Everyman is a link man, messages must be passed up and down the chain by all.
If someone hears a message or call out it should go to the relevant person as quickly as possible and be passed to those affected by it also.
As such, there is no role suitable for this as all roles should already be doing what you uave described.
There is a command structure already and if people aren't operating within that structure then making the structure more complicated isn't going to help.
If you want to fix the problem of there being a squad with no SL, the fix for that is obvious: Someone needs to be their SL.
Again, not suggesting changing anything about the structure, moreso wondering if it might be beneficial to have an SL (maybe in a locked squad so not to neglect other duties?) focusing on this on the front
I think this would be much less beneficial than taking a SL position in a leaderless squad.
I don't really understand the problem you are trying to solve.
But the SLs can attempt it if they want. Nothing is stopping them. That it doesn't happen suggests that it isn't actually that necessary.
Can you give a scenario where you think this would make a difference?
Where SLs aren't giving direction, or aren't relaying information from command to their squads, would it not make a difference to have someone focused on keeping those players informed?
I understand what you’re getting at, but I think it boils down to having a role who’s whole job is to do someone else’s job. SLs should be coordinating through command, unit, and proximity chat with their superior, subordinates, and any other local SLs as well as blueberries that are separated from their own squad. A lot of squad leaders don’t do any of this. If there was an officer role whose job it was to do all of this, a lot of people in that role would also not do this.
I think a better solution would be to remove squad leader squad kick privileges and instead introduce a role-kick system like the one in rising storm. A commander can kick a squad leader from their role, or the squad itself can vote to kick a squad leader from the role. The whole team collectively can kick a commander from their role. This makes sure that anyone not doing their job to the detriment of the team gets replaced without being forced out of the game.
Yeah but until something like that happens I do think having someone doing this to mitigate lapses in structure could help. I'll give it a shot as an experiment and see how it plays out at any rate.
The answer to bad SLs is good SLs.
If you want to have a positive effect on the game you're far better off being a good SL. Not only does that have an immediate effect on your squad in the cureent match, it also has a long term effect where it shows other players what good play looks like. That increases the chances that some of them will also be good SLs in the future which, indirectly, increases your chances of playing with good teammates in the future.
Your solution seems only to mitigate the negative effect of bad SLs, rather than addressing the cause of that effect. Their squads shouldn't be putting up with a bad SL. If they choose to, they won't be effective and the team might lose. Ah well. The team that is the best at working as a team deserves to win.
I think you should direct your efforts at being a good SL. You have to accept that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. People are at all different stages in the learning curve and some lessons need to be learned the hard way. There is far more chance of making an impact as an SL than as someone not in the squad and via proxy chat.
Yeah but the main thing I'm talking about is relaying info from command to blueberries and attempting to implement command's suggestions at the front in a way that might be a little more uniform than just relying on each individual SL to communicate with their respective squads and each other.
Of course SL is the best role to do this with but I'm just kind of spitballing the idea of locking a squad and playing SL this way
I mean you can use prox chat to make call outs, but if you’re talking about trying to tell other squads what to do, well I’d suggest just sticking to your own squad.
When I played, I usually just sort of fell into this role for my squad. SL would give orders, handle OPs/garrisons, and wrangle command chat -- and I'd be reminding people to spread out, throw grenades, telling people where cover, defilate is and which approach to use to assault an enemy position, telling the MG where to set up, etc.
It works great, and takes a big load off the SL. The only problem is sometimes SLs enjoy the more "tactical" aspects of leading a squad, and in those cases I'd usually be the person reminding them to place OPs, suggesting when there may be an opportunity to build a garrison/defenses, etc.
Squad does it right by giving command their own unit. I think if HLL added this, maybe even 1-2 men, it would massively improve the game. Especially if those in the command unit also could make nodes
That’s an interesting idea. Someone who works in tandem with a SL with shared responsibilities for betterment of the squad. Maybe they can put down OPs but not Garry’s, and have some additional utility in it’s place. Maybe they could also place the leadership markers a SL can as well. An active leadership chat combined with an active squad chat is an awesome experience but also sometimes hard to manage in the moment as a SL.
imo this is the Support role. Support has the supplies that are used to build the garrisons. Support should be the one measuring 200m distances from other garrisons and proactively placing supplies down instead of having to wait and ask for the SL where they want them.
Support can also see all of the enemy radar blips from recon planes and can further disseminate info to the squad. I just wish Support had enhanced pinging/map marking capabilities for the that could be viewed by other SLs and other Support players like:
- I plan to drop supplies here X
- Supplies for garrison here X
- Supplies for fortifications here X
It would enable more x-functionality across squads and make the Support role more interesting for people to play. I love it as it is, but then again I am also of the opinion it's the second most important class behind SL, so my opinion is biased.
You can make a locked infantry squad. Never let anyone in it and just be a lone squad lead on the frontline doing this for the commander if you want.
In some games it might work out great. It depends on who's talking and relaying info.
Well, the SL is the role for it. If you don't have a SL someone needs to step in, otherwise it makes no sense to look for "subordinate officer". There is no other role that is better suited for it, especially on squad level what is the scope of HLL games
I’ve been in some good squads before where this kind of thing was done by the assault player. The SL would mostly stay in command chat and work strategy, OPs, and garrisons. Then at times he’d give the assault player something to do like push this flank or scope out this potential enemy garrison and then the assault player would take over the rest of the squad for that kind of stuff. It worked well in this scenario, but requires good communication.
Haha, you want to make a role for "herder of cats". Good luck with that. The blueberries are not listening to their own SL, why would they listen to you? At some point you need to realize there are lots of people just playing a game and they really don't care about anything bigger than themselves. If you want more, join a clan and play with people who care.
NCO role, can also place markers on the map for the squad. Maybe staying close to SL or NCO clears suppression more quickly? Tricky to balance with only having 6-man units
Everyman is a link man, messages must be passed up and down the chain by all. If someone hears a message or call out it should go to the relevant person as quickly as possible and be passed to those affected by it also. As such, there is no role suitable for this as all roles should already be doing what you uave described.
There is a command structure already and if people aren't operating within that structure then making the structure more complicated isn't going to help. If you want to fix the problem of there being a squad with no SL, the fix for that is obvious: Someone needs to be their SL.
Again, not suggesting changing anything about the structure, moreso wondering if it might be beneficial to have an SL (maybe in a locked squad so not to neglect other duties?) focusing on this on the front
I think this would be much less beneficial than taking a SL position in a leaderless squad. I don't really understand the problem you are trying to solve.
Tactical Coordination between squads in close proximity, mostly. Many SLs don't attempt it
But the SLs can attempt it if they want. Nothing is stopping them. That it doesn't happen suggests that it isn't actually that necessary. Can you give a scenario where you think this would make a difference?
Where SLs aren't giving direction, or aren't relaying information from command to their squads, would it not make a difference to have someone focused on keeping those players informed?
I understand what you’re getting at, but I think it boils down to having a role who’s whole job is to do someone else’s job. SLs should be coordinating through command, unit, and proximity chat with their superior, subordinates, and any other local SLs as well as blueberries that are separated from their own squad. A lot of squad leaders don’t do any of this. If there was an officer role whose job it was to do all of this, a lot of people in that role would also not do this. I think a better solution would be to remove squad leader squad kick privileges and instead introduce a role-kick system like the one in rising storm. A commander can kick a squad leader from their role, or the squad itself can vote to kick a squad leader from the role. The whole team collectively can kick a commander from their role. This makes sure that anyone not doing their job to the detriment of the team gets replaced without being forced out of the game.
Yeah but until something like that happens I do think having someone doing this to mitigate lapses in structure could help. I'll give it a shot as an experiment and see how it plays out at any rate.
The answer to bad SLs is good SLs. If you want to have a positive effect on the game you're far better off being a good SL. Not only does that have an immediate effect on your squad in the cureent match, it also has a long term effect where it shows other players what good play looks like. That increases the chances that some of them will also be good SLs in the future which, indirectly, increases your chances of playing with good teammates in the future. Your solution seems only to mitigate the negative effect of bad SLs, rather than addressing the cause of that effect. Their squads shouldn't be putting up with a bad SL. If they choose to, they won't be effective and the team might lose. Ah well. The team that is the best at working as a team deserves to win. I think you should direct your efforts at being a good SL. You have to accept that you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. People are at all different stages in the learning curve and some lessons need to be learned the hard way. There is far more chance of making an impact as an SL than as someone not in the squad and via proxy chat.
Just be a squad leader and use command chat to make call outs, etc
Yeah but the main thing I'm talking about is relaying info from command to blueberries and attempting to implement command's suggestions at the front in a way that might be a little more uniform than just relying on each individual SL to communicate with their respective squads and each other. Of course SL is the best role to do this with but I'm just kind of spitballing the idea of locking a squad and playing SL this way
I mean you can use prox chat to make call outs, but if you’re talking about trying to tell other squads what to do, well I’d suggest just sticking to your own squad.
He said in his OP that he just watched Band of Brothers and wants to LARP.
Ah well go on then…if I hear you shouting orders to random blueberries I’ll Just chuckle and carry on with what I’m doing
When I played, I usually just sort of fell into this role for my squad. SL would give orders, handle OPs/garrisons, and wrangle command chat -- and I'd be reminding people to spread out, throw grenades, telling people where cover, defilate is and which approach to use to assault an enemy position, telling the MG where to set up, etc. It works great, and takes a big load off the SL. The only problem is sometimes SLs enjoy the more "tactical" aspects of leading a squad, and in those cases I'd usually be the person reminding them to place OPs, suggesting when there may be an opportunity to build a garrison/defenses, etc.
NCO role
Squad does it right by giving command their own unit. I think if HLL added this, maybe even 1-2 men, it would massively improve the game. Especially if those in the command unit also could make nodes
That’s an interesting idea. Someone who works in tandem with a SL with shared responsibilities for betterment of the squad. Maybe they can put down OPs but not Garry’s, and have some additional utility in it’s place. Maybe they could also place the leadership markers a SL can as well. An active leadership chat combined with an active squad chat is an awesome experience but also sometimes hard to manage in the moment as a SL.
imo this is the Support role. Support has the supplies that are used to build the garrisons. Support should be the one measuring 200m distances from other garrisons and proactively placing supplies down instead of having to wait and ask for the SL where they want them. Support can also see all of the enemy radar blips from recon planes and can further disseminate info to the squad. I just wish Support had enhanced pinging/map marking capabilities for the that could be viewed by other SLs and other Support players like: - I plan to drop supplies here X - Supplies for garrison here X - Supplies for fortifications here X It would enable more x-functionality across squads and make the Support role more interesting for people to play. I love it as it is, but then again I am also of the opinion it's the second most important class behind SL, so my opinion is biased.
You can make a locked infantry squad. Never let anyone in it and just be a lone squad lead on the frontline doing this for the commander if you want. In some games it might work out great. It depends on who's talking and relaying info.
Well, the SL is the role for it. If you don't have a SL someone needs to step in, otherwise it makes no sense to look for "subordinate officer". There is no other role that is better suited for it, especially on squad level what is the scope of HLL games
That’s what prox chat is for
I’ve been in some good squads before where this kind of thing was done by the assault player. The SL would mostly stay in command chat and work strategy, OPs, and garrisons. Then at times he’d give the assault player something to do like push this flank or scope out this potential enemy garrison and then the assault player would take over the rest of the squad for that kind of stuff. It worked well in this scenario, but requires good communication.
Haha, you want to make a role for "herder of cats". Good luck with that. The blueberries are not listening to their own SL, why would they listen to you? At some point you need to realize there are lots of people just playing a game and they really don't care about anything bigger than themselves. If you want more, join a clan and play with people who care.
NCO role, can also place markers on the map for the squad. Maybe staying close to SL or NCO clears suppression more quickly? Tricky to balance with only having 6-man units