Actually, there are various missions on the server where the mission maker did not implement a proper chain of command when placing units (giving the units that are placed first in a playable group a higher rank than those put down after). Therefore in some cases the nr1 playing slot does not end up with the command bar.
Commanding depends also on the environment, it is easier to command in some types of terrain than in others. Delegating responsibility to subunits (fire teams, weapon teams, buddy pairs) is necessary in circumstances where the commander does not enjoy a good overview, eg urban terrain or dense forest. Desert warfare is made for officers, MOUT for corporals.
Regards,
Sander
(05-23-2011, 06:07 PM)Osku link Wrote:[quote author=Overlord link=topic=2298.msg14396#msg14396 date=1306159165]
I don't support Oskus view of commander, the commander should ALWAYS be the leader. Not only does he have the command bar (how little that helps from time to time), but it would prevent others (the guy with it) to issue confusing orders just for fun.
I meant that the commander would be attached to one of the Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta squads, and move with them. All leaders would have command bar normally and able to issue orders for their subordinates. Commander would give just rough orders, decide overall tactics, while the squad leaders handle the micromanagement; formations, ROE, etc.
In other words, it's almost like having Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta as
fireteams, and a
commander would be more exactly a
squad leader here.
On TS3: Commander + Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta leaders would be able to talk on "command channel"
That is my vision... I hope my explanation wasn't too messy. In reality this concept is not complicated at all.
[/quote]
Actually I think Osku's idea might turn out as a good idea. If we try that for a couple of times we could all judge it's advantages.
(05-23-2011, 06:07 PM)Osku link Wrote:I meant that the commander would be attached to one of the Alpha/Bravo/Charlie/Delta squads, and move with them. All leaders would have command bar normally and able to issue orders for their subordinates. Commander would give just rough orders, decide overall tactics, while the squad leaders handle the micromanagement; formations, ROE, etc.
Ahh, sorry for my misunderstanding. You're talking about a "Supreme Commander" in certain missions, and I can agree with that
And e.g. with two players in a jeep it's normal that the gunner order "pin-point" movement of the jeep.
I wrote some my thoughts down. Internal structure for text is little messy, sorry about that. Some my ideas might be more or little overdone, but here it comes.
I used 'section' to use one infantry fireteam/squad. (Depending of how independent movement / radio comm's they have. And also every for single armoured vehicle / plane will need internal voice channel.) And CO will be that 'supreme commander'. And there will be need for 2IC for every leader, I'm not sure is it said allready.
1) We have to have CO always, when we have more than one section. I suggest that CO would be:
  a) If there is only one infantry section (+optional one vehicle), the infantry section leader should be CO
  b) Multiple infantry section -> totally different CO
  c) Multiple tanks/airborne vehicles -> lead vehicle commander/pilot will be CO
  If possible the CO should be always infantry man (not tank crew or pilot)
2) Because the mission briefings are written the way they are(*): CO might keep little like this kind of briefing (little overdone)
  *) Situation (very short, max. five sentence)
  *) Enemy (size, location, equipment)
  *) Friendly AI (rarely happens. size, location,..., maybe added what they will do)
  *) Our goal / our mission
(Â Â *) What 1st section will do; //if separate tasks
  *) What 2nd section will do; //if separate tasks
..............
)
   *) Basic guidelines for subordinates to pick weapons
   *) RoE: small arms, AT, AA, SD, sniper, mounted weapons,...
   *) How vehicles are used
   *) March order
   *) How medics and engineers and other special talent people are used (maybe ordering them use
   group commander in TS3 along with their team leader)
   *) How ............... (only CO imagination, mission size, equipment a is limit)
   *) Questions, suggestions,.....
   *) TS3-channel dividing
   Section leaders says in his own channel:Â
     *) Weapon selection (maybe from crates after mission beginning)
     *) Something wise that CO didn't mention (march order, erol,...)
   *) green up
   After mission starts section leaders does
   *) weapon picking from crates (need for 360 protection?)
   *) report to CO for ready to move out
(*) I'd like to see mission where already written briefing is short, well-categorized and tell only necessary things.
Good points, good points!
And one small thing that maybe should be made an obligatory thing:
If we are not engaging or we have no reason to believe that there are threats in the area then maybe everyone should keep their weapon down (double tap Ctrl) to prevent miss firing.
And maybe it will even improve target recognizing since reacting takes a ~0.3 seconds longer and prevent friendly firing.
And we all walk about looking like AIs?
Nope, Zwobot has scared me more than once with his behaviour, suggetst we leave it to him
hi,
It would be nice that players pay atention about not pass in front of the others's sight. I saw a lot of time people passing in front of my gun while I was about to fire. So to avoid stupid friendly fire please ALWAYS pass behind people it's safety ;D.
cya.
Nikiller.