Originally Posted by Vancha
Sergeants - What's the benefit? Do we want a second person in squads receiving CEP when the idea is to cut down on non-commanding commanders?
|
The main idea behind the squad sergeant is that you then have a chance to split your squad in two and go after two separate targets/objectives. This is primarily designed to allow the sergeant to use the context sensitive key to direct the part of the squad that is with him quickly and efficiently. For example the squad enters a base and the SL wants to split the squad, half to attack the generator as a distraction and half to take the CC. The sergeant takes the distraction force down tot he gen while the SL leads to the cc both issuing quick orders to their troops as they go.
The Sergeant also gives new or inexperienced commanders a chance to start leading troops without all the responsibility of an SL.
Originally Posted by Vancha
Company leaders - I think these guys are redundant. Do you really need a person to lead the three people leading the 9 people leading squads? .... If you're going to have company leaders, they need to have at least 8 platoons to make them worthwhile imo.
|
Good point; in my proposal we go from having no separate leaders to having 4 of them. Perhaps tweak a company size to whatever the population limit is on a continent/world; in the current game that's 133 people per faction if memory serves, while my company only has 94 people. If we add another platoon onto our company (31 players) we then have 125 players including 5 (4 platoon leaders and the company leader). Leaves us with 8 left over, so we could stick 5 troops into a command squad with the leaders as body guards.
It is still a lot of leaders, but I do think they will be kept busy and more importantly useful analysing the battlefield and their troops and directing them; the company leader looking at the whole continent/planets strategy and the platoon leaders focusing on the individual battles. Then the squad leaders focus on small unit tactics.
I see the command structure as essentially providing radically different game play within PS, represented most by the following games:
Trooper: Standard team FPS eg Battlefield or CoD
Squad Leader/Sergeant: Brothers in Arms or Star Wars: Republic Commando
Platoon Leader/Base Commander: Company of Heroes or Dawn of War
Company Leader/Planet Commander: Supreme Commander
Originally Posted by Vancha
Planet+Galactic commanders - If Auraxis returns as a planet in the sequel, I'm guessing these would turn into planetary and continental commanders.  |
Yep
Originally Posted by Vancha
Is there any reason to have a separate galactic commander beyond trying to fix global chat abuse? I can't help but think that putting the power and responsibility into a single galactic commander alone would spawn a thousand new problems.
|
Other than the reason you stated it gives players the chance to really stand out and make a massive difference to the entire game world; everyone will remember and respect a good galactic commander (or a terrible one) and attribute success or failure to them. Most MMOs try to make everyone the hero yet only succeed in making everyone the same, and only a few MMOs try any different (Archlord tried). Remember that any commander could be voted out if they are poor.