(12-18-2009, 10:22 PM)Grip link Wrote: [ -> ]I dont understand the actual? Guess its my lacking english skills coming in to play. So could you explaine it the Actual fore dummies way Viking?
In military radio terms, when someone says Actual after a callsign they mean the leader. So Alpha 1 Actual would mean the leader of 1 Platoon, Alpha Company. Of if there is a squad designated Thunder, then Thunder Actual would be squad leader. Its a quick and easy way of contacting a leader or identifying yourself as a leader without resorting to naems and explinations.
Is "Actual" a US or NATO proword?
I've heard it before but we don't use it here.
We use "Sunray" so If you called: "Alpha Sunray this is Charlie",
then you are asking for the commander of alpha.
Same thing I guess...
Also re initiating comms, first call you make you say who you're calling and identify your own callsign:
"Alpha this is Bravo over." Â {Bravo contacting Alpha}
Then whoever youre calling responds:
"Bravo this is Alpha over" {Alpha responding} (or just simply: "Alpha over")
After that you can drop the callsign you are calling and just say your own callsign before you speak (to identify yourself):
"Bravo request you move your callsign to hill 79 and provide SBF to the west over" {Bravo requesting Alpha to move}
"Alpha wilco ETA 3 mikes over" {Alpha replying that they will do the task and will be there in 3 minutes}
"Bravo roger out" {Whoever initiates the transmission closes it, other callsigns now know they are free to make a transmission}
So it is important when you speak you say your own callsign first so everyone knows who is speaking. In a tight knit group this is somewhat negated when everyone recognises each other's voices but this is not always true with static/interferance battlefield noise etc....
What about this:
Teams divided by numbers; Alpha = 1, Bravo = 2, Charlie = 3 and so on
Team members divided by second numbers: Alpha Leader = 11, Bravo NC = 22, Alpha NC = 12, Charlie Leader = 31 and so on
Would sound something like this:
32 (this is/ to) 11:
11 (this is/ to) 32:
11: move to hill 87/ location 2/ forrest south west
32: OK/ roger (or whatever you call your secret love)
This is as far as you can come to RL military radio transmittions/ commands exept that leading elements are ALWAYS 9 (and a few other special terms).
If you don't know them, this is the time to set an end to this kind of missions as OFP aint build for them (hence the commanding structure). In my opinion this type of gameplay still only satisfy few players in mission specially designed with awkward/ unrealistic weapon (1 ironsighted squad and a heavy mortar??).
Not my wiev of CiA gameplay...
Marto, I honestly dont know if actual is NATO or just American, we used it under all circumstances, even during NATO exercises, but that may just be because of American arrogance (lol). We never used just numbers like OLs system, however it should be pointed out that this was a radio comm system for conversations between radios on the net not an intercomm system. For example sqd members didnt talk to each other on the radio as each man did not carry one (obviously), modern units have personal comms between team members now a days especially spec ops, but ordinary infantry units did not. since in game we have what ammounts to an intercom system it does change the radio system used. Actual for example was used because the commander usualy has a radio man who did most of the talking to his counter part at higher HQ. Actual was used to show that the commander himself and not his radio man was speaking. For our purposes though it certainly can be used to designate the sqd leader or higher command as a means of clarification when speaking. In a tank crew we all had personal comms inside the track gunner could talk to driver and so on, in practice we used very little code in these conversations it was just normal conversation, the tank commander could talk to us on the internal system and he could talk to other tracks and higher command by switching over, external conversations like that would be more formal and military. I think it does add something to the atmosphere though for us to use more formal military language in game but thats just my opnion.
I think Overlord is on the right track, but to put it more simply it should be squad+position:
Alpha1=leader Alpha2, Alpha3 etc.
Bravo1=leader....
Charlie1...
You get the idea.
Leave out the nicks, actuals....etc. KISS=Keep it simple stupid Â
If you have TS overlay you know who is talking. If communications become streamlined maybe one common TS channel can be used, then when needed split channels could be used for certain situations.
My main point of posting the videos was to demonstrate the communication style and the focus on moving onto the objective rather than sitting on a hilltop for 30 minutes waiting for all the wrinkles to be ironed out.
Quote:Haha I like towards the end of the first one:
"Who's second in command?"
No answer.
"Ok, whose third in command?"
No answer.
Marto;
I guess it's the deadmen don't talk ruleÂ
(12-18-2009, 05:41 PM)mikka link Wrote: [ -> ][quote author=Hawke link=topic=2010.msg10937#msg10937 date=1261142144]
... I must also say that compared to them most players on CiA server lack passion.
I disagree.
lack passion of what & in what?
in speedy shooting and fast got killed so stupid?.
playing on WGL (most real mod) with noob server mode on? with all those crosshire/huds/cursors active?
i think this is none of sense and no passion of real fight..
For my point of view they also attacked that hill too fast, in full speed , quite rushy and messy like in some shooter game
it was wrong and they have been deafated!
[/quote]
I was refering to TS
only
So I guess our next Pre-Planned Co-Op Extravaganza will be next Sunday, rather than tomorrow? No briefing has been posted.
Yup, maybe for next Sunday. We're still good to go for today's regular game (not sure if I can make it in time. . .probably later - Christmas party this afternoon).
(12-19-2009, 07:54 AM)Zulu1 link Wrote: [ -> ]I think Overlord is on the right track, but to put it more simply it should be squad+position:
Alpha1=leader Alpha2, Alpha3 etc.
Bravo1=leader....
Charlie1...
You get the idea.
Leave out the nicks, actuals....etc. KISS=Keep it simple stupidÂ
Normally there is only 1 person from a team/ squad communicating on higher(e.g. company) nets. So alpha squad leader in squad net is 9 (for leader) but on company net he's 11 (1 for alpha/ first squad. 1 for leader). The radio operator use only 1 to identify squad. Strange? Not really, I used a whole year on military comm (as radio operator) so I should know.
Yes, but after all Over Lord that was the Norwegian military. All of us mere mortals might find it hard to follow the system of the Heros of Valhalle lol.