Project Reality Forums

Im not sure if a CO is a necessity for a winning round but im sure its a big help.

I just came off a pretty epic 4 rounds (Fools Road as Chechen, EJOD as US, Korengal as Taliban and Asad Khal as Brit) on the Pelitutka server and for all 4 rounds (slight exception of Korengal) we had a commander who was speaking to the squads and we won every round by some distance.

Farks wrote:CO's usualy don't know what's going on out on the field because the officers don't give sitreps. That's the problem.

When I'm CO, I'll bug the SLs for sitreps and inform them of other squads plans of attack etc... That way you actually gain the trust from most of the squads.

Oddsodz wrote:Unless the squad leaders inform the commander on what is going and what they plan to do, The commander can not help you. So tell the CO and he will tell you what he can do to help you.

Yup yup.

Wicca wrote:Well, this is really a thing which has been bugging me. My attitude towards commanders.

I really think their all noobs. Which is wrong. They take the hard job of being a commander. But i just... I cant get comfortable with it. Why? Is it cause they constantly make decisions that are stupid? Or i think they are stupid?

I know the Commander thing has been discussed to death. But i want people to start respecting the commander again, instead of "Oh damn, we have a commander" I need a "Yes, we have a commander" Attitude.

I know im going to try and change, who is with me?!

I don't need to change

They just direct everybody to the next attack point and tell everyone when one is being overrun.

Not really noob decisions if it what you have to do..


OH and SQLs who don't listen to an ounce of commanders just RUIN the game. There should be some consequence for not listening.. I'm pretty sure in RL if your CO tells you to get your *** somewhere.. you do it.

I mean they can mutiny the CO, why can't the CO do some stuff to make sure they follow orders.

Jonny wrote:Not realistic (amongst other HUGE problems that probably begin with h). If the enemy has an AAA battery on hill x, you need to take it down. You dont get anything for attacking an unoccupied hill several KM away.

Lots of other issues with the other stuff you suggested, too.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realise it was REALISTIC that an unoccupied hill several KM away suddenly becomes a viable target because your troops have spent a few minutes standing around the previous flag in a hard-coded sequence...

Allright guys, i kinda wanted this to happend, ive letten you all air you thing about the commander, what needs to be changed, what needs to be alterd.

So, most of us do have an attitude problem against the commander. Why?

We hardly ever have one, and the minuit we get one, we all assume he is a noob, who cant find the Command post.

But is adding area attacks going to make the command position more lucrative? Is putting him in a veichle going to make it more fun?

I have to say, with my attitude towards PR, i want all the Area attacks out, i want him to have a command screen, that he can look on, on the fly. I mean geez. He is only commanding 32 people. in real life if someone leaded 32 people they would be like 200 -100 m behind the lines. Or at the lines. or even leading an attack.

I want him to be on the front, like a "Super" squadleader, able to command and communicate with all the other squads. Think of it like this:

If im a squadleader, i order my squadmembers to do alot of stuff. I am the brain, they are the brawns.

Now think this, that i am the commander, and im attacking an objective with say, 2 apcs and 2 infantry squads, now, i can order these different squads where to go and what to do, while im there. And at the same time, they can coordinate over mumble to overcome small obstacels, but they need to report to me, if they have to much resistance, in which case id order a flank a fall back. Suppressive fire and CAS etc.

So, what im trying to say here, is that having the Commander, on the ground, without area attacks, being a sort of Company Field Commander, would be pretty neat.

It would in my oppinion increas the battlefield feeling, it would make commanding alot more fun, you would actually be commanding. And it would perhaps make teams work togheter alot more fluently.

As for making squads that dont follow orders "discipline." Well, the commander can walk up to them. Tell the other squads what their doing. I think the squads would be more aware of the commander and would even "rat out" squads that didnt follow orders. Say stuff like noob squad etc. And that would put pressure on the squad, making following orders simple, and not following orders, hard. And in a small community like PR, people quickly see the squadleaders that are rude to Commanders.

Now as for realism issues that there is a Commander in the field, i see no problem with it, its what i always wanted. The ultimate Multi tasker. That job would be alot of hassle, but if you do it, the team will praise you no matter what. And BTW, give the commander a cooler symbol, a symbol of Power, like POWER. It actually works, and make people respect him more.

Now, i want people to discuss my ideas, cause ive seen what attitude the community has.
"We dont need commanders"
"Most commander take shit, eat shit, and rarely succseds"
"I dont trust commanders"
"Commanders? Whats that?"

Etc.

Discuss

Wicca wrote:He is only commanding 32 people.
Discuss

In practice, yes. But the point of the meta-game is that the number of people he is commanding is equal to the number of tickets remaining, the fact that they are divided into 32-man bitesized chunks is merely a limitation of the engine. AFAIK PR has been designed with this concept of "a wider warzone" in mind, even though it has to be aware of the 32-man (per team) limitations.

Well, i agree on your point on how PR is designed, but this comes down to what is practical. Its not about what our engine cant do, and how to "fix" it. But this is more about, what the engine can do, and then use that to our advantage.

If you want me to think that 32 people is 500 people over approxemetly 3 hours....

Where is that written? in the Features?

Is that seriously what the devs are aiming at? That i symbolise about 10 deaths. And thats what they hope the gameplay will push to?

Well then i disagree with them, unless you got your facts messed up.

What i do think is that the devs have tickets there, so that we have something to fight for, and something to defend, wheather it be an objective that causes bleed, or our very own lives. I think that sounds alot more realistic, aswell as easier in terms of gameplay and engine limitations.

And so what if 32 ppl symbolises 500 ppl. Cant the "Field Commander" Be part of those? There must be atleast 10 field commanders in a unit as large as 500?


@Jonny: what are you talking about? im talking about Commanding, and commanders. And attitudes against commanders, and now i opened a new discussin within the thread, with an idea... Arent you proposing a game mode? What does this got to do with commanding? That the complexity makes commanding alot more exiting?

Well i got new for you, it doesnt! Simplicity! In warfare, there is no rule like it, you can make all the tactics you like, but moving doesnt kill the enemy, its the warm steel and thunder shooting out from your rifle. Make commanding as simple as possible. Simplicity is the most complex thing for a human to grasp i think

Wicca wrote: If you want me to think that 32 people is 500 people over approxemetly 3 hours....

Where is that written? in the Features?

Devs have stated that as a rationale behind how some of the less realistic features that are necessary for gameplay are implemented.

And so what if 32 ppl symbolises 500 ppl. Cant the "Field Commander" Be part of those? There must be atleast 10 field commanders in a unit as large as 500?

Quite possibly, I was just pointing out the fundamental conception behind the game. It's like the other thread where people were complaining about the russian logo on rally points being very noticeable because of the colour. As a dev pointed out, the meta-game explanation is that it doesn't matter, as the rally point represents a location, not just a bag at which people spawn at, and that IRL the people rallying there would be a lot more noticeable than just a bag with a bright flag logo on it.

I understand your statment dont get me wrong, i just disagree, i think thats the wrong approach.

Like i said, make the engine work for you, dont make the engine work you.

Like a f.ex: If i have 5 stones, and i tell you, each one of these stones symbolyses 5000 men in my army. I mean those rocks do make me imagine that they look like 5000 men, but thats real life. This is a game, not real life, why shouldnt we just let what is be? There is 32 people in one team. Thats it. There is no imaginary men sitting next to you?

I know, its all about spawning, but if you say it like that, thats not how i understand it, its not how it is, fact.
There is at the most 32 ppl on the ground on one side in PR at any given moment. Unless someone is spawning in, or dead etc. And even then, some may be at main, or on their way to the front line. And then the bulk is at the front of course.

Now, if i kill an enemy, thats one dead. One kill. Thats a fact. They do not symbolise more than one. But the fact that another man has spawned, after that death, obviously symbolises, what i understand, reinforcments coming in to the area, from a larger force. But i dont think that would ruin the Field Commander.

Jonny. FCO is meant to be the complete overhaul on the Commander. Not to be a bored out secretary waiting for calls.

I mean, there is realism, but then there is gameplay. Now i am saying this in the name of gameplay, and im trying to cover it with a tad of realism.

If you want to go all, technical, "Hey there should be a commander, but a FCO aswell" Which of those two spots would be taken first? And would it even be possible to code in 2 different commander positions?

I dont think so. I think our so called "Commander" As he is called now, sitting in his beautiful house, is better of off the server. I dont give a shit about what you think is realistic, cause what your telling me is that we need 2 commanders, including the squadleaders to command 32 people. That is rubbish.

All we need is to simplify, and thats what i was hoping some of you understood. That by simplifying the command position, it would actually make it more challenging and more entertaining, and more complex. Which is what i love about PR, Simplify something, and it gives a whole nother depth to PR.

Now, im sorry Jonny that i came out rough on you, but i think you should look at the what the community thinks, they think commanders, and their job is shit, they would never want to go commander, since they are boring to be, and everyone hates that, im trying to think of a solution, your making everything more complex.

Ups...

Misread you there. What your saying is to have a temporary FCO? Until the devs overhaul the Commander?

People, ATM, know where they wil be going. This is the issue. So dont let them know. Easier done on random maps, by simply not showing flags or attack markers to anyone with a map/3d HUD, and only showing the attack/defend markers and flags your team controls to the CO. Again, CO loved by all.

This alone would make the Commander role a required slot to be filled each and every round. If the team can not see where to go for the flags, Then they will need the CO to tell them. I Can only but hope for this. I Don't command much my self. It's just to boring a job. But I do know that when my team does have a commander. I Tell him everything that is going on. Contact report come from me (if I am SL) thick and fast. But I do find that if I go commander, (depending on what server I am on) It is a thankless boring job. With little satisfaction at the end. Now I do not want to see "Bob the Builder" back. I Do like the fact that the Commander has to sit in the box to see his map. But I know that unless something is done soon, The commander slot will still be open.

Now if the idea above is implemented. This would make the CO needed by every team. In time as players get use to the fact that a Commander is a must have role. You will then see more communication between commanders and squad leaders. It will just be a natural progression.

I think we should make the commanders job easier to learn, and make it very simple.

Oddzods, i think your complicating it, and making it a job which is necesseary, but not fun. Like taking the garbage out. Comon guys. Stop looking at the Commander as a man made for only staying in a box. I completly disagree that he should do that. He should stay in the field.

As ive already stated, i dont belive making the Commanders position more complex, make people want to try it. Remember, what wins is simplicity with depth. I mean thats life for you.
Its easy to live, you eat, you ****, you drink you sleep. But thats the simple part. There is a million more things you can do, than just ****. There is places to explore, art, food, people. ETC.

Thats what im trying to say to you guys, stop thinking in a box, get out of the box for once.

The commander now is really working its head against a cheese grinder, but if you just let him out, make him free. All that will change.

Wicca wrote:I think we should make the commanders job easier to learn, and make it very simple.

Oddzods, i think your complicating it, and making it a job which is necesseary, but not fun. Like taking the garbage out. Comon guys. Stop looking at the Commander as a man made for only staying in a box. I completly disagree that he should do that. He should stay in the field.

As ive already stated, i dont belive making the Commanders position more complex, make people want to try it. Remember, what wins is simplicity with depth. I mean thats life for you.
Its easy to live, you eat, you ****, you drink you sleep. But thats the simple part. There is a million more things you can do, than just ****. There is places to explore, art, food, people. ETC.

Thats what im trying to say to you guys, stop thinking in a box, get out of the box for once.

The commander now is really working its head against a cheese grinder, but if you just let him out, make him free. All that will change.

Thats compeltly obvious, everybody wants a commander flying around the map with a laptop making the decisions from there, but we know that is close to impossible with coding and a waste of a chopper.

Nor will there be a 'commander chopper' or vehicle at all.

The only useful way a commander can get proper intel is by speaking on global VOIP to all squads telling them what other squads are doing, i get told to shut up when i do it, but then i tell them, over global too, that they are losing the map for the other squads to to their aristocratic approach to the game but not folloing orders.

Heres the bottom line: if all squads follow orders EXACTLY like the commander tells them, then the machine works, if one squad in the master plan fails, the whole thing gets the domino effect.

In no way do i think the commander can be improved tenfold, unless somehow squads were FORCED to go where the commander asked, which won't happen as some random could get in and ask them to go to H1.

I am agreeing with Wicca here. You guys are making this even more complicated. Heck, I would be good with vBF2 commander wo/arty, recon, etc.
Maybe even give him a pistol where he can TK Officers as if he was Russian in WW2 (jking)

I give up... Sigh..

To complex... If you want a complex commander, with loots of tools and stuff. Go ahead.

But im not signing up for commander, unless i know its a simple job, with alot of depth. No "Arty" No nothing, just good old fashion commanding.

Thats it.

Wicca wrote:So, what im trying to say here, is that having the Commander, on the ground, without area attacks, being a sort of Company Field Commander, would be pretty neat.

It would in my oppinion increas the battlefield feeling, it would make commanding alot more fun, you would actually be commanding. And it would perhaps make teams work togheter alot more fluently.

I feel you man and agree with you.... but he could keep area attacks

I remember playing as a commander in PR 0.7 (or maybe it was PR 0.6?)... When you could command and be able to stay close to your troops at the same time. Giving orders and watching it's consequences, that was EPIC!... and had this unique feeling. The situational awareness was also a lot better


TBH, the current commander is just boring, maybe it reflects real counterpart in some way but it's not attractive for the player. Who wants to watch static map with icons for 1 or 2 hours instead of actually play this game as a SL or SM? Not many I guess. This is FPS, people play this game to fight and not to sit in the command post and rely informations
I don't know about you but when I want to take command over many units and watch it from above I play RTS There should be less RTS and more FPS in commander role IMO
BTW. Who is this "commander" anyway? What's his rank? Some of you treat him like some kind of a Colonel or General controlling huge army from a bunker "miles away". Personally I treat him as a Platoon Leader because there are only 32 players (max) in each team at the same time on the map and tickets represent reserves.... simple as that, and it sounds logical to me
With my own "little theory about commander" in mind I can't find any good reason why we should keep him locked inside command post and not let him out to command alongside his troops since he's only a platoon leader It would be a lot more attractive job for a player.

Lack of reports from SLs is another thing. Commander have no idea what's going on because he is sitting in a steel box and have to communicate with VOIP... It looks good in theory but it seems like some of you have forgotten that internet is multinational and worldwide, not all of earth's population speak english language in a communicative way (duh!).... and you wonder why there is lack of reports from SLs (or players in general)... did I fall asleep during the day when the common sense has left this planet?
The proper spotting system in game would be very handy in increasing communication between SL and COM. The vBF2 spotting system was removed to avoid random spotting area in hope of revealing hidden enemies by accident... no problem with me, that's just fine.
The previous spotting system where SL could choose hostile type from the list was quite nice and useful, I remember people was using it and it worked fine.... I must admit that sometimes it was exploited like spotting RIB boats on kashan desert or tanks on op. ghost train (which was kind of funny :mrgreen but IMO it was good and served well in most situations.
The current spotting system is underused because usually there is no commander which is needed to confirm the spotting... people almost stopped using it to the current point where it looks like players have forgotten there is an actually spotting option on the comm rose
Giving an option for SLs to mark enemy type and location with markers on the map or by comm rose without the need of confirmation from COMM would be very useful and IMO it's good for the gameplay.


That's all, my 2 dollars