Project Reality Forums

Well u are not completely wrong IMO, cause in some wars u only see commanders be positioned way behind the front.


Also realism speaking there is differences between how western and eastern armies make use of their commanders.
The good old distance between the western style of warfare where the visible linear formation focus result in the mindset of the decisive battle (which can be tracked all the way back to the Prussian Carl Von Clausewitz and the four-sided figure Greek phalanx) and the eastern style of warfare where the invisible non-linear formation focus (The Ninja) result in the insignificant battle that is meant to down the enemy morale step by step, always have an impact of how commanders position them self in a war.

Just take a look on Iraq today. Yesterday we saw a regional US commander saying that he can not win the war in Iraq by using the mindset of western style warfare.
And maybe...just maybe (just guessing now) this message will have an impact of how US commanders in the future will position them self in Iraq.

When a commander is on the front line... what exactly does he do? And how does he 'travel', what 'toys' does he have, etc. Anyone?

It depends.

For example a NATO commander usually have all the digitally toys available and one reason for the NATO commander to be out among his front line units could be too boost morale of the troops. Another reason could be to take a look on the local sector officer’s tactical skills. There are many reasons.

Mmkay. Makes sense indeed. But, in PR we don't have to actually go to someone, to talk to the persion. What other things besides communications, does he really do there?

For communication we have voip (or text, but voip of course is better). For seeing what's going on, we have the eye-in-the-sky. For what else reason should he go to the frontlines? (in PR)

And when not in the frontlines, does he have a vehicle, like a "mobile command center" or trailer perhaps, or bunker?

Not trying to demotivate everybody, just trying to find out what is real, what is not and what could be good for PR

Mmkay. Makes sense indeed. But, in PR we don't have to actually go to someone, to talk to the persion. What other things besides communications, does he really do there?

For communication we have voip (or text, but voip of course is better). For seeing what's going on, we have the eye-in-the-sky. For what else reason should he go to the frontlines? (in PR)

Well IRL the commander don’t have to stay close to every person in order to communicate since the two-way radio is available in every unit.
But there is still today a huge difference in how the communication is being delivered either through communication/information systems or mouth to mouth/eye to eye.


Lets say that you are playing USMC commander in PR on AL-Bashra map and you are ordering your team to attack the Facility flag zone.
Now for some reason your squads just can break through the insurgent defence?!

No matter what they do, no matter what angle the try to attack from they are constantly being caught in ambushes where they get annihilated.
And they can’t spot all the incoming defence fire, cause it’s seems to come from all over the place and also from a very close range?

Actually enemy ambush fire is all over them in areas they thought was cleared of enemies, since you didn’t observe anyone?

When ordering your tanks to move into the streets and support the infantry they are also downed!
Frustration level increases among your squads and some players begin to write messages like “Kick the Noob”.

TK level on the USMC team increases.


Being the active commander you are, you really try to make an effort to help your squads out as much as possible but you just cant see that many enemies from above. Where are they?

You also try to use all your air units together in smashing entire grids up before the infantry moves in, but still same thing happens over and over.
Then you try to use larger words, maybe even raise you voice, which of course results in the first kick vote.

So finally you realize that you have to move your *** from the airport and to the frontline to take a look your self on the situation at first hand.

And so you do, and when you arrive at the front line you become conscious about the disciplined insurgent tactic of hiding below city structures.

From that point you rethink your tactic in order to get the Facility flag zone.

Guys eay answer is make the commander assets like a vehicle....the commander can enter and only then get access to command options. I think a good idea would be to give the commander control of a spawn point that he can place anywhere on the map....with the same respawn time as a aeroplane or tank if destroyed (just an idea).

Just beef up the command screen and options avialable ie fix the orders thing some are never used.

Michael_Denmark wrote: Just take a look on Iraq today. Yesterday we saw a regional US commander saying that he can not win the war in Iraq by using the mindset of western style warfare.
And maybe...just maybe (just guessing now) this message will have an impact of how US commanders in the future will position them self in Iraq.

Well, it may be 'western' warfare, but it's common to all standing armies, meaning PLA and MEC as well. Insurgents are a different matter as they do not have the upper echelons of a command structure in-place. I doubt that the US Commanders themselves will change their behavior (we are talking Battlefield commanding, right?) but it likely means more air power will be employed. That's a guess. I have no experience with the military other than observing it from the outside.

Well, it may be 'western' warfare, but it's common to all standing armies, meaning PLA and MEC as well.

No it’s not common to all standing armies at all.

To this very day there is sadly still in the west, including my own country (Denmark) an attitude like the one you represent with that comment. The attitude is so embedded in our mindset that we still create futuristic war movie scenarios based on the mindset of the decisive battle. Like in example Star Wars, where a decisive battle takes place at the Death Star.

The western style of warfare is purely focused on the decisive battle and the eastern way of warfare is focused on the war process it self.
So to bring down the western approach to warfare with the eastern way, you first need to make sure that the western force doesn't achieve a decisive battle. That’s rule number one.


But luckily things are changing in the west too, and we have in the reason years seen western authors write entire books about the differences between western and eastern style of war.

Who knows, maybe in decades from now this new western military approach towards the east will evolve in something completely new in the long bloody history of war?


Insurgents in Iraq are mostly using eastern way of warfare. (Ninja), and it seems they are winning right now. Or one could say Sun Tzu is kicking Carl Von Clasewitz in the *** in Iraq today.

The Iraq army under Saddam defended Iraq from the western invasion with western style of warfare.

I didn't work out since the attackers war systems and tactics was too ahead of the defenders.


Who knows? If the defending army under Saddam had chosen the eastern way of warfare as the insurgents do today, the situation maybe would have been different. (Including the behaviour of commanders, local and regional…or tactical and strategic commanders if you will.)

Michael_Denmark wrote:Well IRL the commander don’t have to stay close to every person in order to ...... that point you rethink your tactic in order to get the Facility flag zone.

True. You got me convinced there . Now, with your situation in mind, let's get back to the topic: command humvee (or whatever it'll be or named).

What would be realistic and useful (coolness factor is not what we're looking for) and would surely increase the chances of being victorious?

IMO, Command and Control vehicle, Yes.

On foot maybe just VOIP to the commander?, Not sure though.

But if command and control vehicle is destroyed or hit, it should have an effect on the systems inside the vehicle.

Maybe If vehicle destroyed then no UAV, no accurate arty and supply.

I like the idea of less accuracy if the command and control vehicle (ccv) is destroyed (or badly damaged).

With UAV you mean that big radar on top of the 'ccv', as seen on the images earlier?

nope, i mean the eye in the sky, circling around above the BF. Never understood what the SAT thing had to do in BF, but then again thats probably just my lack in knowledge in that area.

But er.. the UAV does not exist in PR. Do you think it should? (I have no idea if those things exist.. or exist like it does in vanilla)

Always thought that it was one of those long time UAV flying around above the BF.
don't know for sure if it is, so i normally just call it eye in the sky. (some players call it eye of god).

The UAV as known in vanilla BF2, is indeed a small 'plane'-like thing flying around, spotting enemy troops within a certain radius. Haven't seen that one in PR (though I like something like an exploration plane thingy, can't find a good word for it )

Hmm, I always though that the eye in the sky was the commander using his satellite view .

Well the SAT being the eye could be the answer too. Agree on that.

If I think of a "command and control vehicle" (i like this name! better than "mobile command center"), I'm thinking of some sort of van. If I think of a van in BF2, you get the Vodnic.

Perhaps place a radar-thing on top of it, to scan the area for targets, but I'm not sure if that should be on a CCV, 'cause perhaps that should be a whole other vehicle.

What should the CCV look like? Well, as I said above, somewhat like vodnik, minus the machine gun, not open on the back and a bit more armor. I think there should be room for at least one other person, to provide defense and perhaps to drive the commander around (or should he drive himself around? ).
If the commander wants to use his toys, he should sit in the back (seat F3?)

Vodnik: http://www.fav-club.com/flash/fn41/vodnik.jpg

edit: another thing that would be cool, but not sure of this, is a camouflaged vodnik-like vehicle.

im also for CCV but in APC version with radar instead of a turret.
Vheicle that can be disabled (stays as wreck) but not destroyed.

So when is disabled, commander must take action in order to get it repaired...
During that time his troops are withouth support and coordination.
No any assets - only VOIP.

And this way spec ops teams will get verry valueable target to look for.

'[R-CON wrote:DJJ-Terror']im also for CCV but in APC version with radar instead of a turret.
Vheicle that can be disabled (stays as wreck) but not destroyed.

So when is disabled, commander must take action in order to get it repaired...
During that time his troops are withouth support and coordination.

And this way spec ops teams will get verry valueable target to look for.

Yes, I agree.

Without support and coordination, could you define that some more?

Why only stay as wreck? I mean, any team letting the enemy special ops through to the CCV should suffer big time.

The vehicle could then spawn again in maybe after 10 minutes. In all that time the team would be handicapped.