I was pondering like I usually do I thought of something that we don't have in the training school.

How come we don't have a class that trains and demonstrates how to effectively understand and send proper voice combat messages while playing?

I mean a statement such as this... "There's two targets on that hill"
First thought would be.. "What hill?"
Second thought would be... "I'm too busy to acknowledge that piece of information"

If we were trained to think of a specific hill with a call sign then it would be more accurate information.

statement would be. "Two tango's on Hill foxtrot"
first thought would be... "Two targets on THAT SPECIFIC hill"
second thought would be... "K I'm going to go kill them."

Or perhaps creating a grid system (maybe it'd be too much to ask to memorize the grid system...) to accurately know where something, someone, or some event is happening.


Also creating a system where a person would be given a callsign in game would greatly improve team play.

---

My reason for suggesting this is that whenever I play I do get information from voice com's, however it is often far too vague and distant that I often just shut out the voice com's and discern information from analyzing the battlefield as it is.

communication is the number one weapon on the battlefield in real life... Why shouldn't we apply the same in game.

---

If anyone thinks a class catered to teaching battlefield terminology for both understanding and communicating is useful... feel free to add on to my suggestion.

yeah liam nice idea, i think this should be applied on the boot camp test in first instance

Yeah this would be a great idea. Although my mic don't work too well.

Liam,

I agree, and was trying to think of a way to establish such a course. However, a grid system would be difficult to do (seperate grids for each level of every game). However, I did integrate target marking and commo into the Combat Aircrew Course on BC2 - 360. I do definately think we should come up with an SOP for commo.

ie. posting an overview of the maps for each level, then marking codenames on it. High speed people, such as myself (LOL), could print the maps with the codewords labeled.

One thing I did want to change from you post though: "communication is the number one weapon on the battlefield in real life" is a false statement. Infantry is the number one weapon on the battlefield in real life. Commo is just a tool.

FTMBrushFire wrote:

Liam,

I agree, and was trying to think of a way to establish such a course. However, a grid system would be difficult to do (seperate grids for each level of every game). However, I did integrate target marking and commo into the Combat Aircrew Course on BC2 - 360. I do definately think we should come up with an SOP for commo.

ie. posting an overview of the maps for each level, then marking codenames on it. High speed people, such as myself (LOL), could print the maps with the codewords labeled.

That was my concern with the grid system, very clumsy and probably not as effective. But the adequate naming of certain portions of the map and being able to recognize them is beneficial.

But... while the other classes are focused on increasing individual capability, a dedicated course on pure teamwork seems like a good addition, considering this is a clan advocating teamwork amirite?

If we could come up with a system that actually works that would be great.

Because voice chat atm in game seems like a really bad distraction to me. Like when I play without comms I usually go 2.0+ kdr, while in a game with comms with all the random chatter I usually go <1.0 kdr. If we could actually get comms to be useful instead of an unnecessary distraction and make it work fluidly enough without itself becoming a distraction, then imagine how deadly we would be.

FTMBrushFire wrote:

One thing I did want to change from you post though: "communication is the number one weapon on the battlefield in real life" is a false statement. Infantry is the number one weapon on the battlefield in real life. Commo is just a tool.

Cut communication from all ground forces, air, and naval forces in an engagement and see what happens. Friendly fire escalates (I mean you're on the field... you'll shoot at anything that moves, right? or if not they'll shoot you instead) Airplanes and artillery have no coordinates to zero in on. Tanks on the battlefield limited in their vision, can you really identify a hostile tank a at really long distance? with dust blowing in from every direction?

From my perspective... communication is the nervous system... while infantry is an arm.. or a leg. lol. Idk bout you but I'd rather have an arm sawed off than a bullet through my head... Well... actually idk bout that...

Yeah, great idea but instead of having a class for it why don't we make it a requirement. All new squad mates should learn about this as soon as they join a squad.

Antonio wrote:

Yeah, great idea but instead of having a class for it why don't we make it a requirement. All new squad mates should learn about this as soon as they join a squad.

Well assuming there are people in every squad willing to compile the work for their game and squad then it should be.

If we could get input from command it'd be appreciated lol.

I can't stand people trying to have a conversation with me while I'm trying to play. Honestly, if I wanted to talk about my day..I'd talk to one of my friends face to face.

I'm playing because I want to play with people THAT ARE SERIOUS about gaming, not because they feel lonely and need someone to converse with.

So I agree with what you're saying Liam, however..it's been pointed out that because of the diverse nature of all the games, it would be very difficult to produce a consistent grid system for everyone.

Take MW2 for example, not everyone has purchased the map packs so some of the grid systems wouldn't even be relevant.

projekt3000 wrote:

I can't stand people trying to have a conversation with me while I'm trying to play. Honestly, if I wanted to talk about my day..I'd talk to one of my friends face to face.

I'm playing because I want to play with people THAT ARE SERIOUS about gaming, not because they feel lonely and need someone to converse with.

So I agree with what you're saying Liam, however..it's been pointed out that because of the diverse nature of all the games, it would be very difficult to produce a consistent grid system for everyone.

Take MW2 for example, not everyone has purchased the map packs so some of the grid systems wouldn't even be relevant.

Well like Brushfire pointed out earlier

FTMBrushFire wrote:

posting an overview of the maps for each level, then marking codenames on it.

This would remove the need for a grid system... reverting back to a landmark sort of naming.

For the time being the work being done on each of the games would be limited to a few choice maps. Maps that the clan practices on, most of the time.

Also like you've mentioned comm discipline is something we need. lol. Which would be included in the class. I'm thinking of slapping the person in the face if they go off tangent when in a game

We should talk to Ghost about this and when he accepts, I'll help you out. Because we all know that someone like me could use a class like that.

I think this is a good idea, but for me as a TI and SL, I think it should be a requirement (at least for BC2) and that I need it to be put in with the fireteam class. With both of these combined, it make a much more efficient and effective class and tool, (for me).

GhostOps21 wrote:

I think this is a good idea, but for me as a TI and SL, I think it should be a requirement (at least for BC2) and that I need it to be put in with the fireteam class. With both of these combined, it make a much more efficient and effective class and tool, (for me).

So what you're saying is that fireteam and communication training should be mandatory training?

I'm picturing that this sort of training would come in as a "third step" to the recruitment process.

1. application
2. boot camp test
3. completion of fireteam and comm training.

It should (could) be part of the requirements of advancing from rank private to private first class.

Liam Savrii wrote:

So what you're saying is that fireteam and communication training should be mandatory training?

I'm picturing that this sort of training would come in as a "third step" to the recruitment process.

1. application
2. boot camp test
3. completion of fireteam and comm training.

It should (could) be part of the requirements of advancing from rank private to private first class.

I think that would be very helpful at least to me. If we get a solid curriculum, it would be rather painless, and help the new guys get used to the (Crusaders) and 13th. So if we are willing to write stuff up, and teach it, I'm sure Bronx would approve.

I'm having deja vu all over again.

We have had very similar conversations among the 360 BC2 squads. I agree good squad communications has proven to be the "nervous system" for effective team/squad coordination. So our guidance to new members has been, keep comm chat to a minimum, thus keeping the channel open to important battlefield intel. We also use familiar game landmarks as best we can, to quickly communicate important reference locations. I would also note, members who are willing to give up using the chat for fun conversation, usually pick up on the comm style of the in game leadership. I would also note, we have had a few members leave [13] because we constantly tell them to be quiet during the game, but their leaving has been a small price to pay for the benefit of their silence.

Now, while good communications is important, a strong foundation in squad/team tactics may be more important. Almost any communications are greatly enhanced when the conversation is based upon the execution of an known attack/defense plan, or an observation that the enemy appears to be executing upon a specific strategy.

Regarding the enacting of additional required training... I would caution placing additional hurdles upon new members. IMHO, when new members play with us in a game, they either recognize the benefit of our method or they don't. Those that do recognize the method of our madness quickly adapt and contribute to the effort. Those that fail to recognize the benefit of our method, often become a distraction or worse. Some of these folks can be turned around and eventually get with the program. Others are destined to get lost in the shuffle.

That being said, I do believe it's possible to reinforce good communications protocols as part of any of the training programs. So, in so far as establishing a communications specific training program is just more work for someone to do, I believe we can simply share our best communications practices during other training programs.

An idea I would offer for consideration, might be an advanced training course for prospective SL/SA candidates. It seems to me, it is the SL/SA who really carry the burden of helping the rest of the squad function at peak performance. So maybe a "squad leadership" handbook is something we might consider and develop to assist squad leaders in the performance of their duties. We might even have squad leadership course work and a test, which any prospective SL/SA would have to complete, in order to be included for consideration for any squad leadership post.

Bottom line. the best thing about [13] is that we always have members thinking about these things, which greatly contributes to our understanding and gaming pleasure.

OohRah!

Axx

I see what ya mean Axx. I think I personally would want my Crusaders to take the course, but not immediately after BC. I feel that they would need a few days with just the Crusaders to get a feel. Then if they deem themselves true 13th members, then they should take the course. But I personally would eventually require it.

I also feel that the SL/SS training really applies in the fireteam training, not always needing something by itself. But who knows, it would help separate the leaders from the followers. But how often do SS changes happen? Then a possible course would be an advanced fireteam course, or something.

I think the whole course determines how effectively it can pass information to the new members, without overloading them. But still giving them a lot of good information. Something that would take time and dedication to develop, test, and then possibly implement.

i maybe new to the forums but how bout the clock method , i was also taught ADDRAC
A-alert( hey! target! )
D-direction( to my 6 o clock)
D-descrition( 3 guys running)
R-range(bout 30 m)
A-assignment( ima supress em)
C-control( TL gives command)

all together it sounds like this.."hey i got 3 guys running away at 30m, ima supress em , yall flank left!) its an easy method an ive had great success with it over seas

Seems nice. Looks like a good idea. I will see to getting Colonel Bronx to look at. (Via PM)

Hmm...Its a nice effect but you could just say quicker "theres a guy behind the crate, take him out" or "Squad coming far left, hunt em down"

Nero012 wrote:

i maybe new to the forums but how bout the clock method , i was also taught ADDRAC
A-alert( hey! target! )
D-direction( to my 6 o clock)
D-descrition( 3 guys running)
R-range(bout 30 m)
A-assignment( ima supress em)
C-control( TL gives command)

all together it sounds like this.."heyon my 6 i got 3 guys running away at 30m, ima supress em , yall flank left!) its an easy method an ive had great success with it over seas

Easy to remember, I like. (btw I added in the Direction to your example )

This works when the squad is positioned relatively near each other.

And Purple, with proper training we wouldn't have to resort to such vague language. Which is the whole purpose...

Which crate? Which way is far left?

I would be first who would not use that method properly.It would probably look something like guys,there is about 5-6 enemies incoming in my general direction so shoot them please.Yea,not very good is it so i will stick to my simple and primitive method atleast for now

yup more of where that came from just thank the U S Marine Corp

Very good.

Our 360 BC2 squads have used a similar approach.

On defense, we usually break into at least two groups to defend A or B objectives. There after comm/intel reports reference the objective in danger, how many, type and direction of enemy movement, and a follow up if we can observe the enemy being killed while waiting to spawn. Many times a report might be "fast mover to the left side of the grid." or in the case of a map like Laugna Presa, "boat making Hail Mary play to the left". We also try to note if the enemy vehicle went white and where it happened. Even after you're killed, you often can communicate enemy movement such as "they are moving to the rear flank of B objective, along the cliff, maybe working to get behind A objective." Then at least any other defenders will know to watch for enemy targets to the side and rear as they reinforce the side being attacked. However, we have also tried to not over react, there by allowing the alternate objective to be exposed from the other direction.

On Attack, while executing upon a specific attack strategy, we try to communicate how the defense has positioned themselves. Use of the UAV is often a very good tool for helping determine the best strategy to try 1st. So the UAV operator will not only spot enemy positions but communicate movement of any heavy vehicles or defensive positioning of soldiers. Hey, half a dozen recons heading for sniper hill on Arica Harbor base 1 is an invitation for attackers to swarm the base with fast movers, right?

well if this is true , I'm sure we're gonna dominate the battlefield, there's also a few other lil things that'll be helpful but it's not my place right now lol...im the new guy (boot) lol se yall tonight at practice 2100 right?

Efficient communications has been my keystone concern since taking over as SL of the Apaches. I would ask that anyone interested review the commo guidelines I posted. While I agree that in many cases knowing where the enemy is located helps, its a true balancing act between target identification and clogging the comms with too much chatter. My rule of thumb is if you can't communicate your message in less than 3 seconds and it make perfect sense to everyone involved, dont. In my experiences, when one gets killed in game our first instinct is to notify our teammates of where the killer is, however is all but a few instances, the perpitrator has moved on and the information conveyed is useless.

On that same note, while a class would be useful in effective comms, it takes a great amount of practice and restraint in keeping the comms clear. I am open to any suggestions others might have on this subject.

Some things I want to key in on what I read:

The compass discussion has been reviewed ad nauseum, and its biggest flaw remains that your fellow teammates don't know what directions your six o'clock is, and with the ability to turn so quickly we (your teammates) don't know which direction you were facing when you referenced it.
I would caution against forcing any classes on a member. While I am all for learning the different intracacies of battle, others play merely for fun and would/ do not find classes to be of great concern. Forcing classes upon them only forces them away from us. This game (BC2) and clan thrive on effective teamwork, if they (my teammates) can work together and dominate the battleground, I quite frankly don't care if they have jump wings or the like.

Everyone joined the 13th on a voluntary basis and everyone that holds any rank does so because they volunteered for the duty. Forcing new recruits or any member for that matter to conform to new classes takes away that liberty of volunteering, and can seriously hinder future recruitment.

Dtiger29 wrote:

Efficient communications has been my keystone concern since taking over as SL of the Apaches. I would ask that anyone interested review the commo guidelines I posted. While I agree that in many cases knowing where the enemy is located helps, its a true balancing act between target identification and clogging the comms with too much chatter. My rule of thumb is if you can't communicate your message in less than 3 seconds and it make perfect sense to everyone involved, dont. In my experiences, when one gets killed in game our first instinct is to notify our teammates of where the killer is, however is all but a few instances, the perpitrator has moved on and the information conveyed is useless.

On that same note, while a class would be useful in effective comms, it takes a great amount of practice and restraint in keeping the comms clear. I am open to any suggestions others might have on this subject.

Some things I want to key in on what I read:

The compass discussion has been reviewed ad nauseum, and its biggest flaw remains that your fellow teammates don't know what directions your six o'clock is, and with the ability to turn so quickly we (your teammates) don't know which direction you were facing when you referenced it.
I would caution against forcing any classes on a member. While I am all for learning the different intracacies of battle, others play merely for fun and would/ do not find classes to be of great concern. Forcing classes upon them only forces them away from us. This game (BC2) and clan thrive on effective teamwork, if they (my teammates) can work together and dominate the battleground, I quite frankly don't care if they have jump wings or the like.

Everyone joined the 13th on a voluntary basis and everyone that holds any rank does so because they volunteered for the duty. Forcing new recruits or any member for that matter to conform to new classes takes away that liberty of volunteering, and can seriously hinder future recruitment.

Thanks for the input!

I, personally, am not a fan of the clock/compass/directional guidance. " bla bla bla on my three o'clock" is just as vague as if you would say "bla bla bla on my right" A different method of conveying direction and location should be implemented... two of the choices I see are either the grid system or the landmark system. Landmark works well since implementation of the grid system is rather clumsy ordeal.

I am actually all for implementation of concise communication training to be carried out on the Squad Leader/Squad member level.

But my overall purpose here is to organize an fluid way to communicate, primarily for my own squad. Whether it be in the form of a "class" is completely up in the air.