I really enjoy your thoughts on these kinds of topics. It is definitely the kind of thing I'm thinking about when designing out different types of combat locations for Squad. Your description of why it doesn't work in games I think also more accurately describes the position Squad takes in the tactical shooter genre being a stepped down simplified version of; platoon combat, aircraft, vehicles, weapon systems, etc. Walking down thoroughly trained battle drills into more general purpose methods you can apply as a Squad Leader becomes the most enjoyable and successful version for everyone involved especially in public matches. The high task load Squad leads have I think necessitates you to simplify your instructions to setup your 8 other members into the easiest to understand and most efficient job possible. That really is what defines good leadership in Squad, best employing your Squad members to setup them for individual success often without them even realizing. It's what I look for when building out levels for Squad, does this location require these kinds of broader concepts to succeed? Or is it overly simple to the extent that just brute force of blobs walking onto cap win. I've found the most fun comes from sufficiently complex locations that push teams to actually lead there players through successful firefights and not just meat grind it out.
@@HaebyungDancereading all of these comments your fans leave and squad community are the reason squad will never be a real gaming community y’all take yourselves way to serious it’s a game FFS y’all need to learn to have fun and yes I know your soy boy discord friends are coming to your rescue but y’all are a echo chamber 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Id argue and say you're 100% wrong. I have personally played with combat veterans like myself and we have proven that tactics along with individual movement and squad level movements do work. If you'd like to get real feedback go ahead and talk to us real fighters.
One of the biggest issues I've seen trying to use any real-life tactics in games is the lack of discipline most people have. They want to have the maximum amount of excitement and fun. (it's a game, so I completely understand). It's difficult to get them to hold a sector that doesn't currently have contact. They tend to funnel into a small space, all seeking to be the one who gets the kill. They all want to be a hero so bad they end up leaving flanks and rear open to attack. Even if you can get them In a wedge, they will all cover 10 to 2. You may as well just run in a line, you would have the same level of security. Guys take important kits and run off to live their dream of being a main character. At some point, things became unpractical not because it couldn't work but because people won't do it.
I totally agree. It comes down to finding the right people to play with, which is a whole different struggle. I wanted to spend some time talking about the pure gameplay principles. But yeah. It’s the eternal Squad struggle.
Real life tactics are for real life... where people fight like there are no respawns --just infinite darkness, forever. SL role is very challenging... its so hard to do well. You have way to much to do, too many voices to listen to, and there's always someone incompetent making life miserable. . My experience is 95% of infantry guys who' ve joined an infantry squad are desperate for good leadership (the one man army types ride off in light vehicles to shoot up the nearest saloon) and will do what you ask -- until they lose their confidence in you.... Boring a squad to death is just one way to lose a squad, but its a way.
@@27Pyth That's so true hahah. Me and my friend joke about 'losing aura' when your plans don't work out as a SL. Defending without contact for too long, giving someone an order and they ignore it, uncertainty, slow to formulate plans. All of this chips away at squad morale and cohesion and before you know it people leave or do their own thing
@@27Pyth because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
@@isaacbrowning5871that guy actually knows how to be more helpful and impactful but sl removes him from squad to lose a ticket and his help afterwards that will lead to even more tickets lost 😢
As a squad leader if I get a solo dolo i just kick them from my squad. I don't have to be undermined by a squad member and i'd rather have a small focused group than a large unfocused
My 2 cents: In my experience its very hard to maintain positional awareness in a game, between the narrow fov and very limited spatial audio. In real life, I can take 6 random guys and move in a cohesive formation in pitch black over rough terrain - its natural to know where people are in the space around you so its natural to hold your position relative to them. I can hear if the guy 30 metres to my right is lagging a little, in a game I would have to be staring at the map the entire time to get the same effect, so people dont as they really have bigger things to worry about.
I totally agree. The spatial awareness in game is absent, while at the same time things like the map make it an obsolete in a way? Overall it’s the general principles that can apply, and not much of the nitty gritty.
@@HaebyungDance Also, people can't understand eachother, removing even more awareness of eachother. Some players have their volume on 100% and their voice chat volume on 100% as well. Meaning that any sort of combat in a 150m radius completely deafens them. It's so demoralizing to make callouts and strategize just to hear a ''uhhh.... I can't hear you'' 5 seconds later, 10 times in a single match. Drop effects volume to 50%, crank up voice chat to 200%, do whatever you need to hear people loud and clear without being deafened by light or distant combat. And just learn to call everything out twice in a row. Sometimes make the same callout several times if it's important like an enemy tank close, saying it twice in a row, it really takes time before some people understand you lol
@@HaebyungDance I wouldn't call it obsolete. It can be hard to notice when you're facing the other way that the people right behind you have started moving away from you. If you had a minimap or something and you habitually looked at it or something then maybe but not having spatial audio and not being able to physically feel things in your environment takes away a lot from that awareness.
As a squad leader playing with randoms I will usually just call out "Make a line left to right facing contact!" or establish that SOP beforehand. It is extremely simple and most randoms can actually handle that with no preparation. I find it quite helpful to quickly bring firepower to front and minimize stacking up.
@@HaebyungDance Should sectors of responsibility still apply when responding to enemy contact? Or is it primarily for traveling, like the formation itself? Hard to keep security when engaged in a firefight...
Like I mention in the video, a formation is for movement. The moment a firefight starts everything changes. I want to explain it more in my next vid but the gist is you’ll be switching to bounding/flanking and suppression/assault in a fight. Notice that none of those things typically involve formations, although security is something that should be remembered.
@@MoreEvilThanYahwehwhen games reduce your accuracy or dim your vision it usually results in the guy getting shot putting his head down so he can reengage effectively
Former Planetside 2 player, wherein I was a (minor) member of a very large and quite successful unit at the time. We regularly employed tactics and strategy to win large-scale engagements, and I have a couple cents to add on the subject of formations: Line and column formations are about all you will be able to accomplish with an undisciplined unit of what are essentially randoms BUT... The effectiveness and utility of these formations CANNOT be overstated, to the point where even this most basic level of coordination can be used to take on forces double and triple your size if the opfor are NOT coordinated. Seriously, there's a reason forming a line is one if not the oldest formations in the book and is still the basis of most maneuvers even today. They are also scalable, which is incredibly useful when the size of engagements fluctuate rapidly. Additionally, true randoms will naturally fall into your line because it is so effective at covering each other's flanks. It provides some safety in a firefight that randoms naturally gravitate to. Columns are an effective way to wrangle a large force into moving in the right direction. They pretty much point the direction of attack all on their own and leaders really only need to direct the front end. Everything else will follow. This is particularly useful in games where you have players constantly respawning in, it's like a water hose you point at the fire. By now, something should be catching your attention, and that is I'm pretty much only speaking in large group terms, at least 12 members or more, or platoon strength or greater. At the squad level, four to eight people, formations are important in real life, but in game they choke the natural flow, make you stiff and unresponsive. Let squads to platoons flow as they naturally will, worry about formations at the strategic level. Think in terms of stretching out multiple squads or platoons on a line, but let them arrange themselves as they need and everything falls into place. Pay attention to who your more coordinated, stronger squads are though, because you will want those to be your hammers and anvils, the ones you use to roll opposing lines up on the flanks or to hold strategically important points. They say you're only as strong as your weakest link, and to a degree that is true, but battles are not chains, they are hammers and anvils, and so long as your handles are able to support the hammer head and avoid the anvil, they are just as important and crucial to your formations as the hard mofo's in your ranks. Tl;Dr LINES AND COLUMNS. LARGESCALE. DON'T LET THEM ROLL YOUR FLANKS. Don't worry about formations at squad level, worry about cover and sectors of fire, and effective positioning/protecting of your specialties like anti tank and MG element.
Not a perfect example, but this is AN example of what you're talking about. At some moments, the column organically has almost perfect spacing: th-cam.com/video/Ojf0nepE4_c/w-d-xo.html
Ability to switch between a column and a line formation quickly is probably the hallmark of well organized force. You think it's easy but it's quite tricky to pull off.
This was even more the case in Planetside 1 thanks to the slower pace and logistics elements. Vehicles especially working in simple line or column formations was critical. One of my fondest memories is approaching a river crossing on one side of a major bridge out of a woods as a line of Vanguards, a full platoon of 15 tanks (3x 10 player squads, 5 tanks per squad), utterly breaking - both physically and mentally - the Prowlers on the opposite side, then rotating into a column on command and gun running the bridge and breaking an hours long stalemate in the process. Made so much easier because, similar to Squad, us drivers could focus on driving while the gunners focused on gunning... On the infantry scale, crafting true "battle formations" with firing sectors and even breaching techniques (for counter attacks) for generator holds and tunnel fights at each type of base was also a big deal. MAXes could get focused down super quick if not actively firing so needed very squishy engineers on close standby with nanite paste, had to have the physical room to be able to move into to fall back to reload and even rearm from people carrying spare ammo for them because they were larger than any infantry armor class. Meanwhile infantry with room clearing or anti-MAX weapons needed to be careful to avoid both FF and overexposure while trying to stay alive so someone didn't to sacrifice spare critical supplies (nanite paste, healing, ammo) to pick up their critical weapon/ammo to carry on the fight. It always felt amazing pulling off a coordinated flank into the "back" of a tunnel fight and cleaning up everyone in the base in rapid order because all the "tanks" were on the wrong end of the formation to protect the squishy-yet-critical support guys in the back. A MAX that had been holding down an entire hallway seemingly solo (because it swapped out with another MAX to reload/rearm/repair) seemed like nothing the moment you were facing it while it reloaded.
oh man that was a meat grinder game... extremely hard for me to do ninja shit in. Everyone always seemed to form kill zones, and theyd always try to zerg rush those kill boxes, or just spam grenades/explosives constantly. It played out much like a larger version of battlefield, not to mention the top tier players had generally WAAAAY better equipment then someone just starting Planetside 2.
Don't know if your going to read it, but the most important difference between real life and video games is everyone moves like an Olympic sprinter. It may seem like you are moving slow in game when you walk but generally speaking you are moving at a real persons running pace. So when you do formations to move your self from point A to point B, you can not possibly cover your sector because you have to look back at the leader every 2 seconds to see if he made a direction change or a halt. Where in real life you can get away with 5-10 seconds of scanning while walking before looking back at your leader to see if they have halted or changed direction. In closing, the games would be nightmarishly boring if the characters moved at the speed real people do.
I read every comment :) But yeah you’re right. And in games we tend to move at the fastest speed possible for as long as possible, whereas in real life we take it much slower 99% of the time. Hard thing to recreate in games in a fun way.
That's why I like games that slow down and have more pacing. All "fast paced" games do is encourage impatient habits. I've won entire wars, and get good results in real life, because I slow down. Observer. And pay attention. If people don't learn to do that first and foremost and only get desperate for fun then it's no wonder they're screwing up. If you leave your flanks exposed and no one is covering your rear then excuse me as I set up an FOB behind your front line when I sneak in and hold fire. Know when not to shoot. When to overwatch. When to do nothing even. Helldivers 2 actually covers that in training. Hit the dirt and don't move. It's a faster paced game, but it's teaching a good lesson there.
@@HaebyungDance A stamina bar could be interesting and if you reach full fatigue you cant sprint till full again and increased recoil too during the duration.
Really appreciate this video series--not only does it help me understand what dynamics are present in games that twist how tactics apply, but it's also as a byproduct helped me understand the spirit of how these manuals are written and what they're trying to codify. As usual, by the time something makes it into a manual, the thing that makes the doctrine useful has been so concretized that you can't see the point of it for all the details that are over-emphasized. I understand now what I've been feeling is missing from Ready or Not (SWAT game), is that without declaring whose responsibilities and sectors are what, people either all try to breach or all try to hang back and get in each others way while simultaneously neglecting one responsibility or the other. I'm realizing now that what has made some random online teams in shooters like Squad work so well was that everyone (by pure chance) naturally assigned themselves responsibilities that combined nicely. This video is a great reminder that second to communicating the strategic vision, a leader's top priority is assigning responsibilities and/or making sure people know what they're responsible for. Exactly how that is accomplished doesn't matter nearly as much as making it happen in the first place
" a leader's top priority is assigning responsibilities and/or making sure people know what they're responsible for" Holy crap, this is what I've been missing. I've done plenty of roles as a squad member, and many times I've found myself constantly switching between being the guy opening the door and the guy covering the back. I wish our squad leaders put all that in stone rather than do a constant rotation.
One major factor that happens in games that usually can’t happen more than once IRL is when applying a tactic dozens of times successfully in a game you may gain confidence however one lucky play of an MG player putting down an entire fire team in a wedge or an entire breach team dying on entry to pure luck has every second guessing whether it was worth applying strategy at all to begin with. In real life we stick with it because it our most effective tactic in that moment that we all know the playbook of, and if shit goes really wrong we don’t get to respawn and second guess ourselves. You are far more willing to commit to tactics and committing to overlapping responsibilities because your life and your brothers life is in your hands and while death is terrifying to most, to some the idea of losing a brother to your own incompetence or mistake is an even more terrifying prospect. Fear has a very important place within modern military tactics as well which is something you can only make players fear for a short time and only while risking something of value. In real life if someone is holed up in a building and rounds are ripping through every window, wall and crevice in order to suppress you, you aren’t very likely to take a peak and one tap some random dude. The final ingredients are discipline and respect for leadership. Nobody but professional teams ever display discipline and commitment in games typically and if you do take it that seriously it’s pretty cringe. Leadership is difficult in video games, you have to run a tight ship but it can’t be all serious you have to make it fun. Learned that the hard way as a GM and raid leader on wow for 6 years. As a combat and “disabled” veteran who spent their entire career in special operations it is incredibly difficult for me to have any respect for someone attempting to be a voice of authority in a video game about my profession. I also have absolutely no desire to be in that position myself and role play my old job. I just want to run around like an idiot, and there in lies the problem, we all want to run around like an idiot and stack up kills. Not hold a sector, hold your security and listen to everyone else smoke dudes while the guy thats never left his home town wants to give commands. I feel the only true way to get the right atmosphere is to have premade combat teams with one life per match mechanics and something else of value on the line. Anyways rant over idk. I run around on tarkov like an idiot while everyone tries to be tactical too, and end up with significantly more loot and kills than the average player.
Hey dude, I respect that. So for context I served in the South Korean Marine Corps and discharged a sergeant as a rifle squad leader. I won’t pretend to be what I’m not. I’m not a combat vet, not a super duper expert. But for two years of my life I dedicated myself to learning my trade so that if it came down to it I’d be the best prepared I could be. Nowadays I have fun playing video games like Squad and run into a lot of people who try and take those real-world principles and use them in the game, but have some misunderstandings with major implications. The goal of these discussion videos is to really sit down and talk about this stuff and just momentarily seriously consider the principles behind real world shit and how that translates to the game. When it comes down to it I agree the point needs to be to have fun, and I really think I show that in my other videos focused more on gameplay. Everyone has fun in different ways but yeah fun is the goal. So again, I have full respect for how you like to spend your time, and for your career of service. But realize that nothing I do in this channel undermines that.
I've thought of 1 life games with a buy in to participate. You come out alive you get your money back. I think that'd be a good way to put a good looming sense of permanence and loss to death in the videogame as everyone has something real on the line
@@HaebyungDance My mistake if you think I was making reference or comparison to you, just offering a broad perspective of why I don’t enjoy that kind of play or have the desire to participate in it. I’ve seen plenty of people that do get immense enjoyment when immersion and small unit tactics combine to succeed, and at times I do play that role for others enjoyment but certainly not my own.
@FormerGovernmentHuman ah that was my misunderstanding then. All good and my bad! Anyways, I think you raised a lot of excellent points I really liked, especially the first paragraph because like you said - you will do everything in your power to ensure that you do your part and more if possible to protect your brothers. It was really well put and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. And dude - even I, who loves the milsim - just needs to let loose and do stupid shit and be there for the laughs.
played arma, think some of the magic that pulls squads together is a commitment to immersion. nobody’s gonna (openly) second-guess the squad leader when it means ruining the experience. also running a squad is an interesting experience, makes me feel like an assistant manager that happens to have a gun- always a little concerned about being too micro-managey but there’s a flow to dishing out good, clear orders and it’s a good feeling when you get into the rhythm.
"Don't line up and don't bunch up" will serve you in 99% of gaming. A dispersed blob is actually better than trying to make a shape, because your opponent is going to be a blob and if your formation can be enfiladed it will be in a video game. Getting people to cover sectors would make a big difference, but I never had success getting people to do it lol. Everybody wants to empty their hose on the fire.
My father was working in security training. In real life and in the game, we have noticed that for most unskilled people, the rhomboid formation works best. Its advantage is that it is equally resistant to attack from all sides and lack of proffesionality of one person is not a tragedy because areas of responsibility are doubled. Also there are not straight line where one burst can hit more than 2 people. I also agree with you on one thing about wedges. When I was in the army, they used to say "War is not a pharmacy. Everything doesn't have to be measured exactly to decimal places."
This is the disconnect between milsim and shooters. Squad, being the middle ground, is won or lost by whether a team and their individual squads are playing less restrictive ARMA, or Battlefield with extra steps.
@@HaebyungDance I disagree. Even without FOB hunting, a good jeep/wheeled IFV squad intercepting logistics is just as good. Hell, you in your video pointed out how effective a real time map makes formations essentially pointless. Having played both this, Squad 44, and War Thunder, most don’t even take advantage of the free information such a map provides, especially when someone goes down.
@@swordsman1_messer Your mistake is assuming it's about only FOB hunting. What about setting up your own FOB in the right spot? I won an entire match just by sneaking in a truck with one other person and setting up an FOB behind the enemy front line in a city. Disagree all you want, it isn't changing the fact the match was won when an entire army poured out and won the match. The enemy was didn't just lose. They were crushed from two sides. Honestly, that might be one of the problems of SQUAD. That it rellies too much on FOBs. Once you lose so many FOBs people just wait for the game to end. It stops being engaging at that point. As much as I enjoy making an FOB and turning the tide of a war, FOBs and tickets seem to slow the game down in a none immersive way which leaves players feeling like there's no point. The objectives need to be more varied. "Fighting over location X" is still fighting over a location. What about other objectives? Planetside 2 suffers from the same problem with their spawn trucks. In that case it causes people to zerg rush with tunnel vision. Different problem but for similar reasons. Spawning needs to be better balanced. A game like Stalcraft will have players respawning at main base after death, which leads to more intense situations. Death is more of a consequence in that game. A game like SCP: Secret Laboratory will have players spawn together every few mins, ensuring people are together. Instead of one at a time.
@@taramaforhaikido7272 Idk about it being a mistake but its not that uncommon for a small group to have a much higher efficiency than normal if they keep picking high value targets not limited to FOBs.
I agree that getting the rough idea across for movement is what matters and what works. I regularly tell the squad to spread out a bit as we head in x direction and at least some of them will get the idea. I think that's the best that can be hoped for with a public match.
I habitually try to space myself from other people just because you learn quickly enough it's not always a good idea to be right next to someone else, and when you're trying to keep this spacing but you're also trying to follow someone, it's naturally easier to also be further back to keep them in yours sight instead of constantly looking left and right to see if you're where you're suppose to be. That naturally forms a sort of wedge without even really trying to.
I prefer spreading out because it makes people less of a target and covers overwatching more. But if I need to flank and hit fast and hard get everyone on a truck and slaughter the enemy APCs before the enemy gets them into the main battle. It's all about knowing where to move. Spec ops behidn enemy lines missions is what I'm good at. To the point just two people can get an FOB behind enemy lines and crush the enemy. No front line will save you if you don't cover the flanks and rear. This is something people often neglet because they're desperate for a quick fight. People tend to get stuck with tunnel vision and zerg rush. Exploit that. Use it to your advantage. You can also account for this with your own allies. If you know where the front line is going to be then work around it and cover the flank. If your allies don't work with you then work with them instead. If they won't make the formation then create it yourself.
A videogame is a fantasy. No exhaustion, no fog, no adrenaline. Pinpoint presicion. Ability to take out an entire squad as a single member. Ability to see beyond the shooting range. The differences are endless.
ehh for squad specifically. There is a lack of precision beyond shots that are practically range shooting on slow moving or stationary targets while having time to steady your weapon at a crouch or prone
@@dakotadawn5789 and? You're acting as if there wasn't literally a thousand and one different variables that make the scenario non replicable. Code isn't real life. There is no smell. War and death have a disgusting smell that most people who milsim on video games will never understand how much it changes things. It's just how it works. It's a once in a lifetime sort of experience. But war is something that happens before and after. And during? Some people aren't even there when it's going on. A video game is for fun so it'll never replicate it because it's retarded to even try.
@enriquecabrera2137 I don’t know what your experience of war is but nobody is making a video game into what it isn’t. @dakotadawn5789’s point about Squad’s game design is a very valid one, as it makes precise shooting much more difficult. Overly so in the opinions of many.
This was an intelligent observation. In videogames, we take intelligence and information for granted, as it is something we receive immediately for gaming convenience and fun, whereas a real conflict has a massive fog-of-war that can very much ruin every plan zero. Real-life formations seem to take care of that information as you mention. Semi-related, I realized that a player tradition in Dungeons and Dragons has a similar theory behind squad movement in dungeons themselves: Skill monkeys/leaders out front, dedicated warriors/tanks in the back, mages/AoE attackers in the middle, and clerics/druids behind as healers or secondary fighting. With the game being based around what the DM narrates, it kind of makes sense in this scenario.
Formations are good when people obey and follow the duties of their class. Best example is mechanized push. Dismounting from IFV and lining up behind it in two parallel lines while slowly advancing under cover fire. When the positions are reached the fireteams spread out to designated positions and the ifv can slowly reverse while the fireteams clear buildings and take up positions. Works like a charm and makes one squad fight like 3 squads at the same time.
not in squad but in another game like it, I like playing in mounted infantry squads since there's always one guy minimum excited to leave the vehicle to start shooting who quickly banzai charges and die the moment they leave the vehicle.
@@taramaforhaikido7272 I tell them to not bother staying in squad because I kick when not obeyed because it will hamper the winning chance of the rest of the mates. Usually I also take a light vehicle with guns besides a transport for bravo which is HAT+LAT, Rifleman/grenade and dedicated bravo medic. They get independec when granted and are send around to rush HABs and ralleys as well as rescue tracked vehicles, while charlie is always object securing, with own medic, sniper, LMG and engi with wide peremitter scanning objective from ideal positions or covering advances of bravo. Usually it works really awesome on most maps. In defence all other squads can go on attack while my squad manages to bind several enemy squads and vehicles to a failed advance. Even with randoms that find together they get hyped by the amount of kills they get... The other squad leads are more work then my squads after I drilled them 🤣
The simplified version of real world tactics that worked over and over in tarkov for my 5 man squad was 1) Recon; 2) Initial contact, base of fire; 3) Flank. I can only think of a couple times where it looked picture perfect, but the fact that a team of mixed civilians and swat and military, led by a civilian, were able to maneuver a 5 man squad and split into 2 fireteams under fire always made me pretty damn proud of our teamwork skill. We didn't win every single fight because tarkov is really difficult and honestly filled with cheaters who loved targeting squads with gear. But for well over a year we had solid wins. In a game where 40-50% survival rating is considered good, our squad was regularly in the 60-70% range. But we were playing with the same group of guys over and over. With randoms I think it's best to accept that it's a video game and use the nuances of video gameism to your advantage, like the fact that you have a respawn. Send a couple guys out front as cannon fodder to "recon" by getting shot at. Let them tell the group where the shots are coming from. And then split your blob into two blobs and attack from multiple directions. "Oy, you. All of you guys. Move there, then attack there."
I can't even run squad and still I love your videos just because I love the game as well as seeing these breakdowns of real concepts with easily illustratable examples. Like diagrams are nice, but moving diagrams in the game where you can see everything working together along with caveats for practicability, now that's tacticool
I'm a prior US infantry Marine, with some experience as a team leader in Afghanistan and a bit as a squad leader back in the States before I got out. The best game I had was playing with a full squad of military friends. We were Russians fighting US on one of the snowy maps, and we were getting our teeth kicked in on the first two points. Eventually the platoon commander left so I had to take up the position, and I got super sweaty with it. I planned out an entire defensive line for our third position, which was a town surrounded by a forest. I planned out the primary, alternative, and supplementary positions, calculated the most probable avenues of approach, and set up crew served weapons. We had a TOW in one of our primary positions watching the MSR, with a couple heavy crew serves in alternative and supplementary positions. I directed LP/OPs to be set up on adjacent hills, which actually allowed us ample reaction time to flanks. Complete with a mortar position way further back, it was very hard for the US forces to crack the town. Our TOW actually took out a few vics coming from the MSR, while our heavy crew serve in our tertiary position prevented air assault from units dropping in from helos. Our primary positions eventually got overran but I managed to get rolling artillery down on the forrest to prevent them from flowing in too much, which allowed my squads to retake the primary after falling back to the alternative positions. From there, we held out for the rest of the game and won, especially thanks to the supplementary positions I had built, because otherwise they would have enveloped us without issue. But to be honest we could have just as well lost that game if the rest of the squad leaders didn't listen to me. Thankfully they did what I told them to do for the most part. And despite winning, I definitely didn't like doing my real job in a video game that much, and I haven't SL'd or played platoon commander since. I just want to play for fun most of the time, like strapping IEDs to my friend's bike and having him drive into tanks.
Something touched on, but I think is influential enough to deserve a second mention, is that any video game soldier is superhuman, often with impossibly accurate weaponry. A normal human is not whipping a .50 Cal around from prone and popping someone right behind them. Admittedly, I've played more on the CoD/Battlefield side of things, but there are just some things people will pull that cannot be done IRL (or at least not done effectively) simply for this reason. This means tactics made assuming the enemies are human have a massive blind spot in games. Well, that and the fact that no one has to care about logistic management. If a map has a vehicle, that vehicle will be there at the start, meaning people are incentivized to be a little riskier with supplies. Real world people run out of Jeeps real fast if they load every one of them down with explosives for an impromptu fireworks delivery.
Short answer, a lot of real life tactics require suppression fire to be effective and suppression requires the enemy to be afraid of being shot to be successful. In a video game where you know you can revive or even heal, you can afford to just rush a person shooting instead of taking cover and being suppressed.
All good points, but one I feel that you didn't touch upon was the "game rules" that the players (mostly) intrinsically understand that inform their posture, movement and response to engagement. For the most part veteran players will know the terrain very well, they'll understand where the enemy will come from, their equipment, what their silhouette will look like, they're objective and motivation, how long it will take in the beginning of a round for enemy elements to arrive at certain areas and therefore what is safe, there will be game borders, terrain or objects that are impossible to access and there are senses we use in real life that are absent or limited in the game that help our situational awareness. I've been enjoying Reforger because it's new to me and the difference in animations, maps and the more sandbox approach to missions brings me back to noob days where tactics sometimes trump skill.
I think it goes deeper, one aspect you missed on formations is flexibility (idk if its in the ranger handbook) and what this refures to is how easy is it to break out into maneuvers, peeling, bounding, and such. Which requires even more training. But what I do think can be done without training is self deciplne of holding cover, sectors or look at map and plug holes in the front line. You can not train a squad in the minutes before a game starts, but you can be the best individual you can and help as much as you can when you jump in.
Great point on flexibility. It’s especially important for when you’re transitioning into the fight. And you’re right good individuals can mitigate a lack of unit cohesion.
I've encountered the same experiences and have similar thoughts on this when playing games. I've never needed or expected literal by the book tactics from other players or even a in depth knowledge of X Y Z fields of knowledge one can apply to milsim and shooters, both because I lack any training or experience and also because it's unreasonable. That's not where my frustrations arise from. What I've found frustrating is as you said people on fixating details that have less relevance and or importance. Bare with me here 😆 In 20 years of playing various genres on various platforms I've picked up on some patterns of behaviour I've seen repeated many times by many people. Sticking to shooters in general, I've noticed people struggle the most(myself included) not because of a lack of twitch reflexes, real life experience, 'tactical knowledge' or any other highly specific skill or knowledge; no rather a lack neuroplasticity the ability to take in new information, learn adapt and problem solve and social skills when it comes to team based games. As an example I've met so many people that would put hundreds or thousands of hours into a game and never learn how to play it properly. They're dedicated to putting time into it even if they aren't consistently having a good time just banging their head against a wall, but they're desperate to win every time they play. Such people I've found are EXTREMELY resistant to doing anything that requires learning to get that win, especially learning about a broader topic that applies to what they're doing like unit formations, fields of fire, ballistics anything like that they won't have it. Even getting them to learn a new skill like picking up a different class, trying a different game mode or taking a path through the map they haven't used before is a struggle. They have the energy to rage, scream questions they don't want the answer to, make angry posts, harass people etc but not take a step to the left instead of the right 😂 The more surface level the information and the less thinking needed the more likely people are to try it, like making the shape for a formation. So we shouldn't teach/drill formations with the average gamer, and even if we could teach them which we can't it wouldn't bare many fruits. The problem is we also struggle to teach the average gamer *absolutely anything at all* ....Like not passing through the line of fire when repositioning and other simple things are just baffling to people. I must have seen tens of thousands of players at this point intentionally walk into a firing machine gun and wonder why they got shot 🙄 Not to mention the ones that get medical attention and immediately do it again. Yeah formations don't work in video games because the vast majority of players don't understand the fundamentals that formations enable such as areas of responsibility, situational awareness and optimising firepower or social skills like trust, basic communication, cooperative behaviours etc Pff Vast majority of people that play team based games have little to no teamwork ethic what so ever, and just as much desire to learn. People cringe and recoil in horror at the prospect of acquiring any kind of life skills. Conclusion: Peoples struggle to perform in games is merely a symptom of larger societal social issues. You can probably assume the anti-social dumb dumbs we meet in game likely struggle just as much in their personal and professional lives as they do online, and that's really sad.
This was oddly comforting - you explained the basics well to support your later points, and ended up validating what I'd tried and failed to explain to my old ARMA group last year, who obsessed over perfecting the shape of a wedge or column while not understanding the utility or purpose (or the hazards) - forcing players to move in a strict dance for the sake of visual orderliness regardless of the terrain, the visibility or the proximity of enemy forces. It was hell. Humans have a dreadful habit of fixating of the aesthetic over the function. Military-themed clans in particular end up behaving far less like a military unit and far more like a cargo cult, assuming that if they copy what they think a military unit *looks like*, they'll automatically and magically reap the rewards in terms of victory.
same, im in a clan that is really going for that "must keep the shape" while it also brings the worst result, i try to tell them in a nice way that maybe it doesnt work like that but they have a couple hardcore guys that focus on the role aspect than the its a game aspect
1:31 The infantry manual is not a step by step guide to soldiering but simply a building block for the individual. The application of tactic is great for the moment to which your timeline grants it's function.
This is an absolutely outstanding description of the differences between realworld tactics to in-game applications, the functional components of what makes formations useful, and why you should adapt those attributes rather than attempting to replicate them.
Excellent video idea and very well executed! This is something that has long been discussed in my clan and has been sadly discouraged by the leaders… I am a military nerd and hate to log in to the game and just play it mindlessly
Games are generally about gunfighting. IRL shrapnel is the main casualty creator. It makes a big difference in how infantry moves across the battlefield and maintains dispersion.
@@HaebyungDance A breakdown would be cool but this video was definitely the more important point to make first. I think getting to the spirit of what manuals are trying to communicate is more important than taking them at face value.
@@HaebyungDance That would be a great lead in to this for my playlist since your script kind of assumes you know formations, and I want to be able to take a player from ignorant to expert by the end
@@HaebyungDance Hm, it could be interesting if you could show how they specifically apply to Squad and can show examples. It also has a huge potential to be really boring. In this video, I really liked the example about the practical example of calling for a line formation shortly before contact. It felt achieavable, useful and... relatable?
I like your point that the actual shape doesn’t matter, I think that’s a really great point. More important is maintaining good spacing and sectors of responsibility. I usually try to yell “spacing!” When i see my guys clumping up, which works pretty well. Sectors of responsibility are much harder to manage in squad though. I recently told a guy “you watch the 6!” And he didn’t understand.. same with watching the flank… then we got taken out by enfilade fire. I might try to designate sectors of fire earlier in staging and see if that helps.
The comment about players being more concerned about the shape of the formation made me smile. I have seen real life infantry team and squad leaders yelling at soldiers during field training battle drills to maintain wedge formations through rough or impassable terrain. Some people whether it be in video games or real life just completely miss point of infantry formations.
I’ve seen it too lol. I guess another is in real life you’re doing more than just formations - you’re teaching attention to detail, discipline, etc. but even then… Nobody wants that in a video game anyways. Have fun you know?
The statement about lack of training I completely agree with. The whole section of ''Why don't formations work'' is pretty spot on. It comes down to a lack of understanding. If I booted up Squad now, there's a good chance that what ever team I end on, there might be 1 or 2 people who have ever had any real life military training. And so, while many players have read about formations and tactics, or maybe watched videos on TH-cam about the subject, they lack a deeper and natural understanding of the concepts. And like you say, they'll focus too hard on keeping their exact relative position in the formation, where as in real life, if I called a formation, my machinegunner wouldn't religiously be staying exactly at x position. He'd move to nearest possible cover or best shooting position. There's a lot of individual freedom at the Squad level, at least there were in the military I served in. I'm fairly sure if I could rally up my old unit to a game of Squad, and actually get them to take it semi-serious, we'd be able to use formations and real life concepts in the game, without any real difficulties, because we're a bunch of guys who's had it drilled in to us, and know how each other work and react.
@@Mechanized85 Then angrily demand to know how they died as they reflexively spawn at the nearest depleted fob and do it again. I've totally never done that myself though. I'm a mature adult and always have been 😄
Guys please there is literally 20% aim assist buff when you walk in Wedge formation with 45 degree angle :P Jokes aside really good video man i seriously love this series.
@@MachinedFace88ttv It proves that a sandbox cannot be allowed and you need punishing game design to get players to do what you want them to do, so they have a good experience
Very well thought out video… I have over 1000hrs in squad and always asked myself why formations would evolve into ugly blobs thanks for diving into this subject❤
Formations are MUCH more important in high-realism sims like combat flight sims, warship sims, etc. I am a flight leader in IL2 Flying Circus, and I studied historical air combat formations. With proper study and practice, you can gain a huge advantage over your opponents. Especially in the larger campaign scenarios we play, with mission critical planes (bomber formation, photo recon, etc) that need escort, and several escorting squads around the "package". Same thing applies in naval combat. A properly set up line of battle will absolutely roflstomp a rabble of disorganized gamers. The corollary is that if there is not a demonstrable benefit to period-accurate formations and tactics, then your sim is not accurate enough. I'm looking at you, War Thunder and WoWS.
Funnily enough the "idea" of formations works really well in Escape from tarkov when working in 5 man groups. I was a sherpa for a couple years ( community teacher , we are experinced players who offer hands on training for the player base ) and one of the things we did was effectively do an inverted wedge with the "team lead" in the center directing / navigating. while the two "wings" had 1 experinced player and 1 novice. One of things we did was explain at the start that if you're "on the right" you should focus your attention mostly on the right side of the group etc etc. This way the newer players had less to try to process and didn't have to stress as much about what was going on 360 around them , they just had to focus on their corner. Funnily enough - those rookeis suddenly started having a lot of fun and enjoyed the game rather than being discouraged / upset. point being " The spirit of the formation" is more important than the shapes , and understanding the spirit of the formation will make them work pretty dang well.
U’ve missed some important thing about formations: it’s practice! With the same people, so everyone are on the same page, that each one can substitute each other on diff roles(in my country it’s used numbers in FT: FTL-1, MG-2, Grenadier-3, rifleman/medic/marksman-4 and even 5). Also Formations were designed(according to field manuals) to help manoeuvre inside the FT(like u’ve got contact front so n1 and n2 sets a base of fire so that n3 and n4 can maneuvre to get a better or flanking position and then they will set a base of fire so n1 and n2 can move out of fire to a better position). But probably that’s what you mean under mobility/control
@@HaebyungDance my point was: formations in video games are mostly useless because it’s hard to show some results with the “random guys” everytime, even within same clan/team. So people who tried to use formations failed and made wrong conclusion: “formations not working”.
Yeah and that’s part of what I meant when I said it’s a training issue in the video. Ideally you want the same guys, but even just a common doctrine can help, which we don’t have in Squad. In Korea, we have the same numbered system 1-5, with 5-man teams.
I’ve played squad leader a lot in Squad, Hell let loose, Post Scriptum, Project reality. And it’s like you said, training and discipline, the formation is just a liability because you’re gonna have weak links not spotting threats and maintaining their sector, until they’re on top of the veterans. They panic and scatter on vehicle contact. Go too wide unnecessarily a lot and allow enemies to slip through the cracks right behind you. The best you can do as squad leader is keep them grouped up and fighting together in one grid square, and warn/give them information they can’t hear from command channels. Say Spread out and guns up before assault. Or inform where the defenses have been breached.
Combined arms is a bit of an outdated tactic and honestly a meme- any type of verhicle supporting an infantry push is extremely exposed, unless it has a tight angle with distance, lots of cover and room to run away. The idea that tanks should support infantry is really old. It wasn't long before generals started making dedicated tank battalions. Now, it can be fantastic and farm a ton of kills, but usually due to how spread out enemies are and how they will avoid your LOS, you won't get much done. Maybe just help for a minute, 90 seconds and then GTFO to reposition before enemy armor barrels down on you from all angles. Everyone loves to bitch at the IFV / Tank to help them push, but if you're loading HE or shooting the MG, the enemy will call out your location and AT starts flying your way, one track and you could be done for, and lose 10, 15, 20 tickets just like that
because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
Yet you can still have just two people turning the tide of an entire war. It can and does happen. The game has to appeal to both play styles. Because both tactics work. You can argue, but if something works and is effective then it works. Likewise both can fail too. It really depends on the situation. Either way "spec ops" missions get a lot of success. Since it does flanking and surprise more. It's also important to keep in mind that most people struggle with speaking up by default. Game mechanics can only go so far.
As someone who RP'd as a commander in various ranged combat games, formations do actually work, but only if they have someone who knows what they're doing and knows how to execute commands well. In many other games, formations and general positioning does matter to a certain degree, but the more complex the formations and tactics, the less it shows in the score. I've found that when you have a team of people utilizing some strategy and pacing and having a direct commander making calls, things work out better than the enemy team that may be more disorganized, even if they do have more skill. There is a ceiling to this, though it is absolutely not completely useless.
I have experience as a gamer since the 90's and in the real world since [ ]. Formations they teach you in the military don't work in real life, and are not used from your first day outside the wire, and on. Stacking on a door is about the only formal position, and that is done at the leisure of cover and at whatever dispersion the situation calls for. Teams entering rooms are singular, to double. Five men through the door stuff is for low threat targets in civilian sector. In reality, 5 men can clear a two-story house in under a minute, search it in 5, have detainees out in 10 min. The only thing you are doing in a combat situation is pulling security. That means 5 meter circle awareness around you at all times for tripwires, strange things. That means a somewhat pointed 25 meter in front of you. When moving you have your sector of security to watch for rooftops to drainage, and always aware of 5m in any direction around you for tripwires, things to trip on, other dangers. Situationally, most of it is a mental remembering of where you are and where you're going as well as where to exfiltrate. You rarely have a GPS and very likely one radio so you NEVER leave each other's sight. Every unit is different, and so are their success rates.
I haven't played Squad but played Arma with a mil-sim group and an OIF veteran. I agree with everything said. The shape is secondary. Sectors for 360 awareness is the most important before contact. The formation also puts your MG and a-gunner in the most likely direction of contact so that, if fired upon it immediately can suppress the target. The formation also helps prevent friendly fire allowing maximum firepower on contact. But once bullets start firing, if holding a static position, your position and targets maybe adjusted by the squad leader. The only time spacing/shape is super important is during fireteam and squad rushes to maintain your lane/positioning and prevent getting shot in the back.
Well made arguments. Formations fall apart quickly in games, in part because of the tempo, in part because players are more individualistic, and because of game mechanics. Games reward mobility, same as the players. This is in part because of map design, because the player has been given unnatural mobility, and because aiming is easy. Games also reward, or rather fail to properly punish, reckless behavior. If games slowed down the movement speed by 50%, made the maps less like pool tables, made aiming accurately more difficult, and made each death hurt, formations would instantly become a lot more useful.
Quick share of what we do in my milsim community. Since the leaders had military training, everything got very smooth and flexible. So, we basically use only 3 forms, the line, column, and alternated column, since they are enough. Another thing that I was expecting here was references from the Ucranian war, and also giving more attention to the teamwork aspect that is required to make the sectors even work, you need to trust your teammates
I kept the discussion tight - there was definitely a lot more I could’ve covered but I focused on the mechanical side of things rather than the human aspect of that makes sense.
My take on it is that its 100x easier to do things in video games. You have so much information that its much easier to do your thing. In real life, you dont have a compass at the bottom, a mini map, clear voice comms, etc etc. Additionally, other things distract you IRL, from how exhausted you are from a movement, or the tempurature, or now uncomfortable your gear feels on your body. So in a real life combat situation where its so hard to know whats happening and maintain composure, you need a baseline doctrine or formation to have a big picture. In video games, its very easy to know where the rest of your platoon is because of an indicator on the screen or map. In real life, all you see is the person left and right of you, and you assume where the rest of your platoon is based on the doctrine you follow.
I used to play a lot of CoD4, MW2, Battlefield Bad Company2, BF3, and BF4. The idea of squads and the roles in formations as we crudly understood them helped my friends and me perform better than our opponents across our play experiences. Setting up defensive overlapping fields of fire and support with cohesion was often enough to make the difference.
I don't play squad, but once upon a time, I was in the Army(US, I was a combat engineer), and I thought you did a great job of explaining the high level thought of these tactics. This made me want to look into this game, but I don't really do PvP games anymore. Thank you for the content.
What I'm gathering from this is that formations naturally materialize in video games all the time. Having played many hours of Battlefield and similar titles, it's very common for large teams to maximize firepower along the axis of opposing contact, with individual players taking on zones of responsibility. This typically just happens without any complex communication.
LMAO formations are great in principle. I actually made formations work in Minecraft. You just have to understand it's maximizing killpower and reducing your own vulnerabilities. And most importantly, when commanding a group of people - getting them to move together, but it does need drill in order to remove the autism and ADHD players naturally have of free movement. But when they start winning - whoo boy it's a drug.
@@HaebyungDance "Why do we use a line formation, captain?" "It's so you r-words won't hit each other when you start jump shooting and blob up. You're creating a wide crossfire. It's common sense."
because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
@@jmgonzales7701 The principle and logic is this: maintain damage superiority over your opponent and bear more localized numbers against them. An example is long ranged bow battles. Players tend to clump up into blobs. So, not only do they become bigger targets for crossfires, but they also usually hit their own teammates. A line formation brings to bear all ranged damage by expanding your field of fire whilst also reducing your friendly fire. Even a line formation can blunt a melee charge because of a steady stream of damage and force them to break apart their charge, thus separating them from each other and allowing your guys to focus on the smaller or weaker detachments who are momentarily without help from their teammates. Though not always decisive, these incremental advantages of getting more damage off yields a consistent positional advantage. In simple words: More of my guys are fighting. Your guys are just getting hurt and doing nothing.
This is a well done video. I'm only half way through and I wanted to throw out as well that formations tend to have an expectation of the opposing force's behavior as well. In video games players know if they die they'll be back in 30 seconds and actually have more information about their threat than they had before. Dying isn't a risk it's possibly even a benefit. With that in mind trying to do many "real life" behaviors doesn't translate just because the enemy isn't behaving as a real person would.
20 years as a lawn dart. What you're saying about shapes is 100%. Wedge, colum, ranger line, all of it just a template modifying what is needed to move through terrain. Important things are 360 security situational awareness and most lethal direction of fire. In games, the necessity of a leader being in a certain spot is mute. For reasons discusses. Good work over all. Oh spacing... its a balancing act. I think this can relate to games as well. Irl 25m is the standard, this is a trade off between spread out enough not to get an entire fireteam fragged by a grenade and close enough to effectively support each other with fire. The space would likely change in game depending on aoe of what ever munition but still something to consoder. Over all good job. Disclaimer i dont play squad
This is why Arma is so fun to me. It's so jank that even after thousands of hours, and the perfect information problem, nothing is guaranteed, so using formations and these kind of rote drills actually help, unlike most games
Formations work, but I can just respawn at the closest hab and shoot where I died previously. Squad does not punish the player who does his own thing enough.
I always use a Diagonal Line formation, that works pretty well, I say "From the middle to the rear you choose where to look at, same thing for us here in the front, but we'll cover most of the front, so look at the sides back there, just don't cover the same area as your friend", damn, that really works...
@@HaebyungDance honestly, I say and do these things in a video game for my own benefit just so I don’t forget. It’s a lot of expectation management on my part when I lead a squad. some folks enjoy hearing the verbiage even if they don’t understand it. They say it makes them feel immersed to which I say, why not?
I was a member of Foxhole’s 82DK regiment and we had a huge advantage over the people we tended to fight because we were able to make use of even the simplest formations (line and column). Any given fight inevitably became a slaughter as any enemy would run into us in defilade while they were in enfilade. Nobody could break our infantry lines without armor. We could just hold the line while our dakkaboyz in the arty section would do the actual work of winning the war.
cover to cover movement saved me many times. just using the last point of cover the guy infront of me used after he leaves it. works well even non-verbal.
Is something up? In previous videos you present very naturally, today you sound robotic as you read your script. Not meant as negativity just letting you know Also I would argue that actually the real life utility is equally limited and situational
Yeah usually I switch back and forth between scripted recording and unscripted live, but today I did purely scripted because it’s easier to make. It was a test because this way I can make more videos easily, but I may try and sound more natural in the future
@@HaebyungDance in that case makes sense, will get more natural with a little practice, you’re enunciating well and making sure to fully form each word but gotta get the flow in between down- i can’t do canned stuff like that at all lol it’s deceptively tough!
There’s a psychological component as well. In live combat there is 1. Fear and paranoia or in general the “fog of war” and 2. There is no “score.” You survive or you don’t. In games the fog of war is simulated and the guy eating the g-fuel powder is only getting a slight bump in adrenaline with no complimenting physical activity. Also, there are specified roles in formation besides the team or squad leader. The guy in the back should be turning around to check the 6 every 15 seconds or so. The comms guy has a spot. He can be the one to set markers, call in support etc. The machine gunner and assistant gunners are together. On and on. In games everyone does everything because you’re rewarded for your individual performance regardless of if your entire team died or not. In COD if my squad dies, but I win then everyone gets credit.
Watching this made me think of a game called spacehulk deathwing that I recently picked up. It has unique limitations in it like how big you and your teammates hitboxes are. If you're not coordinating your formation, it can be hard to respond to a big boss monster if you put your heavy weapons specialist to defend the rear, or for your brother with the only long range weapon to destroy a turret if hes stuck behind a librarian whos trying to pick at the turret accost the room with a storm bolter.
My Arma 2 community played heavy PvP and used formations. There is no comparing the firepower of getting your squad into line face down in a roadside ditch before opening an ambush compared to gaggle blobs full of friendly fire and begging for one grenade. We had local voice and radio coordination and had to keep our squads together the hard way too.
As a former game developer, another reason why formations don’t always work as intended is because game scale and physics don’t work as expected. A character taking a single step is like 3 meters and a vehicle taking a single step, as it were, is roughly 30 feet. I’m only mentioning this (I haven’t played Squad) because he mentioned why they don’t work in “video games,” not “in Squad.” It looks like Squad tries to maintain a more 1-1 scale of movement, though it stills looks a little “Floaty.” Why would this impact formations? Because formations were designed around real-life physics. A right echelon may well cover the right side in advancement, but if the enemy can quickly skip hop and jump to the flanking position before you can even see them, then your formation didn’t actually provide cover fire, it just slowed you down. Also, vehicles in games have a lower physics rating allowing them to make 180 degree turns on a dime without tipping. If a vehicle chases down your team in a neat little formation, a vehicle would be able to run over the entire formation without hardly any registered physical impact. Throwing a grenade or planting a mine ahead of it would normally bounce it up slowing, halting, or redirecting forward momentum. Not so in video games. The only prayer you have to stop a vehicle is to shoot it until somehow, you kill the driver, or you shoot through a window until you kill the driver. In reality, even windows are armored. I worked on Halo 5, State of Decay 2, and Ori and the Blind Forest for Microsoft Game Studios. When suggesting to include more realistic physics, we tried it in Halo Multiplayer BTB Deathmatch and vehicles would get stuck on rocks, bounce off trees, grenades wouldn’t fly as far, and Player Characters felt sluggish. It was a miserable experience. Part of the allure of video games, as Haebyung Dance alluded to in saying Players can better multitask, is that video games remove a lot of player skill gaps - simply, they’re fun, not training. Imagine having to spend hours in a training server in a Halo game just to master how to throw a grenade to land where you want, considering terrain, distance, and expected trajectory - no ghost arc either. Then, you had to spend hours trying to master vehicle movement so you didn’t get tied down in a BTB hoping the enemy wasn’t close enough (hint: they always are - maps are designed that way). Formations don’t work in video games because they don’t have to. If you really want to be a master of video game tactics and strategy, you’ll have to learn the process like the ones who established real-world formations: you need to learn how life works in the video game where you want to establish squad tactics. Personally, I’ve found that an L long-side horizontal works. Imagine you have 4 team members: The point man forms the short leg of the L and a heavy gunner (MG) directly behind. The team’s best shot/fastest to fire accurately makes the first man to the left (or right) of the MG, and the Team Leader (TL) on the furthest point left of the most accurate shooter; to the left or right of the MG is based on anticipated contact - note, not actual contact. The side-ways L works best when enemies positions are unknown, but expected. Why this tends to work: Players are not soldiers or Marines or whatever title is earned from formal military training. They’re opportunists. They see a PC and expose themselves trying to shoot that PC. The fastest on target PC of the L isn’t the first member see by the opponent, but tends to be the first to respond with fire on the exposed opponent as the first Team Member goes down. When that Lead (Pointman) goes down, the MG is free to open up fire in the most obvious possible with overwhelming fire superiority - just a slow-loading machine gun that the opponent wasn’t ready for. The Team Leader is therefore able to go wide on the outer leg of the L and move to flank. In video games, only one player is really needed for flanking because, as HD said in this video, players commonly all follow the leader in a neat little column (also advantageous for the MG now being able to freely open fire on the line of enemies who file in one after the other). Of course, few plans survive first contact with the enemy, and that’s never more true than in video games where maps and locations are readily available. If the enemy can see your formation before you arrive, it’s that much easier to bunker down on the weak points in anticipation. Some of you may have gotten hung up on the “not actual contact” point about the strength of the L formation. That’s because in actual contact, formations rarely work. Players can move faster than your rigid formation allows, so it’s best to adopt a more flexible combat strategy: two-man echelons. One in the front and one slightly behind and to the side - either side. The point man is usually going to catch fire first, and if they’re “good,” they dodge, duck, dive, and dodge long enough for the rear team member to address the threat from a slightly flanking angle. The rear man shouldn’t be so far back that they can’t get on target within milliseconds after the front man gets contact. This works because most players just spawn in and immediately run solo back at the enemy to get gunned down, rinse and repeat. If you can discipline yourself enough to work with another team member, the two-man echelon is a very effective force multiplier against the most common enemy PC out there. Scenario: In BTBs, I worked with a buddy who carried a pistol and a battle rifle - he took up the lead echelon; I carried a rocket launcher and a sniper - and took up the rear echelon. Whenever we came in contact, his pistol was usually fastest on target but not always a one shot-kill. If it was, fine, if not, I quickly got on counter-assault with a rocket or sniper depending on enemy cover. As soon as my buddy decided to run off and do his own thing, we both were gunned down shortly after, mostly because I tried to follow after him, but he was getting bored of playing in such a disciplined manner. With me barreling after him, we were running in column and when he was gunned down due to his impatience, I was left with a rocket launcher and a sniper. I picked up his pistol instead of his battle rifle and couldn’t get on target fast enough. GL; HF!
Love learning IRL facts when trying to figure out how to be better in a video game. Now for my thoughts on the video, in my own limited knowledge of mil sims I think this was very informative. But I also find that even without proper knowledge of formations I can find myself in one with random people without even talking, which is quite fun. Cool video all in all.
Great video! I love both high level overviews as well as in depth analysis of subjects like this! The lack of physical feedback to the environment is a big part of my struggles in any game, be it Arma or Halo. I can't feel the wall beside me or the tap of an ally on my shoulder, which really messes with maintaining formations, as well as staying secure in situations where concealment and-or cover is awkward. It's rough in CQB scenarios as well because the claustrophobic environment can have an enormous impact in effective movement and positioning that can't be felt out naturally. I have a feeling this plays a pretty big role in how formations are viewed, even if it's not recognized as such.
Duuude! Thank you for making this video! Ive been suckin at video games for years because I'm tryin to be realistic about it. Meanwhile you've got some guy just runnin round knifing everybody, ankle shots kill and throwing knifes one shot etc. I havent found the right words to explain it bt this video more or less does it
Another important point is that formations help establish a clear orientation of the squad, allowing for communication about direction a lot easier, which matters more when you don't constantly have a compass overlayed on your vision.
Former military vet Squad leader at one point. Yes you can transfer real life to game tactics but it takes real discipline to do so which is what the military instills in you through basic. I've done normal formations in game and have absolutely dominated games with friends, but only cause each person knew their role and job and didn't try to be first man to kill something. I've even taught people in these games what to do and how to do and if you just listen to me you will make it. Showed people how to use smoke, and when to use smoke, grenades also. How to take cover and reload which is a big issue with everyone.
The thing with military strategy and tactics in video games is that they can be applied but the application of different things varies very wildly. Things like room-clearing tactics actually translate very well into video games and we've seen that since the 90's, not everything concerning the tactics completely translates but a significant portion of it does. A lot of people that get really offended over this stuff love to poke at the gaps. Yeah there are gaps. There's variability between which bits and pieces do and don't translate between gaming and real-life but very few people, if any, ever actually claim that the two mirror each other exactly.
For video games - in alot of FPS, especially Hunt Showdown, one "formation" i use as a trio, that always works, is leap frogging. One person will move to X, while The other two are seperated, staying behind, watching the left and rights of person one. Once person is at X, He will look around, in a stationary spot, to watch ahead, and flanks, while the other two move foward, looking right and left as they move forward. Once they are at X, again, one person will move, then the other two will cover. Keep doing this, only one person is in the actual danger, while the other two can cover.
I think real world tactics can work just fine. The real problem is that people just suck at Squad. They rush it. They sprint everywhere, especially around particularly dangerous corners. They dont keep their gun up, because they are sprinting, so then they cant react quickly enough when they do come face to face with an enemy. Just like in real life, in Squad, moving is how you get spotted. The faster you move, the easier you are to spot to the human eye. The more you move, the more you will be spotted first, and gunned down first. Another thing, people are busy sprinting, so they arent keeping their head on a swivel. Its way harder to spot a stationary target, or even another moving target, when you are moving, and your screen is bouncing up and down. This results in you being gunned down first. IN squad, you should really only sprint when its necessary, like crossing a road, an large open area, or trying to move to cover while being engaged, etc etc etc. This maximizes the time that you keep your gun up, and head on swivel, it will make you have better reaction times, and you will die less, spot the enemy first more. Formations are a whole different story, but everything I said still applies to that. Poeple can know the formations but they stil dont know to keep their gun up, or head on a swivel, so its pointless.
Even in a game/server where players often work together, the biggest problem is that suppression doesn't really work in games. Players behind a keyboard aren't afraid they'll die, so they are far more aggressive than any real soldiers would be. And if suppression doesn't work, fire and maneuver doesn't work, and that's the cornerstone of small unit tactics.
One last function of Infantry formations that this video overlooks is concentration of force. In pretty much any FPS whether it be a relatively realistic game like Squad or highly unrealistic like MechWarrior, teams that don't use formations tend to scatter out in every possible direction. When such a team goes up against a team that sticks together, they tend to find themselves individually outnumbered and easily picked off.
First time viewer. When listening to the intro, I was sure you were going to be some keyboard ass warrior that had read a couple manuals. But then you delivered the exact same fundamental answer I had come up with. _Movement_ . In the Danish army there is a saying that roughly translates to "The plan works until first contact with the enemy". Once the bullets start flying over head, you don't think about geometric shapes, placing the correct part of your finger on the trigger, breathing patterns, specific shooting stances etc. etc. You just fight and 'lead from the hip'. Everything the military practices, it does to give the soldiers the best possible circumstances to face this moment. Even though you don't think about, say, trigger manipulation, in the heat of combat, it hopefully gives you a subconscious advantage. And even though you've already forgotten the formation you were in 2 seconds ago, it hopefully provides you with clear line of sight to the enemy.
Yeah “No plan survives contact with the enemy” is how I’ve heard that saying. They say you fall to your level of training when in combat. So having as much ingrained you as possible means that you will draw from it as you deal with the chaos.
Understandably it's a completely different setting and less complex to perform, but I love how in War of Rights it's very easy for an officer to coordinate nearly 50+ players into immediately getting into a line formation after marching in column. Primarily perhaps because of the nature of the war and the inherent incentives of the game mechanics.
As a War Thunder player, my thoughts on formations and leaders has mostly to do with coordination. If each player had a job, from spotting to pinning the enemy to advancing, games would go much better. You wouldn't have random enemies sneaking behind your lines and shooting you in the back, because the team would be coordinated, covering every approach. I'm sure Squad has similar things, where some dude with an MG finds an unguarded alleyway to sneak behind you and mow your team down. So rather than formations, I think these games would really benefit from having a chain of command to designate tasks, and players that actually followed orders.
I have nearly a thousand hours in Squad as a Squadleader and yeah the best say that i found to lead the squad is playing in front leading the squad behind me, always make them stick in a 50m radius so that there can be revenge and res and never hesitate to dispatch fireteam from the main group to flank or to take care of radio/vhc. And never leave a man behind that is probably the most important point, the less ticket you loose the better.
The Wedge works in Warzone quite well. Especially in WZ1 when you had an unlimited heartbeat sensor. It basically recreated the "Wall of Eagles" that the F15 uses to control the airspace with its powerful radar.
Probably the biggest factor that is misunderstood in formations is the actual spacing between them. A section moving through an area can be spread out sometimes with 15 - 30 metre spacing between each person.
it strikes me that this is kinda a similar school of thought as to why tanks (WWII especially) are "ranked" so differently irl versus in-game. Real battlefields have so many more factors that a real soldier needs to worry about, while a gamer using a mouse or controller to aim instead of their entire upper body simply doesn't. Crew ergonomics, supply lines, the quality of steel in the armor plating, welded versus cast versus riveted armor.... Fun fact, a study of American tank crews at the end of the war in Europe found that only about 1 in 6 shells were fired at hostile tanks (from Shermans specifically iirc). The vast majority of cannon rounds were fired at emplaced infantry and reinforced positions like bunkers. So the tankers not wanting to upgrade from the short 75 to the long 76 cannon wasn't just "old thing good, new thing bad", it was because the lower-velocity 75mm HE rounds had noticeably more explosive power in them (and weighed noticeably less) than the higher-velocity, higher-penetration 76mm shells. Whereas in War Thunder there is less than zero reason to opt for the 75mm over the long 76.
Never played Squad. Have a handful hours in Arma. Played many hours in other games. In our clan we never went into the high level realism, but we do use formations and tactics to a degree. We don't try to be tryhard mil-sim, but also not headless chickens acting like it's CoD deathmatch. A big part is the obvious "no strategy survives contact with the enemy", so as soon as actual fighting starts, the nice theory will break down to a certain level. We do use squad and platoon leaders, try to hold clear comms during engagements, organise the people. But we apply things simpler than real life. From things like "the first to breach a room goes left, the next right and so on", to things like "fireteam alpha takes the stairs near the entrance, fireteam bravo the one on the other side of the room" The platoon commander won't necessarily be at the front, so squad and fireteam leaders make the moment-to-moment situations. We assign angles to hold. Including callouts on contact. We organise breaches with utility grenades in advance (flashbangs, ability drainers, smoke screens etc), to reduce the enemy's effectiveness and prevent our own people from getting hit. So the grenade has to go out first, and only then do we breach. And one of the hallmarks of our group was sort of a management drill. Between "campaigns" we occasionally to go back to the main spawn location of the faction, to organise logistics, give people a bathroom break, and weed out people problematic. And it's rather simple: squads like up in columns, side by side. If someone can't listen to a simple order like that, we can't expect them to follow more complex orders in battle. We don't expect them to stand parade. Just the general order to cease the fight and retreat, group up with your squad, and organise transport for the squad. Or grouping up at a spawn location instead of running into enemy fire alone. That one can be a hard thing to manage when everyone wants to get kills, instead of standing around.
👏🏽Well said. Former SSG Ev@&#$$ 2/75 in 2007, LRS in 09-10, Infantry; rifleman, saw gunner, team leader, squad leader ETS in 2016. Ranger school in 09, EIB, CIB blah blah. Just saying, I've been involved in small unit tactics and platoon and squad ttp's, movements, assaults etc. That is for you Haebyung Dance. From me to you, great work helping others to understand these somewhat complex concepts. For everyone else, I would say so far this is the best video I've seen outlining the correlation of real world doctrine tied into Milsim/FPS/whatever gaming. And 100% agree if you want this to be effective it's the individual battle techniques of each person tied into the overall patrol, action or battle drill that will make it happen. I would love to get involved in helping to deciminate this message to fellow gamers who seek to apply real world tactics and strategies to the gaming environment, if not to at least defend the authenticity of what I spent 10 years of my life doing and teaching to my guys. It would make me feel some purpose again in old skills. Thanks for this video and if anyone has any additional questions let me know I'd love to help.
Hey man - first of all, thanks for the super nice comment. I served for a brief period but I ETS’d E-5 with a short stint as a rifle squad leader in the ROKMC and I worked really hard to teach my guys what they needed to know even as I learned myself. So someone like you leaving a positive comment really leaves me humbled. I don’t know if you’re on Discord but that’s the easiest way to get a hold of me, and the link to my channel’s community is in the video description where you can find and DM me (Dance in Discord). I can’t always reply instantly but I’m always down for a conversation!
I've noticed in Helldivers we sometimes organically form a line or column and every once in a while a wedge. No one does it on purpose but i think everyone is worred about getting shot in the back so they avoid their team mates line of fire
While it's a different game, my buddies and I while playing Helldivers 2 use a limited degree of small team tactics, such as "bounding overwatch" (also called leapfrogging), and target designation for specific players to aim for. My friends and I already know that using anything more advanced won't really translate well into a video game, but a lot of small team tactics works great in games.
I really enjoy your thoughts on these kinds of topics. It is definitely the kind of thing I'm thinking about when designing out different types of combat locations for Squad. Your description of why it doesn't work in games I think also more accurately describes the position Squad takes in the tactical shooter genre being a stepped down simplified version of; platoon combat, aircraft, vehicles, weapon systems, etc. Walking down thoroughly trained battle drills into more general purpose methods you can apply as a Squad Leader becomes the most enjoyable and successful version for everyone involved especially in public matches. The high task load Squad leads have I think necessitates you to simplify your instructions to setup your 8 other members into the easiest to understand and most efficient job possible. That really is what defines good leadership in Squad, best employing your Squad members to setup them for individual success often without them even realizing.
It's what I look for when building out levels for Squad, does this location require these kinds of broader concepts to succeed? Or is it overly simple to the extent that just brute force of blobs walking onto cap win. I've found the most fun comes from sufficiently complex locations that push teams to actually lead there players through successful firefights and not just meat grind it out.
That’s super cool to hear - thanks for the comment!
@@HaebyungDancereading all of these comments your fans leave and squad community are the reason squad will never be a real gaming community y’all take yourselves way to serious it’s a game FFS y’all need to learn to have fun and yes I know your soy boy discord friends are coming to your rescue but y’all are a echo chamber 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@@HaebyungDancefemboy.
I live in your head rent free lmao
Id argue and say you're 100% wrong. I have personally played with combat veterans like myself and we have proven that tactics along with individual movement and squad level movements do work. If you'd like to get real feedback go ahead and talk to us real fighters.
One of the biggest issues I've seen trying to use any real-life tactics in games is the lack of discipline most people have. They want to have the maximum amount of excitement and fun. (it's a game, so I completely understand). It's difficult to get them to hold a sector that doesn't currently have contact. They tend to funnel into a small space, all seeking to be the one who gets the kill. They all want to be a hero so bad they end up leaving flanks and rear open to attack. Even if you can get them In a wedge, they will all cover 10 to 2. You may as well just run in a line, you would have the same level of security. Guys take important kits and run off to live their dream of being a main character. At some point, things became unpractical not because it couldn't work but because people won't do it.
I totally agree. It comes down to finding the right people to play with, which is a whole different struggle. I wanted to spend some time talking about the pure gameplay principles.
But yeah. It’s the eternal Squad struggle.
shameless plug in for the 7th server. join us. it's fun. (when we don't get randoms that ruin the fun)
Real life tactics are for real life... where people fight like there are no respawns --just infinite darkness, forever.
SL role is very challenging... its so hard to do well. You have way to much to do, too many voices to listen to, and there's always someone incompetent making life miserable. . My experience is 95% of infantry guys who' ve joined an infantry squad are desperate for good leadership (the one man army types ride off in light vehicles to shoot up the nearest saloon) and will do what you ask -- until they lose their confidence in you.... Boring a squad to death is just one way to lose a squad, but its a way.
@@27Pyth That's so true hahah. Me and my friend joke about 'losing aura' when your plans don't work out as a SL. Defending without contact for too long, giving someone an order and they ignore it, uncertainty, slow to formulate plans. All of this chips away at squad morale and cohesion and before you know it people leave or do their own thing
@@27Pyth because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
you'll always get that ONE guy who never listens to the squad leader's tactics anyways.
Yup.
Kick him. It's not worth wasting a spot on a guy who's going off on his own anyway.
@@isaacbrowning5871that guy actually knows how to be more helpful and impactful but sl removes him from squad to lose a ticket and his help afterwards that will lead to even more tickets lost 😢
Kick. Players should respect the SQL role. Every player join a team = should work as a team.
As a squad leader if I get a solo dolo i just kick them from my squad. I don't have to be undermined by a squad member and i'd rather have a small focused group than a large unfocused
My 2 cents: In my experience its very hard to maintain positional awareness in a game, between the narrow fov and very limited spatial audio. In real life, I can take 6 random guys and move in a cohesive formation in pitch black over rough terrain - its natural to know where people are in the space around you so its natural to hold your position relative to them.
I can hear if the guy 30 metres to my right is lagging a little, in a game I would have to be staring at the map the entire time to get the same effect, so people dont as they really have bigger things to worry about.
I totally agree. The spatial awareness in game is absent, while at the same time things like the map make it an obsolete in a way? Overall it’s the general principles that can apply, and not much of the nitty gritty.
@@HaebyungDance Also, people can't understand eachother, removing even more awareness of eachother.
Some players have their volume on 100% and their voice chat volume on 100% as well. Meaning that any sort of combat in a 150m radius completely deafens them. It's so demoralizing to make callouts and strategize just to hear a ''uhhh.... I can't hear you'' 5 seconds later, 10 times in a single match.
Drop effects volume to 50%, crank up voice chat to 200%, do whatever you need to hear people loud and clear without being deafened by light or distant combat.
And just learn to call everything out twice in a row. Sometimes make the same callout several times if it's important like an enemy tank close, saying it twice in a row, it really takes time before some people understand you lol
@@HaebyungDance I wouldn't call it obsolete. It can be hard to notice when you're facing the other way that the people right behind you have started moving away from you. If you had a minimap or something and you habitually looked at it or something then maybe but not having spatial audio and not being able to physically feel things in your environment takes away a lot from that awareness.
Yeah I think that lack of audio to hear your buddies and such is a super underrated element that’s lacking
HUD elements to know where your nearby buddies are and which one you’re looking and are super-important, even if they don’t quite feel realistic
As a squad leader playing with randoms I will usually just call out "Make a line left to right facing contact!" or establish that SOP beforehand. It is extremely simple and most randoms can actually handle that with no preparation. I find it quite helpful to quickly bring firepower to front and minimize stacking up.
That’s a good way to handle it
@@HaebyungDance Should sectors of responsibility still apply when responding to enemy contact? Or is it primarily for traveling, like the formation itself? Hard to keep security when engaged in a firefight...
Like I mention in the video, a formation is for movement. The moment a firefight starts everything changes. I want to explain it more in my next vid but the gist is you’ll be switching to bounding/flanking and suppression/assault in a fight. Notice that none of those things typically involve formations, although security is something that should be remembered.
@@HaebyungDance Yes so like my original "on line" maneuver. Then manuevering FTs to provide cover/security/assault.
Yeah and the fireteams themselves would theoretically break into buddy teams, which break into individuals.
Bottom line is people are not scared like they would if it was real life. That will get you to do everything to not rush to your death.
IRL you'll avoid seeing (and thus being seen) by the enemy as much as possible.
When Patrolling sure you'll use a formation, but if you're actively engaged in combat, no one is maintaining a formation.
Source: Marine Corps combat
It's also why suppressing fire doesn't work in games, the psychological impact isn't there
@MoreEvilThanYahweh
BF3 and 4 gave it a good try, but in many games, you can change some settings, and the effects are gone, sadly.
@@MoreEvilThanYahwehwhen games reduce your accuracy or dim your vision it usually results in the guy getting shot putting his head down so he can reengage effectively
Former Planetside 2 player, wherein I was a (minor) member of a very large and quite successful unit at the time. We regularly employed tactics and strategy to win large-scale engagements, and I have a couple cents to add on the subject of formations:
Line and column formations are about all you will be able to accomplish with an undisciplined unit of what are essentially randoms BUT... The effectiveness and utility of these formations CANNOT be overstated, to the point where even this most basic level of coordination can be used to take on forces double and triple your size if the opfor are NOT coordinated. Seriously, there's a reason forming a line is one if not the oldest formations in the book and is still the basis of most maneuvers even today. They are also scalable, which is incredibly useful when the size of engagements fluctuate rapidly. Additionally, true randoms will naturally fall into your line because it is so effective at covering each other's flanks. It provides some safety in a firefight that randoms naturally gravitate to.
Columns are an effective way to wrangle a large force into moving in the right direction. They pretty much point the direction of attack all on their own and leaders really only need to direct the front end. Everything else will follow. This is particularly useful in games where you have players constantly respawning in, it's like a water hose you point at the fire.
By now, something should be catching your attention, and that is I'm pretty much only speaking in large group terms, at least 12 members or more, or platoon strength or greater. At the squad level, four to eight people, formations are important in real life, but in game they choke the natural flow, make you stiff and unresponsive. Let squads to platoons flow as they naturally will, worry about formations at the strategic level. Think in terms of stretching out multiple squads or platoons on a line, but let them arrange themselves as they need and everything falls into place.
Pay attention to who your more coordinated, stronger squads are though, because you will want those to be your hammers and anvils, the ones you use to roll opposing lines up on the flanks or to hold strategically important points. They say you're only as strong as your weakest link, and to a degree that is true, but battles are not chains, they are hammers and anvils, and so long as your handles are able to support the hammer head and avoid the anvil, they are just as important and crucial to your formations as the hard mofo's in your ranks.
Tl;Dr
LINES AND COLUMNS. LARGESCALE. DON'T LET THEM ROLL YOUR FLANKS. Don't worry about formations at squad level, worry about cover and sectors of fire, and effective positioning/protecting of your specialties like anti tank and MG element.
Not a perfect example, but this is AN example of what you're talking about. At some moments, the column organically has almost perfect spacing:
th-cam.com/video/Ojf0nepE4_c/w-d-xo.html
As one of those randoms I have to agree.
Ability to switch between a column and a line formation quickly is probably the hallmark of well organized force. You think it's easy but it's quite tricky to pull off.
This was even more the case in Planetside 1 thanks to the slower pace and logistics elements. Vehicles especially working in simple line or column formations was critical. One of my fondest memories is approaching a river crossing on one side of a major bridge out of a woods as a line of Vanguards, a full platoon of 15 tanks (3x 10 player squads, 5 tanks per squad), utterly breaking - both physically and mentally - the Prowlers on the opposite side, then rotating into a column on command and gun running the bridge and breaking an hours long stalemate in the process. Made so much easier because, similar to Squad, us drivers could focus on driving while the gunners focused on gunning...
On the infantry scale, crafting true "battle formations" with firing sectors and even breaching techniques (for counter attacks) for generator holds and tunnel fights at each type of base was also a big deal. MAXes could get focused down super quick if not actively firing so needed very squishy engineers on close standby with nanite paste, had to have the physical room to be able to move into to fall back to reload and even rearm from people carrying spare ammo for them because they were larger than any infantry armor class. Meanwhile infantry with room clearing or anti-MAX weapons needed to be careful to avoid both FF and overexposure while trying to stay alive so someone didn't to sacrifice spare critical supplies (nanite paste, healing, ammo) to pick up their critical weapon/ammo to carry on the fight. It always felt amazing pulling off a coordinated flank into the "back" of a tunnel fight and cleaning up everyone in the base in rapid order because all the "tanks" were on the wrong end of the formation to protect the squishy-yet-critical support guys in the back. A MAX that had been holding down an entire hallway seemingly solo (because it swapped out with another MAX to reload/rearm/repair) seemed like nothing the moment you were facing it while it reloaded.
oh man that was a meat grinder game... extremely hard for me to do ninja shit in. Everyone always seemed to form kill zones, and theyd always try to zerg rush those kill boxes, or just spam grenades/explosives constantly. It played out much like a larger version of battlefield, not to mention the top tier players had generally WAAAAY better equipment then someone just starting Planetside 2.
Don't know if your going to read it, but the most important difference between real life and video games is everyone moves like an Olympic sprinter. It may seem like you are moving slow in game when you walk but generally speaking you are moving at a real persons running pace. So when you do formations to move your self from point A to point B, you can not possibly cover your sector because you have to look back at the leader every 2 seconds to see if he made a direction change or a halt. Where in real life you can get away with 5-10 seconds of scanning while walking before looking back at your leader to see if they have halted or changed direction. In closing, the games would be nightmarishly boring if the characters moved at the speed real people do.
I read every comment :)
But yeah you’re right. And in games we tend to move at the fastest speed possible for as long as possible, whereas in real life we take it much slower 99% of the time. Hard thing to recreate in games in a fun way.
That's why I like games that slow down and have more pacing. All "fast paced" games do is encourage impatient habits.
I've won entire wars, and get good results in real life, because I slow down. Observer. And pay attention. If people don't learn to do that first and foremost and only get desperate for fun then it's no wonder they're screwing up. If you leave your flanks exposed and no one is covering your rear then excuse me as I set up an FOB behind your front line when I sneak in and hold fire.
Know when not to shoot. When to overwatch. When to do nothing even. Helldivers 2 actually covers that in training. Hit the dirt and don't move. It's a faster paced game, but it's teaching a good lesson there.
@@HaebyungDance A stamina bar could be interesting and if you reach full fatigue you cant sprint till full again and increased recoil too during the duration.
Really appreciate this video series--not only does it help me understand what dynamics are present in games that twist how tactics apply, but it's also as a byproduct helped me understand the spirit of how these manuals are written and what they're trying to codify. As usual, by the time something makes it into a manual, the thing that makes the doctrine useful has been so concretized that you can't see the point of it for all the details that are over-emphasized. I understand now what I've been feeling is missing from Ready or Not (SWAT game), is that without declaring whose responsibilities and sectors are what, people either all try to breach or all try to hang back and get in each others way while simultaneously neglecting one responsibility or the other. I'm realizing now that what has made some random online teams in shooters like Squad work so well was that everyone (by pure chance) naturally assigned themselves responsibilities that combined nicely. This video is a great reminder that second to communicating the strategic vision, a leader's top priority is assigning responsibilities and/or making sure people know what they're responsible for. Exactly how that is accomplished doesn't matter nearly as much as making it happen in the first place
Thanks for this comment - this understanding is what I’m trying to deliver so it’s awesome to hear how it’s impacted you!
" a leader's top priority is assigning responsibilities and/or making sure people know what they're responsible for"
Holy crap, this is what I've been missing. I've done plenty of roles as a squad member, and many times I've found myself constantly switching between being the guy opening the door and the guy covering the back. I wish our squad leaders put all that in stone rather than do a constant rotation.
One major factor that happens in games that usually can’t happen more than once IRL is when applying a tactic dozens of times successfully in a game you may gain confidence however one lucky play of an MG player putting down an entire fire team in a wedge or an entire breach team dying on entry to pure luck has every second guessing whether it was worth applying strategy at all to begin with.
In real life we stick with it because it our most effective tactic in that moment that we all know the playbook of, and if shit goes really wrong we don’t get to respawn and second guess ourselves. You are far more willing to commit to tactics and committing to overlapping responsibilities because your life and your brothers life is in your hands and while death is terrifying to most, to some the idea of losing a brother to your own incompetence or mistake is an even more terrifying prospect.
Fear has a very important place within modern military tactics as well which is something you can only make players fear for a short time and only while risking something of value.
In real life if someone is holed up in a building and rounds are ripping through every window, wall and crevice in order to suppress you, you aren’t very likely to take a peak and one tap some random dude.
The final ingredients are discipline and respect for leadership. Nobody but professional teams ever display discipline and commitment in games typically and if you do take it that seriously it’s pretty cringe. Leadership is difficult in video games, you have to run a tight ship but it can’t be all serious you have to make it fun. Learned that the hard way as a GM and raid leader on wow for 6 years.
As a combat and “disabled” veteran who spent their entire career in special operations it is incredibly difficult for me to have any respect for someone attempting to be a voice of authority in a video game about my profession. I also have absolutely no desire to be in that position myself and role play my old job. I just want to run around like an idiot, and there in lies the problem, we all want to run around like an idiot and stack up kills. Not hold a sector, hold your security and listen to everyone else smoke dudes while the guy thats never left his home town wants to give commands.
I feel the only true way to get the right atmosphere is to have premade combat teams with one life per match mechanics and something else of value on the line. Anyways rant over idk. I run around on tarkov like an idiot while everyone tries to be tactical too, and end up with significantly more loot and kills than the average player.
Hey dude, I respect that. So for context I served in the South Korean Marine Corps and discharged a sergeant as a rifle squad leader.
I won’t pretend to be what I’m not. I’m not a combat vet, not a super duper expert. But for two years of my life I dedicated myself to learning my trade so that if it came down to it I’d be the best prepared I could be.
Nowadays I have fun playing video games like Squad and run into a lot of people who try and take those real-world principles and use them in the game, but have some misunderstandings with major implications.
The goal of these discussion videos is to really sit down and talk about this stuff and just momentarily seriously consider the principles behind real world shit and how that translates to the game.
When it comes down to it I agree the point needs to be to have fun, and I really think I show that in my other videos focused more on gameplay. Everyone has fun in different ways but yeah fun is the goal.
So again, I have full respect for how you like to spend your time, and for your career of service. But realize that nothing I do in this channel undermines that.
I've thought of 1 life games with a buy in to participate. You come out alive you get your money back. I think that'd be a good way to put a good looming sense of permanence and loss to death in the videogame as everyone has something real on the line
@@HaebyungDance My mistake if you think I was making reference or comparison to you, just offering a broad perspective of why I don’t enjoy that kind of play or have the desire to participate in it. I’ve seen plenty of people that do get immense enjoyment when immersion and small unit tactics combine to succeed, and at times I do play that role for others enjoyment but certainly not my own.
@FormerGovernmentHuman ah that was my misunderstanding then. All good and my bad!
Anyways, I think you raised a lot of excellent points I really liked, especially the first paragraph because like you said - you will do everything in your power to ensure that you do your part and more if possible to protect your brothers. It was really well put and I appreciate your contribution to the discussion. And dude - even I, who loves the milsim - just needs to let loose and do stupid shit and be there for the laughs.
played arma, think some of the magic that pulls squads together is a commitment to immersion. nobody’s gonna (openly) second-guess the squad leader when it means ruining the experience.
also running a squad is an interesting experience, makes me feel like an assistant manager that happens to have a gun- always a little concerned about being too micro-managey but there’s a flow to dishing out good, clear orders and it’s a good feeling when you get into the rhythm.
"Don't line up and don't bunch up" will serve you in 99% of gaming. A dispersed blob is actually better than trying to make a shape, because your opponent is going to be a blob and if your formation can be enfiladed it will be in a video game. Getting people to cover sectors would make a big difference, but I never had success getting people to do it lol. Everybody wants to empty their hose on the fire.
I actually like playing flanker / sidecover because it lets me find the one other dbag like me
My father was working in security training. In real life and in the game, we have noticed that for most unskilled people, the rhomboid formation works best. Its advantage is that it is equally resistant to attack from all sides and lack of proffesionality of one person is not a tragedy because areas of responsibility are doubled. Also there are not straight line where one burst can hit more than 2 people.
I also agree with you on one thing about wedges. When I was in the army, they used to say "War is not a pharmacy. Everything doesn't have to be measured exactly to decimal places."
"Sir, I had to avoid a rock, requesting everyone to hold back for 0.1s so I can return to my wedge spot"
I Don't even know what a rhomboid formation is and google isn't really helpful in showing pictures showing them
Diamond formation
This is the disconnect between milsim and shooters. Squad, being the middle ground, is won or lost by whether a team and their individual squads are playing less restrictive ARMA, or Battlefield with extra steps.
It’s that strategic meta game with the FOBs that’s all important.
@@HaebyungDance I disagree.
Even without FOB hunting, a good jeep/wheeled IFV squad intercepting logistics is just as good.
Hell, you in your video pointed out how effective a real time map makes formations essentially pointless. Having played both this, Squad 44, and War Thunder, most don’t even take advantage of the free information such a map provides, especially when someone goes down.
@@swordsman1_messer Your mistake is assuming it's about only FOB hunting. What about setting up your own FOB in the right spot?
I won an entire match just by sneaking in a truck with one other person and setting up an FOB behind the enemy front line in a city. Disagree all you want, it isn't changing the fact the match was won when an entire army poured out and won the match. The enemy was didn't just lose. They were crushed from two sides.
Honestly, that might be one of the problems of SQUAD. That it rellies too much on FOBs. Once you lose so many FOBs people just wait for the game to end. It stops being engaging at that point. As much as I enjoy making an FOB and turning the tide of a war, FOBs and tickets seem to slow the game down in a none immersive way which leaves players feeling like there's no point. The objectives need to be more varied. "Fighting over location X" is still fighting over a location. What about other objectives?
Planetside 2 suffers from the same problem with their spawn trucks. In that case it causes people to zerg rush with tunnel vision. Different problem but for similar reasons. Spawning needs to be better balanced. A game like Stalcraft will have players respawning at main base after death, which leads to more intense situations. Death is more of a consequence in that game. A game like SCP: Secret Laboratory will have players spawn together every few mins, ensuring people are together. Instead of one at a time.
@@taramaforhaikido7272 Idk about it being a mistake but its not that uncommon for a small group to have a much higher efficiency than normal if they keep picking high value targets not limited to FOBs.
I agree that getting the rough idea across for movement is what matters and what works. I regularly tell the squad to spread out a bit as we head in x direction and at least some of them will get the idea. I think that's the best that can be hoped for with a public match.
And even that is a huge improvement over 99% of the time.
I habitually try to space myself from other people just because you learn quickly enough it's not always a good idea to be right next to someone else, and when you're trying to keep this spacing but you're also trying to follow someone, it's naturally easier to also be further back to keep them in yours sight instead of constantly looking left and right to see if you're where you're suppose to be. That naturally forms a sort of wedge without even really trying to.
I prefer spreading out because it makes people less of a target and covers overwatching more.
But if I need to flank and hit fast and hard get everyone on a truck and slaughter the enemy APCs before the enemy gets them into the main battle. It's all about knowing where to move. Spec ops behidn enemy lines missions is what I'm good at. To the point just two people can get an FOB behind enemy lines and crush the enemy. No front line will save you if you don't cover the flanks and rear. This is something people often neglet because they're desperate for a quick fight.
People tend to get stuck with tunnel vision and zerg rush. Exploit that. Use it to your advantage. You can also account for this with your own allies. If you know where the front line is going to be then work around it and cover the flank. If your allies don't work with you then work with them instead. If they won't make the formation then create it yourself.
A videogame is a fantasy. No exhaustion, no fog, no adrenaline. Pinpoint presicion. Ability to take out an entire squad as a single member. Ability to see beyond the shooting range. The differences are endless.
Pinpoint precision is a huge aspect that never gets talked about.
ehh for squad specifically. There is a lack of precision beyond shots that are practically range shooting on slow moving or stationary targets while having time to steady your weapon at a crouch or prone
@@dakotadawn5789 and? You're acting as if there wasn't literally a thousand and one different variables that make the scenario non replicable. Code isn't real life. There is no smell. War and death have a disgusting smell that most people who milsim on video games will never understand how much it changes things. It's just how it works. It's a once in a lifetime sort of experience. But war is something that happens before and after. And during? Some people aren't even there when it's going on. A video game is for fun so it'll never replicate it because it's retarded to even try.
@enriquecabrera2137 I don’t know what your experience of war is but nobody is making a video game into what it isn’t. @dakotadawn5789’s point about Squad’s game design is a very valid one, as it makes precise shooting much more difficult. Overly so in the opinions of many.
@@HaebyungDance "nobody is making a thing into what it isn't"
Ok... And?
This was an intelligent observation. In videogames, we take intelligence and information for granted, as it is something we receive immediately for gaming convenience and fun, whereas a real conflict has a massive fog-of-war that can very much ruin every plan zero. Real-life formations seem to take care of that information as you mention.
Semi-related, I realized that a player tradition in Dungeons and Dragons has a similar theory behind squad movement in dungeons themselves: Skill monkeys/leaders out front, dedicated warriors/tanks in the back, mages/AoE attackers in the middle, and clerics/druids behind as healers or secondary fighting. With the game being based around what the DM narrates, it kind of makes sense in this scenario.
Formations are good when people obey and follow the duties of their class. Best example is mechanized push. Dismounting from IFV and lining up behind it in two parallel lines while slowly advancing under cover fire. When the positions are reached the fireteams spread out to designated positions and the ifv can slowly reverse while the fireteams clear buildings and take up positions. Works like a charm and makes one squad fight like 3 squads at the same time.
not in squad but in another game like it, I like playing in mounted infantry squads since there's always one guy minimum excited to leave the vehicle to start shooting who quickly banzai charges and die the moment they leave the vehicle.
The problem is people don't want to slow down unless you really drill it into them. People often lack patience.
@@taramaforhaikido7272 I tell them to not bother staying in squad because I kick when not obeyed because it will hamper the winning chance of the rest of the mates. Usually I also take a light vehicle with guns besides a transport for bravo which is HAT+LAT, Rifleman/grenade and dedicated bravo medic. They get independec when granted and are send around to rush HABs and ralleys as well as rescue tracked vehicles, while charlie is always object securing, with own medic, sniper, LMG and engi with wide peremitter scanning objective from ideal positions or covering advances of bravo.
Usually it works really awesome on most maps. In defence all other squads can go on attack while my squad manages to bind several enemy squads and vehicles to a failed advance. Even with randoms that find together they get hyped by the amount of kills they get... The other squad leads are more work then my squads after I drilled them 🤣
The simplified version of real world tactics that worked over and over in tarkov for my 5 man squad was 1) Recon; 2) Initial contact, base of fire; 3) Flank. I can only think of a couple times where it looked picture perfect, but the fact that a team of mixed civilians and swat and military, led by a civilian, were able to maneuver a 5 man squad and split into 2 fireteams under fire always made me pretty damn proud of our teamwork skill. We didn't win every single fight because tarkov is really difficult and honestly filled with cheaters who loved targeting squads with gear. But for well over a year we had solid wins. In a game where 40-50% survival rating is considered good, our squad was regularly in the 60-70% range.
But we were playing with the same group of guys over and over. With randoms I think it's best to accept that it's a video game and use the nuances of video gameism to your advantage, like the fact that you have a respawn. Send a couple guys out front as cannon fodder to "recon" by getting shot at. Let them tell the group where the shots are coming from. And then split your blob into two blobs and attack from multiple directions. "Oy, you. All of you guys. Move there, then attack there."
I can't even run squad and still I love your videos just because I love the game as well as seeing these breakdowns of real concepts with easily illustratable examples. Like diagrams are nice, but moving diagrams in the game where you can see everything working together along with caveats for practicability, now that's tacticool
Thank you
I'm a prior US infantry Marine, with some experience as a team leader in Afghanistan and a bit as a squad leader back in the States before I got out.
The best game I had was playing with a full squad of military friends. We were Russians fighting US on one of the snowy maps, and we were getting our teeth kicked in on the first two points. Eventually the platoon commander left so I had to take up the position, and I got super sweaty with it. I planned out an entire defensive line for our third position, which was a town surrounded by a forest. I planned out the primary, alternative, and supplementary positions, calculated the most probable avenues of approach, and set up crew served weapons. We had a TOW in one of our primary positions watching the MSR, with a couple heavy crew serves in alternative and supplementary positions. I directed LP/OPs to be set up on adjacent hills, which actually allowed us ample reaction time to flanks. Complete with a mortar position way further back, it was very hard for the US forces to crack the town. Our TOW actually took out a few vics coming from the MSR, while our heavy crew serve in our tertiary position prevented air assault from units dropping in from helos. Our primary positions eventually got overran but I managed to get rolling artillery down on the forrest to prevent them from flowing in too much, which allowed my squads to retake the primary after falling back to the alternative positions. From there, we held out for the rest of the game and won, especially thanks to the supplementary positions I had built, because otherwise they would have enveloped us without issue.
But to be honest we could have just as well lost that game if the rest of the squad leaders didn't listen to me. Thankfully they did what I told them to do for the most part. And despite winning, I definitely didn't like doing my real job in a video game that much, and I haven't SL'd or played platoon commander since. I just want to play for fun most of the time, like strapping IEDs to my friend's bike and having him drive into tanks.
Something touched on, but I think is influential enough to deserve a second mention, is that any video game soldier is superhuman, often with impossibly accurate weaponry. A normal human is not whipping a .50 Cal around from prone and popping someone right behind them. Admittedly, I've played more on the CoD/Battlefield side of things, but there are just some things people will pull that cannot be done IRL (or at least not done effectively) simply for this reason. This means tactics made assuming the enemies are human have a massive blind spot in games.
Well, that and the fact that no one has to care about logistic management. If a map has a vehicle, that vehicle will be there at the start, meaning people are incentivized to be a little riskier with supplies. Real world people run out of Jeeps real fast if they load every one of them down with explosives for an impromptu fireworks delivery.
Short answer, a lot of real life tactics require suppression fire to be effective and suppression requires the enemy to be afraid of being shot to be successful. In a video game where you know you can revive or even heal, you can afford to just rush a person shooting instead of taking cover and being suppressed.
All good points, but one I feel that you didn't touch upon was the "game rules" that the players (mostly) intrinsically understand that inform their posture, movement and response to engagement. For the most part veteran players will know the terrain very well, they'll understand where the enemy will come from, their equipment, what their silhouette will look like, they're objective and motivation, how long it will take in the beginning of a round for enemy elements to arrive at certain areas and therefore what is safe, there will be game borders, terrain or objects that are impossible to access and there are senses we use in real life that are absent or limited in the game that help our situational awareness.
I've been enjoying Reforger because it's new to me and the difference in animations, maps and the more sandbox approach to missions brings me back to noob days where tactics sometimes trump skill.
That’s a good point. I should really try Reforger
I think it goes deeper, one aspect you missed on formations is flexibility (idk if its in the ranger handbook) and what this refures to is how easy is it to break out into maneuvers, peeling, bounding, and such.
Which requires even more training.
But what I do think can be done without training is self deciplne of holding cover, sectors or look at map and plug holes in the front line.
You can not train a squad in the minutes before a game starts, but you can be the best individual you can and help as much as you can when you jump in.
Great point on flexibility. It’s especially important for when you’re transitioning into the fight.
And you’re right good individuals can mitigate a lack of unit cohesion.
I've encountered the same experiences and have similar thoughts on this when playing games. I've never needed or expected literal by the book tactics from other players
or even a in depth knowledge of X Y Z fields of knowledge one can apply to milsim and shooters, both because I lack any training or experience and also because it's unreasonable.
That's not where my frustrations arise from.
What I've found frustrating is as you said people on fixating details that have less relevance and or importance. Bare with me here 😆
In 20 years of playing various genres on various platforms I've picked up on some patterns of behaviour I've seen repeated many times by many people.
Sticking to shooters in general, I've noticed people struggle the most(myself included) not because of a lack of twitch reflexes, real life experience, 'tactical knowledge' or any other highly specific skill or knowledge; no rather a lack neuroplasticity the ability to take in new information, learn adapt and problem solve and social skills when it comes to team based games.
As an example I've met so many people that would put hundreds or thousands of hours into a game and never learn how to play it properly. They're dedicated to putting time into it even if they aren't consistently having a good time just banging their head against a wall, but they're desperate to win every time they play. Such people I've found are EXTREMELY resistant to doing anything that requires learning to get that win, especially learning about a broader topic that applies to what they're doing like unit formations, fields of fire, ballistics anything like that they won't have it.
Even getting them to learn a new skill like picking up a different class, trying a different game mode or taking a path through the map they haven't used before is a struggle.
They have the energy to rage, scream questions they don't want the answer to, make angry posts, harass people etc but not take a step to the left instead of the right 😂
The more surface level the information and the less thinking needed the more likely people are to try it, like making the shape for a formation.
So we shouldn't teach/drill formations with the average gamer, and even if we could teach them which we can't it wouldn't bare many fruits. The problem is we also struggle to teach the average gamer *absolutely anything at all* ....Like not passing through the line of fire when repositioning and other simple things are just baffling to people. I must have seen tens of thousands of players at this point intentionally walk into a firing machine gun and wonder why they got shot 🙄 Not to mention the ones that get medical attention and immediately do it again.
Yeah formations don't work in video games because the vast majority of players don't understand the fundamentals that formations enable such as areas of responsibility, situational awareness and optimising firepower or social skills like trust, basic communication, cooperative behaviours etc
Pff Vast majority of people that play team based games have little to no teamwork ethic what so ever, and just as much desire to learn. People cringe and recoil in horror at the prospect of acquiring any kind of life skills.
Conclusion: Peoples struggle to perform in games is merely a symptom of larger societal social issues. You can probably assume the anti-social dumb dumbs we meet in game likely struggle just as much in their personal and professional lives as they do online, and that's really sad.
This was oddly comforting - you explained the basics well to support your later points, and ended up validating what I'd tried and failed to explain to my old ARMA group last year, who obsessed over perfecting the shape of a wedge or column while not understanding the utility or purpose (or the hazards) - forcing players to move in a strict dance for the sake of visual orderliness regardless of the terrain, the visibility or the proximity of enemy forces.
It was hell.
Humans have a dreadful habit of fixating of the aesthetic over the function. Military-themed clans in particular end up behaving far less like a military unit and far more like a cargo cult, assuming that if they copy what they think a military unit *looks like*, they'll automatically and magically reap the rewards in terms of victory.
And it’s a problem that materializes in real world militaries - especially in peacetime. Unsurprising that it’s common in milsim!
same, im in a clan that is really going for that "must keep the shape" while it also brings the worst result, i try to tell them in a nice way that maybe it doesnt work like that but they have a couple hardcore guys that focus on the role aspect than the its a game aspect
1:31 The infantry manual is not a step by step guide to soldiering but simply a building block for the individual. The application of tactic is great for the moment to which your timeline grants it's function.
This is an absolutely outstanding description of the differences between realworld tactics to in-game applications, the functional components of what makes formations useful, and why you should adapt those attributes rather than attempting to replicate them.
Excellent video idea and very well executed! This is something that has long been discussed in my clan and has been sadly discouraged by the leaders… I am a military nerd and hate to log in to the game and just play it mindlessly
One piece of advice that works really well, is to always seek cover in these games.
Cover and concealment work wonders in games
Games are generally about gunfighting. IRL shrapnel is the main casualty creator. It makes a big difference in how infantry moves across the battlefield and maintains dispersion.
This is really insightful and helpful for someone who used to just do the shape and not know the purpose. Thank you!
Wow, great job. I totally expected a standard breakdown of individual formations
Thanks man! If you want such a breakdown let me know and I might consider it.
@@HaebyungDance A breakdown would be cool but this video was definitely the more important point to make first. I think getting to the spirit of what manuals are trying to communicate is more important than taking them at face value.
A breakdown would be Cool 😎
@@HaebyungDance That would be a great lead in to this for my playlist since your script kind of assumes you know formations, and I want to be able to take a player from ignorant to expert by the end
@@HaebyungDance Hm, it could be interesting if you could show how they specifically apply to Squad and can show examples. It also has a huge potential to be really boring.
In this video, I really liked the example about the practical example of calling for a line formation shortly before contact. It felt achieavable, useful and... relatable?
I like your point that the actual shape doesn’t matter, I think that’s a really great point. More important is maintaining good spacing and sectors of responsibility. I usually try to yell “spacing!” When i see my guys clumping up, which works pretty well. Sectors of responsibility are much harder to manage in squad though. I recently told a guy “you watch the 6!” And he didn’t understand.. same with watching the flank… then we got taken out by enfilade fire. I might try to designate sectors of fire earlier in staging and see if that helps.
The comment about players being more concerned about the shape of the formation made me smile. I have seen real life infantry team and squad leaders yelling at soldiers during field training battle drills to maintain wedge formations through rough or impassable terrain. Some people whether it be in video games or real life just completely miss point of infantry formations.
I’ve seen it too lol. I guess another is in real life you’re doing more than just formations - you’re teaching attention to detail, discipline, etc. but even then…
Nobody wants that in a video game anyways. Have fun you know?
The statement about lack of training I completely agree with. The whole section of ''Why don't formations work'' is pretty spot on. It comes down to a lack of understanding.
If I booted up Squad now, there's a good chance that what ever team I end on, there might be 1 or 2 people who have ever had any real life military training. And so, while many players have read about formations and tactics, or maybe watched videos on TH-cam about the subject, they lack a deeper and natural understanding of the concepts. And like you say, they'll focus too hard on keeping their exact relative position in the formation, where as in real life, if I called a formation, my machinegunner wouldn't religiously be staying exactly at x position. He'd move to nearest possible cover or best shooting position. There's a lot of individual freedom at the Squad level, at least there were in the military I served in.
I'm fairly sure if I could rally up my old unit to a game of Squad, and actually get them to take it semi-serious, we'd be able to use formations and real life concepts in the game, without any real difficulties, because we're a bunch of guys who's had it drilled in to us, and know how each other work and react.
OWI should make the in game loading screen cycle through tactical infographics. Enough reps of the ranger handbook and I bet blueberry IQ will double
Fuckin’ facts
I mean yeah, but most people ignore such info willingly
@@WhatIsSanity yeah, I bet they're busy to send themselves to rush on front then die like fools.
@@Mechanized85
Then angrily demand to know how they died as they reflexively spawn at the nearest depleted fob and do it again.
I've totally never done that myself though. I'm a mature adult and always have been 😄
Insurgency Sandstorm has tips like this on their loading screens and people still gaggle fuck in doorways
As a former army infantryman, good job on the vid dude! Great refresher and sends me back lol.
Guys please there is literally 20% aim assist buff when you walk in Wedge formation with 45 degree angle :P
Jokes aside really good video man i seriously love this series.
Thanks man! I’m going to try and get a lot more of these out.
This mechanic exist in WAR of RIGHTS
@@MachinedFace88ttv It proves that a sandbox cannot be allowed and you need punishing game design to get players to do what you want them to do, so they have a good experience
@@MachinedFace88ttvNo it doesn’t, being in formation just gives you more xp im pretty sure
Lying from humor is still lying.
Very well thought out video… I have over 1000hrs in squad and always asked myself why formations would evolve into ugly blobs thanks for diving into this subject❤
Formations are MUCH more important in high-realism sims like combat flight sims, warship sims, etc. I am a flight leader in IL2 Flying Circus, and I studied historical air combat formations. With proper study and practice, you can gain a huge advantage over your opponents. Especially in the larger campaign scenarios we play, with mission critical planes (bomber formation, photo recon, etc) that need escort, and several escorting squads around the "package". Same thing applies in naval combat. A properly set up line of battle will absolutely roflstomp a rabble of disorganized gamers.
The corollary is that if there is not a demonstrable benefit to period-accurate formations and tactics, then your sim is not accurate enough. I'm looking at you, War Thunder and WoWS.
War thunder does that and some i want pizza
Funnily enough the "idea" of formations works really well in Escape from tarkov when working in 5 man groups.
I was a sherpa for a couple years ( community teacher , we are experinced players who offer hands on training for the player base ) and one of the things we did was effectively do an inverted wedge with the "team lead" in the center directing / navigating. while the two "wings" had 1 experinced player and 1 novice.
One of things we did was explain at the start that if you're "on the right" you should focus your attention mostly on the right side of the group etc etc. This way the newer players had less to try to process and didn't have to stress as much about what was going on 360 around them , they just had to focus on their corner.
Funnily enough - those rookeis suddenly started having a lot of fun and enjoyed the game rather than being discouraged / upset.
point being " The spirit of the formation" is more important than the shapes , and understanding the spirit of the formation will make them work pretty dang well.
Yeah that’s exactly the point I’m making!
U’ve missed some important thing about formations: it’s practice! With the same people, so everyone are on the same page, that each one can substitute each other on diff roles(in my country it’s used numbers in FT: FTL-1, MG-2, Grenadier-3, rifleman/medic/marksman-4 and even 5).
Also Formations were designed(according to field manuals) to help manoeuvre inside the FT(like u’ve got contact front so n1 and n2 sets a base of fire so that n3 and n4 can maneuvre to get a better or flanking position and then they will set a base of fire so n1 and n2 can move out of fire to a better position). But probably that’s what you mean under mobility/control
Yeah good points! I didn’t want to get deep into the nitty gritty though. What country are you from?
@@HaebyungDance Ukraine ;)
@@HaebyungDance my point was: formations in video games are mostly useless because it’s hard to show some results with the “random guys” everytime, even within same clan/team. So people who tried to use formations failed and made wrong conclusion: “formations not working”.
Yeah and that’s part of what I meant when I said it’s a training issue in the video. Ideally you want the same guys, but even just a common doctrine can help, which we don’t have in Squad.
In Korea, we have the same numbered system 1-5, with 5-man teams.
I’ve played squad leader a lot in Squad, Hell let loose, Post Scriptum, Project reality. And it’s like you said, training and discipline, the formation is just a liability because you’re gonna have weak links not spotting threats and maintaining their sector, until they’re on top of the veterans. They panic and scatter on vehicle contact. Go too wide unnecessarily a lot and allow enemies to slip through the cracks right behind you. The best you can do as squad leader is keep them grouped up and fighting together in one grid square, and warn/give them information they can’t hear from command channels. Say Spread out and guns up before assault. Or inform where the defenses have been breached.
You can be the most bad ass tactical solider on squad, but a bad team will always lose to a more coordinated team. Combined arms.
Combined arms is a bit of an outdated tactic and honestly a meme- any type of verhicle supporting an infantry push is extremely exposed, unless it has a tight angle with distance, lots of cover and room to run away. The idea that tanks should support infantry is really old. It wasn't long before generals started making dedicated tank battalions.
Now, it can be fantastic and farm a ton of kills, but usually due to how spread out enemies are and how they will avoid your LOS, you won't get much done. Maybe just help for a minute, 90 seconds and then GTFO to reposition before enemy armor barrels down on you from all angles.
Everyone loves to bitch at the IFV / Tank to help them push, but if you're loading HE or shooting the MG, the enemy will call out your location and AT starts flying your way, one track and you could be done for, and lose 10, 15, 20 tickets just like that
because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
@@jmgonzales7701 I agree, thats why iplay EFT now.
@@crizioclips good luck.
Yet you can still have just two people turning the tide of an entire war. It can and does happen. The game has to appeal to both play styles. Because both tactics work.
You can argue, but if something works and is effective then it works. Likewise both can fail too. It really depends on the situation. Either way "spec ops" missions get a lot of success. Since it does flanking and surprise more. It's also important to keep in mind that most people struggle with speaking up by default. Game mechanics can only go so far.
As someone who RP'd as a commander in various ranged combat games, formations do actually work, but only if they have someone who knows what they're doing and knows how to execute commands well. In many other games, formations and general positioning does matter to a certain degree, but the more complex the formations and tactics, the less it shows in the score. I've found that when you have a team of people utilizing some strategy and pacing and having a direct commander making calls, things work out better than the enemy team that may be more disorganized, even if they do have more skill. There is a ceiling to this, though it is absolutely not completely useless.
I have experience as a gamer since the 90's and in the real world since [ ].
Formations they teach you in the military don't work in real life, and are not used from your first day outside the wire, and on.
Stacking on a door is about the only formal position, and that is done at the leisure of cover and at whatever dispersion the situation calls for.
Teams entering rooms are singular, to double.
Five men through the door stuff is for low threat targets in civilian sector.
In reality, 5 men can clear a two-story house in under a minute, search it in 5, have detainees out in 10 min.
The only thing you are doing in a combat situation is pulling security.
That means 5 meter circle awareness around you at all times for tripwires, strange things.
That means a somewhat pointed 25 meter in front of you.
When moving you have your sector of security to watch for rooftops to drainage, and always aware of 5m in any direction around you for tripwires, things to trip on, other dangers.
Situationally, most of it is a mental remembering of where you are and where you're going as well as where to exfiltrate.
You rarely have a GPS and very likely one radio so you NEVER leave each other's sight.
Every unit is different, and so are their success rates.
Some good experience speaking here it sounds like.
I haven't played Squad but played Arma with a mil-sim group and an OIF veteran. I agree with everything said. The shape is secondary. Sectors for 360 awareness is the most important before contact. The formation also puts your MG and a-gunner in the most likely direction of contact so that, if fired upon it immediately can suppress the target. The formation also helps prevent friendly fire allowing maximum firepower on contact. But once bullets start firing, if holding a static position, your position and targets maybe adjusted by the squad leader. The only time spacing/shape is super important is during fireteam and squad rushes to maintain your lane/positioning and prevent getting shot in the back.
This problem exist in *every game* I played. No matter how I studied war theory you *absolutely* get sub par green players or ultra vetereans.
Well made arguments.
Formations fall apart quickly in games, in part because of the tempo, in part because players are more individualistic, and because of game mechanics. Games reward mobility, same as the players. This is in part because of map design, because the player has been given unnatural mobility, and because aiming is easy. Games also reward, or rather fail to properly punish, reckless behavior. If games slowed down the movement speed by 50%, made the maps less like pool tables, made aiming accurately more difficult, and made each death hurt, formations would instantly become a lot more useful.
Quick share of what we do in my milsim community. Since the leaders had military training, everything got very smooth and flexible. So, we basically use only 3 forms, the line, column, and alternated column, since they are enough. Another thing that I was expecting here was references from the Ucranian war, and also giving more attention to the teamwork aspect that is required to make the sectors even work, you need to trust your teammates
I kept the discussion tight - there was definitely a lot more I could’ve covered but I focused on the mechanical side of things rather than the human aspect of that makes sense.
My take on it is that its 100x easier to do things in video games. You have so much information that its much easier to do your thing. In real life, you dont have a compass at the bottom, a mini map, clear voice comms, etc etc. Additionally, other things distract you IRL, from how exhausted you are from a movement, or the tempurature, or now uncomfortable your gear feels on your body. So in a real life combat situation where its so hard to know whats happening and maintain composure, you need a baseline doctrine or formation to have a big picture. In video games, its very easy to know where the rest of your platoon is because of an indicator on the screen or map. In real life, all you see is the person left and right of you, and you assume where the rest of your platoon is based on the doctrine you follow.
comp players: nooooo! you can't use real life tactics in squad! it doesn't work!
me with my 9 man wedge formation:
Wedge go brrrrrr
I used to play a lot of CoD4, MW2, Battlefield Bad Company2, BF3, and BF4. The idea of squads and the roles in formations as we crudly understood them helped my friends and me perform better than our opponents across our play experiences.
Setting up defensive overlapping fields of fire and support with cohesion was often enough to make the difference.
I don't play squad, but once upon a time, I was in the Army(US, I was a combat engineer), and I thought you did a great job of explaining the high level thought of these tactics. This made me want to look into this game, but I don't really do PvP games anymore. Thank you for the content.
What I'm gathering from this is that formations naturally materialize in video games all the time. Having played many hours of Battlefield and similar titles, it's very common for large teams to maximize firepower along the axis of opposing contact, with individual players taking on zones of responsibility. This typically just happens without any complex communication.
LMAO formations are great in principle. I actually made formations work in Minecraft. You just have to understand it's maximizing killpower and reducing your own vulnerabilities. And most importantly, when commanding a group of people - getting them to move together, but it does need drill in order to remove the autism and ADHD players naturally have of free movement.
But when they start winning - whoo boy it's a drug.
Precisely!
@@HaebyungDance "Why do we use a line formation, captain?"
"It's so you r-words won't hit each other when you start jump shooting and blob up. You're creating a wide crossfire. It's common sense."
How did you make formations work in Minecraft?
because there is always a Human element involved, its why i stopped playing Most milsims because a system that relies on players coming together that does not force them to work into a system will never work its kinda like the communism vs capitalism debate. Communism sounds good on paper but due to selfish interests of humans its hard to make it work. Just like squad many players especially new players don't know much about tactics, strategy, positioning and coordination. Their instinct is only go to said point aim at bad guy then shoot. Its also why you players scattered doing their own thing. Unless they create a mechanic that removes the "player" aspect nothing will fix milsims. Its why i rather play rts nowadays.
@@jmgonzales7701 The principle and logic is this: maintain damage superiority over your opponent and bear more localized numbers against them. An example is long ranged bow battles. Players tend to clump up into blobs. So, not only do they become bigger targets for crossfires, but they also usually hit their own teammates. A line formation brings to bear all ranged damage by expanding your field of fire whilst also reducing your friendly fire. Even a line formation can blunt a melee charge because of a steady stream of damage and force them to break apart their charge, thus separating them from each other and allowing your guys to focus on the smaller or weaker detachments who are momentarily without help from their teammates. Though not always decisive, these incremental advantages of getting more damage off yields a consistent positional advantage.
In simple words: More of my guys are fighting. Your guys are just getting hurt and doing nothing.
This is a well done video. I'm only half way through and I wanted to throw out as well that formations tend to have an expectation of the opposing force's behavior as well. In video games players know if they die they'll be back in 30 seconds and actually have more information about their threat than they had before.
Dying isn't a risk it's possibly even a benefit.
With that in mind trying to do many "real life" behaviors doesn't translate just because the enemy isn't behaving as a real person would.
1:10 lmao because that one crazy guy who dont care if he dies because its a game and runs it down on a flank
20 years as a lawn dart.
What you're saying about shapes is 100%.
Wedge, colum, ranger line, all of it just a template modifying what is needed to move through terrain.
Important things are 360 security situational awareness and most lethal direction of fire.
In games, the necessity of a leader being in a certain spot is mute. For reasons discusses.
Good work over all.
Oh spacing... its a balancing act. I think this can relate to games as well. Irl 25m is the standard, this is a trade off between spread out enough not to get an entire fireteam fragged by a grenade and close enough to effectively support each other with fire.
The space would likely change in game depending on aoe of what ever munition but still something to consoder.
Over all good job. Disclaimer i dont play squad
Organized Meatwave of aimbot robots is the only tactic
Unbeatable
This is why Arma is so fun to me. It's so jank that even after thousands of hours, and the perfect information problem, nothing is guaranteed, so using formations and these kind of rote drills actually help, unlike most games
Formations work, but I can just respawn at the closest hab and shoot where I died previously. Squad does not punish the player who does his own thing enough.
I always use a Diagonal Line formation, that works pretty well, I say "From the middle to the rear you choose where to look at, same thing for us here in the front, but we'll cover most of the front, so look at the sides back there, just don't cover the same area as your friend", damn, that really works...
Hahaha I tell the squad “bravo team is the base unit.” Then I hear on local “the fuck is a base unit?”
Lmfao unironically it’d be a super useful concept to introduce but one of those obscure ones that nobody knows about.
@@HaebyungDance honestly, I say and do these things in a video game for my own benefit just so I don’t forget. It’s a lot of expectation management on my part when I lead a squad. some folks enjoy hearing the verbiage even if they don’t understand it. They say it makes them feel immersed to which I say, why not?
I agree if it’s fun then full send it
Bravo base team vs. My hilux pissmissile with 3 IEDs slapped onto it
I was a member of Foxhole’s 82DK regiment and we had a huge advantage over the people we tended to fight because we were able to make use of even the simplest formations (line and column). Any given fight inevitably became a slaughter as any enemy would run into us in defilade while they were in enfilade. Nobody could break our infantry lines without armor. We could just hold the line while our dakkaboyz in the arty section would do the actual work of winning the war.
its useless because there are 100 players running headless in 100 directions competing to get most kills
cover to cover movement saved me many times. just using the last point of cover the guy infront of me used after he leaves it. works well even non-verbal.
Is something up? In previous videos you present very naturally, today you sound robotic as you read your script. Not meant as negativity just letting you know
Also I would argue that actually the real life utility is equally limited and situational
Yeah usually I switch back and forth between scripted recording and unscripted live, but today I did purely scripted because it’s easier to make. It was a test because this way I can make more videos easily, but I may try and sound more natural in the future
@@HaebyungDance in that case makes sense, will get more natural with a little practice, you’re enunciating well and making sure to fully form each word but gotta get the flow in between down- i can’t do canned stuff like that at all lol it’s deceptively tough!
Yeah dude! I’m always trying to improve so thanks for saying something
There’s a psychological component as well. In live combat there is 1. Fear and paranoia or in general the “fog of war” and 2. There is no “score.” You survive or you don’t. In games the fog of war is simulated and the guy eating the g-fuel powder is only getting a slight bump in adrenaline with no complimenting physical activity. Also, there are specified roles in formation besides the team or squad leader. The guy in the back should be turning around to check the 6 every 15 seconds or so. The comms guy has a spot. He can be the one to set markers, call in support etc. The machine gunner and assistant gunners are together. On and on. In games everyone does everything because you’re rewarded for your individual performance regardless of if your entire team died or not. In COD if my squad dies, but I win then everyone gets credit.
Watching this made me think of a game called spacehulk deathwing that I recently picked up. It has unique limitations in it like how big you and your teammates hitboxes are. If you're not coordinating your formation, it can be hard to respond to a big boss monster if you put your heavy weapons specialist to defend the rear, or for your brother with the only long range weapon to destroy a turret if hes stuck behind a librarian whos trying to pick at the turret accost the room with a storm bolter.
My Arma 2 community played heavy PvP and used formations. There is no comparing the firepower of getting your squad into line face down in a roadside ditch before opening an ambush compared to gaggle blobs full of friendly fire and begging for one grenade. We had local voice and radio coordination and had to keep our squads together the hard way too.
As a former game developer, another reason why formations don’t always work as intended is because game scale and physics don’t work as expected. A character taking a single step is like 3 meters and a vehicle taking a single step, as it were, is roughly 30 feet. I’m only mentioning this (I haven’t played Squad) because he mentioned why they don’t work in “video games,” not “in Squad.” It looks like Squad tries to maintain a more 1-1 scale of movement, though it stills looks a little “Floaty.” Why would this impact formations? Because formations were designed around real-life physics. A right echelon may well cover the right side in advancement, but if the enemy can quickly skip hop and jump to the flanking position before you can even see them, then your formation didn’t actually provide cover fire, it just slowed you down. Also, vehicles in games have a lower physics rating allowing them to make 180 degree turns on a dime without tipping. If a vehicle chases down your team in a neat little formation, a vehicle would be able to run over the entire formation without hardly any registered physical impact. Throwing a grenade or planting a mine ahead of it would normally bounce it up slowing, halting, or redirecting forward momentum. Not so in video games. The only prayer you have to stop a vehicle is to shoot it until somehow, you kill the driver, or you shoot through a window until you kill the driver. In reality, even windows are armored. I worked on Halo 5, State of Decay 2, and Ori and the Blind Forest for Microsoft Game Studios. When suggesting to include more realistic physics, we tried it in Halo Multiplayer BTB Deathmatch and vehicles would get stuck on rocks, bounce off trees, grenades wouldn’t fly as far, and Player Characters felt sluggish. It was a miserable experience. Part of the allure of video games, as Haebyung Dance alluded to in saying Players can better multitask, is that video games remove a lot of player skill gaps - simply, they’re fun, not training. Imagine having to spend hours in a training server in a Halo game just to master how to throw a grenade to land where you want, considering terrain, distance, and expected trajectory - no ghost arc either. Then, you had to spend hours trying to master vehicle movement so you didn’t get tied down in a BTB hoping the enemy wasn’t close enough (hint: they always are - maps are designed that way).
Formations don’t work in video games because they don’t have to. If you really want to be a master of video game tactics and strategy, you’ll have to learn the process like the ones who established real-world formations: you need to learn how life works in the video game where you want to establish squad tactics. Personally, I’ve found that an L long-side horizontal works. Imagine you have 4 team members: The point man forms the short leg of the L and a heavy gunner (MG) directly behind. The team’s best shot/fastest to fire accurately makes the first man to the left (or right) of the MG, and the Team Leader (TL) on the furthest point left of the most accurate shooter; to the left or right of the MG is based on anticipated contact - note, not actual contact. The side-ways L works best when enemies positions are unknown, but expected.
Why this tends to work: Players are not soldiers or Marines or whatever title is earned from formal military training. They’re opportunists. They see a PC and expose themselves trying to shoot that PC. The fastest on target PC of the L isn’t the first member see by the opponent, but tends to be the first to respond with fire on the exposed opponent as the first Team Member goes down. When that Lead (Pointman) goes down, the MG is free to open up fire in the most obvious possible with overwhelming fire superiority - just a slow-loading machine gun that the opponent wasn’t ready for. The Team Leader is therefore able to go wide on the outer leg of the L and move to flank. In video games, only one player is really needed for flanking because, as HD said in this video, players commonly all follow the leader in a neat little column (also advantageous for the MG now being able to freely open fire on the line of enemies who file in one after the other). Of course, few plans survive first contact with the enemy, and that’s never more true than in video games where maps and locations are readily available. If the enemy can see your formation before you arrive, it’s that much easier to bunker down on the weak points in anticipation.
Some of you may have gotten hung up on the “not actual contact” point about the strength of the L formation. That’s because in actual contact, formations rarely work. Players can move faster than your rigid formation allows, so it’s best to adopt a more flexible combat strategy: two-man echelons. One in the front and one slightly behind and to the side - either side. The point man is usually going to catch fire first, and if they’re “good,” they dodge, duck, dive, and dodge long enough for the rear team member to address the threat from a slightly flanking angle. The rear man shouldn’t be so far back that they can’t get on target within milliseconds after the front man gets contact. This works because most players just spawn in and immediately run solo back at the enemy to get gunned down, rinse and repeat. If you can discipline yourself enough to work with another team member, the two-man echelon is a very effective force multiplier against the most common enemy PC out there.
Scenario:
In BTBs, I worked with a buddy who carried a pistol and a battle rifle - he took up the lead echelon; I carried a rocket launcher and a sniper - and took up the rear echelon. Whenever we came in contact, his pistol was usually fastest on target but not always a one shot-kill. If it was, fine, if not, I quickly got on counter-assault with a rocket or sniper depending on enemy cover. As soon as my buddy decided to run off and do his own thing, we both were gunned down shortly after, mostly because I tried to follow after him, but he was getting bored of playing in such a disciplined manner. With me barreling after him, we were running in column and when he was gunned down due to his impatience, I was left with a rocket launcher and a sniper. I picked up his pistol instead of his battle rifle and couldn’t get on target fast enough.
GL; HF!
Love learning IRL facts when trying to figure out how to be better in a video game.
Now for my thoughts on the video, in my own limited knowledge of mil sims I think this was very informative. But I also find that even without proper knowledge of formations I can find myself in one with random people without even talking, which is quite fun. Cool video all in all.
Thank you - glad you found it useful!
Great video! I love both high level overviews as well as in depth analysis of subjects like this!
The lack of physical feedback to the environment is a big part of my struggles in any game, be it Arma or Halo. I can't feel the wall beside me or the tap of an ally on my shoulder, which really messes with maintaining formations, as well as staying secure in situations where concealment and-or cover is awkward. It's rough in CQB scenarios as well because the claustrophobic environment can have an enormous impact in effective movement and positioning that can't be felt out naturally. I have a feeling this plays a pretty big role in how formations are viewed, even if it's not recognized as such.
Totally agree. Only so much a screen and speakers can do.
Very insightful.
I totally payed only attention to the shape, when I played arma2.
Now I know better and will use it properly in games. Big thanks.
Duuude! Thank you for making this video! Ive been suckin at video games for years because I'm tryin to be realistic about it. Meanwhile you've got some guy just runnin round knifing everybody, ankle shots kill and throwing knifes one shot etc. I havent found the right words to explain it bt this video more or less does it
This is so interesting to learn because in the Navy we do basically none of this.
It's nice to see people lean into their special interests.
Narrator: emotion starts to creep into voice when describing players fixating on only the shape of a formation
The Emperor: yess good GOOOD!
Another important point is that formations help establish a clear orientation of the squad, allowing for communication about direction a lot easier, which matters more when you don't constantly have a compass overlayed on your vision.
Former military vet Squad leader at one point. Yes you can transfer real life to game tactics but it takes real discipline to do so which is what the military instills in you through basic. I've done normal formations in game and have absolutely dominated games with friends, but only cause each person knew their role and job and didn't try to be first man to kill something. I've even taught people in these games what to do and how to do and if you just listen to me you will make it. Showed people how to use smoke, and when to use smoke, grenades also. How to take cover and reload which is a big issue with everyone.
The thing with military strategy and tactics in video games is that they can be applied but the application of different things varies very wildly. Things like room-clearing tactics actually translate very well into video games and we've seen that since the 90's, not everything concerning the tactics completely translates but a significant portion of it does. A lot of people that get really offended over this stuff love to poke at the gaps. Yeah there are gaps. There's variability between which bits and pieces do and don't translate between gaming and real-life but very few people, if any, ever actually claim that the two mirror each other exactly.
For video games - in alot of FPS, especially Hunt Showdown, one "formation" i use as a trio, that always works, is leap frogging.
One person will move to X, while The other two are seperated, staying behind, watching the left and rights of person one.
Once person is at X, He will look around, in a stationary spot, to watch ahead, and flanks, while the other two move foward, looking right and left as they move forward.
Once they are at X, again, one person will move, then the other two will cover.
Keep doing this, only one person is in the actual danger, while the other two can cover.
I think real world tactics can work just fine. The real problem is that people just suck at Squad. They rush it. They sprint everywhere, especially around particularly dangerous corners. They dont keep their gun up, because they are sprinting, so then they cant react quickly enough when they do come face to face with an enemy. Just like in real life, in Squad, moving is how you get spotted. The faster you move, the easier you are to spot to the human eye. The more you move, the more you will be spotted first, and gunned down first. Another thing, people are busy sprinting, so they arent keeping their head on a swivel. Its way harder to spot a stationary target, or even another moving target, when you are moving, and your screen is bouncing up and down. This results in you being gunned down first. IN squad, you should really only sprint when its necessary, like crossing a road, an large open area, or trying to move to cover while being engaged, etc etc etc. This maximizes the time that you keep your gun up, and head on swivel, it will make you have better reaction times, and you will die less, spot the enemy first more.
Formations are a whole different story, but everything I said still applies to that. Poeple can know the formations but they stil dont know to keep their gun up, or head on a swivel, so its pointless.
Even in a game/server where players often work together, the biggest problem is that suppression doesn't really work in games. Players behind a keyboard aren't afraid they'll die, so they are far more aggressive than any real soldiers would be. And if suppression doesn't work, fire and maneuver doesn't work, and that's the cornerstone of small unit tactics.
One day the robots will fight like the average cod player
One last function of Infantry formations that this video overlooks is concentration of force. In pretty much any FPS whether it be a relatively realistic game like Squad or highly unrealistic like MechWarrior, teams that don't use formations tend to scatter out in every possible direction. When such a team goes up against a team that sticks together, they tend to find themselves individually outnumbered and easily picked off.
First time viewer. When listening to the intro, I was sure you were going to be some keyboard ass warrior that had read a couple manuals. But then you delivered the exact same fundamental answer I had come up with. _Movement_ . In the Danish army there is a saying that roughly translates to "The plan works until first contact with the enemy". Once the bullets start flying over head, you don't think about geometric shapes, placing the correct part of your finger on the trigger, breathing patterns, specific shooting stances etc. etc. You just fight and 'lead from the hip'.
Everything the military practices, it does to give the soldiers the best possible circumstances to face this moment. Even though you don't think about, say, trigger manipulation, in the heat of combat, it hopefully gives you a subconscious advantage. And even though you've already forgotten the formation you were in 2 seconds ago, it hopefully provides you with clear line of sight to the enemy.
Yeah “No plan survives contact with the enemy” is how I’ve heard that saying.
They say you fall to your level of training when in combat. So having as much ingrained you as possible means that you will draw from it as you deal with the chaos.
Understandably it's a completely different setting and less complex to perform, but I love how in War of Rights it's very easy for an officer to coordinate nearly 50+ players into immediately getting into a line formation after marching in column. Primarily perhaps because of the nature of the war and the inherent incentives of the game mechanics.
As a War Thunder player, my thoughts on formations and leaders has mostly to do with coordination. If each player had a job, from spotting to pinning the enemy to advancing, games would go much better. You wouldn't have random enemies sneaking behind your lines and shooting you in the back, because the team would be coordinated, covering every approach. I'm sure Squad has similar things, where some dude with an MG finds an unguarded alleyway to sneak behind you and mow your team down. So rather than formations, I think these games would really benefit from having a chain of command to designate tasks, and players that actually followed orders.
Great video man, I've always sort of had this same perspective but you put in into words so effectively. Keep it up!
Thanks man!
I have nearly a thousand hours in Squad as a Squadleader and yeah the best say that i found to lead the squad is playing in front leading the squad behind me, always make them stick in a 50m radius so that there can be revenge and res and never hesitate to dispatch fireteam from the main group to flank or to take care of radio/vhc. And never leave a man behind that is probably the most important point, the less ticket you loose the better.
The Wedge works in Warzone quite well. Especially in WZ1 when you had an unlimited heartbeat sensor. It basically recreated the "Wall of Eagles" that the F15 uses to control the airspace with its powerful radar.
Probably the biggest factor that is misunderstood in formations is the actual spacing between them. A section moving through an area can be spread out sometimes with 15 - 30 metre spacing between each person.
I served in the 15th MEU in ARMA. We are the most disciplined milsim gaming clan in the world. Beleive me, discipline pays off.
Thank you for your service, soldier
it strikes me that this is kinda a similar school of thought as to why tanks (WWII especially) are "ranked" so differently irl versus in-game. Real battlefields have so many more factors that a real soldier needs to worry about, while a gamer using a mouse or controller to aim instead of their entire upper body simply doesn't. Crew ergonomics, supply lines, the quality of steel in the armor plating, welded versus cast versus riveted armor....
Fun fact, a study of American tank crews at the end of the war in Europe found that only about 1 in 6 shells were fired at hostile tanks (from Shermans specifically iirc). The vast majority of cannon rounds were fired at emplaced infantry and reinforced positions like bunkers. So the tankers not wanting to upgrade from the short 75 to the long 76 cannon wasn't just "old thing good, new thing bad", it was because the lower-velocity 75mm HE rounds had noticeably more explosive power in them (and weighed noticeably less) than the higher-velocity, higher-penetration 76mm shells. Whereas in War Thunder there is less than zero reason to opt for the 75mm over the long 76.
Never played Squad. Have a handful hours in Arma. Played many hours in other games.
In our clan we never went into the high level realism, but we do use formations and tactics to a degree. We don't try to be tryhard mil-sim, but also not headless chickens acting like it's CoD deathmatch.
A big part is the obvious "no strategy survives contact with the enemy", so as soon as actual fighting starts, the nice theory will break down to a certain level.
We do use squad and platoon leaders, try to hold clear comms during engagements, organise the people.
But we apply things simpler than real life.
From things like "the first to breach a room goes left, the next right and so on", to things like "fireteam alpha takes the stairs near the entrance, fireteam bravo the one on the other side of the room" The platoon commander won't necessarily be at the front, so squad and fireteam leaders make the moment-to-moment situations. We assign angles to hold. Including callouts on contact.
We organise breaches with utility grenades in advance (flashbangs, ability drainers, smoke screens etc), to reduce the enemy's effectiveness and prevent our own people from getting hit. So the grenade has to go out first, and only then do we breach.
And one of the hallmarks of our group was sort of a management drill. Between "campaigns" we occasionally to go back to the main spawn location of the faction, to organise logistics, give people a bathroom break, and weed out people problematic. And it's rather simple: squads like up in columns, side by side. If someone can't listen to a simple order like that, we can't expect them to follow more complex orders in battle.
We don't expect them to stand parade. Just the general order to cease the fight and retreat, group up with your squad, and organise transport for the squad.
Or grouping up at a spawn location instead of running into enemy fire alone. That one can be a hard thing to manage when everyone wants to get kills, instead of standing around.
What game does your group play?
👏🏽Well said. Former SSG Ev@&#$$ 2/75 in 2007, LRS in 09-10, Infantry; rifleman, saw gunner, team leader, squad leader ETS in 2016. Ranger school in 09, EIB, CIB blah blah. Just saying, I've been involved in small unit tactics and platoon and squad ttp's, movements, assaults etc. That is for you Haebyung Dance. From me to you, great work helping others to understand these somewhat complex concepts. For everyone else, I would say so far this is the best video I've seen outlining the correlation of real world doctrine tied into Milsim/FPS/whatever gaming. And 100% agree if you want this to be effective it's the individual battle techniques of each person tied into the overall patrol, action or battle drill that will make it happen. I would love to get involved in helping to deciminate this message to fellow gamers who seek to apply real world tactics and strategies to the gaming environment, if not to at least defend the authenticity of what I spent 10 years of my life doing and teaching to my guys. It would make me feel some purpose again in old skills. Thanks for this video and if anyone has any additional questions let me know I'd love to help.
Hey man - first of all, thanks for the super nice comment. I served for a brief period but I ETS’d E-5 with a short stint as a rifle squad leader in the ROKMC and I worked really hard to teach my guys what they needed to know even as I learned myself. So someone like you leaving a positive comment really leaves me humbled.
I don’t know if you’re on Discord but that’s the easiest way to get a hold of me, and the link to my channel’s community is in the video description where you can find and DM me (Dance in Discord). I can’t always reply instantly but I’m always down for a conversation!
@HaebyungDance you got it man.
I've noticed in Helldivers we sometimes organically form a line or column and every once in a while a wedge. No one does it on purpose but i think everyone is worred about getting shot in the back so they avoid their team mates line of fire
While it's a different game, my buddies and I while playing Helldivers 2 use a limited degree of small team tactics, such as "bounding overwatch" (also called leapfrogging), and target designation for specific players to aim for.
My friends and I already know that using anything more advanced won't really translate well into a video game, but a lot of small team tactics works great in games.