RTT Squad/Fire-Team System Design

[Hoak]

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.

[NkEnNy]

Hi Hoakster,

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

-k

[antoineflemming]

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?

[SaltatorMortis]

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.

[antoineflemming]

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)

[Hoak]

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.

[SGTIce]

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.

[antoineflemming]

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.

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.

[Hoak]

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?

[zamani532]

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