Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Chain-of-Command System: Untapped Potential
#1
CHAIN-OF-COMMAND SYSTEM: UNTAPPED POTENTIAL

This game is turning out to be the Battlefront III we never got, only... it's not Battlefront. Still, even if all the wanted features of the original Battlefront III make it into this game (which would be amazing), there are still other features out there that could make it EVEN BETTER.

My new idea: a true chain of command.

Players can choose to be a Soldier, Pilot, Commander, Admiral, or General, each with distinct roles that make the army function.


Soldier: An ordinary soldier on the ground. He either follows the orders of a designated Commander, or can go rogue and fulfil objectives himself. A Soldier has no special command privileges, but the necessary equipment to get the job done.

Pilot: Like a soldier, only specialised for flying. He has less powerful weapons, but has better flight bonuses over Soldiers (e.g. mid-flight repairs, better manoeuvring).

Commander: Can command groups of soldiers of varying sizes (from squads, to whole battalions worth). A Commander can set tactical orders on the ground for soldiers to follow, and follows the strategic order of the General. He has better equipment than an ordinary Soldier too.

Admiral: Takes command of a space vessel (carriers, cruisers, battleships, etc). He can order the vessel to move wherever, and to attack whatever he orders. He can also set commands for pilots to attack X, defend Y, bombard Z, etc. He too will follow orders sent by the General as well.

General: The big strategic head of the war. There will typically be one General per side (though in the war mode I suggested in "The Spawn System: A Fresh Take", there could be more), and he will give strategic orders that Commanders and Admirals will follow, such as attack X, defend Y, and more. A General can also send orders directly to specific Commanders or Admirals if they want to be really deep with their strategy.

BALANCING:


Singleplayer: The only major hurdle for this system in singleplayer is the AI. For Commanders and Admirals, assuming that AI is very difficult to program (idk if this is even the case), then the AI can just be made to set basic orders for Soldiers and Pilots (Commanders: Take cover, charge, fall back, and more. Admirals: Bombard, attack, defend, and more).
For AI Generals, again, assuming AI is really difficult to program, they can me made to simply give a basic analysis of the war and set orders according to the situation, e.g. defend base under attack, attack vulnerable enemy base, set up base here, etc.
Soldier and Pilot AI will need to be able to understand orders and carry them out, which shouldn't be difficult. Commanders and Admirals will also need to be able to interpret orders given by Generals.

Multiplayer: The main issues here will be player competency and potential trolling (trolling isn't likely in this community but better safe than sorry).
On casual modes, all players can choose to play whatever role they want, and those roles will then be randomly given to players who want them.

On competitive, a stricter system will need to take place. At first, players can only be Soldiers and Pilots, but should they perform well they will level up and eventually unlock the Commander and Admiral roles. They will then be able to choose those roles and level up within them. However, if too many players choose a role than is supported in a match, then a random pick system will decide who can play those roles (players with higher levels in Commander/Admiral will have a higher chance of being picked). This same picking system will occur when multiple players want to be Generals.

Points will be earned to level up in a role if players successfully complete objectives within that role. For example, if a Commander tactically guides his Soldiers to capturing an enemy base, that will give the Commander points towards levelling up; same goes for Admirals in their vessels, and Generals when their set objectives are successfully followed (any Commanders who successfully pull off the General's order will also be awarded points).

On the flip side, if a player fails too many times in a role, they may eventually lose levels, possibly even the role itself if they're bad enough.

As a side feature players will have a badge visible on their profile that corresponds to the level they have and what roles they can play (e.g. level 3 Admiral, level 2 General).

Tell us your thoughts people, I believe this system would make this already promising game even better.
Reply
#2
(09-20-2017, 11:01 PM)bobscaball Wrote: CHAIN-OF-COMMAND SYSTEM: UNTAPPED POTENTIAL

This game is turning out to be the Battlefront III we never got, only... it's not Battlefront. Still, even if all the wanted features of the original Battlefront III make it into this game (which would be amazing), there are still other features out there that could make it EVEN BETTER.

My new idea: a true chain of command.

Players can choose to be a Soldier, Pilot, Commander, Admiral, or General, each with distinct roles that make the army function.


Soldier: An ordinary soldier on the ground. He either follows the orders of a designated Commander, or can go rogue and fulfil objectives himself. A Soldier has no special command privileges, but the necessary equipment to get the job done.

Pilot: Like a soldier, only specialised for flying. He has less powerful weapons, but has better flight bonuses over Soldiers (e.g. mid-flight repairs, better manoeuvring).

Commander: Can command groups of soldiers of varying sizes (from squads, to whole battalions worth). A Commander can set tactical orders on the ground for soldiers to follow, and follows the strategic order of the General. He has better equipment than an ordinary Soldier too.

Admiral: Takes command of a space vessel (carriers, cruisers, battleships, etc). He can order the vessel to move wherever, and to attack whatever he orders. He can also set commands for pilots to attack X, defend Y, bombard Z, etc. He too will follow orders sent by the General as well.

General: The big strategic head of the war. There will typically be one General per side (though in the war mode I suggested in "The Spawn System: A Fresh Take", there could be more), and he will give strategic orders that Commanders and Admirals will follow, such as attack X, defend Y, and more. A General can also send orders directly to specific Commanders or Admirals if they want to be really deep with their strategy.

BALANCING:


Singleplayer: The only major hurdle for this system in singleplayer is the AI. For Commanders and Admirals, assuming that AI is very difficult to program (idk if this is even the case), then the AI can just be made to set basic orders for Soldiers and Pilots (Commanders: Take cover, charge, fall back, and more. Admirals: Bombard, attack, defend, and more).
For AI Generals, again, assuming AI is really difficult to program, they can me made to simply give a basic analysis of the war and set orders according to the situation, e.g. defend base under attack, attack vulnerable enemy base, set up base here, etc.
Soldier and Pilot AI will need to be able to understand orders and carry them out, which shouldn't be difficult. Commanders and Admirals will also need to be able to interpret orders given by Generals.

Multiplayer: The main issues here will be player competency and potential trolling (trolling isn't likely in this community but better safe than sorry).
On casual modes, all players can choose to play whatever role they want, and those roles will then be randomly given to players who want them.

On competitive, a stricter system will need to take place. At first, players can only be Soldiers and Pilots, but should they perform well they will level up and eventually unlock the Commander and Admiral roles. They will then be able to choose those roles and level up within them. However, if too many players choose a role than is supported in a match, then a random pick system will decide who can play those roles (players with higher levels in Commander/Admiral will have a higher chance of being picked). This same picking system will occur when multiple players want to be Generals.

Points will be earned to level up in a role if players successfully complete objectives within that role. For example, if a Commander tactically guides his Soldiers to capturing an enemy base, that will give the Commander points towards levelling up; same goes for Admirals in their vessels, and Generals when their set objectives are successfully followed (any Commanders who successfully pull off the General's order will also be awarded points).

On the flip side, if a player fails too many times in a role, they may eventually lose levels, possibly even the role itself if they're bad enough.

As a side feature players will have a badge visible on their profile that corresponds to the level they have and what roles they can play (e.g. level 3 Admiral, level 2 General).

Tell us your thoughts people, I believe this system would make this already promising game even better.

YES! THIS! NOW!
Reply
#3
This is a very interesting idea. Though I think while skill in the match is a good idea I also think maybe the higher ranked players will get a larger likely hood as well. However the problem is that it wont be much fun for these three roles if there troops aren't following the orders and I also think there should be more classes then those 5 such as: sniper, demolitions expert, support, medic and a role for ground vehicles. This is a very interesting idea one with great potential but there are a lot of things to take into consideration to pull this off successfully and given commander, admiral and general a fun time weather the players cooperate or not (witch will be the main issue with this system)
Reply
#4
You're definitely right Ryanad. I haven't given all the details on how the system would work in multiplayer, but I have considered the issues you brought up. An incentive I have for players following orders would be the points system involved with ranking up. Successfully following a Commander or Admiral's orders would help the Soldier/Pilot level up towards earning new ranks, amongst other prizes. If players went rogue from their Commander, there wouldn't be a catastrophic penalty, but they will miss out on critical points for ranking up, making that player less likely to survive in the future in competitive. Maybe with some experimenting I might end up suggesting a penalty for not following orders but for now not earning points is a penalty enough.

Also classes are different to these roles, since they'll already exist in Galaxy in Turmoil. When you choose to be a Soldier, you'll have all the standard classes available to you; "Soldier" is merely a rank. Maybe the Commanders could choose to be a class if they wanted but for now it's just soldiers.

And yes cooperation is the main issue with this system. However, Battlefield 4 has a system like this, and you do see many players in competitive following commander orders. Likewise, in the competitive mode of GiT, there will be the subtle obligation and incentive to follow orders.

You've pretty much become my feature suggestion buddy hah, let's keep it up.
Reply
#5
Thanks. You do most certainly have interesting ideas and if a dev sees that and they decide to look into ways off implementing it this could result in a more interesting game with more replay value. Also as for benefits and penalties maybe we can separate the cooperative from the rouge players or maybe have like a psych profile like in halo reach.
Reply
#6
Yeah defs, thanks man! Hopefully the devs do see my stuff.
I have no idea how the Halo Reach system works, but if it helps with benefits/penalties, I'll be all for it.
Reply
#7
i'd like to be in charge/ in command over a virtual pet Big Grin or better, many virtual creatures ehehehe.. my minions !!
Reply
#8
That's a pretty cool idea, my only issue is that general is an army rank, so can't be above a navy admiral if we're using a true chain of command. To get around this, if the ground troops were marines rather than normal ground troops, then they'd be part of the navy and thus you can have an admiral in charge of the whole operation and a commodore handling the space side of the combat. The commander would still be the guy handling ground combat anyways.
Also, it'd be hard on a commander to have to give orders to each individual soldier, even if it's sent to everyone en masse. Rather than having squad and platoon leaders both being named commander, have squad leaders be sergeants, platoon leaders be lieutenants, and the guy commanding all the individual platoons be the commander. This way, the chain of command is as follows: Admiral>Commander>Lieutenant(s)>Sergeants>Individual Troops.
Reply
#9
(10-01-2017, 06:11 PM)lordofthemax Wrote: That's a pretty cool idea, my only issue is that general is an army rank, so can't be above a navy admiral if we're using a true chain of command. To get around this, if the ground troops were marines rather than normal ground troops, then they'd be part of the navy and thus you can have an admiral in charge of the whole operation and a commodore handling the space side of the combat. The commander would still be the guy handling ground combat anyways.
Also, it'd be hard on a commander to have to give orders to each individual soldier, even if it's sent to everyone en masse. Rather than having squad and platoon leaders both being named commander, have squad leaders be sergeants, platoon leaders be lieutenants, and the guy commanding all the individual platoons be the commander. This way, the chain of command is as follows: Admiral>Commander>Lieutenant(s)>Sergeants>Individual Troops.

Yeah, the General being an Army rank is more of a semantics thing. Either way, there's one big head leading the whole thing, Navy and Army, and Admirals and Commanders are below him.

Admirals were made just to command the ships too, giving them the additional role of handling ground strategy will put way too much burden on them. This is why I suggest a General, who handles both the army and navy's general strategy, whilst Admirals are equivalent to Commanders only they Command a vessel and pilots.

I beg to differ with issuing orders to soldiers. A game called Ravenfield (Battlefield with bots) has a squad system with a simple button press/hold for giving orders to the squad to do stuff. But yes, en masse orders are easier, and will be the main way Commanders act.
Adding a bunch of other ranks like lietenants, sergeants, etc will overcomplicate things I believe. My system would just have a Commander rank, and that Commander can have however many soldiers under his command as he wants (or in MP, as many as will join him).
Reply