[Discussion] Basic PR Rules

[bren]

First of all, I hope it is fine to discuss this here (@Mods) in these forums.

Disclaimer: I don't want this thread to go in the direction of discussing the server and it's pros and/or cons. This thread is strictly me and the rest of the PR Community talking about rules generally in all servers. We are not giving feedback, we are just discussing.

If anyone has a genuine issue that needs to be brought up to my attention you can PM me or visit us on teamspeak, or even contact us in our forums.

As you all may know, I run the "Free Candy Van" server. (blah blah blah) There are massive rule changes coming soon to enhance teamwork & prevent things like baserape where people push the rules we currently have set up to an extent to where it is creating much in-game controversy and drama.

I wanted to discuss (with the community) these rules to hear everyone's voice to have a better insight on when we are changing them up so they fit PR standard that is balanced.

"Baserape"
Should baserape be allowed? Currently it only is permitted when a team is capped out (only applying to AAS).
Proposition: Make baserape allowed only if an objective (applying to both AAS and INS) that is in play is within a 25% radius of the full map size. (ex. If there is a cache 175 meters of the U.S. main in Korengal then baserape is allowed.)

"Commander's Role"/"Teamwork Application via Player"
We understand that typically a commander is usually the guy that sits at main with the UAV most of the time, is that really worth being a commander, though? Should a commander be more intuitive on the ground as well? Should he always be on comms? Should all people in the game have the basic qualities of PR teamwork or else they can be removed? Such as comms, common sense, and a sense of humor? (hehe).
Proposition: Enforce all players to have common sense of the Objective/Gametype that is being played by the server and to also be active on comms.

"MECHINF Squads"
MECHINF squads have been around in PR for a very, very long time. As well as the controversy it brings in-game. I'm drawing a blank on this one, right where it stands it seems like the APC squad gets it all but they may grant APC rights to one APC to the mechinf squad.
Proposition: Undecided

I hope this is fine discussing this type of stuff in this area of the forums. If not the mods are perfectly fine with closing it, again if it is allowed then I would like everyone to follow the disclaimer and stay under neutral grounds here and not use names of servers. If you have an issue with mine or that server keep it on their forums in the safety of the threads' direction. And again, this is me as a player talking to everyone else as a player.

[StevePl4y5]

About the baserape thing, it's complicated. You have to take in factors such as: Is the base capable or not? Are there objectives/emplacements/high value assets near it? Are they shooting from it? Should we promote gameplay and fun or realism?

Not allowing baserape when the losing team is outcapped is going to extend the round for no reason, the losing team will never be able to fight back, because even if the other team doesn't baserape them, they'll be camping all the exit routes. It ends up being more frustrating for the losing team, because they can get out of the base, but they can't go far. And it just ends up being a very frustating loss. But then again, the defending team can also put a very good fight at the end.

And what about skirmish? Skirmish, especialy Asad Khal, is horrible when it comes to baseraping, I remember once there was a huge discussion over this on a server when we were seeding. We were shooting out of main because they were shooting at us, but as soon as we shot back, they were allowed to shoot at us. This ended up in a huge vicious cycle, resulting in a lot of people rage quiting, and taking more time to seed.

About the second proposition, heck yeah, it's done on that Teamwork event I can never remember the exact name of and it's beautiful. It's tricky to apply tho, because it requires a lot more admins, and a lot more focus from them. It's almost impossible for admins to actually play when they have to enforce that rule.

About the MECHINF, most of the time, on public servers, APC Squads are U S E L E S S. I much rather have a MECHINF than an APC squad. On the rare ocasions that APC squad colaborates with INF squads on pub matches, the communication between the squads is always worse compared to the communication whittin a squad. In my book, MECHINF squads should have priority, especially since the guys that want to lead both an APC and an Infantry Section are usually better leaders than the guys that want to drive around in an APC getting as many kills as possible. But we all know it can't be like that, so I think whoever creates the squad first has priority over the assets. Then players should be mature enought to distribute assets between both squads, MECHINF doesn't need as many APCs as the APC squad does. So maybe a 2-5 ratio of APCs, 2 for the MECHINF, and 3 for the APC squad, if there are only 4 APCs, 3 for the APC squad, 1 for he MECHINF.

[Jacksonez__]

APC Squads are U S E L E S S.

How come? When I'm driving APC, I'm trying to support infantry instead of driving to front. You are generalizing it too much. I'm okay with that the MECINF squad can have one APC. If they take e.g BTR-60 in the beginning of the match, they are not allowed to switch to e.g BMP-2 in the middle of the match. They stick with the BTR-60.

[UTurista]

About the MECHINF, most of the time, on public servers, APC Squads are U S E L E S S. I much rather have a MECHINF than an APC squad.

MECHINF > APC, no question about it.

BUT

I would say 85% of the 'MECHINF' Sqs are just regular infantry squads wasting APCs.

Case example, most Squad Leaders are the crew for the APC, and unless theres a second leader (for the infantry) that's just a waste.

But why are we discussing rules of a server in General PR Discussion??

[Psyrus]

But why are we discussing rules of a server in General PR Discussion??

It's not about just a single server.


For example, I'd love to see that silly "no squads before X" timer standardized... this ridiculous situation of "wait is this HOG, it's 2:00 right? No idiot this is CIA it's 2:30! Wait, aren't we on FCV it's 1:30" or something, it's just silly.

[StevePl4y5]

How come? When I'm driving APC, I'm trying to support infantry instead of driving to front. You are generalizing it too much. I'm okay with that the MECINF squad can have one APC. If they take e.g BTR-60 in the beginning of the match, they are not allowed to switch to e.g BMP-2 in the middle of the match. They stick with the BTR-60.

most of the time, on public servers, APC Squads are U S E L E S S

That's what I said.

If you're doing that: GREAT. But a lot of times, the guys racing for the APC squad at the beginning of the round are just some guys who want to secure their spot in an APC squad, and don't even care about Squad Leading. And even if they aren't, most of the times the guy leading the APC squad won't support the infantry. And if he does, the infantry won't support the APC, which is also necessary.

MECHINF > APC, no question about it.

BUT

I would say 85% of the 'MECHINF' Sqs are just regular infantry squads wasting APCs.

Case example, most Squad Leaders are the crew for the APC, and unless theres a second leader (for the infantry) that's just a waste.

But why are we discussing rules of a server in General PR Discussion??

Of course that happens too, a lot of the times guys with the right mind set will create a MECHINF squad, but they don't have the knowledge of how to lead one. The right way to organize a MECHINF squad is: 2 Crewmen (not the SL, one of them being the APC Commander), 5 men INF Section (one of them being the Section Leader), and 1 Officer (ofc, the SL) attached to the INF Section. This is following my SL mindset of fireteams, of course the SL could be the leader of the INF Section, but I think it's just harder if the SL has to micromanage the members of the squad.

And btw, sorry for probably going a bit out of topic.

[StoneClaw]

APC squads, if played correctly are VERY powerful. I found that one of the best applications for an APC squad with multiple APCs is to wolfpack and attack enemy armour that is secluded from the rest of the team. Removing enemy armour from the playing field can give the team a vast tactical advantage, being able to deploy trucks and infantry safetly. However this almost impossible if there is no commander/ commander isn't working with APC squad.

Assuming this is the case and there is no commander, an APC in a Mechanized Infantry Squad, is a great force multiplier too. It has high mobility and awesome suppression capabilities. Using the APC to flank or suppress the attacking enemy forces is an effective tactic. On the other hand, when attacking along with infantry the APC is near useless. The enemies are likely entrenched and have LAT or HAT ready for when the APC comes into view. As a means of transport, it's not that great either since it is very loud and obvious, and having the infantry inside just risks giving the enemy a great multi-kill. I have seen MECHINF squads operating and their success/fail rate depended on whether they were attacking or defending. The results prove my point.

Also, what says that MECHINF squads get an APC? Surely they should work together with the APC squad, but stick to infatry. This means that the Squad Leader doesn't die with the APC, and the MECHINF squad can continue to operate as a squad almost unaffected by the loss of the APC. Because, let's face it, the Squad Leader always takes driver/gunner in the APC, and most of the time, dies with it.

I believe that the commonly accepted rule should be that the APC and MECHINF co-operate, and the MECHINF squad only gets an APC if co-operation with the APC squad is not available.

Finally, MEC INF should not be recognized as Mechanized Infantry because MEC is almost always used to refer to the Middle-Easter-Coalition faction.

[StevePl4y5]

APC squads, if played correctly are VERY powerful. I found that one of the best applications for an APC squad with multiple APCs is to wolfpack and attack enemy armour that is secluded from the rest of the team. Removing enemy armour from the playing field can give the team a vast tactical advantage, being able to deploy trucks and infantry safetly. However this almost impossible if there is no commander/ commander isn't working with APC squad.

Assuming this is the case and there is no commander, an APC in a Mechanized Infantry Squad, is a great force multiplier too. It has high mobility and awesome suppression capabilities. Using the APC to flank or suppress the attacking enemy forces is an effective tactic. On the other hand, when attacking along with infantry the APC is near useless. The enemies are likely entrenched and have LAT or HAT ready for when the APC comes into view. As a means of transport, it's not that great either since it is very loud and obvious, and having the infantry inside just risks giving the enemy a great multi-kill. I have seen MECHINF squads operating and their success/fail rate depended on whether they were attacking or defending. The results prove my point.

Also, what says that MECHINF squads get an APC? Surely they should work together with the APC squad, but stick to infatry. This means that the Squad Leader doesn't die with the APC, and the MECHINF squad can continue to operate as a squad almost unaffected by the loss of the APC. Because, let's face it, the Squad Leader always takes driver/gunner in the APC, and most of the time, dies with it.

I believe that the commonly accepted rule should be that the APC and MECHINF co-operate, and the MECHINF squad only gets an APC if co-operation with the APC squad is not available.

Finally, MEC INF should not be recognized as Mechanized Infantry because MEC is almost always used to refer to the Middle-Easter-Coalition faction.

You finally made a forum account!

When the MECH INF squad gets an APC, it usually implies that they're in communication with the APC squad, since I don't know any server that has a rule adressing this issue. So whenever a MECHINF and an APC squad coexist, they're "forced" to cooperate. In real life, you don't have MECHINF squads, you have MECH INF companies, battalions or platoons. Those companies/battalions/platoons will have Infantry Squads, and 1 APC attached to that Infantry Squad. Now, a PR team is more or less platoon sized, so having separate INF squads and APC squads working together is both the realistic and the ideal option. Unfortunantly it's not that simple is it? Also, player mentality aside, APCs only have 6 seats for infantry, which adds even more points to a MECH INF squad Versus an APC Squad colaborating with INF.

Going back on topic, I suggest, to avoid too much conflict ingame, that: APCs are entitled to the APC/IFV squad (since they're sorta considered the same thing in PR), and MECH INF squads have to get permition from the APC squad to use an APC, and everytime the MECH INF loses an APC, they have to ask permission for another APC. Now, to not completely ruin the scheme for the MECH INF squad, and to promote teamwork even more. Whenever there's an APC and a MECH INF squad, the APC squad should be "forced" to colaborate with the MECH INF squad by means of transporting them and providing support fire.

[StoneClaw]

In my opinion, the debate about commander is a simple one.

Firstly, UAV trailer is the most powerful asset on the team. While unarmed, it can be used to watch everything on the map, and can never be destroyed.

In my whole history of PR, I have never seen the commander properly command squads. As in how they actually do IRL. Most I've seen is the occasional "Please destroy this FOB", "Go attack/defend....". BUT, I don't believe that that is what commander should do.

An undeserving commander would be one that literally does nothing. If a commander spots a FOB, an APC or Tank, etc. that means that your team automatically has an advantage because you know at least roughly where the enemy is. If a commander actually communicates, works with the APC and Tank squad, and generally tells everyone about the strength of the enemy forces, and their manouvres, you have great commander.

Ideally, you'd have the commander plan the whole battle out, tell everyone exactly what to do, and have the battle won in 20 minutes flat. Unfortunately, that is impossible. As you may realize, battle plans are not created in the three minutes intermission, mainly because by that time you don't know what squad you will have and their reliability. It is also impossible to command people to do stuff while they are in main, rushing for the tanks or logies.

Say that everyone got into a squad by 03:00, and the commander has the Operations Playbook by his side, there always is that one unresponsive squad, or the guy who doesn't trust commander's judgement and decides to do his own thing. Commander is powerless there and admins won't enforce his orders. So yes, you want the commander to act like one, but would you actually follow his commands to the letter? No, no you wouldn't. As a commander myself, I have only been able to put up suggestions for squad, and maybe the odd "Noooo, just leave the flag, go defend....". As soon as I start taking command, people start acting like I'm attacking their human rights:

Me: Squad 4, I though we agreed you would build a FOB in M6
SQ4: Yeah, the logi has been destroyed though. We need to cap Hotel, too.
Me: No, Squad 1 and 2 are attacking Hotel and they're doing good. There's another logi at main, come take it and build the FOB, please
*~60 seconds pass, SQ4 still at Hotel*
Me: Squad 4? Are you gonna get the logi?
*No response*
Me: Their tanks are gonna flank you if you don't get TOW up in M6. We NEED that TOW THERE.
SQ4: How do you know. They might just drive through the town?
Me: Because [NameWitheld] and [NameWitheld] are on the server. They ALWAYS go tank squad on Marlin, and they always flank like that.
SQ4: Can't you build it?
Me: Just build the FOB, it ain't hard.
SQ3: Commander, can you try to find the enemy mortars?
Me: Yeah, sure. Give me a minute
*Few minutes pass, Squad Leader 4 gets hit by tank shell*
SQ4: What the... ... there's fucking enemy tank on the hill to the east.
SQ1 (Admin): Yeah, there's a tank and APC on the hill near L....6 keypad 8
SQ4: What the fuck, StoneClaw, you could have told us!

Me: Dude, I fucking told you to build that FOB. I told you they will flank, and a freaking TOW would have stopped them!
SQ4: This is fucking ridiculous...
SQ1 (Admin): Stop fighting guys.
SQ4: Why didn't you build it yourself. You just let them f**king kill us.
Me: I told you to do it, and you didn't, this is the outcome of not following orders
SQ4: ... f**kin' retarded
*Admin warns him*
SQ4: I don't mo**erf**king have to fucking do what you f**ktards tell me to. Just go f**k...
*Squad Leader 4 gets banned*
Me: I'm gonna take a break

This is one of the more extreme examples, but I think it's very effective at proving my point. People don't follow orders that they don't want to follow. They might not start swearing, but they don't follow, and that's that. It gets to a point where you either fully take command or just keep spotting. It's extremely likely that the squad won't follow orders, and there is nothing I can do about it. In my opinion, you should just be glad that you have a commander that is communicating and spotting, asking more of them puts them under pressure that they don't need.

[StevePl4y5]

In my opinion, the debate about commander is a simple one.

Firstly, UAV trailer is the most powerful asset on the team. While unarmed, it can be used to watch everything on the map, and can never be destroyed.

In my whole history of PR, I have never seen the commander properly command squads. As in how they actually do IRL. Most I've seen is the occasional "Please destroy this FOB", "Go attack/defend....". BUT, I don't believe that that is what commander should do.

An undeserving commander would be one that literally does nothing. If a commander spots a FOB, an APC or Tank, etc. that means that your team automatically has an advantage because you know at least roughly where the enemy is. If a commander actually communicates, works with the APC and Tank squad, and generally tells everyone about the strength of the enemy forces, and their manouvres, you have great commander.

Ideally, you'd have the commander plan the whole battle out, tell everyone exactly what to do, and have the battle won in 20 minutes flat. Unfortunately, that is impossible. As you may realize, battle plans are not created in the three minutes intermission, mainly because by that time you don't know what squad you will have and their reliability. It is also impossible to command people to do stuff while they are in main, rushing for the tanks or logies.

Say that everyone got into a squad by 03:00, and the commander has the Operations Playbook by his side, there always is that one unresponsive squad, or the guy who doesn't trust commander's judgement and decides to do his own thing. Commander is powerless there and admins won't enforce his orders. So yes, you want the commander to act like one, but would you actually follow his commands to the letter? No, no you wouldn't. As a commander myself, I have only been able to put up suggestions for squad, and maybe the odd "Noooo, just leave the flag, go defend....". As soon as I start taking command, people start acting like I'm attacking their human rights:

Me: Squad 4, I though we agreed you would build a FOB in M6
SQ4: Yeah, the logi has been destroyed though. We need to cap Hotel, too.
Me: No, Squad 1 and 2 are attacking Hotel and they're doing good. There's another logi at main, come take it and build the FOB, please
*~60 seconds pass, SQ4 still at Hotel*
Me: Squad 4? Are you gonna get the logi?
*No response*
Me: Their tanks are gonna flank you if you don't get TOW up in M6. We NEED that TOW THERE.
SQ4: How do you know. They might just drive through the town?
Me: Because [NameWitheld] and [NameWitheld] are on the server. They ALWAYS go tank squad on Marlin, and they always flank like that.
SQ4: Can't you build it?
Me: Just build the FOB, it ain't hard.
SQ3: Commander, can you try to find the enemy mortars?
Me: Yeah, sure. Give me a minute
*Few minutes pass, Squad Leader 4 gets hit by tank shell*
SQ4: What the... ... there's fucking enemy tank on the hill to the east.
SQ1 (Admin): Yeah, there's a tank and APC on the hill near L....6 keypad 8
SQ4: What the fuck, StoneClaw, you could have told us!

Me: Dude, I fucking told you to build that FOB. I told you they will flank, and a freaking TOW would have stopped them!
SQ4: This is fucking ridiculous...
SQ1 (Admin): Stop fighting guys.
SQ4: Why didn't you build it yourself. You just let them f**king kill us.
Me: I told you to do it, and you didn't, this is the outcome of not following orders
SQ4: ... f**kin' retarded
*Admin warns him*
SQ4: I don't mo**erf**king have to fucking do what you f**ktards tell me to. Just go f**k...
*Squad Leader 4 gets banned*
Me: I'm gonna take a break

This is one of the more extreme examples, but I think it's very effective at proving my point. People don't follow orders that they don't want to follow. They might not start swearing, but they don't follow, and that's that. It gets to a point where you either fully take command or just keep spotting. It's extremely likely that the squad won't follow orders, and there is nothing I can do about it. In my opinion, you should just be glad that you have a commander that is communicating and spotting, asking more of them puts them under pressure that they don't need.

In my humble opinion, servers should have rules enforcing teamwork and communication between squads and commander.

[CR8Z]

Should baserape be allowed?

No, never. DOD was put in place for a reason. I've never had a positive experience being on either side of the coin. It's just not fun for the losing team, and lacks skill and class on the winning team. I would rather have an admin forward the map.

"Commander's Role"/"Teamwork Application via Player"

I don't quite understand what you're asking here, but I think that the admins should enforce the Commander rule, whereby SLs are forced to follow the COs orders, or be resigned/kicked from the server. If the CO is not competent, he should be instructed, resigned, or SLs should vote him off the island with a mutiny.

Trying to admin "common sense" into people makes even less sense. As one can infer from these forums, there are literally thousands of pages of opposing views of "common sense". A flanking maneuver by one squad might appear to be a waste of time by another.

More to the point, I personally don't like my movements and orders to be "admin'd" in the absence of a CO. I am more than willing to work with others, but so long as my squad is having fun, we are working towards a common objective, and we are not griefing others, please don't tell me what you think I should be doing. Try asking for my assistance.

I've had this argument many times on these forums, and I know it falls on deaf ears, but I sure like stating my opinions.

"MECHINF Squads"

One of my biggest pet peeves. I prefer the old TG rules on named squads, whereby named squads had no weight. An inf squad could take a tank or CAS or an APC. First come, first served, UNLESS a CO ordered otherwise. As long as folks were communicating, things usually ended up okay in the end, and the asset whores had to share a little bit more.

That said, I realize that the named squads do help identify assets and such on the battlefield. However, a mechinf squad should have equal right to an APC, whichever variety, as an APC squad. I would propose allowing one MechInf squad, and one APC squad per side. Let them communicate with each other and figure it out, or let them race to the APC and the fastest legs win the armor. TK'ing for assets gets you booted from the server.

[Murphy]

The problem with most "Mech Inf" squads is that they tend to care less about the asset, and end up putting the APC in a situation it should not be in and they end up having fancy transportation that blows up shortly after arriving at the destination. I've even seen Mech Inf squads abandon tracked/damaged APCs in order to consolidate their troops, a strictly APC squad would never commit such a heinous crime against tickets. The direct communication between SL and APC crew is hindered by the other 5 people in the squad talking about their contact, and you end up with an APC that is less effective supporting an Infantry Squad that is less effective.

Leave the Mech Inf for books and real life, the theories posted here are mostly THEORY and the words and plans go to shit the second an enemy LAT shows up. It just rarely works out as planned and a dedicated APC squad will always yield better results, we have the most robust communication system of any game (local/squad/SL/Commander) don't be lazy and use it to call for help instead of just saying "Those damned asset whores don't care about infantry".

[bren]

"MECHINF Squads"

One of my biggest pet peeves. I prefer the old TG rules on named squads, whereby named squads had no weight. An inf squad could take a tank or CAS or an APC. First come, first served, UNLESS a CO ordered otherwise. As long as folks were communicating, things usually ended up okay in the end, and the asset whores had to share a little bit more.

That said, I realize that the named squads do help identify assets and such on the battlefield. However, a mechinf squad should have equal right to an APC, whichever variety, as an APC squad. I would propose allowing one MechInf squad, and one APC squad per side. Let them communicate with each other and figure it out, or let them race to the APC and the fastest legs win the armor. TK'ing for assets gets you booted from the server.

I've played on TG before but only when I was a hardcore infantry type of player, now I'm a bit mixed. Even if people were to act like idiots and TK eachother for the assets it would be more complication for the moderation of the round.

[CR8Z]

As I've seen very few mech inf squads actually run, I guess I can only comment on the times that I've run mechinf, and the times that I've seen it run, and it was brilliant. There were also some mistakes made, sure, but I've seen just as many cockamamie APC squads do stupid and random things with their APCs that would make you cry. I'm sure you have too. MechInf squads will never get better if they aren't allowed to try.

Whenever I see an APC squad, they are usually off by themselves, nowhere near the team or the flags, and they may or may not be racking up kills. I don't see how this is helpful or in the spirit of teamwork. I'm also sure that this doesn't happen all the time.

My point is, (and this speaks to brenn4n as well), let people play the game the way they want. If they are ruining it for everybody and people are leaving the server, then take action. But if there are some PR experts out there with different opinions, let them have their opinions, but not necessarily the asset.

[mat552]

The use of mumble and the squad leader spotting radio has made the commander totally obsolete in every function except as the UAV driver. He is a hinderance on many maps, a player who could be holding a rifle on the front line but isn't.

The source of the commander's power used to be his unique ability to fuse all incoming data from squadleaders and coordinate the team. Why bother trying to have a chain of command when you can have a pow-wow with all squadleaders anywhere at any time?

[PLODDITHANLEY]

"Baserape"
Should baserape be allowed? Currently it only is permitted when a team is capped out (only applying to AAS).
Proposition: Make baserape allowed only if an objective (applying to both AAS and INS) that is in play is within a 25% radius of the full map size. (ex. If there is a cache 175 meters of the U.S. main in Korengal then baserape is allowed.)

"Commander's Role"/"Teamwork Application via Player"
We understand that typically a commander is usually the guy that sits at main with the UAV most of the time, is that really worth being a commander, though? Should a commander be more intuitive on the ground as well? Should he always be on comms? Should all people in the game have the basic qualities of PR teamwork or else they can be removed? Such as comms, common sense, and a sense of humor? (hehe).
Proposition: Enforce all players to have common sense of the Objective/Gametype that is being played by the server and to also be active on comms.

"MECHINF Squads"
MECHINF squads have been around in PR for a very, very long time. As well as the controversy it brings in-game. I'm drawing a blank on this one, right where it stands it seems like the APC squad gets it all but they may grant APC rights to one APC to the mechinf squad.
Proposition: Undecided

1. Baserape - No so no shooting out or in, except when capped out

2. CO - I CO often and as it's a game I only feel able to command SL's that are open to it, otherwise try to work with them and help doing what they want to do. Must follow CO's rule is theoretically great until you get an asshat CO.

3. Mechinf - Allow happens rarely but is fun and makes a change which is why we play after all maybe only APCs not IFV's. On many 4km maps infantry ends up stranded, mechinf in theory allows all round mobility.

Suggestion - Squads - Player spaces are limited on a full 100p server, so squads should only be locked for genuine reason and Freekits SLs should be shot allowing a serious SL to create an effective squad in its place.

[K4on]

For the 'APC squads do not teamwork' arguers here, dont you really think it is depending on the invidual players? Hence why on our server APC squads and MECHINF squads enjoy the same privilege.

[Psyrus]

The use of mumble and the squad leader spotting radio has made the commander totally obsolete in every function except as the UAV driver. He is a hinderance on many maps, a player who could be holding a rifle on the front line but isn't.

The source of the commander's power used to be his unique ability to fuse all incoming data from squadleaders and coordinate the team. Why bother trying to have a chain of command when you can have a pow-wow with all squadleaders anywhere at any time?

That is such a narrowminded view on the position.

Squad leaders are generally focused on their micro-battle, with some regard to the team as a whole. The commander on the other hand has the leisure of focusing on the macro battle, while taking into account the micro-battles of each squad. This is a far more comprehensive view of the battlefield and gives the person (if they are able to use their brain) a much better chance of coordinating the team in an effective way.

Also, just because someone is commander doesn't mean they can't be on the front either, unless you believe some of the twats in game who think the commander is -10 tickets or +10 intel for the blufor or any of those other myths, or that he should be their personal spotter.

I'm sorry you haven't experienced an effective commander, but as someone who SLs almost every round and occasionally does commanding, I can tell you with authority that a decent commander pulls a reasonable team together far more effectively than mumble can.

[bren]

In reality it depends on the person. Only if having a commander was a standard and only if the commander could be the one that ultimately decides these things.

[Frontliner]

Baserape:

..... does this really need to be addressed? I know there's ***** out there who need the kill counter to be high to boost their ego, but I think any normal person knows what's fair - and what's plain cheap.

Commander role:

Man the UAV until they finally decide to nerf that son of a *****, and report incoming hostiles. That's all I need you for.

MechInf:

Let them have an APC per squad for reasons of transportation and fire support. It's annoying to have 2 members being left behind, restrict your squad to 6 players only(because you can't fit in more) or request 2 APCs at once.