Change of Mindset!

[Rolly]

I really wish we had some solid information on the topic of MP coop for GR:AW.  Those of us that play coop GR almost exclusivly are quite eager to get some information.  Personally, I have always found the need for more coordinated and organized approaches to difficult coop missions much more enjoyable and ineresting than the typical "see them before they see you" quality that I find dominates most TvT play.

@maestro, there are indeed coop tournaments.  A quick visit to http://www.stealthrecon.net will reveal information about AlphaSquad's ongoing SR2005 tourney.  We have 29 teams (representing some 350+ players) each making 4 insertions on difficult never before seen mission.  The mission 1 scores will be posted this comming Monday, and teams will be free to discuss their perfromance/expereinces on Mission 1 at that point.  I'd suggest you talk with a few of them, or better yet grab a copy of TS2 and the AlphaMod in order to stop by AlphaSquad's public coop server (visit http://www.alphasquad.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=277 for details) and see what it is like to play a well designed mission with a full team (we have many missions that allow coop play with up to 27 friendlies).

As for the eternal problem of "cheating" and the added complexity of controlling infomration flow between teams in a coop tournament. We go to great lenghths to guard against this problem.  Mostly this is done by ensuring that we know who is actually playing on what team, and carefully watching and listening to game play.

I very much hope that Bo and his colleagues at Grin understand how much a large portion of the community values this "more mature" style of play, and that they will be able to provide us with both a game system and mission design/scripting tools to continue our effort to foster and extend the level of coop play in the GR fanchise.

←

Rgr That

[Kurtz]

I would even like an official explanation for the limit in SP and MP coop to 4 men. If GR had 6 and 9, why go down to 4?

[Sup]

I would even like an official explanation for the limit in SP and MP coop to 4 men. If GR had 6 and 9, why go down to 4?

←

For SP, it's purely game design/concept.

I suppose they wanted Coop to match the SP experience...

[RatoN]

maybe it as to do with the plot of the game vs hardware limitations. Let me explain.

1. The number of ghosts is proportional to the number of AI’s considering the technical superiority of the ghosts for the game play challenge/difficulty balance.

2. The AI’s (especially the ones in GRAW from what we have read) would be CPU/RAM demanding. Like chess, the more intelligent the more calculating resources they demand.

More ghosts = more AI’s, and maybe the average CPU/RAM would not be able to handle more AI’s. Therefore the number of ghost limitations.

[Kurtz]

I believe it was a design decision, but the rationale probably will never be revealed. SP will be fine if the AI is up to the job, coop will require even more tactical play, and that is not a bad thing, it will just require more servers to accomodate the players.

[wombat50]

4 man co-op max = 9 very disappointed Nighthawks

[CrowmanUK]

One things for sure if 4 man really is going to end up as the final coop limit, it'll mean you'll have to rent 2 servers to get as many coop players in as you do with GR1 which cant be a good thing, which will be a right pain in the ###### for squads.

[[WOLF]Lizard]

I just think that a max 4 man team in Co-op is gonna create alot of down time. A lot of talking about playing instead of playing ...

[SimDooD]

GRAW + 12 Man Coop = 1 Squad = 3 fireteams = Awsome..

Fug 4 man coop.

###### Alpha Squad im sure doesnt like that news about graw, and neither do I.

←

Well, they either give us expanded Co-Op teams in MP, or hopefully the sandbox editor is decent enough for us to do it ourselves!!!

Here's hoping!

[meade95]

GRAW (PC) in many ways is making think I'll buy it (and like it) - Possibly what we have all wanted since GR -

However, the idea of only 4-man teams (total) in both SP and MP really does bum me out -

Having the ability to plan / coordinate 3 assault teams was really part of the whole realism / fun experience of GR -

I really don't like the new layout of 4 man team (only) and that you can't switch between men -

[SteelHack]

GRAW (PC) in many ways is making think I'll buy it (and like it) - Possibly what we have all wanted since GR -

However, the idea of only 4-man teams (total) in both SP and MP really does bum me out -

Having the ability to plan / coordinate 3 assault teams was really part of the whole realism / fun experience  of GR -

I really don't like the new layout of 4 man team (only) and that you can't switch between men -

←

My main group only consists of 4 total...with the occasional game of 7....so this doesnt really effect me much.

HACK

[RatoN]

GRAW (PC) in many ways is making think I'll buy it (and like it) - Possibly what we have all wanted since GR -

However, the idea of only 4-man teams (total) in both SP and MP really does bum me out -

Having the ability to plan / coordinate 3 assault teams was really part of the whole realism / fun experience  of GR -

I really don't like the new layout of 4 man team (only) …-

←

Yes but each of the 4 ghosts can be dispatched individually. There are more possibilities now in SP then before with GR. That gives you one more angles to cover, one more tactical option.

EX: You could place a sniper on a roof and two guys covering left and right as you advance

(one on the left, you in the middle, one on the right and a wild card) or what ever.

4 angles = more possibilities then 3 even if there is more ghosts.

As for MP coop, 4 men are enough, more then that and you would end up with an unbalance game imo. One mission is suppose to take two hours to complete, so to have a 9 men crew would mean that the mission would last 20 to 45 minutes, that wouldn’t be as much fun/challenge.

And if you would add more enemies to balance it out, your rig would probly choke.

Because even if you ad more things to do (objectives), it always come down to how many bad guys there is.

The only thing that I can think of to include more players on the same mission is to deprive the players of certain high tech gismos that gives them the edge over the enemy AI. Like GR was.

i smell a mod coming up.

…and that you can't switch between men

←

Isn’t it more of a sim that way?

[pz3]

sure, but only if u die, game over...

you have 25% chance of dieing compared to team mates... wheres the fun in that....

game play balance is still important IMO.

What i really enjoyed was the Adverserial with AI Backup,

do 2v2 with 4 teams, and 36 players total (including AI)

that was a lot of fun.

[meade95]

Edited November 12, 2005 by meade95

[RatoN]

"Firepower usually means an increased number of misses per minute. Fifty misses are not firepower, one hit is firepower." -Marine sniper school welcome board

When things would go south, no matter how many man you’ve had in this location they would all be wiped out.

Remember all of team C being shot dead by a single enemy soldier? And to make matters worse you would send team B to the same location to help them out, then THEY would get shot dead also!?. It happened to me more then once, why is that?

They were in the same location that did not allow them to locate the enemy. The problem being the actual position not the number of units or them being out numbered or out gun. Wrong place, wrong time, bad angle of view.

It’s all about diversified point of views on the same location and position of your team, in this case (GRAW) 4 separated individuals (ghosts) instead of 3 teams (A, B, C) of 3 men bunched up.

GR = 3, GRAW = 4

Fewer men but more angles of view.

<boi am i ready for this game or what. i’m getting all tactical>

Edited November 13, 2005 by RatoN

[meade95]

"Firepower usually means an increased number of misses per minute. Fifty misses are not firepower, one hit is firepower." -Marine sniper school welcome board

When things would go south, no matter how many man you’ve had in this location they would all be wiped out.

Remember all of team C being shot dead by a single enemy soldier? And to make matters worse you would send team B to the same location to help them out, then THEY would get shot dead also!?. It happened to me more then once, why is that?

They were in the same location that did not allow them to locate the enemy. The problem being the actual position not the number of units or them being out numbered or out gun. Wrong place, wrong time, bad angle of view.

It’s all about diversified point of views on the same location and position of your team, in this case (GRAW) 4 separated individuals (ghosts) instead of 3 teams (A, B, C) of 3 men bunched up.

GR = 3, GRAW = 4 

Fewer men but more angles of view.

<boi am i ready for this game or what. i’m getting all tactical>

←

3 GR Teams did not all get killed when I was playing - In fact it worked really well when thought out plans were implemented -

Additionally to suggest a 4-man team would conduct a direct assault on anything in the real world (alone, as a 4-man unit) is silly and not realistic - A 4 man team is nothing more then a RT to gather Intel ....prior to an assault team being called in ....to conduct the assault -

[Snowy]

3 GR Teams did not all get killed when I was playing - In fact it worked really well when thought out plans were implemented -

Additionally to suggest a 4-man team would conduct a direct assault on anything in the real world (alone, as a 4-man unit) is silly and not realistic - A 4 man team is nothing more then a RT to gather Intel ....prior to an assault team being called in ....to conduct the assault -

←

you have to bear in mind the setting though, this isn't a planned attack force, from my understanding of thhe trailers, the ghosts have been caught off guard, therefore that possibly an explanation why four men will have to assault....

[en4rcment]

4-man teams? - I don't think so...

←

AWESOME!!! Thanks for sharing that Whisper. That was tight.

←

x2...that was absolutely awesome!!! Thanks for the vid.

I too am concerned with the 4 man co-op, but I can handle it if need be. If it goes down to 2 man co-op...forget it.

[RedHerring]

"Firepower usually means an increased number of misses per minute. Fifty misses are not firepower, one hit is firepower." -Marine sniper school welcome board

But those are snipers... What about fire superiority? Suppression is due to volume of fire not due to accurate fire of 1 man.

I expect that 1 GRAW Ghost will be a lot more effective than a GR1 Ghost, if it's not, we're in for a major problem.

However, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I'm not expecting traditional base of fire and flanking manuevers, but something else. I think we'll have to invent something new, which is pretty cool I think.

[Tortfeaser]

"Firepower usually means an increased number of misses per minute. Fifty misses are not firepower, one hit is firepower." -Marine sniper school welcome board

When things would go south, no matter how many man you’ve had in this location they would all be wiped out.

Remember all of team C being shot dead by a single enemy soldier? And to make matters worse you would send team B to the same location to help them out, then THEY would get shot dead also!?. It happened to me more then once, why is that?

They were in the same location that did not allow them to locate the enemy. The problem being the actual position not the number of units or them being out numbered or out gun. Wrong place, wrong time, bad angle of view.

It’s all about diversified point of views on the same location and position of your team, in this case (GRAW) 4 separated individuals (ghosts) instead of 3 teams (A, B, C) of 3 men bunched up.

GR = 3, GRAW = 4 

Fewer men but more angles of view.

<boi am i ready for this game or what. i’m getting all tactical>

←

3 GR Teams did not all get killed when I was playing - In fact it worked really well when thought out plans were implemented -

Additionally to suggest a 4-man team would conduct a direct assault on anything in the real world (alone, as a 4-man unit) is silly and not realistic - A 4 man team is nothing more then a RT to gather Intel ....prior to an assault team being called in ....to conduct the assault -

←

Games and computers are one thing I can't speak to with any authority, but real world tactics is a different story. A four man fire team can certainly (and does regularly) conduct a direct assault depending upon METT-T, but this is only with one or more additional fire teams creating a base of fire on the objective. I agree that without a support-by-fire element, the four man team would be limited to serving as a R & S team until additional squads from the platoon could join to form a larger suppressive fire element.

Edited November 17, 2005 by Tortfeaser

[RatoN]

Even with air support? which the enemy can do nothing about, compared with more troops on the ground that can be fought off, killed, and especially behind enemy lines?

Isn’t air support firepower and suppressive fire?

[Tortfeaser]

Even with air support? which the enemy can do nothing about, compared with more troops on the ground that can be fought off, killed, and especially behind enemy lines?

Isn’t air support firepower and suppressive fire?

←

Air support is not always available. One of the most miserable situations a man can be in is to be in an engagement, running through your basic load, and when you call for CAS to hear " no air assets available at this time, out." Dam*. You have to decide how to fight a withdrawal.

Air support is more likely to be used to kill enemy armor, or destroy fortified defenses, or perhaps leval a structure or bunker. It is not a routine process to expect air support to always be available as a suppressive fire element. those air assets are just too precious. The way we train, we move with "two up and one back." the two up are two ground units, be they two 4 man teams or one 9 man squad, that are the first elements to make contact with the enemy. the one in back is generally also either a team or squad one terrain feature to the rear and is used as the assault element. When the "two up" engage an enemy force, the team/squad/platoon leader has to decide whether his unit can gain suppressive fire over the enemy unit. If the teams incontact cannot suppress, depending upon the size/strength of the enemy force, the team in the rear may be brought up to add to the suppressive fire element. If after bringing up the team in the rear, suppressive fire can be obtained, that unit then becomes the support by fire element and a second squad is maneuvered to assault from an exposed flank.

The bottom line is this: the American fighting doctrine is scaleable. The smallest unit is the indivudual. Two individuals make up a buddy team. Two buddy teams make up a fire team. Two fire teams (plus one squad leader) make a 9 man squad. The squad is the basic fighting element. There is something in the human brain that turns the switch to "ON" when dealing with a leader, and two teams of 4. There is no more effective small unit than the American infantry squad. 4 squads make a platoon. 4 platoons make a company. 4 companies make a battalion - then brigade, division, on and on.

This concept of 9 men goes back to the period in man's history when instead of a 9 man squad, it was a 9 man hunting party. This is a basic truism of human social structure. It just works. we were suppressing and flanking wolly mamoths long before we were fighting iraqis.

[buddhiraja73]

However, the more and more I think about it, the more and more I'm not expecting traditional base of fire and flanking manuevers, but something else.  I think we'll have to invent something new, which is pretty cool I think.

GRAW being more of a sim to me and many others, the option of having the two 4-man teams would have been great. The tried and tested formula of laying down a base of fire and flanking is something that I and many others would like to use and enjoy.

From a gaming angle, the additional techniques that modern equipments can give rise to, in terms of assaulting the enemy, can be a good variation. If we had the option of assaulting a place EITHER by the traditional two teams of 4 using suppression and flanking OR by the newer techniques that GRAW might bring to the fore because of the advanced technology, the game would have attracted a wider number of gamers and would have given each gamer a variation in terms of strategic gameplay.

[fr1j0l3]

Even with air support? which the enemy can do nothing about, compared with more troops on the ground that can be fought off, killed, and especially behind enemy lines?

Isn’t air support firepower and suppressive fire?

←

Air support is not always available. One of the most miserable situations a man can be in is to be in an engagement, running through your basic load, and when you call for CAS to hear " no air assets available at this time, out." Dam*. You have to decide how to fight a withdrawal.

Air support is more likely to be used to kill enemy armor, or destroy fortified defenses, or perhaps leval a structure or bunker. It is not a routine process to expect air support to always be available as a suppressive fire element. those air assets are just too precious. The way we train, we move with "two up and one back." the two up are two ground units, be they two 4 man teams or one 9 man squad, that are the first elements to make contact with the enemy. the one in back is generally also either a team or squad one terrain feature to the rear and is used as the assault element. When the "two up" engage an enemy force, the team/squad/platoon leader has to decide whether his unit can gain suppressive fire over the enemy unit. If the teams incontact cannot suppress, depending upon the size/strength of the enemy force, the team in the rear may be brought up to add to the suppressive fire element. If after bringing up the team in the rear, suppressive fire can be obtained, that unit then becomes the support by fire element and a second squad is maneuvered to assault from an exposed flank.

The bottom line is this: the American fighting doctrine is scaleable. The smallest unit is the indivudual. Two individuals make up a buddy team. Two buddy teams make up a fire team. Two fire teams (plus one squad leader) make a 9 man squad. The squad is the basic fighting element. There is something in the human brain that turns the switch to "ON" when dealing with a leader, and two teams of 4. There is no more effective small unit than the American infantry squad. 4 squads make a platoon. 4 platoons make a company. 4 companies make a battalion - then brigade, division, on and on.

This concept of 9 men goes back to the period in man's history when instead of a 9 man squad, it was a 9 man hunting party. This is a basic truism of human social structure. It just works. we were suppressing and flanking wolly mamoths long before we were fighting iraqis.

←

Awesome post tort, thanks.

9-man coop is what breathed life into gr, I hope it continues.