Project Reality Forums

Mobile Command and Control Station much like the ones you see in Main Bases for Blufor and Opfor. - Not including INS forces.?

- Either Tracked Armored vehicle/BTR wheeled like vehicle; - SAT dish/radio transmitters for UAV support/Arty coords
Vehicle would require a primary driver and a secondary gunner plus additional spots for either SL's or infantry.?

Wheeled Hummvw type vehicle/5-Ton Truck (Opfor equivalent) with SAT Dish for UAV support additional Command and Control. - Primary driver required for movement.

Command Helo - Pilot slot with additional slots for squad/Infantry if needed ?if crate is included or for emergency extract. - Doorgun/mounted guns on skids/rails for protection.?

I do like the idea, Not sure about having gunners. But i belive a commander should have a vehicle in order to support. Much like a logistical Truck.

For example it could have the ability to drop Supply crates/Ammo. However if it is destroyed, commander abilities are disabled?? (unknown if this could be coded).

To balance this, give it extremely high powered optics for spotting, but i believe the vehicle should be unarmed.

Idea 2,

To have the same principle vehicle however it does not drop supplies but ACTS as 2 Supply crates, er go if your commander vehicle is in the area, a squad leader can build a FOB. This would make an interesting oppurtunity for the enemy team to knock out the commander, and also give the commander a lot more connectivity with his troops.

Why not stay at main where its safe and you aren't risking an asset that will lose tickets when killed?

What is the incentive for the commander to use this asset?

I see a perfect incentive to use it. Currently, there are virtually no Commanders in PR that utilize the Commander's rally point mechanic because in order to do so, you must choose between that and UAV support, which is invaluable to the team. By implementing this option, a Commander would be able to do both.

Accordingly, since this would enable the Commander to use his rally point, there is no reason to have the vehicle act as supplies for a FOB, as that would vastly overpower the system. A Commander would just be able to drive it anywhere building FOB's at his whim with no logistical requirements. With the Commander's rally point system he is required to stay within 100m of the rally point to keep it active.

Penalty for destruction of the vehicle should be a 20 minute respawn timer. During this time, the team is without UAV support. A Commander will still be able to move out into the field for a rally point, however will lose a vital intelligence asset. This should make a Commander decide whether it is worth risking his TOC (Tactical Operations Center, at least that's what they called these things when I was in the Army) before taking it into the field.

When I was enlisted, the vehicle most used for this looked a lot like an M113, but the back end of it was raised quite a bit. I can't remember the designation for it off the top of my head, but it looked a lot like the ammo carriers that the artillery units used as well, if that helps anyone. That being said, this is PR, so any vehicle could theoretically fit the bill. Personally though, I would recommend something like the logistics M113, as the model is already in game, has two seats, is armored, but not that heavily, and is unarmed.

Personally, I like the idea.

CO should have the MB tent AND an additional field vehicle. I always want to be ther ein the action, because it would be easier to comprehend and assess the situation. I feel very useless when commanding from the main.

My opinion is that the commander role could use any spicing it can get. As it is, the most problematic faction to do this for would probably be the Brits, what with the Viking not working in game but then the Warrior could probably do the job just fine.

I suggested this a few months ago and it's since disappeared after a lengthy discussion. Good luck.

Stoickk wrote:I see a perfect incentive to use it. Currently, there are virtually no Commanders in PR that utilize the Commander's rally point mechanic because in order to do so, you must choose between that and UAV support, which is invaluable to the team. By implementing this option, a Commander would be able to do both.

Accordingly, since this would enable the Commander to use his rally point, there is no reason to have the vehicle act as supplies for a FOB, as that would vastly overpower the system. A Commander would just be able to drive it anywhere building FOB's at his whim with no logistical requirements. With the Commander's rally point system he is required to stay within 100m of the rally point to keep it active.

Penalty for destruction of the vehicle should be a 20 minute respawn timer. During this time, the team is without UAV support. A Commander will still be able to move out into the field for a rally point, however will lose a vital intelligence asset. This should make a Commander decide whether it is worth risking his TOC (Tactical Operations Center, at least that's what they called these things when I was in the Army) before taking it into the field.

When I was enlisted, the vehicle most used for this looked a lot like an M113, but the back end of it was raised quite a bit. I can't remember the designation for it off the top of my head, but it looked a lot like the ammo carriers that the artillery units used as well, if that helps anyone. That being said, this is PR, so any vehicle could theoretically fit the bill. Personally though, I would recommend something like the logistics M113, as the model is already in game, has two seats, is armored, but not that heavily, and is unarmed.

Personally, I like the idea.

this. Also i think it should have a gpmg on it for self defence.


Also off topic. Mods Y U NO ACCEPT MY SUGGESTION TWAS GOOD ONE

Maybe it could be used as a spawn point, it would just have to not be moving and be FAR away from enemies.

Shovel wrote:Maybe it could be used as a spawn point, it would just have to not be moving and be FAR away from enemies.

Twould be a beautiful sight to behold, if only there was an FV432 model for the Brits, It would make the Basrah play so much more co-ordinated and less silly with regards to a Logi truck.

Yeah, an unarmed armoured vehicle that you need Commander kit to drive that is a mobile spawn point, would be pretty cool, hopefully it could be supported by the whole team's assets.

It'd still have to keep a low profile (hiding under trees and un buildings from any CAS but possibly it would take away some of the alienation that Inf have on the battlefield (and allow them to support the armour better).

Ability for team to spawn on command unit if it is immobile for 5 minutes and commander is inside?

It should definatly be unarmed for 3 Main Reasons.

1, To Stop noobs taking an armed asset from base simply because its armed
2, The commander should be just as depedent on his team as they are on him. Meaning they should defend him so he can help them.
3, To give the enemy team a chance to knock a massive blow on the enemy.


I do like the spawn point idea but at the same time PR is unique with its Long distance running to OBJs caus youve used up your vehicles. However someone dropped a good point, In this last month or so since ive returned to PR from my exodus, ive never seen a comander rally point even once, infact i barely see commanders.

I still think that a Mobile command Vehicle should have EXCELLENT optics. Something akin to the Officer Laser binocs with the 2 zoom modes. This means that the comander vehicle can also spot more efficiently for the commander, and acts as a great recon vehicle.

Recon Vehicles in all forces are not designed for sustained combat, this should be no exception.

I see a perfect incentive to use it. Currently, there are virtually no Commanders in PR that utilize the Commander's rally point mechanic because in order to do so, you must choose between that and UAV support, which is invaluable to the team. By implementing this option, a Commander would be able to do both.

The CO rally is a failed game mechanic which is wholly underused. It takes too many players to establish, takes valuable numbers from the battlefield and is overran by 2 enemies. This is not overran in the FOB sense; it is totally destroyed and must be placed again. Additionally, he must stay within 100m otherwise it dissapears. Firebases offer emplacements, are easier to set up and are reliable.

The entire idea that a 'commander should command from the front' is the one of the most romanticized arguments I've heard. Battlefields are dynamic and spread out, they are not vast open fields with musket lines where a commander would have to be present with clear vision in order to command effectively.

There is a reason command and control teams are separated from the fight in modern warfare.

These CnC APC's are a just another unnecessary, exploitable ticket sink which are an unrealistic gimmick. Multi-million dollar drones are controlled from state of the art facilities away from combat where they could potentially lose control of the machine. If the gameplay card wasn't enough, there's the realism one.

This idea has been analyzed a number of times and it hasn't been introduced. The commander is a void position in PR, disregarding the UAV ability. I've commanded squads to victory on numerous occasions, and been lead by some terrific CO's yet the position is still made redundant by round-table SL discussions. Party leadership is what works in PR, not a dictator: if he fucks up, so does the team that is forced to follow his orders. Giving this incentive for CO application to players who could potentially be idiots isn't a risk I'd like to take.

Don't support, keep it the way it is.

I like it, but it shouldn't be used as a way to command on the front. It should be used as a way to command safely from a remote location on the battlefield, if the mainbase is insecure, or under attack. This way the commander isn't in danger of CAS or any other attack that might be going on in the main base. Sort of a way to make the CO able to get away from the action, but still able to command.

This way the commander isn't in danger of CAS or any other attack that might be going on in the main base.

The command tent is indestructible, you cannot be hurt whilst inside.

The command tent does not surround you 360 degrees. You are still vulnerable to splash damage and sniper fire.

As for the game mechanic, whether or not the Commander's rally point is a game mechanic that you like is not the issue up for debate here. Additionally, the point of this discussion is not the effectiveness of the Commander's position in public play. This topic is to discuss whether or not a mobile command asset would be a worthwhile addition to Project Reality.

Given the current state of game mechanics, and the inability for the Commander to use the only two tools at his disposal to the benefit of his team, I believe that this asset would benefit this game as a whole.

Stoickk wrote:The command tent does not surround you 360 degrees. You are still vulnerable to splash damage and sniper fire.

It does. The commander goes inside the APC next to the tent, he is not exposed.

I just haven't seen any valid argument that this is a change that would benefit the game. It's unrealistic, exploitable and if used would serve a null purpose.

dtacs wrote:It does. The commander goes inside the APC next to the tent, he is not exposed.

I just haven't seen any valid argument that this is a change that would benefit the game. It's unrealistic, exploitable and if used would serve a null purpose.

Agreed I dont see the point of this too, and it might become and exploitable if implemented.

Or maybe the commander can use the FOB. add a small seat, small table etc. no need for a vehicle imo.

dtacs wrote:I just haven't seen any valid argument that this is a change that would benefit the game. It's unrealistic, exploitable and if used would serve a null purpose.

Since you missed it, here it is again.

Stoickk wrote:I see a perfect incentive to use it. Currently, there are virtually no Commanders in PR that utilize the Commander's rally point mechanic because in order to do so, you must choose between that and UAV support, which is invaluable to the team. By implementing this option, a Commander would be able to do both.

Accordingly, since this would enable the Commander to use his rally point, there is no reason to have the vehicle act as supplies for a FOB, as that would vastly overpower the system. A Commander would just be able to drive it anywhere building FOB's at his whim with no logistical requirements. With the Commander's rally point system he is required to stay within 100m of the rally point to keep it active.

Penalty for destruction of the vehicle should be a 20 minute respawn timer. During this time, the team is without UAV support. A Commander will still be able to move out into the field for a rally point, however will lose a vital intelligence asset. This should make a Commander decide whether it is worth risking his TOC (Tactical Operations Center, at least that's what they called these things when I was in the Army) before taking it into the field.

When I was enlisted, the vehicle most used for this looked a lot like an M113, but the back end of it was raised quite a bit. I can't remember the designation for it off the top of my head, but it looked a lot like the ammo carriers that the artillery units used as well, if that helps anyone. That being said, this is PR, so any vehicle could theoretically fit the bill. Personally though, I would recommend something like the logistics M113, as the model is already in game, has two seats, is armored, but not that heavily, and is unarmed.

Personally, I like the idea.

In the current state of Project Reality, Commanders can not use the Commander's rally point option without completely crippling their team in terms of intelligence gathering via UAV support. By implementing this option, a Commander would be able to do both, however at some risk to himself and his team. This would require that the team protect the Commander, and work with the Commander to implement the rally point. This brings another element of teamwork to the Commander's position. Last time I checked, teamwork is the point of this game.

If you feel that the Commander's rally point is a failed mechanic, unusable, easily overrun, etc., then how exactly is this exploitable? Having this vehicle in the field would give the Commander the option to use this unusable, easily overrun, underpowered, failed mechanic, and at the same time allow the enemy to destroy said vehicle crippling the opposing team's intelligence gathering. I fail to see the exploit here. Could you please elaborate?

As previously stated, whether or not you personally like the Commander's rally point option, feel that the game mechanic is realistic, usable in combat, well implemented, or anything else is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Even though it is irrelevant to the topic, I will say this on the subject of the Commander's rally point. The Commander's rally point can be used to focus forces on an attack or defense, much faster than is possible through the conventional method of shifting logistical support and building FOB's. Additionally, in the case that logistical support is unavailable (oh yeah, like that ever happens in a public match :roll the Commander's rally point can be used in place of a traditional FOB and can make all the difference in a short term defensive situation when a defending team can spawn close to the fight versus having to spawn at a main base.

Personally, I would recommend that since you feel so strongly about the Commander's rally point option you make a suggestion on improving it. Until then, however, stick to the topic at hand.

EDIT
Just because I did not feel that I adequately cover all arguments against the suggestion, I present the following counters to the realism argument.

United States Army
M4 Command and Control Vehicle

United States Marine Corps
LAV C2 Command and Control

United Kingdom
FV105 Sultan

Canadian Forces
LAV III CPV

Israeli Defense Forces
Namer Command Variant

Russian Army
R-166-0.5

Bundeswehr
Wiesel 2 Command and Control Variant

People's Liberation Army
Type 03 Airborne Combat Vehicle, also known as the ZLC2000

As the MEC is fictional, any of the above would be acceptable, or use something already in the game. If not, I could provide something else, given a few minutes and some inspiration. I think this is enough for now though.