Thread: To command or not to command??

Originally Posted by CivilWars

Why do we need orders or a commander in BF2 then? Why when I have commanded in BF2 have I seen multiple squads all flock to the same flag if not told another squad is already heading there? Why do we need TS period?

TS is needed in BC2 because the VOIP is broken (and I don't think the existing VOIP let separate squads talk to each other but I don't remember now). If you want to cast doubts about working VOIP in BF3 then that is a totally legitimate thing to be apprehensive about, but that is a separate issue of whether or not there will be a real Commander's seat (which in BF2 apart from coordinating squad activities has the ability to drop exclusive assets like UAVs, Arty, supply boxes, and vehicles). Since the expectation is that UAVs and Arty will be accessible at the squad level in BF3, as they are in BC2, then the only reason why we are having the Commander discussion here is about teamplay-coordination; and to that end, some of us feel that the lack of a dedicated VOIP command-net channel can be sufficiently compensated for, as long as there is working squad-level and inter-squad VOIP available...

I think part of the real "Team Play" issue in BF3 might be the lack of fully functioning Squad VOIP channels combined with the lack of clearly defined Squad Leaders.

Reasoning is thus:
If VOIP doesn't work, that is bad all around. TS works, but not optimally, especially given its "optional or voluntary" flavor
If VOIP is Team wide, it'll be confusing at best as people tend to talk over each other even in TS.
If there are no clearly defined Squad Leaders, who sets the orders for the squad?
If there is no well functioning VOIP for the Squad, how does the elected Squad Leader communicate said orders to the squad?
If there is no "Commander" (a la BF2/2142) to delegate orders to the Squad Leaders, then how will the Squad Leaders divvy up objectives?
Without Commander roles, is there even a need for Squad Leaders?

Bolded is what, IMO, a lot of people are concerned about. Without a command structure, which was provided by Commanders to Squad Leaders, there is no point in having a "Squad Leader". What they hell are they going to lead? A bunch of K/D whores concerned only with Team Deathmatch. Without the command structure, how do you justify kicking/banning players for not following objectives if there is no built-in mechanic to support the designation and enforcement of said objectives? We'll be stuck in exactly the same spot that we're in with BC2. Kicking/banning for general asshattery, yes, but there is no way to justify admin actions against someone for not following objectives because BC2 is not structured to setup clear squad level objectives. Anyone can set orders or change orders. Hell, players in BC2 can't even kick people from their own squads.

I simply think the DICE's decision to not create a command structure, at at this point it's fairly safe to assume that they haven't, is a really, really bad call on their part. It makes playing the game TPG-style far more difficult.

Originally Posted by BrockSamson

To be honest, I would be happy with fully functional VOIP within a squad. Once you have that there are a few options:

1) Use team-wide text chat to organize and coordinate with other squad leaders.
2) All squad leaders are required to join a third party TS/Ventrillo/Mumble client and then decide an overall commander. This will still allow people new to the server to participate within a squad from their first login. This will also limit a need for a large organized voice client that new people will most likely not use at all.
3) Just leave it up to the squad leaders to make the best decision possible and choose the objectives that make the most sense.

I have not played enough BF2 to really get a feel for whether or not that would work and I have no idea how the BC2 multi-player works. I just know VOIP is broken (just got the game two weeks ago).

#2 would never happen and is unenforceable