Republic of Folk

(Not sure this is the right forum, but subject seems to general to fit the AAR threads)

Hi,
I'm fairly new to Folk ARPS (been playing with you about a month). So far I like your approach to ARMA. I like you're not a mod heavy MilSim, but do emphasize meaningful tactics and strategy.

I have some experience from a couple other public ARMA servers, and I've noticed you handle inter intra-squad communication a little different (whole squad in same TS-channel, e.g. OpFor-Alpha). Have you ever considered segmenting the communication layer between SL and FTLs into a separate channel?

When playing as a basic fireteam member, I find most of the communication between SL and FTLs 'noisy' and often not relevant to my role as lowly meatshield/grinder. Ofc, there is value in being informed about the overall plan, but the leader chatter significantly reduces the 'room' for effective inter intra-fireteam communication. In most Folk ARPS sessions I've attended the fireteam VON group channel stays awful quite most of the time - I suspect because of the mentioned reason.

I'd rather the relevant pieces of information is filtered down through my FTL. That way I can concentrate on communicating with my fireteam on relevant matters in group channel. Ofc, this would provide more work for the FTLs, relaying info up and down.

Now, I've no idea how this could be technically solved with TS and ingame VON...

In theory another layer of CC could be added, so there's a dedicated channel for CO->SL and SL->FTs though that would obviously complicate things and require all FTs to have this set up.

I'm not sure whether I share your observation RE in-fireteam communication, though I've noticed that due to ARMA3's improved VON group chatter can be an issue as other people can hear it and be distracted by it.

As a sidenote, I found myself using group VON a lot more, since I debound the general VON key and bound my second thumb button to only broadcast to group VON. Prevents accidental chatting to side/global and makes it very easy to switch between VON and TS3.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on these intra-squad comms - it's helpful to know what things fresh eyes see that we old-timers have become more or less accustomed to.

I do not intend to shut down your proposal and say "There's no way that it'll happen, for tradition is Tradition is TRADITION and our tradition is inviolable!" However, I do not see a way that adding a fourth layer of communications into our current mix of Platoon CC / Squad TS / Fireteam VON comms would be more helpful than detrimental. I'm not even sure how a fourth layer would even be set up, given that squad members must end up somewhere in the TS tree for the duration of the mission. Wolf points out an appropriate method, though it sounds incredibly counter-intuitive to implement.

Assuming that each fire-team was split off into its own TS channel, the net result would be to make intra-squad communication nearly impossible without setting up an even more detailed whisper-list than we currently use for CC. In essence, we trade <ability for anyone in the squad to talk to anyone else> for <slightly quieter duplication of in-game VON's current functionality>.

My greatest objection, however, is one you already mentioned: I consider Squad Leading to be the most difficult leadership task in FA due to its "middle-man" nature in the comms structure, having to juggle all three comms methods at once to be effective. A specific layer of comms for SL <-> FTL would only bring this burden onto FTLs as well, and I'd rather not expand the number of "very hard" roles from 2-4 per mission to 6-12 per mission.

That being said, I do see the disadvantage of our current comms system you speak of, wherein your headphones / speakers get very noisy. It can be challenging to filter all the chatter (all the moreso when part of FA's institutional ethos is that we don't require milsim radio protocols), and that filtering ability comes hard to some folks and easy to others. If the squad comms gets to be too much... I unfortunately don't have an answer for you

I am a little saddened that in a month with us, you haven't ended up in a fireteam where Group VON is used to coordinate intra-fireteam actions such as buddy-pair fire-and-maneuver or overwatch or urban clearance. Generally Group VON is the purview of both that low-level tactical coordination and any decidedly non-tactical banter, since we try to keep Squad and Platoon level comms clear for the sanity of our Squad Leaders.

Anyways - I hope you continue playing with us and I hope you continue to germinate ideas - The Party will appropriate any we find particularly palatable

~ Ferrard

It's intra-squad communication, ofc. Not inter-squad.
(thanks for not rubbing salt in the wound)

Ferrard Carson wrote: I am a little saddened that in a month with us, you haven't ended up in a fireteam where Group VON is used to coordinate intra-fireteam actions such as buddy-pair fire-and-maneuver or overwatch or urban clearance.

Oh, I do have experienced excellent fireteam leadership in your sessions. But with intra-squad coordination chatter and your FTL's commands filling the soundscape, trying to avoid talking over each other in e.g. firefights can be a challenge IMO.

There's clearly pros and cons to each 'tradition'. It is not my desire to complicate things just for the sake of it. But just a tad more milsim-ish radio protocols, within your current setup, to tighten up communications and reduce potential confusion might be worthwhile. Perhaps.

PhilFlame wrote:There's clearly pros and cons to each 'tradition'. It is not my desire to complicate things just for the sake of it. But just a tad more milsim-ish radio protocols, within your current setup, to tighten up communications and reduce potential confusion might be worthwhile. Perhaps.

More accuracy and brevity in our radio comms is always a good idea, and it doesn't necessarily have to be (or be labelled) 'mil-sim'.

For leaders it's about striving to give orders that are both concise and unambiguous - and which don't create the need for conversations. Here's an example of something annoying that happens (I know I'm guilty of this myself):

SL: "When we get to the house, split yourselves up so you're on different floors."
FTL1: "Which house?"
SL: "The one up ahead, with the red rooftop."
FTL2: "Which team is going on the upper floor? FT #2 can take it if you want, SL?"
SL: "Yeah, sure. FT #2 on the upper floor, FT #1 on the lower one."
...
SL: "Are you guys in position now?"
...
FTL2: "Yeah, FT #2 is on the upper floor now."
FTL1: "Er, FT #1 is at the house."

This should really be:

SL: "When we reach the house with the red roof ahead of us, FT #2 takes the upper floor, FT #1 takes the lower one."
FTL1: "FT #1 copies."
FTL2: "FT #2 copies."
...
FTL1: "FT #1 set."
FTL2: "FT #2 set."

Similarly, leaders can also help by asking questions that invite responses from only a minority. For example:

SL: "Is everyone in the compound now?"

This means up to 13 people need to respond in the affirmative, which a) doesn't happen, and b) doesn't really tell the SL what s/he needs to know. So the question should be posed the other way around:

SL: "Who is still outside the compound?"

Lastly, the basic courtesy of asking the person you need to reach if they have time to listen to your (non-urgent) message is most helpful in keeping our comms manageable. For example:

SL: "Hey CO, so there's this tank on a hill to the north, about 700m away. Do you want us to go over and rocket it?"
...
SL: "CO, did you get my last message?"
CO: "What? No, sorry, I was talking to the map-click mortar team. What's up?"
SL: "There's a tank on a hill to the north, about 700m away. Do you want us to go over and rocket it?"

The SL's message isn't super-urgent (the tank isn't firing on anyone yet), so s/he should give the CO a chance to control when s/he consumes the message:

SL: "CO, this is SL."
CO: "SL, wait one"
...
CO: "SL, go ahead."
SL: "There's a tank on a hill to the north, about 700m away. Do you want us to go over and rocket it?"

We don't need to go full Gen Kill and start using terms like 'Oscar Mike' just to have clearer comms. We just need to keep a few common sense ideas about brevity, (lack of) ambiguity and traffic control in mind, and we'll be okay.

We don't need to go full Gen Kill

I beg to differ.

The easiest technical solution is for fireteam members to mute TS. There's nobody saying you can't, but if you do, be ready to un-mute if your FTL croaks and you're next in line.

As it is, i rather like to listen in to comms, but i have TS set up as follows. AltGr + 1 = CC Toggle, AltGr + 2 = mute mic. Adding an AltGr + 3 = mute sound should work just fine.

I mute TS after mission start if not in a role where I need to hear squad level comms.

Unmute if comms with FTL are lost.