Commander Discussion.

[fuzzhead]

The PR commander is always in command of 31 or less players, regardless of tickets. Therefore, the CO is a platoon commander.

I think this is a narrow way of looking at it since it disregards a large number of facts.

Regardless however, I dont think you can approach the CO position the same way you would in real life, same as you cant approach the SL position the same way you approach a squad leader position IRL.

The main factor is that people still want to enjoy themselves, so by stepping into the position you do not instantly have the respect of the leaders serving under you. Basically, you have to establish yourself as a CO and earn the trust and respect of those SL's, once this happens you can lay down some badass strats and tactics as the SL's actually listen to you. The problem is most SL's dont even try to give the CO a chance so its unlikely to happen.

Hence this discussion and limited brainstorm on what we can do to change this opinion of thought fromn the squad leaders.

I dont think the current CO position is boring.... if you ever got on a decent server and command 5+ squads, you know its insanely fast paced hectic and nerve racking. However, there is long periods of boredom especially if you dont know what your doing and if the SL's dont trust you, so these problems we should help to alleviate and make the CO position more sought after and enjoyable for players just starting out.

[gclark03]

It's time to replace the switchboard-operator CO.

Is it really impossible to give the CO constructive tasks without putting him into combat? It could be as simple as denying satellite maps to grunts and SLs, or as complex as a UAV with precision weapons as limited air support. Something needs to be done to make the CO post more important and more entertaining, without diluting its teamwork value.

[McBumLuv]

If you were to give him a UAV, it would be possible to have it similar to TV guided missiles, with a camera on the missile. Then, set the rotation limits to make it so that it stays within a static circle around 600 meters in the air or something, hopefully giving it a good enough zoom level.

If you give it a mesh you could also shoot it down with AA missiles or .50 cals, so it wouldn't be that bad.

[gclark03]

There's a reason it hasn't been done already. Fuzzhead should know it already; if he doesn't, he can check the DEV forums and find out for us.

[gclark03]

Those are some awesome ideas, Atrovenator. Police stations? That's solid, as long as someone can code it. It sounds doable, but what do I know?

[BlackwaterSaxon]

Topography. Please, please, please give commanders a topographic map layer on closest zoom so we can determine elevation (in feet or meters above sea level). This may seem tiny and insignificant but since we don't know what's elevated and what is not, it is hard to determine sometimes whether we are moving our troops into a ravine or onto a ridgeline. Map knowledge mitigates this, but not everybody can know every corner of every map. If we have that tool to make an educated decision it would allow us to conform our tactics to terrain. Also, if there was some way to determine which structures on a map could be occupied (garrisoned by troops) vs. those which are just statics, that would be outstanding as well. It's not a problem on most maps, but especially on Karbala and Fallujah it would be nice. Perhaps the topographic layer could show a dotted outline around accessible structures with a number '2' or '4' indicating the number of stories tall the structure roughly is. Red outlines might indicate destructible structures where as yellow would imply enterable but indestructible ones. I think there needs to be another map layer relaying terrain data because a rough pixellated image doesn't provide enough intel to make operational decisions. Satellite topography and rasterized terrain imaging has come a long, long way. We're operating with worse maps than they had in WW2

Also giving us an ability to plot vectors visible only to ourselves (tracking rough fire/maneuver lines from one elevation to another) would let us determine avenues of fire and potential maneuvering spaces. I'm sure there's someone in the community who is well versed in these matters, I'm just reading up on them now for the first time (haven't even taken a basic orienteering course. I know from construction/engineering experience that it would be interesting.

Also, how about some nonviolent objectives for Insurgency. A demolished or unbuilt school/mosque/police station which could be defended/fortified/shoveled on by a unit. Requiring signifcantly longer time to build, it would produce a positive result (more spawning assets such as transport helicopters and logistics trucks) or maybe even an increase in tickets. Destruction of the structure by the insurgents could become a secondary objective less linear than controlling the outpost or taking Laniyaal on Korengal have been. It would also emphasize the reality of nation building/reconstruction efforts going on in the midst of a warzone where disarmament of local belligerents is also key. Completing a police station might increase dramatically the spawn time for civilian classes. Just a suggestion, but it would give the insurgency commander more of a finite control over how he wishes to pursue his mandate. And honestly, the concept of doing something positive and realistic in a video game is bound to catch on and stir up some talk.

Rebuilding of structures isn't really done while under fire...

[gclark03]

This is a game. It's a fun objective.

A more realistic objective is to drop supply crates in certain places, which represents the distribution of HUMRATs and other humanitarian supplies, or disabling AAA cannons.

[Robert-The-Bruce]

Topography etc....

YES! please, please, please this would be better than fastropes!

No but seriously, a third more detailed zoom level on the commanders map(maybe even SLs map) would be a real help.

[jmlane]

Atrovenator, you may have some pretty big feature requests, but I think they have all been reasonably justified, as well as quite innovative. As much heat as you may have taken in this thread, please continue to post ideas and defend your previous suggestions from any quick or thoughtless dismissal. At the very least there are a few people, such as myself, that are enjoying your constructive input.

[snooggums]

You're bringing this to the level of personal attacks.

I guess claiming the entire TG community is conspiring against you isn't a personal attack since it is multiple people?

[Rudd]

Atro, I think you would benefit from viewing the commander's position differently.

Instead of being the supreme commander, think of yourself as a communications and organisational hub, there to serve rather than command, especially since you are not 'the man on the ground'.

I've seen you command four times, and four times all I could hear was people getting pissed off at you.

If your CAS squad hadnt to be invincible against the numberous missiles we fired at it, the North rock would have been gone in our first counter attack tbh. We were just spawning in to hydras every time with nowhere to hide. Though I am starting to think some of the problems of that round were actually due to map design rather than the teams. But I would still request you re-evaluate how you wish to play.

[snooggums]

Budd, on the TG server the commander is the commander, but SLs are given latitude on bad orders. He has the right idea with the wrong implementation, he should be giving orders but if multiple SLs think they are bad they are most likely bad orders.

[crazy11]

Enough with the talk of last nights round.

Points may be going out.

[Dug]

In PR you can hardly find a server with a commander.
Not everyone wants to sit in the little box and talk to people.
But making the command post drivable is a bad idea.
Instead they could add some stuff.
I kinda find it fun to talk to your squads and order them.
But sometimes you have squad leaders that simply won't respond.
Which is uncomfortable for a commander.

But I agree commander needs to be edited a bit.
Only thing you can do as a commander is talk to your guys and send area attack plus put markers on the map.
People find that really booring unless they are tired of the battle or want to lead their team to victory.

It really depends on the tactics you plan to use.
I see it this way , people want to do more than sitting in the little box.
They want to help out there not just by issuing orders and putting down markers or sending area attacks every single hour.

I've red a post where a guy had an idea of making a new game mode which would allow the commander of the team to buy kits, vehicles and such with tickets.
That would make it more interesting for the commander but I doubt it would work out.

[crazy11]

Thread cleaned up keep it nice people.

[gclark03]

I've red a post where a guy had an idea of making a new game mode which would allow the commander of the team to buy kits, vehicles and such with tickets.
That would make it more interesting for the commander but I doubt it would work out.

I've suggested the same thing a few times over almost 2 years, but nothing happened with it.

[jmlane]

I've suggested the same thing a few times over almost 2 years, but nothing happened with it.

Isn't that what the proposed scenario mode is supposed to be like?

[gclark03]

So I've heard, but I'm not sure. They may have replaced that with Community Match scenarios.