Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6977|Melbourne, Australia
I had a couple of blue-sky ideas for helping improving teamwork in BF2.

1. Commander Assigns Smurfs

Give the Commander power to assign Smurfs (blue dots) to squads.

Can never happen - freedom of choice/civil liberties/cry babies/whatever.
(The term "smurf" was taken from (http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=25065) Nastie_Butler's Guide To Smurf Herding.)

2. Commander VOIP Groups

Give the Commander the ability to send VOIP to function-specific groups.

For example - click a button and VOIP to all jet pilots. Or tank drivers. Or Spec Ops. Or Engineers. Regardless of whether they are Smurfs or Squaddies. This could also be coupled with an additional Commander/Squad Leader function of calling for an airstrike (similar to Arty requests) that gets picked-up by Pilots (possibly pending approval by the Commander.

3. Bonus Points For Squaddies

Give squadded-up players a winners bonus, similar to the commanders bonus.

Well right here someone suggested giving no points for a loss: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=36777 and it didn't go down too badly. I mean, I think the guy is still alive. What I'm thinking is that if a Commander gets a x2 bonus for winning, then perhaps giving Squaddies (Leaders AND Members) a x1.25 or x1.5 bonus for winning would encourage more people to squad-up.

\\'

Edited; added link to "smurf" origin.

Last edited by Windrider_Melb (2006-08-08 20:44:05)

[BBF]Snake
The lord high master of pies
+16|7110|England
Yes, yes and yes. I hate it when Smurfs, as you called them, just go off on their own and point whore and play for themselves, whereas my clanmates and I always play for points and do whatever is good for the team and on numerous occasions we have won the game with no recognition by simply spawning as the class the team needs most or capping a certain flag, so I especially agree with the third point
chuyskywalker
Admin
+2,439|7320|"Frisco"

#2 is a really cool idea. Probably a difficult UI thing to implement, but useful.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6977|Melbourne, Australia

chuyskywalker wrote:

#2 is a really cool idea. Probably a difficult UI thing to implement, but useful.
If I recall correctly the Commander screen has buttons for highlighting personnel using particular kits... possibly a derivative of that UI feature? One of the tough things is implementing a non-VOIP version too - it would kind of break the BF2 UI philosophy to implement something grossly VOIP dependent.

Oh hang on you could have meant airstrikes. That would be as easy as another button on the T-commo-rose. I have kind of tried airstrikes in the past by using Squad Leader "Attack Here" functions when I have a jet or attack chopper in the squad.

As a commander I *do* like that concept of hitting the Engie button and saying "I need someone to get that bridge back up".

\\'
Arkhon
FullMetalHead
+20|6973|Canberra, Australia
I don't know about 1 or 2 but the third idea sounds great then maybe battlefield might be played a little more how it was supposed to be played.
DirtyMexican
I knife Generals
+278|7010|Search Whore killing fields
Its fun to see the smurfs all alone sniping on karkand towards the way to the burbs. I usually drop cars on em
DarQraven
Member
+0|6945
I think that number 3 will not help improve teamplay at all. People will just join a squad to have another spawn and get more points, and keep point whoring. Number 2 is really handy (actually we're trying to set up a squad comms system like that for our paintball team), but would break up squad play. (1 engy in a squad of other classes getting the order to repair the bridge, and the rest of the squad not knowing about it). That would force him to go wandering off on his own. Number 1 should have been standard. Or at least invite them to squads, not force them.
Windrider_Melb
Pwned so often there's an IPO.
+29|6977|Melbourne, Australia

DarQraven wrote:

I think that number 3 will not help improve teamplay at all. People will just join a squad to have another spawn and get more points, and keep point whoring. Number 2 is really handy (actually we're trying to set up a squad comms system like that for our paintball team), but would break up squad play. (1 engy in a squad of other classes getting the order to repair the bridge, and the rest of the squad not knowing about it). That would force him to go wandering off on his own. Number 1 should have been standard. Or at least invite them to squads, not force them.
Your point with #3 is valid, and that *is* the whole point;

A Smurf plays just so he can kill and point-whore. He wants my suggested "winning squad bonus" so he joins your squad. What's the worst that can happen? You now have a guy who wants to kill things and point-whore spawning on you as you go for your squads' objective, maybe even reviving people, healing and/or resupplying them for more points. It is way more teamwork than they had before!

You are right about #2 - but like I said in the OP, it's a blue-sky idea and thus very rough-cut. I was thinking more in terms of requests. Your comment made me think about the way BF2 works and reminded me of a couple of articles:

Swarming and the Future of Conflict: http://www.rand.org/pubs/documented_briefings/DB311/
SWARM: Cutting Iraq's Gasoline Lines: http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/glo … ing_i.html

Basically "Swarming" warfare is like have a military "flashmob" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flashmob). The simplest example in BF2 is when you place a UAV over a concentration of enemy players and all the Smurfs head directly to that point. You are using the minimap to communicate to the smurfs, using the UAV information on enemy whereabouts to suggest an action to them in a language they understand. And as Smurfs from all over descend on that point, you get a "flashmob" of self-organised (but almost uncontrolled) soldiers attacking that point.

So I might change #2 or add #4:

4. Commander Global Wishlist

Commander can issue non-specific requests globally to all Smurfs and Squaddies.

Basically like an order but the "Demolishions needed here" or "bridge needs repairing" or "need defense here" are seen alongside orders, and are optional - they are just the commander saying (like he often does on VOIP) what secondary things he needs done. This might give the Commander more "use" of Smurfs in a strategic sense to create flash mobs.

5. Multiple stage orders

Commander can issue a series of orders to a Squad Leader.

Basically this would be just a string of conventional orders to perform a more complex task (i.e. go here do this then go here and do something else). This would enable a Commander to actually implement decent tactics. For example; Alpha and Bravo squads are needed to attack a heavily defended flag and are currently finshing resupply and revival operations at a recently captured flag. The commander doesn't want them to both head straight off down the road but attack the next flag from different directions. Instead of trying to juggle "move here" and "attack here" commands the commander can give Alpha a "move here" order followed by an "attack here" order that brings them around to attack from one side, and the mirror command to bravo that brings them around to attack from the other direction. On their maps this would show as two orders, but one starting where the the first ends. Also in this manner a commander could get a tank driver to a certain point and ask them to mine a bridge on their way.

In addition to the previous example, once the flag is taken, the commander could have more orders lined-up, Alpha might "move here", "attack here" then "defend here" and Bravo might "move here", "attack here" then "attack here" the result being a planner pincer attack on the initial point, with Alpha left to defend that point and Bravo tasked to go on ahead to take a strategic bridge. Use of multiple "move here" points would allow a commander to make it clear that he wants the squad to infiltrate a rear-area undefended flag rather than trying to cap every flag on the way to it.

Okay, now I'm talking too much.

\\'
VeNg3nCe^
¦Tactics Øver Principles¦
+314|7178|Antarctica
.........or, join us
viper139
Member
+1|7012|Cologne - Germany

Windrider_Melb wrote:

5. Multiple stage orders

Commander can issue a series of orders to a Squad Leader.

Basically this would be just a string of conventional orders to perform a more complex task (i.e. go here do this then go here and do something else). This would enable a Commander to actually implement decent tactics. For example; Alpha and Bravo squads are needed to attack a heavily defended flag and are currently finshing resupply and revival operations at a recently captured flag. The commander doesn't want them to both head straight off down the road but attack the next flag from different directions. Instead of trying to juggle "move here" and "attack here" commands the commander can give Alpha a "move here" order followed by an "attack here" order that brings them around to attack from one side, and the mirror command to bravo that brings them around to attack from the other direction. On their maps this would show as two orders, but one starting where the the first ends. Also in this manner a commander could get a tank driver to a certain point and ask them to mine a bridge on their way.

In addition to the previous example, once the flag is taken, the commander could have more orders lined-up, Alpha might "move here", "attack here" then "defend here" and Bravo might "move here", "attack here" then "attack here" the result being a planner pincer attack on the initial point, with Alpha left to defend that point and Bravo tasked to go on ahead to take a strategic bridge. Use of multiple "move here" points would allow a commander to make it clear that he wants the squad to infiltrate a rear-area undefended flag rather than trying to cap every flag on the way to it.

\\'
Drawing up such a battleplan is a great idea, but as long as just a couple of players follow it there is no point in trying. My trys as a commander stopped when most Squads did as they wished instead of following orders, were spread all over the place instead of fighting together or having 32 Players with just 10 ins squads.

Give squads a bonus is an idea, but only if the members are within 50m from their squad leader. Leaving that area for more than a certain period would stop the bonus for that player.  And the squad should stay together for more than 75% of the round ?!?

There are so many commanders just trying to double their points by being there instead of doing their job ;(

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard