Project Reality Forums

I know it won't be long before either this thread is locked like every single other one that complains about this. We offer solutions but are ridiculed and told to jog on.

hmm, didnt see any of the previous threads locked, neither have I seen people been ridiculed for questioning the CO's role for PR. But I might have missed it.

Anyways, having a discussion about the CO and what changes can be brought in is good idea, but so far none have really striked me as simply brilliant and doable within the engine limits that would improve the role.

What alot of people are talking about with the CO (infantry Lieutenant) is already possible, without putting CO into the battle.

3 squad leaders on mumble/ts, two of them are full 6 man squads and one is a 2 man squad. The 2 man squad's leader is the "platoon" leader, he commands the other 2 squads and oversees the tactics used. If the CO was now to do this role as you propose, I forsee some problems. Who are all the other squads on the team going to look to for: spotting targets, calling in CAS, organizing logistics/repairs/transport/supplies, where to build firebases, who to sort out issues with what squad gets vehicle priority, who to sort out new players to the mod who are trying out being a squad leader, who to coordinate multi-asset strikes on a single or multiple targets in a tight time frame, which CP to attack next, which squad should defend now, who to tell that squad thats constantly dying to stop rushing so much, who to notify the admin when potential cheating has been spotted on the team, who to oversee ticket economy and change tactics according to how many team tickets left?

Now I've been CO maybe just over 100 times in PR since v0.2, and I wouldn't call myself an expert, I would just call myself adequate. I've also been in the role of what I described above, as a platoon lieutenant, about 20 times. But I know I would NEVER be able to play the role of CO effectively AND play as an infantry lieutenant at the same time, I think its simply unfeasible for a player to be able to do all this at once and still maintain effectiveness. Maybe I'm wrong and it is possible, but from my experience its just too much.

I agree, there is definitely big changes needed for the CO but I dont think just giving him the ability to freely move around and use the map would instantly make CO useful again. If anything, this would simply encourage more random players to step into the role, when they have no intention of actually leading the team but rather just want an officer kit or to feel important or not get kicked from server because of squadless script.

Nor do I think restricting building again is a wise choice. What this did was just tie up good squad leaders and get everyone pissed when a CO DID step into the role because he makes the process of building much more tedious.

I also think making CO into simply a forward observation role, calling down mortars and artillery is really short changing the position. Really (IMO) the Sniper's main role (when CAS is avaliable on the mission) is first and foremost as an FO, so already we have 2 out of 32 slots taken up by this task, do we really need the CO doing this as well? And if CO is the one primarily doing this, we are just decreasing the reliance on other players and making the CO into some kind of God, where he just calls down explosions wherever he wants every 10 minutes. IMO that would be tracking back to vbf2 days of spamming arty everywhere, something that CANNOT be countered since its off map and only way to counter it is to kill the spotter before he sends it. IF player had to control the mortars (hint hint) then it would be completely different as the spotter would have to communicate and work together with the mortar operator to get the roundss on target. This would be more realistic, and MUCH more heavily rely on teamwork and good comms instead of just 1 player acting as a God, calling down explosions every 10 min.

I would definitely disagree with the statement that since alot of servers use mumble/teamspeak now, that there is no longer a need for a CO. That is like saying that since we use mumble and positional voip now, there is no need for any squad leaders.

A central leadership guiding the grand strategic movements of the team I think is essential for higher level strategy, sadly most rounds have squads scattered and acting independently or rarely we have 2-3 squads working together. To get the ENTIRE team working as a large unit in a realistic fashion I think its vital to have a CO role, not to micromanage every last detail but to have a grand plan. However I also think having a platoon lieutenant on the ground to organize the infantry sections is vital and essential in order to get these kind of organized team-wide movements.

I'll discuss in a bit more what ideas I think would help to make rounds like this more of a regular occurence rather than a rare event.... but please ChiefRyza I ask you to maybe change your opinion on the dev team, we are not a bunch of ******** (only a couple) and I think most of us listen to the community with great detail, but we also play the mod alot when we can, and we do not bow into the lowest denominator asking for unlimited sniper kits, fast ropes and apaches on every map regardless whether its suitable or not I think alot of devs get saddened and demotivated when they see posts like yours, and see how negative attitude so many players have against the dev team, they think whats the point in continuing work on this mod when so many just have a hate on for us doing this work.

I'm not expecting any DEV input in this other than that this is never going to happen, that pretty much the majority of the community is wrong, and has been for the last year or so

Comment like that makes us very sad Please quote posts from devs that sound like this, that are very rude and unforgiving and offer no explanation why thing was done the way it was, I really dont know why you have such a low opinion of this dev team and would like to see that changed. In next sentence you say you support the team but your opinion seems like we are elitist pricks??? Well I dont think the team is, some have their issues but for most part this team just loves a realistic FPS, and theres no attitude really like that one you are trying to pin on us.

I'm willing to have a good discussion about this topic if your willing to give us a chance to talk and not put words in my mouth because Im a developer of this mod.

Cheesygoodness wrote:Giving the commander the option to drop Artillery, Mortars, OR a JDAM would be nice. 20 minutes for Mortars, 40 for Artillerys and a JDAM hour timer.

i think if that is just way to much, i would say;
mortars = 15 min.
Artillery = 25 min.
JDAM = 25 min.

Jdam and artillery are pretty equal to eachother i think qua power and deadlyness.

PR rounds are just to short to have a JDAM on a Hour and artillery on 40 minutes, you know how much these type of things are used in combat?
In afghanistan i dont know how much jets are ready at any moment to drop a JDAM or other type of bomb if needed, if im correct most conventional forces have mostly allways back up from mortars/artillery or airstrikes if needed these days.

Having an option for Arty/Mortar/JDAM was discussed, and might be feasible but it would require a COMPLETE rework on the system that it uses right now, which is a complete hack of the vbf2 commander asset system, and by no means easily changeable, dbzao spent a large part of his free time getting the way it currently works functional and as bug free as possible, thats free time he will never get back and dont know if he wants to revisit those long, long sleepless nights again in hopes that he find a better way to do it.

But by all means, if someone from the community can code it, we will get it into the mod for next version!

Fuzzhead, I never said anything about me having anything against the DEV team. I have always highly respected each one of you and if that is what came out of my post I am very, very sorry - it's just I remember quite clearly other threads where DEV's posted against hundreds of posts claiming the commander role has gone downhill and what I took out of it was that it wasn't seen as a problem by key members of the development team. Please don't assume I stand against you, I most certainly don't and again if I came across as aggressive please don't take it to heart

Now, I started playing in 0.7 just after it came out. Over time I realised how effective the commander was at pulling the team together. I don't think that over time, the influx of new players has anything to do with the total lack of organization; simply put, without any leadership on the field between the squads and no 'bargaining' power then it becomes a case of individuals doing as they please. Many changes to the system of not requiring a commander for the firebase has, in my honest opinion, sent the commander role in a downwards spiral where he is only seen as a tool for calling in some fancy strike every hour. If he was on the field, with the troops, people might actually empathize with him as silly as it stands. You listen to your squad-leader in game because he's there with you, always with a watchful eye. As someone who has been a squad-leader for most of my PR days, I know how to pull people into line.

There is something strangely natural about seeing the people talking to you in-game, lets say 10 meters in front of you. If the commander was in the field, talking to his squad leaders just like a squad leader talks to his members, I personally believe it would be much more personalized and I would feel obliged to take heed to my CO's requests if he was in the same battle with me.

I am planning on trialing this Lieutenant role as a squad leader with the upcoming bigD campaign which I am organizing and adding the finishing touches. Hopefully if I can demonstrate a hands on example of how squad leaders react to a singular commanding officer in the field then maybe we can trial some commander changes and see how it works in a public environment?

Also removed my offensive sentencing and again I'm very sorry

Ah okay its just a misunderstanding then, your post just sounded harsh when talking about dev team not listening to majority of the community and make us sounding like asses

anyways yes I can agree with you its definitely more natural to talk with someone who is standing near you, and especially when they are using mumble with positional audio it definitely brings more confidence and leadership to the troops around him.

However sadly the BF2 VOIP system for the CO does not work that way. If you are walking around as a CO and talking to squads, that means you are spamming ALL squads with your voice. In an organized round, this can be maddening and means you will definitely want to vote kick your CO off as soon as you can. You have only been playing since v0.7 but we used to have quite a huge problem with commanders who did not do a very good job and did not make their main priority to be team wide strategy, but rather used CO role as his own personal scouting tool (using the zoomed map) and would do things like solo tanks, grab sniper, etc.

CO on the field I dont think would be terrible, but with the way BF2 voip for CO is setup you MUST be on the map screen to talk to individual squads since you have to highlight them. So this means walking around = cannot talk to individuals.

From my experiences when commanding, you have anywhere from 1 to 5 people talking in your ear every second, and you have to pick out their voices and respond to them in the order in which they called for you, and you have to decide the urgency of what needs doing. It can be incredibly hectic and stressful, and leaves you very little breathing time between talking, especially when contact reports are rolling in, squads are taking casualties and there is large assets requesting target coordinates. Combine all this with external voice programs like mumble or teamspeak (or in tacticalgamers case, using both ) and you got a huge amount of comms going on and your hands as CO are completely full, if you blink for a second you will miss critical info on your team on the map. Of course this is experience with disciplined and experienced squad leaders on a server that will kick squad leaders for disobeying orders, so its definitely not your typical PR round. But you can see from experiences like these, how a CO can be useful, however we see theres not enough CO stepping up.

So I think the tricky part is getting players into the seat, and enticing them to fulfill this role of team coordinator/organizer/decision maker, instead of just some guy who drops crates, builds shit, drops bombs or whatever.

Really the current CO can do exactly what your asking (go out into the field with his men) right now, theres nothing stopping you from doing it, but of course you dont have the tools you need since hte map is disabled.

Not sure what can be done to give CO that freedom yet still guided to help the team.

Can be some options here:
- commander controlled UAV launched from the CO Post?
- commander can "enter" firebases and use his map while inside them

What about a small, portable radio pack with a GPS screen taped on, able to be deployed (can only be placed while crouching). This would be the only real difference with the commander kit. So basically the guy is always on the field but he would have to stick by squads for support? This would also be useful, simulating a radio pack for calling in area strikes from off-map locations too far to reach with normal communication equipment. Again, he would be lightly armed but would take a small amount of time to place this radio pack. It could then be 'entered' with E and then used. Of course, I understand how much work this would take but it might be a nice alternative and give the commander a field role.

Simply have the radio pack only usable by the 'Field Officer" kit and add a small animation of the guy placing it on the ground. It could then be picked up by pressing G. Rinse and repeat! I also think this would require extra gear to be placed on the guy's 3rd person model - does DICE have anything that could be added to the Vanilla kits?

It might also be even more immersive to add a 3rd person sound effect of radio chatter when the Lieutenant is using his radio-pack. Would add some great ambiance to a firefight with bullets whizzing over and your CO down on the ground calling for Air support

Getting a CO deployed in a firebase would be hefty! Would not add any advantage over the CP tho. But just for coolness sake

What kind of advantage could we give a CO who is out on the field in a firebase? And CO vehicles could be a solution as well. But once again, why would you risk your life, and 18/20 seconds of Communications black-out, if the only thing you gain is: Out of the shack?

These are the kinds of radio packs the Commander could haul around a combat zone:






I think it would better signify a chain of command, with your field officer being the only one able to radio out to off-map sights for fire support. Being within visual range of combat is very important, to make sure your authorizing some expensive munition on an actual target

What about a small, portable radio pack with a GPS screen taped on, able to be deployed (can only be placed while crouching). This would be the only real difference with the commander kit. So basically the guy is always on the field but he would have to stick by squads for support? This would also be useful, simulating a radio pack for calling in area strikes from off-map locations too far to reach with normal communication equipment. Again, he would be lightly armed but would take a small amount of time to place this radio pack. It could then be 'entered' with E and then used. Of course, I understand how much work this would take but it might be a nice alternative and give the commander a field role.

Simply have the radio pack only usable by the 'Field Officer" kit and add a small animation of the guy placing it on the ground. It could then be picked up by pressing G. Rinse and repeat! I also think this would require extra gear to be placed on the guy's 3rd person model - does DICE have anything that could be added to the Vanilla kits?

It might also be even more immersive to add a 3rd person sound effect of radio chatter when the Lieutenant is using his radio-pack. Would add some great ambiance to a firefight with bullets whizzing over and your CO down on the ground calling for Air support

Yes this idea has been mentioned before. It is alot of work though and most of it would have to be invented (ie no PR dev has made a handheld weapon that deploys a vehicle before, but judging from FH2/POE2 it looks like its possible).

So would need to:

- Model/Texture/Import/Code GPS backpack
- Figure out the coding for making it a deployable vehicle and picking up again with G
- Figure out how to fix the glitchy bugs that other mods could not solve (hopping out sometimes deletes the vehicle forever), what happens when others get in vehicle, what happens when rearming can you place multipel, do they expire, etc.

The main problem though with this suggestion, is by itself it doesnt really change the CO role that much. I think more is needed than simply making the CO mobile again, definitely needs something else to encourage more and proper use of the CO role. I think my original argument still stands, that the CO should simply not be a forward observer, the Sniper class already fits that role. If all we want is CO to be a forward observer than it would be easy, but I think the role is alot more demanding than that and requires more thought.


About the vehicles, I think its another interesting idea, as long as the vehicle is unarmed. I like the idea of deploying/undeploying them, but how to make this feature work, would probably take a long time of trial and error.

Making the 3rd level of zoom without enemies is impossible, the BF2 HUD for commander is very limited in what you can mod, everything done thus far has been basically a "hack" and not easy to do whatsoever, its all been based off crazy ideas until one actually worked half decently

You may want to consult AIX about their small, deployable mortar. It seems to be quite stable for the type of deployable thing I'm talking about. Put the same role constraints on the pack as the command trailer, add the type of limit thing the logi-truck has (where only one can be in the world from that given vehicle at a time) which would work the same as a patch (only one can be placed at a time).

I understand how much work this would take but when you think about it, the only thing the commander needs is to be out in the field, not cooped up in his box! A portable system like this would be more realistic than the current command trailer that seems to be all prepped and ready for each team on every map. A command vehicle would attract way too much attention on some of PR's maps, not to mention the small infantry based maps would be hell on earth for it.

the only thing the commander needs is to be out in the field

This I completely disagree with. I think the CO position needs much more extensive features/in depth look than simple mobility. If all they needed was mobility than in the previous versions where they were free to move around they should have been in an ideal state, which they were anything but. Majority of CO did little to help the team and most of the time the players sitting in the seat did not have a plan nor set objectives for the rest of the team.

I understand your reasoning and I know exactly what your talking about but - there wasn't any penalty for commander death in place. Assuming we made it very pricey for the commander to run out and attempt to go solo if it messed up for him. Stick with your more heavily armed comrades and you'll be fine.

I think having a base-commander takes too much of the chain of command out. Instead of going up from the implied Privates to Corporals, Sergeants to Lieutenants, it just goes: Squad member to Squad leader (which is an NCO) to a full blown commander which just seems out of place. Having a guy out in the field where your relying on him, and he is relying on you would be much, much more realistic and would actually give some incentive to get out there and be amidst your squads.

OR you could have it that the commander is the only one to call in artillery, symbolizing he requires visual contact for such a strike. Are NCO's allowed to request heavy fire-support? I believe having your commander in the field as the only means for artillery would mean that teams would work with their CO A LOT more than they do now. If the area attacks we're made more frequent but less powerful/long - eg. a mortar strike would only be a couple rounds every 5 minutes or a strike as big as the current ones every 10 minutes.

[R-COM]cyberzomby wrote:But once again, why would you risk your life, and 18/20 seconds of Communications black-out, if the only thing you gain is: Out of the shack?

I guess it has got something to do with human psychology and behaviour

ok fellas. i think you've got an important question to be answered first:

what level do you want the commander to be?
Div Co? Reg Co? Com Co? Plt Co? SNCOIC? Plt Sgt? Squad leader? (I think it would be dumb to go any lower than that)

The way I see it, maybe the "squad" setup in the game needs to be modified. (Not that I know from personal experience or anything, just reading what is being typed about commander) You all are limiting yourselves to the commander himself to make him better. maybe your ideas should go beyond that.

since this is a realism mod, lets take a realistic look at a real squad structure:
a squad should have 4 fireteams: 2 assault, 2 cover teams (its actually supposed to be 3, but considering two men off of each "vbf2 squad" and there should be 2 assault and 2 cover anyway, then i think 4 fireteams per squad should suffice). then there's the squad leader (which is what I think the CO should be instead) who is embedded in one of the squads. with just simple comm with his radioman (just like every other fireteam) and a simple map. every fireteam leader should have a map as well (fireteam members shouldnt have maps, but im not so sure the mod should take them away...may cut down on lone wolfs though [if they dont exactly what's going on])

now this is going to take a little bit more thought than just looking at a real world scenario. for example, there is fixed wing, and rotary wing aircraft, which should have their own maps, and level of freedom so how would you mix comm/maps/fireteams(or squads)etc... etc etc

but back to the core of the conversation (the CO), what powers should he have other than a field radio pack and a fixed map (granted that you were to make him a squad leader)?
the higher up the chain you put the CO, the further away from the lines you should make him (in other words, the more power you give him, the further from the lines you make him)

(and just for shits and giggles, maybe make the CO a one time deal. if he dies, then thats it, not more close air support/IDF/etc. Also, I think the command vehicle is a good idea: make that a onetime thing too)


and just for clarification

Are NCO's allowed to request heavy fire-support?

depending on the type of unit he's in (i.e. scout sniper, recon, etc) yes sometimes, he is

Atrovenator wrote:The commander in Project Reality does not need a specific rank. He (or she) is neither a strategic leader in a theater of war, nor a tactical commander leading a single unit. The command structure in PR is such that most decisions are made on the operational level, the three branches of war being Strategic, Operational and Tactical.

Operational leadership blends the pursuit of strategic objectives (control points) with tactical manoeuvre warfare and field level logistics. Strategic Theatres are split into Operational Sectors (with defined geographical, political or strategic boundaries). Operational commanders may command a single seal-team in a high-stakes assault mission or a full armoured division, depending on the objectives, their personal strengths and the enemy's possessions.

This makes the commander the end-all and be-all of operational decision making and in the sense of project reality gives them the responsibility foremost as the coordinator of possessions, assets and structure. Subordinate officers are expected to employ tactics to achieve a theatre-wide strategic objective with coordination between these two branches 'Take the hill' and 'enemy infantry at 240, flank him with the SAW' occurring at the operational level. Squad leaders -never- have a right to act in a manner other than what the commander has told them to do. They can certainly voice an opinion if they have a suggestion to bring to the table, but the commander has a field-level view and operational success relies solely on his subordinates completing his orders to the best of their abilities.

I'm going to assume that your making suggestions for PR not to be life real life then?.

while a squad leader never does what the CO doesnt want him to do, that doesnt mean that he never makes his own decision. soviet union tried to do that, and it creates an incredibly poor leadership structure.
The point I was making, is that if you don't know what billet(it's not a rank) to put him at, then you really can't figure out how much power (or limitations) to give

and you never, ever, ever flank with a suppression weapon. you suppress with a suppression weapon, flank with rifles and grenades.

NJP probably...maybe court-martial and brig time if it's considered treason...

lol....is this about making our commander billet better? or just individual commanders? you can't control everyone else m8, just yourself is the best you can do in this type of enviroment