Completely Removing the map with friendly positions for infantry

[badmojo420]

I did a bit of digging looking for a hand held blue force tacking systems and could find none. The smallest i could find was a laptop sized machine. There are smaller versions resembling a radio, but they don't have a screen, and are just used to track the operators location. It's true a lot of people could get their hands on portable GPS units. But that would provide a map with ONLY their location.

If anyone can show me a link to something I'm missing then please do. I know the technology is there, but i just don't think it's being used in that way, yet.

[badmojo420]

Nevermind, I found one....

[=Romagnolo=]

ta-dah !

[McBumLuv]

Ok, I knew there'd probably something like that, but what model is it then and how often is it used, by what forces, etc... etc...

[badmojo420]

I'm still looking into that, but heres a couple paragraphs that kind of relate to what we've been discussing....

Although blue force tracking is touted as a way to prevent fratricide, Stepanski observes that devices such as D-DACT are only one element of the solution. “D-DACT is a situational awareness tool. Fratricide prevention consists of three elements: situational awareness; combat identification; and tactics, techniques and procedures. You need all three elements, and it’s misleading to indicate that a situational awareness tool can prevent fratricide,” he says.

Marines could see D-DACTs in the field as early as October 2004. After passing final tests, more than 500 devices will be distributed starting with the I Marine Expeditionary Force. Within a year, Capt. Davis says, distribution will be complete, and then upgrades will begin. Marines can report problems with the device or offer suggestions for improvements through the D-DACT Web site. In addition, D-DACT team members attend exercises to demonstrate the device and obtain users’ opinions. The configuration control board meets approximately four times a year to review this information.

It's a M-DACT or D-DACT system. D being the mobile version.
http://www.afcea.org/signal/articles...ewer.asp?a=187

[badmojo420]

D-DACT empowers platoon leaders in Iraq - Marine Corps Community for USMC Marine Veterans

This article has lots of references to giving this to platoon leaders. And says there were 400 of these units in Iraq, in 2006.

[00SoldierofFortune00]

Originally Posted by BadMojo

What I'm giving up is debating the whole 'noob players letting us down and ruining our game' argument. How can you ever increase the team work in a game, with that argument holding ground?

There are plenty of ways to increase teamwork. I think the best is by joining special servers with special sets of rules. Servers like Chicago H, Texas Teamplayers, Tactical Gamer, and Tactics and Teamwork all require the player to join a squad and for the SL to name the squad accordingly. They also get rid of smacktards, lonewolves, make pilots get in 1 squad, etc.

Infact, if you think about it, the servers are just as important as what is implimented into the game to get the full experience because it is really the servers that weed out the idiot and noob players, not the actual game. You are never going to get rid of smacktard players because as long as this game has so much packed into it, which is a lot, there will always be idiots waiting to mess it up or try it out without care for others. Its really up to the community and servers to make sure the game is played correctly. Implimenting something ingame won't change behavior or anything because as with firebases, not everyone even sets those up etc.

Originally Posted by Engineer

Don't give up so easily...

Such a drastic move as removing all units from our map won't happen without a fight... The 'removal of minimap' was a hot topic for decades, till it finally got removed.

I was against the minimap being removed at first as well. Of course I have changed my mind since then and think it was done for the right reasons. But this is different. When we lost the minimap, we had the backup pop-up minimap. If we lose that, then we have nothing for reference. IMO, there always needs to be a backup so when people's screw up or lose something ingame, they have another way of coming back to the fight.

Also a reason why I am against getting rid of rallies BTW. You lose your FOB, at least you have a rally to spawn at so you aren't walking from your main every 10 minutes.

[McBumLuv]

Yes, I was looking at that, too.

I don't know, though. It seems like something fairly new, though, but otherwise I can't tell. Apparently it's also vehicles, the M version, so I was right in saying that. But is 400 that common a number? Considering there's roughly 400 000 Coalition troops in Iraq alone, that's only 1 unit per 1000 soldiers.

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by 00SoldierofFortune00

There are plenty of ways to increase teamwork. I think the best is by joining special servers with special sets of rules. Servers like Chicago H, Texas Teamplayers, Tactical Gamer, and Tactics and Teamwork all require the player to join a squad and for the SL to name the squad accordingly. They also get rid of smacktards, lonewolves, make pilots get in 1 squad, etc.

Infact, if you think about it, the servers are just as important as what is implimented into the game to get the full experience because it is really the servers that weed out the idiot and noob players, not the actual game. You are never going to get rid of smacktard players because as long as this game has so much packed into it, which is a lot, there will always be idiots waiting to mess it up or try it out without care for others. Its really up to the community and servers to make sure the game is played correctly. Implimenting something ingame won't change behavior or anything because as with firebases, not everyone even sets those up etc.

What about 1 manning a tank? Good team-play says that you shouldn't do that. But if PR didn't make it ineffective, would it not be done more often? Sure, the servers I play on (those that you listed) would punish people for such behavior, but what about when there are no admin? Or they're on the other team? And should the players really be responsible for figuring out if someone who's kicking ass with a tank is alone or has a driver. Not when the game can easily be modified to prevent this.

I know it's a stretch to compare looking at a map to 1 manning a tank. But they're both unrealistic tactics that get reinforced in video games way too heavily. The reason they do is not necessity, it's effectiveness. Just look at the way people react to the thought of losing it. It's way too effective for every foot soldier to carry a zero delay, 100% reliable, tracking system. The same way it would be way too effective if you could have 6 1manned tanks with no warm up time, in a squad. Of course it would be better to have 12 people. But that's taking people out of infantry squads, who wants to drive, it's a boring job, involves verbal communication with other people, incompetent drivers ruin the game, yadda yadda.

[badmojo420]

Originally Posted by McLuv

Yes, I was looking at that, too.

I don't know, though. It seems like something fairly new, though, but otherwise I can't tell. Apparently it's also vehicles, the M version, so I was right in saying that. But is 400 that common a number? Considering there's roughly 400 000 Coalition troops in Iraq alone, that's only 1 unit per 1000 soldiers.

Yeah, it does seem like a new system. The hand held version anyway. I read that the marines use a mish mash of different communications equipment. And most of them don't work together. Something they are trying to fix with a software and hardware solution that will allow them to communicate with all earlier equipment. Supposed to arrive around 2010. As of right now, these DACT systems don't work with the Blue Force Tracking system they use in vehicles. So read the number 400 as there are that many hand-held models of these, while they still have a shitload of other equipment in use. And it was just for the I Marine Expeditionary Force, not the whole coalition. So it would be a bit better of a ratio then 1 per 1000 soldiers.