Increasing Squad Sizes

[Beans]

I know this has been talked about before but I wanted to list why I think squad sizes should be increased to 8 or 9 instead of the current 6.

Command chat/ Communication:
• It’s no surprise that as a squad leader and commander command chat is very congested at times and loud. Many people talk at once making it so you can’t hear what your squad member are saying. Increasing squad sizes would drastically decrease the number of people in command chat (less squad leaders). With the increase we’d be seeing something like 4-5 squads compared to the 6-9 we have now. This would make communication a lot better and less congested. Later I’ll go further on somethings that could be made to prevent tons of 2-3 man locked squads.

Roles/ Classes:
• With the current squad sizes only 5 out of the 8 roles are chosen in the load outs (this is excluding squad leader). Increasing squad size to let’s say 9 people (including squad leader) all the classes would be picked. This means a squad would have a medic, support, etc. which squads commonly are without but are very needed. What am trying to get at is increasing squad sizes would solve other problems.

• By increasing squad sizes this would also decrease the amount of Anti-Tank soldiers running around the field which I know many tankers have complained about as there’s sometimes 6-8 of them which gets very annoying and the ease of getting more rockets is quite easy.

• Going off of the last statement this would also decrease number of rarer firearms seen in WW2 which includes the STG44. The devs could also take a more realistic/ asymmetrical route for weaponry within squads. Making the German squads be able have more machine guns and the US less, which is realistic.

Class Restrictions/ Preventing 2 Man Squads:
• To prevent people from creating a squad with only a few people in it and keeping it locked I suggest that until a squad is filled up to 7 members (this is using a 9 man squad size) that squad members can only use the rifleman class. This would prevent small locked squads created for the sole purpose of cherry picking a specific classes. Instead people would have to use the rifleman until more people join or they are forced to join another squad.

• They could go even further with this by making it so if the Squad leader doesn’t have a certain amount of people in their squad that the timer to put down another Outpost will be increased or even to redeploy on it. This would be a very drastic counter-measure but would work to prevent these small locked squads.

Fire teams/ Splitting Up the Squad:

• This idea to me seems really cool. So let’s say the squad size is 9 alright. As the squad leader you could create fire teams within your squad. Fire teams would consist of up to 3 squad members that the squad leader can choose and assign a task to them through verbal communication. So like this fire team would go after a tank, this fire team of 3 members goes on the offense while the fire team consisting of the squad leader stays and
defends this house. I feel like this could create a lot of cool tactics and strategies and go further for hell let loose to be a different game.


Well this what I got to say. Feel free to leave any comments, suggestions, or feedback.

[[BLK] Telu]

I prefer a squad of 6 because you cover more ground when you have more squad. There is only 50 players in each side, it's not a lot.

[ElectroLite]

引用自 ElectroLite：

Solid suggestions.

You'll get arguments against this like controlling 8 people will be a lot harder than 5, but the fact is, those extra people will be unresponsive no matter squad size. I'd rather have a squad of 9 where 5 people are listening than a squad of six where 2 people are. With smaller squads you also end up with entire squads without an SL that are totally unresponsive.

Post Scriptum has a very good way of managing squads. (before people comment, no, I don't think HLL should become a copy of PS, but PS does have some much much more clever concepts that could be implemented in HLL in their own way.).

1) 9 man squads means max 6-7 SL's in the command chat. I've played games of HLL with 15+ Squads.

2) The SL needs 1 Radioman or 2 squad members to be able to place an outpost. This prevents rogue small squads and promotes teamwork.

3) A squad needs 4 players before anyone can pick a special class. Again, this prevents multiple rogue small squads and spamming special classes like AT.

4) Each squad can have I think 3-4 special classes. So most squads end up with and SL, Radioman, MG, AT, Marksman and the rest medics/riflemen.

5) A Squad must have an SL

There are some other benefits of this, like the removal of the WW2 proximity sensors that are OPs. As it stands, well placed Garrisons and OPs can act as an early warning system for enemy attacks, allowing defending teams to react faster and making the game more static. I personally, would love to see this gone.

The trouble is, these changes have a really wide impact on the game and that's what I think a lot of people don't realise and is one of the main issues HLL are having as a whole at the moment.

As Mr President correctly points out. Taking down 1 OP can put a serious dent in the enemies attack. In PS this makes SLs position their OPs a safer distance away, which means more running to get into the action and more frustration if you arrive and die. In PS they combat this slightly by allowing your teammates to res you. Also OPs must be destroyed with an explosive and don't just pop if the enemy accidentally gets close enough.

Imagine in HLL having to run further, die, have no medic to res you (because people currently don't play the role enough), then watching your OP vanish because some rogue enemy happened to walk past it. And since you were the only flanking squad, you lose the flank and have to start the whole thing again.

I agree with the suggestions, but HLL's biggest problem is they don't have the refined ecosystem and clear direction for the game that would allow for these changes without it having as much of a negative effect on game play as a positive.

There are some negatives as well.. Like a full squad of 9 people with a terrible, unresponsive SL. Or a full squad being lead astray by SL, somewhere on the opposite side of the map.

So they would need to implement things like vote to demote your SL, or auto-demote an SL if they don't place Markers within a certain time period.

The other option would be to keep 6 man squad, but implement some of the features mention above, like no special classes until 4+ people are in the squad, squads must have an SL, etc. This could be a balance between command chat/special class spam and being too limited.

[[BLK] Telu]

引用自 ElectroLite：

There are some negatives as well.. Like a full squad of 9 people with a terrible, unresponsive SL. Or a full squad being lead astray by SL, somewhere on the opposite side of the map.

So they would need to implement things like vote to demote your SL, or auto-demote an SL if they don't place Markers within a certain time period.

The other option would be to keep 6 man squad, but implement some of the features mention above, [...] , squads must have an SL, etc. This could be a balance between command chat/special class spam and being too limited.

I like thoses quoted ideas. But i'm not agree with this "like no special classes until 4+ people are in the squad". There is some game who do that and it's a crap idea. What will happen, there will be less special class played. That's mean, less support & less garrisons. No thanks. Special class is the center of the gameplay of HLL. You can't wait to be 4+ to get them. That's counter productive.

[ElectroLite]

引用自 FWS Telu：

引用自 ElectroLite：

There are some negatives as well.. Like a full squad of 9 people with a terrible, unresponsive SL. Or a full squad being lead astray by SL, somewhere on the opposite side of the map.

So they would need to implement things like vote to demote your SL, or auto-demote an SL if they don't place Markers within a certain time period.

The other option would be to keep 6 man squad, but implement some of the features mention above, [...] , squads must have an SL, etc. This could be a balance between command chat/special class spam and being too limited.

I like thoses quoted ideas. But i'm not agree with this "like no special classes until 4+ people are in the squad". There is some game who do that and it's a crap idea. What will happen, there will be less special class played. That's mean, less support & less garrisons. No thanks.

I wouldn't class Support as a special class. I mean classes more like MG, AT, Assault, etc. To prevent squads made up of just AT's, Automatic riflemen and assaults, for example. Support should remain an essential role and after seeing the last dev brief I think they should be doing more to make the support role essential to squads, not just teams, so more people want to play it.

[[BLK] Telu]

I have no problem with MG, AT, Assault class. They are useful on the battlefield. You just have a problem with PLAYER. So you want to change the game to fix a PLAYER problem. That's not a good idea. Let the freedom to people to choose what they want to play.

[ElectroLite]

引用自 FWS Telu：

I have no problem with MG, AT, Assault class. They are useful on the battlefield. You just have a problem with PLAYER. So you want to change the game to fix a PLAYER problem. That's not a good idea. Let the freedom to people to choose what they want to play.

No that's not true and letting people choose whatever they want it not a good idea. A lot of people will always choose the special classes which causes problems in the overall game. I don't have any problem with classes. The problem is squads without SL that are made up of just special classes. Too many AT's that make the game frustrating for tank players, too many MG's that make the game frustrating to bolt action players, etc.

If you want to run around with a bazooka, or always have an MG, go play BF5. This game isn't meant for people to always play special classes and that can be seen clearly by all the fundamental issues that currently exist.

Your comment suggests I mean get rid of those classes, which is not the case. Yes, there is a place for MG, AT, etc but not in excessive amounts and not where it causes wider problems.

[[BLK] Telu]

"Too many AT's that make the game frustrating for tank players, too many MG's that make the game frustrating to bolt action players, etc." I don't share this point of view. MG never last long when they are spotted. Tank need to learn to work with infantery. (Because it's not BF5, a tank alone is an easy target. It's a strategy game, units need to work together. A tank going lone wolf is a dead tank.)

You are frustrated to not be able to keep your tank or to be killed by a MG, you have a PLAYER problem. So you want to avoid people to play class who could kill you. You want limitation made by dev instead of finding a solution ingame to your problem. There is plenty of solution, you just need to use them.

Some people need to learn to play as a TEAM.

[Roninman]

引用自 FWS Telu：

"Too many AT's that make the game frustrating for tank players, too many MG's that make the game frustrating to bolt action players, etc." I don't share this point of view. MG never last long when they are spotted. Tank need to learn to work with infantery. (Because it's not BF5, a tank alone is an easy target. It's a strategy game, units need to work together. A tank going lone wolf is a dead tank.)

You are frustrated to not be able to keep your tank or to be killed by a MG, you have a PLAYER problem. So you want to avoid people to play class who could kill you. You want limitation made by dev instead of finding a solution ingame to your problem. There is plenty of solution, you just need to use them.

Some people need to learn to play as a TEAM.

And right now more than half of this playerbase wont. There is that problem, there are very few limitations and they can do whatever the F they want. Special roles should be only open after first few squad members or you would just create more chaos and radio spam

[[BLK] Telu]

That's why people should enforce server rules or play on server who are managed by an active administrator team. Personally, i've no problem of player since i play on server rented by serious admins. Thoses players don't last long on thoses servers. You want a limitation because you are too lazy to take the lead and make the clean-up or too lazy to teach people or too lazy to search "good" server.

[Sybanni]

Yeah, Ronin. You are just....lazy.
Sigh.

This forum. Desperate :-)

[ElectroLite]

引用自 FWS Telu：

That's why people should enforce server rules or play on server who are managed by an active administrator team. Personally, i've no problem of player since i play on server rented by serious admins. Thoses players don't last long on thoses servers. You want a limitation because you are too lazy to take the lead and make the clean-up or too lazy to teach people or too lazy to search "good" server.

Why should server admins have to make up and enforce their own rules, just to make the game better? What about all the other servers who don't have good admins and good rules? Why make a game that only functions properly on certain servers and why not fix the issues so the game works on any server, casual or competitive?

Going back to the original discussion, there are issues that come with 6 man squads and there are also issues that come with 9 man squads. HLL needs to create an environment that resolves these and removes a lot of the frustrations many people have.

My suggestion to not allow special classes until a certain amount of people are in a squad isn't because I have some personal vendetta against special classes. It's to help solve a wider range of problems. (I'm not saying it's absolutely right. It's just an idea I'm bringing to the table).

Also, to clarify, I don't mean there needs to be 4 riflemen before someone can choose a special class. I mean there needs to be 4 people in a squad before any of those people can pick a special class.

As Roninman suggests. The current ability to setup a squad, select whatever class you want and run off doing whatever you want has negative impacts such a squads without SL's and teams with too many special classes that make the game more unbalanced.

I also believe that psychologically it makes many players (especially new players and people coming from BF5, etc) believe this is OK and removes the emphasis on teamwork. Which again, has a wide impact on the overall game.

[[BLK] Telu]

No no, it is not the special class who make the game unbalanced, it is the map & the location of the frontline. 6 Man squad size is a good size. And there is enough AT & MG to make the game balanced. You just need learn to play the game correctly : Tank should move with infantery. MG should be cover by teammate.

You don't like to loose your tank ? Move with infantery.
You don't like behind aim by a MG ? Find an angle to drop it. Send Smoke. Send grenade. Work as a team to distract the MG & flank it to destroy it.

I don't even talk about the fact than if a MG class or AT class is taken by someone who don't use it. What you will do ? Kick him from squad ? Tank are so powerful in the game. So powerful than a loosing team can win if they havent tank. (It happens so many times in my parties) So, if all the AT available (2 or 3 with a limitation) don't do their job. Well, we will just have rock to send to them. At least, in the actual state of the game, if only one squad have a good AT player, then, we can do something about the tank. I don't talk also about the bad MG who go rambo & don't cover their teammate. Someone need to get the job done. So i always prefer to give a lot of "special" class (like you name it) in each squad. Then, there will be more chance than one MG will do the job correctly.

I don't like the idea to depend on 2 guys who don't care about their role. It's a war. When someone is not doing his job, you ask to another one to make the job done. A SL should use the local vocal channel to ask others squad to contribute if someone fail. In real life, you can't just kick a guy in the middle of the fight. It is not how things work. You deal with what you have. If i have a bad MG, i have a bad MG, i tried to teach him his job. And if the guy is not answering, i go ask to another squad to put their MG in a strategic location.

I also believe that psychologically it makes many players (especially new players and people coming from BF5, etc) believe this is OK and removes the emphasis on teamwork. Which again, has a wide impact on the overall game.

This is WRONG. Yeah, this game need to be played in teamwork. If you complain about MG & Tank, that's just mean than you don't use teamwork to win. So, it also mean, if i read your words, than you have too much a "BF5" mentality. For what it even mean ... .-.

If there is no teamwork, it's because the SL don't do his job correctly.

[Crafty]

I've been suggesting larger Squads for a while. Here and on their Discord channel.

I think they should at least play-test it, if they haven't already.

[[BLK] Telu]

Thanks. At least, someone who understand the weakness of this crap idea. Nice post Sobe !

[ElectroLite]

引用自 Sobe：

1: God no, the REAL army dropped squads to about 6 people from the 12 they had in WW2 FOR A REASON, that is way to many people to manage on a chaos filled battle field

2: That honestly makes squads too single dependent and not needing to really rely on the actual whole team

3: Not that great of a point considering how MANY people instantly lock the AT class just so they can shoot rockets ONLY at infantry

4: 100% awful idea, the guns in the game already are so unbalance for the German side, most people have to use the K98 and it sucks in this game, it's slow to do anything, you would kill anyone wanting to play the German side

5: Literally ♥♥♥♥♥ on game play and causes even more issues with having German side be too weak and having no good AT members, and honestly a feature like this would kill the game by chasing away players, what do you do if people quit your squad or team, and a whole squad can't fill past the mark, you now have a mostly useless squad, who can't build nodes or anything

6: This would just give more trolls a reason to lock squads just to cause issues in a server and is a big middle finger to those playing the game without a full perfect squad

7: Your idea only works in a super serious setting with quiet but VERY well coordinated teams, this craps on the everyman that just wants to enjoy the game, and it also requires that every single squad leader actually have traits of a leader and commands, it also much more now requires each squad be very well commanded on everything to do on the battle field, this would much more quickly end games with silent SL's or team mates fighting with each other

You're also trading a sometimes cluttered officer chat for a now muddled squad chat, this also causes something the devs have made clear, they don't want the game to be won or run by one single good squad or carried by one good player, it's supposed to be groups working together to reach a common goal, a good squad of only just 6 can already hold a position for a long time, and stop a charge

And as someone who has to take SL a lot just to even get to play because so little people want the role, trying to mingle 9 people to actually listen and set up well without someone starting a fight that causes people to leave your squad, or them leaving just because they don't like what you're doing like say, being the only squad to defend a point, this just sounds awful, I think some of this could be done but first the K98 100% needs buffed, or the other loadouts for the Germans needs to let them get the G43 or MP40

Not sure if you're replying to OP or me, but as I said originally, 9 man squads comes with its own issues (as you've also just highlighted) and probably isn't the solution.

The main issue is the overloaded command chat, teams full of ineffective 2-3 man squads and entire squads without an SL. They should take measures to address these issues.

I think some of the ideas suggested would help in reducing that mentality that anyone can setup an entire squad just to play the role they want and create a negative impact for other players.