Commander Overhaul

[Operator009]

Problem: The Commander Position
The Commander Position is currently widely overlooked on the battlefield. This is in part because it truly is kind of a situational position. People only ever fufil the commander role to drop large explosive ordinance. And now that mortars are in place, any map with less than a JDAM for the commander is completely avoided.

Solution: Add features or aspects to the commander role to either make it more beneficial or crucial
There are several ways to accomplish this task, but first we have to realize what PR, and commanders in general, are and aren?t. We shall touch what PR?s version of a Commanding Officer is;
The Commanding Officer in PR is surely not a General. a General will lead a division in real life. In PR, they can lead a maximum of 32 people. I hate to break it to you, but thats not a division or corps, but a rather small platoon.

Squad<Platoon<Company<Division<Corps

Usually, a 2ndLT will lead a platoon. He is still an officer but not nearly as high up on the foodchain as even a 1 star. However, in PR?s commanding officer intrepretation of the general, this could work. The squad leaders wouldn?t be officers, but SGTs running their squads. This is the scale we play with, and are consequentially limited to.

Now that we have defined what a commander actually is, we can improve on it.

First, the 2ndLT?s role is to keep communication intact between squads that operate within his platoon. This is to increase battlefield spatial awareness, to request support, issue orders, and give and recieve sigreps (battlefield updates). This is already accomplished inside the BF2 ?commander? screen. However, unlike in real life, the 2ndLT?s role is also on the battlefield with his/her troops. This in hindered in BF2, as the commander is more suited to staying in his mainbase the entire game, commanding from a tent with no first hand judgement of the battlefield. This is not something a 2ndLT would do. Some ways to improve this aspect;
1) Allow the commander to communicate with specific squads (b button, not v) without having to go into capslock
2) Allow commander full access to Squad Leader Radio (Weapon Slot)
3) This may sound a bit of a stretch, but is there any way we can concieve of a commander only vehicle? Nothing special, just a lighter armoured HMV or something with only one seat.
Implementing these three changes will allow for increase mobility throughout the battlefield, with emphasis on scouting and intelligence rather than FAV commando.

Second, it is rather surreal that you MUST have a commander to use a JDAM or artillery shot. This is not only counter-intuitive to making the commander ?needed? because it antagonizes the player base, but also sets the stage for every single squadleader to hate whomever attains commanding officer positions. Is there any way we can have the squadleaders vote where to put the JDAM? This would eliminate some of the negative connotations of being a commander, thus further defining the role. If it continues the way it is now, it puts a bad taste in your mouth. Think of it this way, if every squadleader you ever had always left after they got an officer?s kit and pressed 2 buttons, then you would HATE squadleaders.


Thirdly, we need something to attract instead of necessitate having a commander. The commander rally point was a good idea. May I propose a different but similar one?
1) Is it possible to place a ?commander? FOB (2 crates requires still) with no bonuses, other than they are not de-activated by proximity to enemy troops? This would represent a garrisoned building acting as a forward base of operations for the platoon. The one advantage of always spawning until knifed or destroyed may seem small, but believe me, is almost a game changer.
2) If the above is not possible, then how about removing the conditions surrounding the current commander rally a little? Needing only 1 sql with you can really make a difference.

Last, if either, or all, of the above suggestions aren?t/are adopted, then how about a basic carrot approach? Giving the commander a unique weapon or way of using it is vital for making it more appealing. Better GLTDs? Ground deployed UAV (the tiny ones that are carried in backpacks maybe)? Hell, a desert eagle sidegun would at least give the commander an appeal of ?battle presence?.



This conclude by ?inspired? breakdown and re-assembly of the commander position. I would love to see you guys expand on this some. Any idea is welcomed!

[Hotrod525]

Problem: The Commander Position
The Commander Position is currently widely overlooked on the battlefield. This is in part because it truly is kind of a situational position. People only ever fufil the commander role to drop large explosive ordinance. And now that mortars are in place, any map with less than a JDAM for the commander is completely avoided.

No the real problem of being commander is the "i dont give a fuck about you" attitude from many squad leader.

Solution: Add features or aspects to the commander role to either make it more beneficial or crucial
There are several ways to accomplish this task, but first we have to realize what PR, and commanders in general, are and aren?t. We shall touch what PR?s version of a Commanding Officer is;
The Commanding Officer in PR is surely not a General. a General will lead a division in real life. In PR, they can lead a maximum of 32 people. I hate to break it to you, but thats not a division or corps, but a rather small platoon.

There is special feature, like UAV, laser designation, markers, etc... R-Dev are well aware that C.O. need some stuff. But if they restrain it like it was in 0.8 there is abuse from "n00b selfish" CO that where denying deployment, or that where AFAK or deploying assets in pointless area, it can still happen but aleast with 9 squad there is 9 chance that somone do it right. And in PR the CO is equal to something like a Lt. Col.

Squad<Platoon<Company<Division<Corps

You dont seems to realy know the basement of an army, its more like : Pointman -> Fireteam -> Squad -> Platoon -> Company -> Battalion -> Regiment -> Brigade -> Group-Brigade -> Division -> Corps.

Usually, a 2ndLT will lead a platoon. He is still an officer but not nearly as high up on the foodchain as even a 1 star. However, in PR?s commanding officer intrepretation of the general, this could work. The squad leaders wouldn?t be officers, but SGTs running their squads. This is the scale we play with, and are consequentially limited to.

You cannot compare in ANY way a 2Lt with a 1 star general that command a brigade. And the community is well aware that a senior NCO would fit the SL position more effiently than an officier, but on the other hand it have to be scaled down since an officer would have to lead 4 squad to be "realistic". But keep in mind that in war, especialy on the battlefield, even a lance corporal can be the on the spot commander. [ That would mean this is a very bad day, but still even a private with a hook can be the highest rank in the squad when things go wrong. ]

Now that we have defined what a commander actually is, we can improve on it.

No, you dont have defined what a commander is cause a 2Lt will never lead infantry, armor and aviation all at the same time. Never. Usaly a 2Lt will barely know how to lead at all since they just get out of the school. This is why 2Lt have W.O. overlooking every thing they do, giving them advice and make sure they dont do anything stupid.

First, the 2ndLT?s role is to keep communication intact between squads that operate within his platoon. This is to increase battlefield spatial awareness, to request support, issue orders, and give and recieve sigreps (battlefield updates). This is already accomplished inside the BF2 ?commander? screen. However, unlike in real life, the 2ndLT?s role is also on the battlefield with his/her troops.

I.R.L. 2Lt are on the bfield... Only Major and higher stay in CP. 2Lt, Lt and Cpt always have boots on the ground like grunts.

This in hindered in BF2, as the commander is more suited to staying in his mainbase the entire game, commanding from a tent with no first hand judgement of the battlefield. This is not something a 2ndLT would do. Some ways to improve this aspect;

Of course a 2Lt wont stay in the CP, in PR the Co like i said about is atleast a Lt-Col.

1) Allow the commander to communicate with specific squads (b button, not v) without having to go into capslock

Already feasable, select a squad in caplock and then press SQUAD in chat and you will be able to only talk to them. Any other way of doing so is hardcoded.

2) Allow commander full access to Squad Leader Radio (Weapon Slot)

You mean listen to the squad comms ? If so this is entirely unrealistic, you have a dedicated radio network for you're troop and a dedicated network for the CoC. Otherwise the network wont be usable or readable at all.

3) This may sound a bit of a stretch, but is there any way we can concieve of a commander only vehicle? Nothing special, just a lighter armoured HMV or something with only one seat.
Implementing these three changes will allow for increase mobility throughout the battlefield, with emphasis on scouting and intelligence rather than FAV commando.

Like said above a Lt-Col wont be in the field during a conflict, especialy since they got plenty of toy like UAV, SATIMG, DATA link etc...

Second, it is rather surreal that you MUST have a commander to use a JDAM or artillery shot. This is not only counter-intuitive to making the commander ?needed? because it antagonizes the player base, but also sets the stage for every single squadleader to hate whomever attains commanding officer positions. Is there any way we can have the squadleaders vote where to put the JDAM? This would eliminate some of the negative connotations of being a commander, thus further defining the role. If it continues the way it is now, it puts a bad taste in your mouth. Think of it this way, if every squadleader you ever had always left after they got an officer?s kit and pressed 2 buttons, then you would HATE squadleaders.

You do know that you have to request permission from high command to be allowed to fire anything more powerfull than a .50 cal. As strange as it might sound for you, even if you're in the deepest shit ever, if the General said no, then suck it up and live with it. A 2Lt do not have the level of autority needed to do so.

Thirdly, we need something to attract instead of necessitate having a commander. The commander rally point was a good idea. May I propose a different but similar one?
1) Is it possible to place a ?commander? FOB (2 crates requires still) with no bonuses, other than they are not de-activated by proximity to enemy troops? This would represent a garrisoned building acting as a forward base of operations for the platoon. The one advantage of always spawning until knifed or destroyed may seem small, but believe me, is almost a game changer.
2) If the above is not possible, then how about removing the conditions surrounding the current commander rally a little? Needing only 1 sql with you can really make a difference.

R-Dev are well aware that C.O. need feature, take 2 , having a SL with the CO would mean that an entire squad will be lonewolf without anything else to do than walk around... And officer have Sergeant Major, not an other officer. Yes they got 2iC and all the thing, but there arent always together.

Last, if either, or all, of the above suggestions aren?t/are adopted, then how about a basic carrot approach? Giving the commander a unique weapon or way of using it is vital for making it more appealing. Better GLTDs? Ground deployed UAV (the tiny ones that are carried in backpacks maybe)? Hell, a desert eagle sidegun would at least give the commander an appeal of ?battle presence?.

Having a commander on the field is entirely unrealistic, if a unit/brigade/division/etc lose he's commander it would be a BIG mess. Commander place is in the command post =)

This conclude by ?inspired? breakdown and re-assembly of the commander position. I would love to see you guys expand on this some. Any idea is welcomed!

Yes i agree that CO have to be more attractive, but for many reason listed above, the CO is not the coolest job... since you can't have a real strategy, you dont have a battle plan, you dont have all the ressource a real CO have, giving it a DEagle ( wich is also entirely unrealistic since every single soldier from PVT to 5 Star generals are issued the same weapons. ) or any uber thing wont fix it... Being CO mean that you can command an army, very very very little one in PR but still, you are suppose to command, not be on the front line.

I'm sorry if i might look rude, this is not my intention, i do think that my post is a constructive answer to your. But like i said, i agree on the basic thing : CO need to have something more attractive, but Player are hardcoded, and realism is predominant.

[Operator009]

No the real problem of being commander is the "i dont give a fuck about you" attitude from many squad leader.

I agree, which is why I mentioned it further down my suggestion.

There is special feature, like UAV, laser designation, markers, etc... R-Dev are well aware that C.O. need some stuff. But if they restrain it like it was in 0.8 there is abuse from "n00b selfish" CO that where denying deployment, or that where AFAK or deploying assets in pointless area, it can still happen but aleast with 9 squad there is 9 chance that somone do it right. And in PR the CO is equal to something like a Lt. Col.

I'm not suggesting the squad leaders need permission from commander to do what they want. On the contrary, in fact. Perhaps you misread my suggestion a little? I remember .8 too and I hated that aspect of it.
P.S. I don't really know the specific breakdown of armed forces (esp the army) that well, but is a Lt.Col only in charge of 32 people? Without going into crazy specifics, I based my info on Army Chain of Command (Organization) .

You dont seems to realy know the basement of an army, its more like : Pointman -> Fireteam -> Squad -> Platoon -> Company -> Battalion -> Regiment -> Brigade -> Group-Brigade -> Division -> Corps.

Army Chain of Command (Organization)

You cannot compare in ANY way a 2Lt with a 1 star general that command a brigade. And the community is well aware that a senior NCO would fit the SL position more effiently than an officier, but on the other hand it have to be scaled down since an officer would have to lead 4 squad to be "realistic". But keep in mind that in war, especialy on the battlefield, even a lance corporal can be the on the spot commander. [ That would mean this is a very bad day, but still even a private with a hook can be the highest rank in the squad when things go wrong. ]

There is such a thing as scaling down and there is such a thing as reduction. You cannot multiply players, therefore, you can never really scale them up or down. You can scale distance, buildings, even scale the tickets. You can never scale the player. To do so is to invite imbalance.

Never the less, I agree with your statement, you cannot compare a 2Lt to a 1star. Which is why I don't, and in fact, suggest to 'show' that difference.

No, you dont have defined what a commander is cause a 2Lt will never lead infantry, armor and aviation all at the same time. Never. Usaly a 2Lt will barely know how to lead at all since they just get out of the school. This is why 2Lt have W.O. overlooking every thing they do, giving them advice and make sure they dont do anything stupid.

As far as I knew, a 2lt leads a platoon. So he does kind of lead infantry...not sure about vehicles and aircraft though so ya got me there.

I.R.L. 2Lt are on the bfield... Only Major and higher stay in CP. 2Lt, Lt and Cpt always have boots on the ground like grunts.

which is what I propose we do, by allowing a PR 'commander' to be more mobile.

Of course a 2Lt wont stay in the CP, in PR the Co like i said about is atleast a Lt-Col.

I must disagree about this. I took my info from here Army Chain of Command (Organization)

summarized '...Battalion - 300 to 1,000 soldiers. Four to six companies make up a battalion, which is normally commanded by a lieutenant colonel with a command sergeant major as principle NCO assistant...'

Already feasable, select a squad in caplock and then press SQUAD in chat and you will be able to only talk to them. Any other way of doing so is hardcoded.

If its hardcoded its hardcoded. Mumble will have to supplement I guess.

You mean listen to the squad comms ? If so this is entirely unrealistic, you have a dedicated radio network for you're troop and a dedicated network for the CoC. Otherwise the network wont be usable or readable at all.

Lol, no I did not mean listen to the coms. I meant access the the radio all squad leaders have as a weapon slot.

Like said above a Lt-Col wont be in the field during a conflict, especialy since they got plenty of toy like UAV, SATIMG, DATA link etc...

Indeed, a Lt.Col wouldn't be in the field.

You do know that you have to request permission from high command to be allowed to fire anything more powerfull than a .50 cal. As strange as it might sound for you, even if you're in the deepest shit ever, if the General said no, then suck it up and live with it. A 2Lt do not have the level of autority needed to do so.

Excellent, lets also make CAS call in their shots as well. The miniguns on the BH too, not to mention jets. There is realism and there is gameplay. One will always beat the other, and in PR's case...well...I don't have to tell you do I?

R-Dev are well aware that C.O. need feature, take 2 , having a SL with the CO would mean that an entire squad will be lonewolf without anything else to do than walk around... And officer have Sergeant Major, not an other officer. Yes they got 2iC and all the thing, but there arent always together.

It could lead to that, or it could lead to a commander sticking to the other squads...
Just because its a feature dont assume people will use to stupidly...umm...dont quote me on that one though.

Having a commander on the field is entirely unrealistic, if a unit/brigade/division/etc lose he's commander it would be a BIG mess. Commander place is in the command post =)

Gameplay > Realism
And a 2nd LT's place is by his platoon.

Yes i agree that CO have to be more attractive, but for many reason listed above, the CO is not the coolest job... since you can't have a real strategy, you dont have a battle plan, you dont have all the ressource a real CO have, giving it a DEagle ( wich is also entirely unrealistic since every single soldier from PVT to 5 Star generals are issued the same weapons. ) or any uber thing wont fix it... Being CO mean that you can command an army, very very very little one in PR but still, you are suppose to command, not be on the front line.

The desert eagle comment in my original post for for emphasis...anything to make the commander more distinct will always attract more players to this role.

But I disagree. I think we can MAKE the CO the coolest job, within the boundaries of realism.

I'm sorry if i might look rude, this is not my intention, i do think that my post is a constructive answer to your. But like i said, i agree on the basic thing : CO need to have something more attractive, but Player are hardcoded, and realism is predominant.

Constructive Criticism is always appreciated.

[ShockUnitBlack]

I really don't think we can take a hard look at the commander until the UAV is fixed....

[Dev1200]

Changing the command structure is hardcoded (There can only be Squads, Squad leaders, and commanders) iirc.

Once of the UAV is back, the commander will be critical. You can spot enemy positions and armor, lase targets, spot mortars, firebases, tow emplacements, possible caches caches, etc. It is imperative to use in game.




On a side note, +1 for commander desert eagles.