of things going drastically wrong if you leave yourself exposed for any significant period of time. There’s so much information to take in and contacts in so many potential areas that I tend to default back to simpler and safer orders, such as “hold current position”, or “both teams push and take this objective”.

    Less kit and slightly fewer but smarter or better equipped enemies would make us slow down, consider our approach more and gain the change you want. Would also give Suits a reason to bring in those sick resups more often, which is reason enough.

    #35346

    One specific I would say is don’t put all your eggs in one basket. Having two riflemen in Blue and then an LMG and an AT and an ammo bearer in Red seems a little unbalanced. I get that it makes blue team the default “assault team” but does that mean red team doesn’t ever get as much action?

    My personal opinion at the moment would be something like this:
    Blue FTL
    Blue Ammo Bearer
    Blue RFL
    Blue AT

    Red FTL
    Red Engineer
    Red RFL
    Red LMG

    Or something, idk, just seems more balanced and makes each team worth the same, while increasing flexibility.
    My other comment is taking out so much anti tank capability is great for making a single enemy vehicle more of a threat, but should be supplemented somehow on our end so that the loss of a single AT guy doesn’t doom a squad, whether this is from more support between squads or the use of other assets like Dagger, Thumper etc.

    #35347

    OneEyed
    Registered User
    black_dragon operator sotf1 donator dwf russia leader

    @chang The plan would be to kneecap our capability so much so that we can also decrease enemy on the map and still achieve the goal of making it more threataning. Part of that would be to remove most backpacks.

    #35348

    @ OneEyed: A lucid and convincing argument.

    I, for one, would like to complete a mission (win or lose) without getting killed half a dozen times each and every week.
    I know it can often be my own fault – I’m still a pretty average player when it all comes down to it, but having to rush positions out in the open without either smoke or covering fire always seems a good way of getting nailed.
    The Japanese suicide squad mentality seems to now pervade our ops these days, and the speed that our leaders are expected to put the best tactics into place also puts extreme pressure on them.
    I realize that we have to get the job done, but spending half the night in QRF is loosing its luster for me these days.

    #35350

    mrturnip45
    Registered User
    leader ftl black_dragon operator

    I very much support lessening the amount that ammo is carried, last op (22/10/2017) i recall a moment in which ASOR was in a bunker position while enemy inf were attacking us from the front, of course no threat to us (which might of been different if the squads had less power as proposed) but the amount of Rounds that were let off to engage the enemy in those moments was very ridiculous, it was pretty much consent fire for 10-15 minutes with no breaks in which of course most of the round missed, i feel as if we had less rounds as a whole we would of fired only when it was more likely to hit an enemy target thus lessening the amount of rounds fired

    #35351

    If you recall I attempted to run operations very recently with limited kit which resulted in the lowest attendance in over 2 years. Low and behold we have our kit back and numbers are returning to normal.

    I am totally against changing the roles in the squads, ammo bearer role is pointless. The fire teams need to be balanced and equally effective to make the squad flexible enough to fight any scenario. We are playing as a SF unit not a regular unit which that setup looks more like.

    I do agree we need to bring down the access to stuff, I have wanted to limit AT to AT etc for a while but resupply being an issue it was the first step to get sorted to move into anything like this. The plan is to limit backpacks and some firepower already but have ammo resupplies easily accessible. Really all this is doing though is making it so you dont have the firepower all there at any one time and roles like AT will be called upon to do that role.

    But I dont really see the point in getting to the point where we have no AT left and tanks rolling at us, it would mean retreating sure but the fun of the nights is the attack i reckon. Last nights op with the overwhelming firepower I thought was great and more inline with how Russia would go about an advance like this. Real fire fights with high numbers on either side would be copious amounts of rounds down range to the point that we in our ops have never came close, I would rather see that sort of suppressive fire going out and have the immersion of being in a gun battle than the usual no shooting until you have lined someone up thing we generally have.

    These changes will definitely not result in less deaths btw. I dont see how our ops can lower enemy numbers from these changes especially if we intend to have devil/victor supports anyway.

    #35352

    Chang
    Registered User
    sql leader ftl black_dragon donator supporter

    it would mean retreating sure but the fun of the nights is the attack i reckon

    Counter to that I think some of the best ops I’ve played in ASOR have been when we were falling back. Dying like lemmings loses its fun after a while… like I said to Charlie the other night “if there’s a single death in a real firefight, it makes world headlines. Then there’s us. a squad wipe a night is normal”

    Losing one guy in the squad is already too much imo, I’ve been trying more and more to fallback earlier in engagements before I lose too many more. If we weren’t all walking rambos, that might help everyone rethink hooking in for longer than they need to.

    #35353

    Phil
    Registered User
    commander black_dragon sotf1 dwf russia leader operator

    I’m 100% with Suits on this. Decreased kit (assault packs) + the new resupply option seems like a great balance going forward.
    I reckon half the comments or opinions on how “we’ve got too much firepower / its too easy” only come about when we’re in open fields and the teams can actually see the enemy and are engaging way too far out for their weapons capability and the AI’s ability to retaliate. If anything they’re the ones dropping like lemmings.
    Wasn’t it only last week that people were complaining about the forest being too hard and how the AI can “see through trees, that’s not fair” – FFS harden the fuck up.
    The comments of us “dying like lemmings” I find hard to comprehend as being a problem which should be fixed at a dev level.
    They’re a combination of terrain (open fields duh), scenario presented, teamwork and individual decisions / skill.
    For reference, last op I was right up in the thick of it with the teams and died only once all night.
    – Terrain can be used to advantage where it is present however BKT is pretty much flat so for some movements it really is a suck it up and cross that open ground or attempt to find alternatives (vehicles / smoke / buildings / trees etc).
    – The scenarios presented for now have been based upon Russia punching through a prepared BKT defensive line which is straight up conventional warfare. When that’s broken down the decisions and tactics are simple because the overall goal is simple, take whats theirs.
    – Teamwork can decrease casualties and the core element of teamwork is comms. Good contact calls and responsive team members can destroy or kill threats before they can cause excessive damage to the teams. Additionally team members with good initiative can also be thinking and attempting to solve the problem of the current tactical situation or the next planned movement – this can be anyone on the team regardless of role. If they aren’t in a leadership position then all they have to do is pass it up the chain and await approval or its decline. More options for a cmdr at any level can allow for a better plan / execution as it could incorporate aspects that they themselves perhaps hadn’t thought of or considered.
    – Individual skill can also be partly to blame for unnecessary casualties, sometimes something simple as peeking that corner for the 3rd time or chilling behind the same piece of cover as half the team are what gets people. Basic drills such as using different stances, crouching or leaning around corners, space the fuck out (have confidence that you can still operate as part of the team and not need to see everyone on the shacktac), not stopping to shoot in the open, don’t block the doorway etc. All stuff that I have noticed becoming complacent for quite a while.
    Hopefully the optional training package that Kapok is developing (pls if you have specialty exp in a role have a chat with him to help with dev of this) can address some of these shortcomings. Training is optional… training only works if people actually rock up and take it in, if only a few try this then those who do not attend WILL miss out on an opportunity to actually try to better themselves and ultimately ASOR as a whole instead of complaining all the time.

    #35356

    Relay
    Registered User
    guardian black_dragon gallantry donator operator

    As far as i recall, you can change the stamina settings for ace, find a happy medium ground where if you’re over say 30kg or 35kg it’s punishing, but up to that point it’s reasonable. Then you wont have to change gear selector etc, but people will have to think long and hard about what they’re taking and what they’re leaving behind. It may have changed since then though, so dont hold me to that.
    On a side note for Harmer, i think one of the reasons we’re struggling so much with dieback and qrf issues is that it’s not often we have cfas in the squad at the moment. I find that we think self treatment is sufficient (and it is often enough) but at other times it’s not but we’re pushing a bad situation when a cfa would advise otherwise. We’re also going through an adjustment period where we’re finding the balance between guardian and xray qrf, and i’m first to admit that i dont always get it right.
    One thing i will say, and it’s my personal oppinion so take it with a grain of salt, i always feel rushed. I’d much rather find the intensity of gameplay in aspects other than time if i can so i’m really happy to see the points put forward in this thread.

    #35357

    Night_18
    Registered User
    guardian black_dragon leader

    Hey guys,
    Havent been around for a fair few months. I found after when I started with ASOR on Tanoa having lots to choose from and flexability with my different kits for different roles was good. When it went to our russian campaign with lesser options and very restricted kits I seemed to not enjoy as much. I know it was more accurate for the roles we played but yeah I found it hard, maybe as I had less interest as playing as Russians and such. Just to note this is not why i havent been around as much, my new work role needs full comitment int the training at this present time.

    Im no “run and gun” kinda player but I do like to be able to tailor a kit that suits me. I agree with restrictions on say 40mm and only being available to SQL ect. I personally have never carried a 40mm under rail for any of my kits. I normally just throw a smoke or whatever is needed as my skill set is average especially with 40mm lol.

    Anyways hope this helped.

    #35358

    Skalgrim
    Registered User
    ftl guardian black_dragon leader operator

    Alrighty, I’ll have a crack.

    Don’t change the squad setup. It works fine.

    Don’t change the stamina settings, as invariably as soon as that starts getting messed around with we’ll have an op where we are ‘forced’ to pack heavy due to scenario constraints and we’ll be completely fucked.

    Changing backpacks? This I agree with. I really, really like the chunky backpacks we have right now (along with all of the gear on the vests and stuff, looks ace) but if people are not self enforcing a rough weight limit then this may well be the answer. I wouldn’t suggest removing the larger backpacks, because some people may well need the space for bulky items that are not especially heavy. (AT guys etc) As Night said above, having a proliferation of gear is wonderful and allows you to customize your shit as suits you. I have a personal preference of taking Detblocks as an FTL and would like the space/ability to continue doing so, and at the same time I sacrifice other things to do it and keep at a reasonable weight limit. Other people may well do similar sorts of things.

    A similar sort of situation was when I play a CFA, I have my medical gear and then specifically take 4-5 extra mags of ammo. Not because i’m going to be shooting, but because it’s a quick and easy way to support my guys out in the field. A CFA is still a rifleman, preventing casualties is the most effective form of treatment, but being able to customize my kit a little bit more and help support guys in the field if I can afford the weight, keeps their weight lower too.

    To that end, and combining with other statements above regarding the difficulty/feasibility/weight of our gear along with capability, I believe we should take out the AT-4’s again. They are a fantastic weapon, I really do enjoy using them, but I think we should make our squaddies carry the RPG-26 HE’s again. Get them using the HE disposables against bunkers/etc, leave the armoured threats to our AT guys. The RPG-26’s are considerably lighter (and also lighter on capability, but that’s kind of the point) and the sight’s are not brilliant, but they should be used to hit static targets or an area. (Such as infantry in the open etc) The AT-4’s are really bloody heavy and almost everyone is carrying one, myself included. I think this needs to stop, and i’m not going to take them any more personally. If we want to make armour a threat again, only having two guys per squad able to deal with it is going to make it much more threatening. I think this alone is going to be a start in reducing weight/extreme capability problems our squads have been having imho. Not a quick fix, but a start.

    Even if those two AT guys bite it (for whatever reason) we have been ably supported by Dagger/Victor lately, which would help promote the whole combined arms thing we’ve been pushing for.

    Apologies for the broken rambling discourse, I’m at work and wrote this intermittently while I thought of it.

    • This reply was modified 4 weeks ago by  Skalgrim.
    #35361

    Suits has sort of summed up most of the points I was going to bring up. Haven’t been around much, but will chime in and try and be succinct.

    As suits has stated, reducing the number of AT is counter-intuitive, as then Fireteams cannot be as independent (which may be a good thing) but limits what SQL’s can do etc etc.

    For my whole time in ASOR iirc, Contact Calls and PID have been the two hottest topics on the tongues of every SQL in debrief, and I don’t think a squad layout would have any bearing on the squads ability to react to contact/or engage enemies within designated times. To me, that sounds like “training” and I think the key thing to remember, is ASOR’s approach to catering for everyone as a whole.
    One week you’ve got on the ball senior members in your squad, and the next, completely new recruits, and I think a lot of factors play into squad effectiveness, more than just “kit” and “squad layout”.

    I don’t play in squads much, but when I did the other week, we got cut the fuck up by BTR’s and enemy infantry, we couldn’t even see and yet we had 2 AT’s and we’re still completely ineffective. I don’t really understand the whole discussion or where this “Not treating threats seriously enough” comes from however – just my 2 cents.

    I feel like this discussion is essentially trying to pitch a perfect and ‘desired’ outcome of the squad, when I really don’t believe you will find one. Not against a squad change, but just don’t think its necessary, nor will it achieve the desired goal.

Viewing 13 replies - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.