Project Reality Forums

Wing Walker wrote:The main feature of any commander is "command".

The PR-commander does not command anything, any feature meant to tell people what to do is impractical fluff.

The only practical aspects of the PR-commander role are the functional one, spotting things on the map, or UAVs.

In the real world this is not a commander, its units like USMC Force Recon, or the Scout Snipers.

In fact, SL does not trust someone who is at the mainbase wanting to give orders. So I did a test modification, which can enhance the look of the combatant commander, SL wants to follow a leader who is with them in the "hell", not a bureaucratic who is in the comfort of the mainbase.

VIDEO DEMO (in Brazilian Portuguese):

Wing Walker wrote:People don't care what the commander says because he is no different than any other person that is just sitting around playing a game.

There is no special qualification for someone to be the commander.

I'm just riff'n off the dome here--what if the commander had to be voted in by the majority of his team? Just as a mutiny triggers a team-wide vote, how about someone applying for commander does the same? Maybe that will create some buy-in from the team and also filter out any players that are undesirable in that role.

The commander must motivate the team for moral not just use him for his abilitys alone

communistman wrote:I'm just riff'n off the dome here--what if the commander had to be voted in by the majority of his team? Just as a mutiny triggers a team-wide vote, how about someone applying for commander does the same? Maybe that will create some buy-in from the team and also filter out any players that are undesirable in that role.

One solution would be to increase the mutiny time to 120 minutes or more (default is 15 minutes). Thus, whoever is excluded from the command can not return.

MOSES! wrote:The commander must motivate the team for moral not just use him for his abilitys alone

I also believe!

The initial idea of creating a "Generals Officer" who is at the base giving orders does not work on the Reality Project. And then we see only UAV operators and not commanders. And when the maps do not have a UAV, there is no commander (they avoid stress).

I believe that the position of commander is more attractive to experienced players, is to lower the "generals officer" to the "lieutenant colonel". And for this we must add the SL functions to the commander and return his counter of frags among others.

In this video demonstrates a test in the cooperative mode of how would be a Lieutenant-Colonel in Project Reality with the same functions of an SL.

You know there will be drama when the Commander starts kicking squad leaders.

Raklodder wrote:You know there will be drama when the Commander starts kicking squad leaders.

No kicks ... the "Lieutenant Colonel" only sends orders (Attack, Defense, Build and Observe), makes marks on the map (create brienfig) and has the same SL combat abilities.

If the squad leaders will respect you, this will depend on your front-line job as "Lieutenant-Colonel."

And if a squad leader accompanies you, it is already a victory within your command.

I don't think the solution to the commander being underplayed is to make it a field commander.

Making the commander more involved in the overall battle, thus increasing the "fun" factor to commanders.

You guys are over-complicating things, there's a chain of command where the squad members follow the orders of the SL and the SL should follow the order of the Commander. That is how it works, the Commander should give intel and tell SLs what to do with organization and cooperation.

Sure, SLs could give ideas but it would be up to the Commander to accept or reject. If the Commander tells you to build a fob in A1 or defend a flag, just fucking do it. It would be the same if every squad member didn't listen to a SL, it would be chaos.

The icons that OP posted would aid in efficient communication between Commander and SLs removing useless mumble chatter.

that's a good way of telling things flyingr

FlyingR wrote:You guys are over-complicating things, there's a chain of command where the squad members follow the orders of the SL and the SL should follow the order of the Commander. That is how it works, the Commander should give intel and tell SLs what to do with organization and cooperation.

Sure, SLs could give ideas but it would be up to the Commander to accept or reject. If the Commander tells you to build a fob in A1 or defend a flag, just fucking do it.

In the actual military, yeah that's how it works. But PR is a video game available to anyone with half a brain and a computer from 2005. There's no guarantee that the person who takes that slot is experienced, skilled, or even reasonable. Squad leaders play to have fun just like everyone else, and face enough stress keeping their squads in order as it is. Most decent squad leaders aren't willing to subject themselves to the half-baked plans of whomever hit the 'apply' button.

What you describe is only possible when a known and respected player familiar to the SLs takes the helm. Their authority comes from their reputation and skill, not the title of the position they occupy.

FFG wrote:I don't think the solution to the commander being underplayed is to make it a field commander.

Making the commander more involved in the overall battle, thus increasing the "fun" factor to commanders.

I always play as commander, and it is not an easy task, because few leaders trust someone who is 1km away giving orders.

But I realized that when I am with the troops on the field fighting, using the Universal Rally Point most people follow what I ask. So the solution to make the commander more "attractive," is to turn him into a Lieutenant-Colonel (Superior officer with combat skills similar to Squad Leaders).

OFFTOPIC: I also suggest that remove the UAV from Project Reality, and in place put a reconnaissance aircraft (light helicopters), so the responsibility for aerial reconnaissance is for the CAS squad.

Commander Generals in Project Reality is utopia, it does not work.

communistman wrote: -snip-

I agree with you, the thing is that if the SLs expect their squad members to behave and/or follow orders then they shouldn't be hypocritical and follow what the commander says.

Everyone was a first to everything, we have to give a chance to everyone who tries to command or squad lead, it's a matter of trust and respect. If they fuck up then we should tell them and if they are fucking or trolling around we get rid of them.

Of course this won't happen because many vets think they are famous or amazing in PR so they will do keep doing whatever they want.

Anyways, still support OP's original idea with the icons and hope it actually happens!

FlyingR wrote:I agree with you, the thing is that if the SLs expect their squad members to behave and/or follow orders then they shouldn't be hypocritical and follow what the commander says.

I totally get where you're coming from. The reality is that the game doesn't work at all without squads. Period. Players must collaborate on at least the tactical scale to get anything done. As the game mechanics stand, the commander is not essential to the game working since squad leaders can handle the strategic layer by communicating amongst themselves, or adapting to battlefield events just by checking the map and using intuition.

This doesn't mean that the commander role should be ignored. It means the game mechanics ought to change so that commanders are as crucial as squad leaders. Not easy to do without opening the door to abuse or exploitative behavior.

For that type of commander style, your work is a great addition. Good stuff.

Wing Walker wrote:Personally, I would like to see a "Commander Kit" which would have certain things and just a pistol, that also once taken would prevent you from taking or picking up any other kit.

OFFTOPIC: I believe the Generals function in Project Reality does not work. The best players prefer to fight and lead, and not get stuck in the base giving orders. On the servers have many good squad leader and no commander, for being a utopian function.

Want to have good commanders? So change this current idea to something that pleases combat leaders. A combatant commander is more attractive.

In addition to field commanders, the FCV´s could be taken in to the action. Maybe give it a function to set up fobs too.

bahiakof wrote:OFFTOPIC: I believe the Generals function in Project Reality does not work. The best players prefer to fight and lead, and not get stuck in the base giving orders. On the servers have many good squad leader and no commander, for being a utopian function.

Want to have good commanders? So change this current idea to something that pleases combat leaders. A combatant commander is more attractive.

In my experience the best solution is to please both the base and front type of commander. Your contribution to the CO screen, primarily pleases the base type, which is great.

I believe the Generals function in Project Reality does not work.

Well, surely it can improve, but in overall it does work. The problem with the commander function, is the overwhelming learning curve.

The best players prefer to fight and lead, and not get stuck in the base giving orders.

The best players can be found both at and behind the front line. It is a matter of style.

Even the best squad leader can never replace the potential the commander function has embedded. Which is also why we have the CO function as an optional part of the game.

Learning curve, learning curve and learning curve. That is the problem...and perhaps also the solution?