new callsigns in our community

[Viper 1-2]

I would like to use this post to propose a few new callsigns to use, as in my opinion using just "alpha" and "command" wouldnt be smart to do in real life.
I also understand that we are not hardcore milsim but these should be simple enough.
So let me get to the point, i would think this would be an efficient way of calling people out:
Command: Crossroads (lots of communitys use this one)
Alpha: 1-1 Actual (first platoon, first squad and in contact with the actual commander)
Bravo: 1-2 Actual
E.t.c
Hawk: Hammerhead
Condor/ eagle: Knightrider

these are just some examples and this can be worked out to somehow resemble something more realistic

PS: maybe we should have strike package callsigns preset so you dont call the exact ornament over the radio. example: Strike package bravo would be an AT missile or similar.

that's all for my daily bitching and feedback is welcome.

Regards,
Viper 1-2

[Cobra.]

I'm pretty sure with have gone through this before. It's up to the mission makers to choose what the call signs want. Command is easy because it tells you exactly what it is especially on #1.

Strike packages are over complicating it. We are not JTAC's or FO's you expect eveyone to learn what each strike package is? Not going to happen. That is for dedicated Milsim groups like 15MEU or whatever other bullshit.

1:1 / 1:2 callsigns are not really needed, yes for actual Military comm's because you might not know the actual person you are talking to and for OPSEC no names are broadcasted over frequencies. I use it for my tank mission because multiple separate tanks in 1 platoon.

Basically this is going into to much depth for what we either need or is pratical. We are not a hardcore milsim group as you said. If you want a creative name for your assets or groups ( There is a reason NATO phonetics are used btw, and Alpha is less common due to the fact you could have a fuckload of alpha's in 1 AO.) Suggest it to missions makers. I like to use different names.

But we use those because we all know what they are and it is relatively easy to understand important for knew players than figuring out what Proteus might be.

That being said, I'm not the be all and end all for Military comm's and I'm sure some of the more experienced guys can give you a better reponse but thats just my thoughts.

[Face]

The biggest issue I have with this is the issue with it complicating the comms. I know many experienced players may not have an issue with these proposed comms proceedures, but it would give less experienced players who already struggle as SL's that much of a harder time. Seeing as though getting squad leads is already like pulling teeth due to whatever reason. As a fairly new member here I am finally feeling more confident that I might actually be able to function as a squad lead. Howerver if I encounter a mission with a Chalk 1-1 and Chalk 1-2 or what ever I won't touch SL with a ten foot pole because I have trouble with the comms as it is right now.

So basically my point is that changing these callsigns might make slotting up SL's that much more painful.

[Bank]

" as in my opinion using just "alpha" and "command" wouldnt be smart to do in real life."

While I agree on a busy net, with multiple platoons (aka a company) this might be needed, I think that on single platoon level ops comms should be as simple as possible, especially in an open public server. As we never perform company ops it seems redundant to have first squad be 1-1. Every squad is 1-"x". We dont have to share the net with any other platoons, and so to have to state that we are first platoon, second squad is redundant. From this, calling the platoon lead and stating that we are "1" is easy to mishear/interpret.

For the same reason it would be strange to add "actual" to each callsign- what information would this actually get across that is needed? How often does a SL not have a radio, and instead have a RTO?

Changing the air assets callsigns also has the potential for confusing matters. As the callsigns stand now anyone joining can see the callsign and have a (small) grasp of the scale/ operations of the role- an eagle is bigger than a hawk, makes sense. Bringing unrelated names into the mix could add to confusion, and what would we be achieving?

If an individual mission maker would like to have their own callsigns that is perfectly fine, but I dont feel comfortable adding superfluous words for no other reason than to sound cool.

In my (very limited) knowledge the goal of radio comms is KISS: Keep It Short and Simple. Adding extra phrases just to sound like we are a battalion/ company in action goes against this.

[Karle]

What Bank said. Even in gamesnight missions with custom callsigns, I've noticed we tend to stick to Alpha, Bravo etc etc, the custom ones tend to confuse things.

[Viper 1-2]

although i fully understand the points everyone is making, i do still believe that since server 2 is already more hardcore milsim than server 1, we could change callsigns on server two.
If the admins would combine a callsign update with the rumoured Server 2 training sessions i think it could work out.
Server one is indeed a bad choice to change callsigns at.

[Cobra.]

I don't think you do fully understand what we have said. It is up to the mission makers to decide what call signs they use. It is not a set thing. Anyone who makes a mission can use whatever call signs they want. As we have said, people use alpha e.t.c. because it is easier and everyone knows what it means. You want different call signs suggest it to the mission makers or make a mission yourself with your own callsigns.

But Strike packages will not work mostly due to the fact they are only used in a aerial operations meaning we being what is basically a Infantry platoon would have literally no use for because a SL shouting to get a "Strike Package Bravo" (AT) isn't going to happen irl which would break immersion because there is no such thing.

[Viper 1-2]

points noted, topic can be closed.

[Terox]

Simplicity is always the best
Consistency makes it easy
Making things unnecessarily complicated leads to a mess
Changing consistent methods confuses.

Why would you create a 4 syllable callsign Alpha ONE TWO
when you can get away with only 2 syllables "Alpha"

if there were two Alpha's eg a company sized op then maybe that would be required, although if that was the case it would be better to differentiate by colour, so RED Alpha, BLUE Alpha because that is much easier to differentiate than Alpha 1-1 and alpha 1-2


Even when the mission makers want to try and spice things up by using gimmicky callsigns, players revert to the consistent method they have used for ages, because IT WORKS, IT DOESN'T CONFUSE and its SIMPLE


There is always method in our madness