Grid References

[Cerberus]

Originally Posted by Steger

What goal does it accomplish to remove the mini map?

Like Demio said, it improves realism. We're not using the Land Warrior system, and it would remove some clutter on the HUD.

[solodude23]

Yes - but with letters and numbers assigned to each row and column. (Like BF1942)

[Major Ursa Norte]

Originally Posted by [R-PUB]Cerberus

Like Demio said, it improves realism. We're not using the Land Warrior system, and it would remove some clutter on the HUD.

If you want to go real life, take out all map funtions. The commander, the SLs, Pilots and armor would be the only ones with any map at all.

The Commander would get the whole picture. Pilots would also get the whole picture. Armor would get most and maybe all of the picture depending on how you went about it.
Squad Leaders would only get part of the map. The grids that encompass their route to an objective and any escape/extraction/rally points. The commander would HAVE to give each squad orders for a specific objective before any map was available to the SL.
Snipers would get very specific maps that would be part of the SL's larger map and only contain mission specific detail with escape/extraction/rally points highlighted.
Grunts get NOTHING. Maybe a mini-map that ONLY showed actual field of view objects for things like requesting or spotting.

Now I doubt any of this could be done due to engine constraints, but it would be pretty realistic. Not every soldier has a map stuck in his pocket and those that do usually only have a map that is mission specific. Higher up the food chain, you get theater maps. Sure, snipers and spec ops might need some special considerations given their mission capabilities.

If this could be done, then most of the problems you see with rambos, lone wolves and non-teamwork actions in general would disappear. If you don't know where you are going, then you had best stick tight to your squad leader. Squad Leaders would have to communicate with Commanders and vice versa to accomplish mission goals.

This is about the only way that I can see this whole thing getting sorted out and actually improving team play at the same time.

[Cerberus]

Hell, I wouldn't mind if only pilots, SLs, commanders, and armor crew received maps.

[trogdor1289]

Me neither it would force teamwork and add to the realism immensaly.

[Major Ursa Norte]

I agree, but the sniper and spec ops should not be left completely out. Their mission capabilities require them to work in small units or teams to accomplish very specific goals. Those missions often require them to be removed from the main thrust of the other troops. I would hate to have to go behind enemy lines to destroy a bridge or commander toy with nothing more than my p.o.v. map. I like to have my escape route planned before I blow something up.

[(3FJ)Steger]

Well removing it will remove some players but maybe that is what you want. Its hard to find balance between realism and still keeping a playable fun game and everybody has a different opinion on what should change.

It could be fun without knowing anything except what you are told from your SL. It would certainly force squad play. It would be a whole different game. There would be no need for grids or any kind of "enemy spotted" features.

[Downtown_two]

I know there was an element of sarcasm in what Major Ursa Norte said but I quite like the idea. Like trogdor said, teamwork would improve and the realism factor would sky rocket!

[Malik]

Well make sure every play in the British Army has a map either way.

[Major Ursa Norte]

Originally Posted by Downtown_two

I know there was an element of sarcasm in what Major Ursa Norte said but I quite like the idea. Like trogdor said, teamwork would improve and the realism factor would sky rocket!

There was some sarcasm earlier in this thread, but my post just a bit above this was the real deal. If the current system is not going to fly with what PR is trying to create, then what I stated above seems like the right mix for me.

The leaders always have bigger and better maps. The grunts might have a map, but they are usually too busy doing what they are told to do to really have to worry about orienteering issues. The grunts work from point of view. What they can actually see. The SL has to consider the larger picture so that mission execution can be done in the safest and most efficient manner. Commanders work with the largest picture to plan the campaign and position multiple elements to secure the ultimate objective of the win. Special units are, well, special and might require some different aspects in order for them to be effective tools on the battlefield.

I do think my idea follows the additive principle that is used when planning any objective on any level. Orders travel from the top down, the commander wields the sword and the foot soldier is the sharp point at the end. Intel travels from the bottom up. The man with "eyes on" is the one most aware of what is changing in the field. The foot soldier is the sharp tip of the sword and transmits feedback along the blade and into the grip where the commander interprets and adjusts to either thrust or parry.

Old school infantry mumbo jumbo that MSgt. Cal Wiggins (Green Beret) used to wax poetically about for the benefit of us poor cadets while we hovered six inches above the ground in the down count of the push-up exercise for what seemed an eternity. MSgt. Wiggins called that "listening for buffalos".