Expendable Grunt wrote:Interesting concept. I *like* how any hideout can be used to command the battle (though I'm not sure why I'd risk myself leaving main).
The informant system is also pretty nice. It's unfortunate that you cannot spot and "prevent" the informant from revealing your carefully laid out advance, but such is life.
I look forward to commanding / needing to command more.
M.
well done to the original thread contributors (yes you Rudd mate) for the interesting idea.
Perhaps a check can be made for a "civilian" class. There could have to also be a civilian within a certain radius of the "marker" to have the "marker" correctly trigger a report.
If the idea is implemented, the "marker" should have a physical placeable, perhaps an old-fashioned radio-set, or perhaps just a tiny tiny mobile phone lying in the dirt.
this then has unpleasant possibilities to booby-trap that location, and look after it like an ammo cache.
- Perhaps the "markers" can't be moved once placed (i prefer this).
Of course you will have blufor saying "he was hiding between two crates he didn't -actually- see us"
and also maybe....
"enemy movement should be reported using -voice-comms- up the chain of command to the SL and then to the commander"
- Perhaps automating this "report" like intel reports is introducing an arcade-implementation to what is a highly realistic "event" i.e. reporting enemy activity.
- Commanders already have infantry markers, and other asset-markers, lets use those instead and have the markers identify perhaps blufor structures, or even rally-points.
- commanders are so rarely used on insurgency/taliban but its important to remember the main use of the commander, which is to coordinate inter-squad actions around the map and to inform them what other squads are doing.
lets not diminish the chain of command, because a lot of people talk among themselves with mumble and want insurgency to be "easier" or "more fun" If we do implement this, lets make sure it is done right.
