There are no Officers in this game

[bradleyg5]

Ok so you will say. yes there is, there is a commander and there are squad leaders.

and my response will be; no there is a guy who gets binoculars and artillery, and a couple guys who get binoculars and a smoke grenade.

First off, these classes should not be available to everyone, the people who use them should have some intent of playing the role, there is no way to kick somebody out of that role, there is basically nothing in place for deciding who uses it.

Ok, here is why you can't regardless of "realism" settings simulate a battle even as well as kids playing in their backyard. You know what armies were before militarism? Mobs, individual fighters bound together loosely sent in a general direction. There is no leadership structure.

Ok first off, the squad leader should choose where members of his squad spawn, not the individuals. The game is already doomed right from that first choice. You're not a squad in any way already you're all going in different directly right from the first moment.

We(the people who try and play officiers) have been joking that I need to be able to execute people who don't follow orders. Now I've thought about it, and decided that's probably not a good idea. So how do I as the squad leader influence MY units if I can't use oppression and force?

Points, when I make a point with my binoculars and say "attack here" make it actually mean something. Throw a 30 foot circle around where I just pointed and give them some sort of visual indicator of "if you go here and kill people, you get bonus points". So if you listen to your squad leader you get something out of it.

Same with commander, if the commander says attack "Objective A" first make that where you get objective points, any way to encourage more players to go somewhere for the overall tactical success. I'd prefer also if people got points for simply occupying territory.

Ok another point, there are no points given for occupying ground. That's like the first and foremost goal of infantry in war, the role that no other aspect of an armed forces can do except infantry. To occupy, occupying territory IS more important than killing enemy units in war. Yet in the game everything is oriented towards killing or capturing, there is absolutely nothing given for occupation. Even battlefield does this aspect better in that the other team loses tickets if you hold more points of occupation. There is nothing gained for holding territory only capturing or defending(which is only given under certain circumstances). Occupation needs to give points itself not just killing from within zones of occupation.

The incentives are not in the right place. You(the community) will NEVER get realism regardless if they add in all sorts of additional gimmicky features like advanced wounding systems or different weapon numbers or stats, none of that really matters as much as you think it does.

You will always be an undisciplined mob fighting another undisciplined mob if there are no officers, there are ways you can cooperate, yet no tangible incentives to.

You might as well take all the leadership roles out at the moment, they are even less effective then the leadership roles in BF3. Yeah the squad leaders in BF3 actually can influence their squad mates more than RO2 squad leaders can, they can issue attack orders that result in points to the people who obey.

As it stands RO2 is actually less realistic than battlefield from a social perspective. How sad is that. The social dynamic in RO2 is the biggest obstacle to achieving realism. Role playing is not the answer either.

 

[Fuhrer Cool]

First off, these classes should not be available to everyone, the people who use them should have some intent of playing the role, there is no way to kick somebody out of that role, there is basically nothing in place for deciding who uses it.

Yes, perhaps the commander should be an unlock from the squad leader?

EDIT: Actually you can "role kick" them for not playing their role properly, but i've never seen that happen.

 

[Icey_Pain]

While I've always considered that Red Orchestra 2 could use a much more extensive teamwork system, I've never really thought about it as clearly as you do. You narrow down a huge flaw in the system.
And I really think your on to something here.

Still, the role kick system is in place, it just doesn't work properly yet. You can initiate the vote, but there's no way to vote on it as the F4 and F5 buttons don't do anything. Thus every vote will just fail.

 

[Fuhrer Cool]

Still, there role kick system is in place, it just doesn't work properly yet. You can initiate the vote, but there's no way to vote on it as the F4 and F5 buttons don't do anything. Thus every vote will just fail.

Lol, I didn't even notice that

 

[defektive]

Points, when I make a point with my binoculars and say "attack here" make it actually mean something. Throw a 30 foot circle around where I just pointed and give them some sort of visual indicator of "if you go here and kill people, you get bonus points". So if you listen to your squad leader you get something out of it.

What the game needs is for the squad members to clearly see where the SL is ordering them to go to so that they can make their own way rather than following the SL to find out where they should be. The SLs see the red crosshair on the map but the squad members don't. That makes no sense. (The crosshairs are bugged anyway because they are offset from where they should be displayed on the map, in much the same way that all of the cap zone boxes are too.)

 

[Roland Kaul]

I have to agree with you here. Well thought out reasoning and I believe a valid point.


One can only hope TWI starts to listen to this kind of stuff...

 

[Lonestarranger]

Agree

Agree

Ok so you will say. yes there is, there is a commander and there are squad leaders.

and my response will be; no there is a guy who gets binoculars and artillery, and a couple guys who get binoculars and a smoke grenade.

First off, these classes should not be available to everyone, the people who use them should have some intent of playing the role, there is no way to kick somebody out of that role, there is basically nothing in place for deciding who uses it.

Ok, here is why you can't regardless of "realism" settings simulate a battle even as well as kids playing in their backyard. You know what armies were before militarism? Mobs, individual fighters bound together loosely sent in a general direction. There is no leadership structure.

Ok first off, the squad leader should choose where members of his squad spawn, not the individuals. The game is already doomed right from that first choice. You're not a squad in any way already you're all going in different directly right from the first moment.

We(the people who try and play officiers) have been joking that I need to be able to execute people who don't follow orders. Now I've thought about it, and decided that's probably not a good idea. So how do I as the squad leader influence MY units if I can't use oppression and force?

Points, when I make a point with my binoculars and say "attack here" make it actually mean something. Throw a 30 foot circle around where I just pointed and give them some sort of visual indicator of "if you go here and kill people, you get bonus points". So if you listen to your squad leader you get something out of it.

Same with commander, if the commander says attack "Objective A" first make that where you get objective points, any way to encourage more players to go somewhere for the overall tactical success. I'd prefer also if people got points for simply occupying territory.

Ok another point, there are no points given for occupying ground. That's like the first and foremost goal of infantry in war, the role that no other aspect of an armed forces can do except infantry. To occupy, occupying territory IS more important than killing enemy units in war. Yet in the game everything is oriented towards killing or capturing, there is absolutely nothing given for occupation. Even battlefield does this aspect better in that the other team loses tickets if you hold more points of occupation. There is nothing gained for holding territory only capturing or defending(which is only given under certain circumstances). Occupation needs to give points itself not just killing from within zones of occupation.

The incentives are not in the right place. You(the community) will NEVER get realism regardless if they add in all sorts of additional gimmicky features like advanced wounding systems or different weapon numbers or stats, none of that really matters as much as you think it does.

You will always be an undisciplined mob fighting another undisciplined mob if there are no officers, there are ways you can cooperate, yet no tangible incentives to.

You might as well take all the leadership roles out at the moment, they are even less effective then the leadership roles in BF3. Yeah the squad leaders in BF3 actually can influence their squad mates more than RO2 squad leaders can, they can issue attack orders that result in points to the people who obey.

As it stands RO2 is actually less realistic than battlefield from a social perspective. How sad is that. The social dynamic in RO2 is the biggest obstacle to achieving realism. Role playing is not the answer either.

I agree with all your points. RO1 was a mob, but a mob that had combined arms and at least was focused on attacking or defending an objective rather than run and gun shooting all over the place like COD. That is what attracted me to the game.

But, was expected with RO2 that we could go from the mob to small unit operations - units not mob. When i first looked at the game command features, especially the F key where i can tell a fire team to move to a location, i thought this had great potential to get us there. But, those commands are really useless, because those in the squad never really know where you told them to go. Also, we just launch at the beginning of the game without first having a mission order briefing and a general plan of attack or defense. Then squad leaders spend the rest of the time trying to herd the cats after they have gone to the four winds. Then once you do start to get them to follow orders, you get killed and noone becomes acting SL and it falls apart again. So you spawn and then have to try to get your squad under control again.

Very disappointing.

Also disappointing is still no new maps, especially for Tank primary battles.

 

[Zeraphinos]

Well i like ur ideas but tbh i doubt that ppl will listen .Im glad when in our team the commander is using voice communication . Its already hard to find ppl that resupply ur mg . Have ppl around me that can resupply me and i spam chat that i need ammo but noone cares and u get also points for it . Nice idea but ppl wont listen . Thats a fact .

 

[Gudenrath]

Well i like ur ideas but tbh i doubt that ppl will listen .Im glad when in our team the commander is using voice communication . Its already hard to find ppl that resupply ur mg . Have ppl around me that can resupply me and i spam chat that i need ammo but noone cares and u get also points for it . Nice idea but ppl wont listen . Thats a fact .

The location of the ammo needed symbol really needs to show up when pressing T. I used the map in RO1 to locate mgers in need of ammo, but that was because I found myself using map alot to keep up with developments during the round. With the T thingy in RO2 I hardly use the map anymore (also to save the precious little time we have on account of lockdown), and thus also miss out on other important information.

 

[҈Oc†ө]

...

100% agree with you.

I allways play as SL or Commander, and it's very frustrating to realize that your only function as SL is to be a Spawn point for "your" squad.

Also, SLs should earn some points for successfully driving your squad to a capzone and cap/defend it as a team, or by marking good arty targets. I really hate when you have to cross the whole map as Commander just to mark Arty targets because none of the SLs are doing his job.

 

[dazman76]

An excellent post Bradley While this would also need some "counter balancing" - i.e., catering properly for people who choose the roles and abuse them - I definitely like your suggestions.

I've played SL a good few times now - haven't tried Commander as yet. Although I've used my smoke WELL, I do admit that I basically did what you described - played as a "smoke man". Didn't give out any orders. Also, it's a good way to get an SVT when the semi roles are taken lol

But I digress... on top of the F4/F5 not working (surprised this hasn't been fixed yet!), I also don't think the orders are clear enough when they arrive. Countless times I've played non-SL/Comm classes, and have only just caught those occasional messages in the chat. They should really be clearer - maybe even in the large font/centre screen along with the "<team> are attacking <cap zone>" messages. Technically speaking, IF (disclaimer) you have a good SL/Commander then those commands/orders are potentially more important than any status/cap progress update. They could actually be key to winning, or not losing, a game.

 

[stern]

yep. but its not just that the game doesnt full optimise the roles of sl or tl, its also the players them selves, as people said most dont even resupply the mgs, never mind listen to "orders". its almost as if everyone is just out for them selves, youll get maybe 5-6? out of 16 team members actualy working together, the rest just run and gun or camp as if its cod.

i know as i mostly play those 2 roles, mainly to stop idiots getting them, or people who just want them because they have a smg, much like the main reason it was taken in ost.

a little bit more optimisation for those roles would make them far more useful. we dont even get the extra % in the cap zone like we had in ost. even a noticefication for the sl that a his sqaud members want to spawn on him, so he knows to get to a decent place for it to happen would improve it.

 

[Faneca]

First off, these classes should not be available to everyone, the people who use them should have some intent of playing the role, there is no way to kick somebody out of that role, there is basically nothing in place for deciding who uses it.

YES, YES YOU ARE RIGHT ON THE MONEY MAN!
Make Commander a LVL 3 Squad Leader unlock to make sure those who are Commanders know how to play as one and can do a good job.

 

[Imperial Dane]

Although such a system would mean that in most fights there'd be no commander, at least for some time. And i don't think that will help as such. It still doesn't change that most people don't follow orders in the first place.

Fix that and something might come along of sensible ideas. but until then. You can make the officer as restrictive as possible. He'll still be the guy with the binoculars and an extra automatic weapon.

 

[loffels]

If someone is the squad leader class it doesn't mean that they're going to make tactically sound decisions. I follow the dynamics of the battle, where the flow of the battle is going. I'm not going to listen to your orders just because you make them. If they're good orders, then yes, I will follow them.

Most of the times the orders I hear are people trying to tell me how to play my game. Some vehemently and confidently tell us to get into a point that isn't capturable (ex: 'GO FOR D GUYS COMEON YOU IDIOTS', when you have to capture C first). Or they want everyone do to a suicide banzai charge.

If a lowly rifleman is giving good orders over VOIP, then I'll follow him any day of the week over some squad leader who decides that a certain flank has to be chosen over another one.

At any rate, all the players who are still playing RO2 now are the die hard fans. They're all skilled players and they don't need to be told how to play.

 

[GRIZZLY]

I agree with all your points. RO1 was a mob, but a mob that had combined arms and at least was focused on attacking or defending an objective rather than run and gun shooting all over the place like COD. That is what attracted me to the game.

I totally disagree... Ro1 did feel a little mobbish at times - but there's no way to make tight squad cohesion in a game's inherent design. You need 4 or 5 people in a clan to do that in ANY game.

Also - Having the Squad Leader select where you spawn? Horrible idea.

We need more voice commands and the squad leader should be able to draw on the map ala Jon Madden.

In Ro1 the squad leader often determined if a team won or lost. He was not just some chump. You would shout "Attack the 1st line!" and people who didn't even speak your language would be cooperating with you. It was my favorite role to play and I'm sorely disappointed with how it turned out in this game. This is yet another case of "We need an Ostfront mod" syndrome.

 

[Gwaihir]

Agree with initial poster..
Even battlefield is more realistic on a sosial scale.. Sad but true

fix these things and the game will shine TW !!!!

 

[Mickg]

Hi a quick reply yes your right, i would love to play that way or something like it

 

[Destraex]

Ok so you will say. yes there is, there is a commander and there are squad leaders.

and my response will be; no there is a guy who gets binoculars and artillery, and a couple guys who get binoculars and a smoke grenade.

First off, these classes should not be available to everyone, the people who use them should have some intent of playing the role, there is no way to kick somebody out of that role, there is basically nothing in place for deciding who uses it.

Ok, here is why you can't regardless of "realism" settings simulate a battle even as well as kids playing in their backyard. You know what armies were before militarism? Mobs, individual fighters bound together loosely sent in a general direction. There is no leadership structure.

Ok first off, the squad leader should choose where members of his squad spawn, not the individuals. The game is already doomed right from that first choice. You're not a squad in any way already you're all going in different directly right from the first moment.

We(the people who try and play officiers) have been joking that I need to be able to execute people who don't follow orders. Now I've thought about it, and decided that's probably not a good idea. So how do I as the squad leader influence MY units if I can't use oppression and force?

Points, when I make a point with my binoculars and say "attack here" make it actually mean something. Throw a 30 foot circle around where I just pointed and give them some sort of visual indicator of "if you go here and kill people, you get bonus points". So if you listen to your squad leader you get something out of it.

Same with commander, if the commander says attack "Objective A" first make that where you get objective points, any way to encourage more players to go somewhere for the overall tactical success. I'd prefer also if people got points for simply occupying territory.

Ok another point, there are no points given for occupying ground. That's like the first and foremost goal of infantry in war, the role that no other aspect of an armed forces can do except infantry. To occupy, occupying territory IS more important than killing enemy units in war. Yet in the game everything is oriented towards killing or capturing, there is absolutely nothing given for occupation. Even battlefield does this aspect better in that the other team loses tickets if you hold more points of occupation. There is nothing gained for holding territory only capturing or defending(which is only given under certain circumstances). Occupation needs to give points itself not just killing from within zones of occupation.

The incentives are not in the right place. You(the community) will NEVER get realism regardless if they add in all sorts of additional gimmicky features like advanced wounding systems or different weapon numbers or stats, none of that really matters as much as you think it does.

You will always be an undisciplined mob fighting another undisciplined mob if there are no officers, there are ways you can cooperate, yet no tangible incentives to.

You might as well take all the leadership roles out at the moment, they are even less effective then the leadership roles in BF3. Yeah the squad leaders in BF3 actually can influence their squad mates more than RO2 squad leaders can, they can issue attack orders that result in points to the people who obey.

As it stands RO2 is actually less realistic than battlefield from a social perspective. How sad is that. The social dynamic in RO2 is the biggest obstacle to achieving realism. Role playing is not the answer either.

Great stuff. I completely agree that incentives need to be given to following orders and that those orders are more visable when pressing T.

I do not agree with restricting the class though... we already have a kick facility. It is just a game.

 

[r5cya]

there should be incentives for following orders. i don't think anyone without a microphone should be allowed to be squad leader or commander. unless they make a MAJOR change in how we see our ordered objectives at least. as it is now, it's to hard to know where to go.