Commander being removed?

[Cassius]

Being the commander is very involving if squadleaders play along. Each time I was commander the opposing force got steamrolled.

Of course there are those SL who wont communicate with the commander or spot, you can tell the server is full of people who logged on because they have nothing better to do right now and in that case I resign, eithier switch team to see if it is any better, switch server or try later on PR.

[Sadist_Cain]

COMMANDERS DON'T LEAD FROM THE FRONT!!!! YOU DONT PUT YOUR HIGHEST RANKING OFFICER IN CONTROL OF THE COORDINATION OF A REGIMENT OF TROOPS IN FRONT OF A LINE OF BULLETS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That aside, we had Rudd commanding our round of basrah whilest we were brits and it was one of the most amazing rounds I've played in PR and I know a lot of other folks would agree. We were running an APC/Infantry squad with the warrior.
Whilest Alpha team (inf) would be holding a secure place the CO would gimme an order to move a squad so Bravo (Apc) would move to extract them whilest alpha would pull back and secure them a drop zone.

APC would drop off squad, alpha would jump straight in and we'd be off to our next mission... Get to the squad alpha hops out and gives them hell whilest the squad gets evacuated, meanwhile alpha's sitting in the thick of the shit, APC would come get us.... Back off to our next mission as ordered by commander

When it came time to rearm I was just thankful I could hop out and have a fag for 2 minutes! constant action running back and forth for the CO

Commanders rock, Far more in this new version, Dam anyone who says otherwise

[Truism]

So if Squad A has no anti-arma capabilities but wants to report a precise position of an enemy tank... meh.

I'm sure we could go on forever about different situations where a commander would help greatly with reports, map locations etc...

The thing that wrong with this is that it assumes that the Anti-Armour assets aren't doing their Australian mandated roles properly. If they were, they would already be in a position to engage the armour, because there are only finite numbers of places that the armour can go, and be on maps that we have all played enough to know very well.

I understand what you're saying, but you didn't seem to understand what I meant about everyone doing their jobs properly.

If you learned to command, the Aussies would love you on the servers. There is no end to the help he can provide. He can only provide this help if the squad leaders actually communicate with him though. Try it again and encourage the SL's to provide you with intel, which you will provide to those that need it.

There are plenty of people who know how to command, but there are a few problems. The first is that Squad Leaders mostly don't want to be commanded, and this is fair because they do a brilliant job on bigD without needed management, making up for the easy contact with better tactical awareness. The second, is that no one wants to command, because it's no fun. The third is that, as I said, an extra rifle on the ground is more important in the style that Australian servers seem to play.

I would have thought that the way that US servers play wasn't viable, and wouldn't have understood what you were talking about before I played them. The concept of HAT sniping, for example, just doesn't hold on Australian servers. To HAT snipe, the enemy needs to keep coming from from a similar place in groups, not get dislodged, and not come after you. The first two tend not to be true in Australian servers, as movement groups are smaller (and faster, not using covering fire etc as much), and rallies tend to go down quickly as stationary defense isn't favoured (a defending squad will basically aggressively patrol to destroy rallies and so on). The final point is the most interesting thing about Australian servers. As soon as the team becomes aware that there is a HAT sniper, someone will make it their job to kill them, rambo style. And it works.

I'm not making a value call about either type, I'm just pointing out the differences in tactics that make commanders obsolete in Australia.

[MrYellow]

Had an awesome round on TG on Kashan last night. Partly due to the awesome squad I was in ofcourse, but also because we had a commander who really did his job. So if we spotted a humvee convoy going somewhere, he knew, and soon the rest of the team did too. And if we needed extraction, we could count on a helicopter coming to pick us up.

Just finished a round like that without a commander..... Not saying it's
not needed, just that with squads that know their job and watch the map it
doesn't so much if you have a "general" or not.

All I'm saying is....

Why restrict the com?

Why force him to live in the CP?

What is the reason?

Can it be changed so that a commander can be flexible and play according to
the situation/map/style instead of being forced into such a restricted
feature-set.

Give him his legs and a map at least....

-Ben

[ConSs]

I have noticed that since 0.8, number of people wanting to be commander has decreased drastically. So instead of "mobile" commander, we now have.. usually no commander at all. Sadly there are few people who want to be the coordinating part of the team. Even though I realize the point in this change, I have to disagree with it. It used to be fun (which games are all about right?) to be commander in .75, but now in .8 I find it somewhat depressing, like being locked in a cage (in this case CP).

[Sadist_Cain]

let him have a standard map I would agree with.

However I don't think he should be on the front lines

A lil add on for firebases or just leaving them as standard would be good so the commander can get in those and command from there, would be funky to defend the commander whilest he's in the forward outpost

[MrYellow]

The thing that wrong with this is that it assumes that the Anti-Armour assets aren't doing their Australian mandated roles properly.

.........

and this is fair because they do a brilliant job on bigD without needed management, making up for the easy contact with better tactical awareness. The second, is that no one wants to command, because it's no fun. The third is that, as I said, an extra rifle on the ground is more important in the style that Australian servers seem to play.

.....

To HAT snipe, the enemy needs to keep coming from from a similar place in groups, not get dislodged, and not come after you. The first two tend not to be true in Australian servers, as movement groups are smaller (and faster, not using covering fire etc as much), and rallies tend to go down quickly as stationary defense isn't favoured (a defending squad will basically aggressively patrol to destroy rallies and so on). The final point is the most interesting thing about Australian servers. As soon as the team becomes aware that there is a HAT sniper, someone will make it their job to kill them, rambo style. And it works.

Very good description of the differences in play..... I haven't played on
the US servers but from my OFP days with the CTI scripts I can remember
they played that very differently with a major focus on static defences.
In that style of play a commander who has had all distractions removed is
a benefit.

For us however a commander with "distractions" removed isn't an assets
worth having around. It's just not a slot anyone plays now that all his
standard FPS features are removed. It's just frustrating to try and command
from the command slot..... You're much better off being a squad leader and
using text to communicate with other squads rather then via a commander who
can't do anything but approve mortar strikes. It really just doesn't work
for us at all. Seriously, no one plays commander anymore in Australia. None.

-Ben

[space]

Ive got to agree - the commander is more or less a comms relay now, with nothing much to do. If the whole team is using ts then the com is pretty redundant, and having an extra man fighting is more use to the team. I used to command occasionally, but its just no fun anymore.
I do agree with letting the SL's do more for themselves, but it would be great if the com could be made more useful - maybe make it so that squads can only see their own squad on the map?
PS - some people posting here are the ones who defend every change to PR - I never play aussie servers for obvious reasons, but I can tell you that from my experience very few people go commander on the European servers as well, since 0.8.

[Oddsodz]

CO should now = "Communication officer" not "Commander" Because that's all he really can do now.

[Sadist_Cain]

maybe make it so that squads can only see their own squad on the map?

YES YES YES OHHHHHHH YES!!!!!

Just to hear the complaining from everyone why they can magically see other squads...

I want this, I want it now

It'd be a total noobfest without a commander and coordinated Glory with one

I think more people would like to be CO if they could have that power to see all when everyone else cant

[<1sk>Headshot]

This discussion seems to have run its course really, whatever we try to explain you categorize under change of gamestyle. If you guys can cope without a CO perfectly then why do you insist on complaining about the CO and him not being able to leave his CP? :/So you can run up to the front lines unguarded and watch what's happening? Risking putting yourself into fire and becoming useless for a few minutes while dead. Why not just use your map and ask for status reports. You ask why they are confined solely to CP post but let's hear your explanation of why they shouldn't be.

In real life Commanders are miles away from the action in secure bases they don't run around alone like some strange hybrid of tactical genius/John Rambo.

[dandred]

YES YES YES OHHHHHHH YES!!!!!

Just to hear the complaining from everyone why they can magically see other squads...

I want this, I want it now

It'd be a total noobfest without a commander and coordinated Glory with one

I think more people would like to be CO if they could have that power to see all when everyone else cant

I think that is a very good idea.....

I wonder how it would play out?

devs any input?

[Cp]

Hai,

Just wanted to say that this is like the quadrillionth thread about the same topic.

Live with it or just don't apply to be CO.


I've also come here to confirm whats been stated over and over in this thread;
The CO and I are indeed very close and he very much likes to be in me.
And he is never going to leave me.
Ever.

[Majorpain]

In real life Commanders are miles away from the action in secure bases they don't run around alone like some strange hybrid of tactical genius/John Rambo.

Not entirely true...

In a company attack the Major will be out on the ground leading his company, and a Lt-Col will be somewhere close behind managing the company attacks. They need to be close to the fight to see what is going on and to keep in comms with the leading platoon/company.

The static commander we have now is more likely to be a Brigadier (1 star) commanding a few Battalions.

*edit*
How about this proposal...

Commander can leave his post and walk around.
He can call up his tactical map out on the ground.
He can only call in Airstrikes/Mortars from his command post.
He gets a 3 minute respawn when he dies.

That way the comm can be out on the ground delivering supplies for ammo/firebases, but he gets a nice big respawn time to encourage him not to get into any firefights.

[Sadist_Cain]

Not entirely true...

In a company attack the Major will be out on the ground leading his company, and a Lt-Col will be somewhere close behind managing the company attacks. They need to be close to the fight to see what is going on and to keep in comms with the leading platoon/company.

That way the comm can be out on the ground delivering supplies for ammo/firebases, but he gets a nice big respawn time to encourage him not to get into any firefights.

last time I checked commander weren't truck drivers either...

My Father was a Major and you wouldn't find him out on the frontlines leading a company

[Majorpain]

last time I checked commander weren't truck drivers either...

My Father was a Major and you wouldn't find him out on the frontlines leading a company

Sorry, im wrong on that aint i? Sat in a battalion CP for two days and i still dont know how they work... Majors do stay in the battalion CP >.<

I suppose that the big differences in the maps lead to the different requirements. On Kashan the comm can just sit in the base and direct the different assets, with the transport choppers dropping off crates left right and center. On a map like fools road, the British are mostly out on the other side of the map with a very long supply line. In this case the commander probably would have to use one of the trucks to go and drop some crates off for a firebase/Ammo.

I suppose that this is one of the things that PR will have to work around, im not sure how companies re-supply in real life, but im pretty sure they would have some ability to call up a truckload somehow.

[MrYellow]

In a company attack the Major will be out on the ground leading his company, and a Lt-Col will be somewhere close behind managing the company attacks. They need to be close to the fight to see what is going on and to keep in comms with the leading platoon/company.

The static commander we have now is more likely to be a Brigadier (1 star) commanding a few Battalions.

Glad I'm not the only one that sees this as the way a commander of a force
this size operates. If I was out there with 30 guys under fire and no
leader on the field I'd be pissed! Sure there is another guy on the
aircraft carrier or bunker who has the overhead view, but the guy who's
telling squads where to go can see the field. We're talking platoon sized
force on most maps not company or divisions.

How about this proposal...

Commander can leave his post and walk around.
He can call up his tactical map out on the ground.
He can only call in Airstrikes/Mortars from his command post.
He gets a 3 minute respawn when he dies.

Nice! Does that not cover US needs as well as EU/AU/whoever?

This discussion seems to have run its course really, whatever we try to explain you categorize under change of gamestyle.

Best lock the thread then.... This isn't about you explaining and
us "getting it". We know how to play. We know how to fight. The current
commander feature-set doesn't work for us, maybe it does for you. This is a
discussion pointing out the problems and talking them over in the hope of
finding a solution. Please don't take it personally.

If you guys can cope without a CO perfectly then why do you insist on complaining about the CO and him not being able to leave his CP?

We cope without a CO because that's how we're forced to play. If the CO was
a playable slot we'd use it. As it stands it's just much better to have
that leading player in a squad leader slot then a CO slot that can't do
anything. Adapting to a feature change we find comes up practically
"broken" (i.e. doesn't get used as it doesn't fulfill the users needs for
the feature) does not mean that we do not want or need a CO slot that works.

So you can run up to the front lines unguarded and watch what's happening?

Who said anything about being unguarded? PR players in general are
disciplined enough to manage our own engagements and don't need the game
mechanics protecting us from noob commanders. There is no need for the game
to stop the commander rushing to the front as the players know the score,
if they don't they learn fast. The timer suggestion would fix this without
breaking the commanders legs.

You ask why they are confined solely to CP post but let's hear your explanation of why they shouldn't be.

I think that's been explained from enough people to show that it's not just
some idiot on the forum that needs to be told off and then ignored. The
slot isn't being used, because it isn't fun, because it can't do anything.
I'd like to hear the explanation of why the game can't go forward with a
properly functioning commander slot?

So here are my base unanswered questions again.....

Why should the commander be restricted to his CP in this way?

Why should the commander not have the same map that ever player has?

Why should the commander not be able to build when squad leaders can?

Why should the commanders only role be coms and mortar strike approvals?

btw we've been using the map support markers that squad leaders create to
great effect, basically cutting out all need for any CO coms relaying.
These then result in choppers/CAS showing up without a commander having to
tell them of the existence of a request.

-Ben

[Natala]

Calm.. down.. Mr.Yellow.

I think there is something to be said, for the Commander getting more to do, more toys at his disposal, at the moment he does have limited use, and the class is not that attractive.

But at the same side, the problem of the past was that when a Commander wasn't on, especially in small maps, one side would greatly suffer, maps were utterly dependent on a commander, and if one side didn't have one while the other did, it really tipped the scale to the level of annoyance.

It is positive that a squad-leader can build now without depending on a Commander.

So in short, would be nice to see the Commander with more ability, and options to make the class more lucrative again, but not so that every game is completely dependent on him like in the past.

IMHO

[MrYellow]

This discussion seems to have run its course really, whatever we try to explain you categorize under change of gamestyle.

Before I crash for the night I'll just add that if this is in-fact a
game-style difference between the continents then it has to be recognised
and compromises made in the features where needed to match both these user
groups.

This isn't about us and them or me and you.

It's about getting the game right for the majority of players.

Compromises often have to be made with features that don't match your whole
user-base. There is a mid-ground here that with a little discussion and
thought would work very well for different maps and play styles. Or....
There is a absolutist position that sees half the user-base miss out.

-Ben

[Defiyur]

In a company attack the Major will be out on the ground leading his company, and a Lt-Col will be somewhere close behind managing the company attacks. They need to be close to the fight to see what is going on and to keep in comms with the leading platoon/company.

The static commander we have now is more likely to be a Brigadier (1 star) commanding a few Battalions.

Hmmm interesting. So judging by duties given in PR a rename to Brigadier might be more fitting+ he should be off the "battlefield" altogether in some rear base probably correct? Also some things about the role I don't think are that great are the contact markers. You get a contact of anything moving (which is most often the case) and whatever you mark is likely now moved...maybe still in the vicinity, maybe not sometimes leading players to ignore markers and assume they are old & not relevant. Also the idea where the "comm" gets to see all friendlies on the map while each squad is limited to their own seems like basic hierarchy 101 to me BUT I don't know the reality of actual knowledge duties of RL Brigadiers or Squad leaders and how much information they actually would or wouldn't have.