Command structure?

[cfschris 10]

Hey all, just signed up to ask this question which I don't think I've seen. And I want an answer badly!

Whats the command structure like in ArmA2? Basically, what I'm assuming-

1. Squad member

2. Squad leader

3. Platoon leader

4. Company leader

5. Commander

Or roughly along those lines. Basically, is the chain of command structured like an actual military force would be? Otherwise, this game will be complete chaos and fail :eek:

This question is concerning the multiplayer function of the game :)

No news at all on this? Good lord, I hope not....

Edited June 2, 2009 by Sniperwolf572
triple post

[Georg.B 0]

Well it all really depends on what exactly it is that you mean.

I'm guessing if a mission uses High Command module then you would have a commander, who then issues orders to squad leaders, who then manage the squad members. Maybe, just maybe you can have a commander who commands other commanders, who then command squads, and so on and so forth, but I haven't tried this.

Is this what you mean?

[cfschris 10]

Yeah, its what I mean. A chain of command, basically. Like a real military structure.

[Georg.B 0]

Then it's basically as I described. It all depends on the mission you play and the people you play it with.

Apart from that, there is no official ranking apart from ranks you can give units that governs their skill and automatic grouping.

[frederf 0]

I asked for this about a year ago, to have built-in multi-tiered command and grouping systems. It has not been implemented. It's till the one-tier "group" system that it's always been.

ArmA2 multiplayer is going to be a complete bumblefark organizationally for most games unless the mission maker includes some player-written 100-man-hour hierarchical organization system that has no precedence to date in the OFP-ArmA series.

Everyone's going to be VON'in on Side channel or not even bothering to talk at all.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Well, the new command channel will probably be helpful for VoIP.

Biki information about the new High Command feature.

[Maddmatt 1]

I asked for this about a year ago, to have built-in multi-tiered command and grouping systems. It has not been implemented. It's till the one-tier "group" system that it's always been.

Oh noes, they didn't do as you asked :p

There is the new high command system, for commanding multiple squads.

But maybe since it's not a full chain of command system that copies the real military it's not good enough for you and doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't get why you completely ignore the new features and then go stating it as fact that nothing was done.

ArmA2 multiplayer is going to be a complete bumblefark organizationally for most games unless the mission maker includes some player-written 100-man-hour hierarchical organization system that has no precedence to date in the OFP-ArmA series.

Everyone's going to be VON'in on Side channel or not even bothering to talk at all.

Oh come on, MP is always going to be a mess on most public servers. Many people there couldn't give a crap about organisation.

There are groups that have organised games, I'm sure you already know about that. A simple chain of command system is easily done in those games, and it will be even easier with new ArmA features like High Command and the new VOIP channels.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Maddmatt

[cfschris 10]

Oh noes, they didn't do as you asked :p

There is the new high command system, for commanding multiple squads.

But maybe since it's not a full chain of command system that copies the real military it's not good enough for you and doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Seriously, I don't get why you completely ignore the new features and then go stating it as fact that nothing was done.

Oh come on, MP is always going to be a mess on most public servers. Many people there couldn't give a crap about organisation.

There are groups that have organised games, I'm sure you already know about that. A simple chain of command system is easily done in those games, and it will be even easier with new ArmA features like High Command and the new VOIP channels.

Excuse me? Look at PR mod!!! Its got a squad system, and every man joins a squad each game. Built in Server VOIP is also included. The main reason I want this game is because I HEARD there is organization. Maybe I was told wrong.

If theres no serverside supported VOIP system, or even a goddamn organizational tier system.....epic fail :(

EDIT: This high command thing seems promising.....

[.kju 3239]

VOIP is supported since OFP. However seems bit buggy with A2 1.01.

[cfschris 10]

VOIP is supported since OFP. However seems bit buggy with A2 1.01.

Oh excellent. Then my fears in this game are quenched!!!! EAGERLY AWAITING END O' JUNE!

[frederf 0]

Biki information about the new High Command feature.

Hey, that's pretty nifty and new to me. That deserves front page highlight coverage... screw the shiny new addon planes (yawn). This is what matters. It's limited but basically this is what I was talking about, logical subordinate units. At the risk of letting my imagination run away with me, this might finally allow a native platoon or even company scale distributed command structure. I wonder how well this works in the AI, player, and mixed arenas.

VON Communication has always suffered in ArmA1 due to the lacking ability and flexibility. Most folks like VON but it doesn't suit their needs so they jump on Vent/TS2 which means you get a core of 10 players with overmodeled communication ignoring the other 10 public players on VON/text as if they don't exist or matter.

[ScorpionGuard 10]

I wish to know the same. What is the Ranking structure like in ArmA 2. The same as ArmA 1 i.e. Team Leader, Squad Leader then it stops. While the rest is i.e. AT Solider (MG please tell me that BI didn't call a Marine a fucking Soldier) etc. I would like to know. Just answer please. This is a yes then info or no then info question. Thx.

[frederf 0]

I don't have any sympathy if you are offended by the fact that a USMC unit will be nested in the C++ class structure where one of the parent classes is called "Soldier." A USMC rifleman is a soldier if you speak generally enough and anything that disagrees with that is jarhead nonsense. However you should be happy that, unless there was a drastic change, the most common root category of combatant is "rifleman" unless labeled more specificly.

ArmA1 didn't really have a "Team Leader" level unless you count the color groups but those really don't count since at the very best they simply followed around the pseudoGroupLeader (as it is called in the code) on rare occasion.

This method described in the link seems to use gamelogic intermediate controllers where a company, platoon, squad, etc leader doesn't directly control their subordinates but gives orders to the gamelogics which pass on the orders to the subordinate commanders. This does achieve a tiered command system but lacks the two features of allowing dual control (can't give direct orders to subordinate's subordinate) and probably will require a scripting package and 3rd party support to be redefined mid-mission (no "Hey Bobby, you're with Bravo now.")

[avibird 1 141]

Excuse me? Look at PR mod!!! Its got a squad system, and every man joins a squad each game. Built in Server VOIP is also included. The main reason I want this game is because I HEARD there is organization. Maybe I was told wrong.

If theres no serverside supported VOIP system, or even a goddamn organizational tier system.....epic fail :(

EDIT: This high command thing seems promising.....

Most of you are missing the point!

This is not PR MOD. That is still a run & gun gameplay. This game needs no ingame rank system like that. You need to follow orders and stay with your group.

COOP play you make a plan for you team and everyone understand there roles and objectives to complete the mission. When you work as a team and you know who is the team leader and who is a squad leader if you break down into different squads then just follow your leader like in real life. It's just that simple.

Player vs player mission, Well it's all up to the players on your team. If they want to follow the team/squad or if they want to do the rambo thing. This game is about working as a team and knowing who to follow in combat.

[sparks50 0]

Avibird: run and gunning on the PR-mod? and ranks? You dont seem to have played PR at all, at least not a recent release.

Yes there is VOIP chris, theres even multiple channels for it, such as

group(your squad),

vehicle(people in the vehicle your inside),

side(people on your side)

global(everyone on server)

direct(everyone near you can hear you, your characters mouth will move synced to what you say)

command(this is new for arma 2, group leaders can talk to eachother on this one, essential on large human games.)

As for organisation, it depends on what server you are in. Arma is unlike PR, a place of freedom and what games people play on it varies greatly. The Tactical Gamer servers are IMO the best servers for tactical teamplay in Arma 1, and you will be kicked if you don't follow orders.

For Arma 2, its hard to say, the game is after all not properly released yet.

Edited June 3, 2009 by sparks50

[CarlGustaffa 4]

This is not PR MOD. That is still a run & gun gameplay. This game needs no ingame rank system like that. You need to follow orders and stay with your group.

Uhm, huh? Arma1's mainstream multiplayer missions (Warfare, Domination, Evolution) are a lot more run & gun than from what I've heard about happens in PR MOD. If you've ever played as a SAW gunner going up close and personal with the enemy, surrounded by 20 'snipers' that are constantly killed, 4 solo Cobras (no gunner needed), and the rest tanks -- you'll know what I mean. Complete freedom simply doesn't work in these kinds of missions!

Arma2's upcoming mainstream missions should very well implement some of PR MODs game mechanics to lower this, and become played at a much slower pace than was the case with Arma1. Fast paced run & gun only belongs on death match, not on coop. Coop fans have few (if any) large scale persistent dynamic missions that won't go crazy once you open the server up for public.

Personally I'm a great fan of the concept of roleplay. The role/slot you choose dictates what weapons you get access to and what you can do. I don't see a problem expanding this using PR MODs kit system, as long as you can restrict the kit system to suit the mission. Like:

* Spend earned mission points to change kit.

* Some kits will never be available to certain types of slots (like pilots).

* Some kits and the number of them change according to the number of players. I.e. one sniper kit when 10-20 players, two sniper kits when above 30.

* The kit you choose dictates what squads you can join. I.e. a pilot can't join a fireteam. A sniper is locked to a sniper team.

Many mechanics like that can be implemented in a mission in an attempt to enforce proper team and role playing. The 'free for all' is ok for closed servers, but ruins everything for public servers running these kinds of missions.

TGs biggest mistake imho is missions that are too unforgiving, and the wait period is just too much for most casual gamers. Only the most 'hardcore' wants seagull respawning. It doesn't help attract more people. Also, these 'hardcore' people at TG has a very patronising (? think less of) attitude against those who aren't 'hardcode enough' and want respawn missions. And poor noob who tries to lead and does mistakes. The l33t attitude of some of the players there is also TG's biggest problem, as it scares newcomers away. Not a good thing!

Don't get me wrong. I like playing at TG for its method of proper planning, leadership, structure, and realism based missions. Far from perfect most of the time, but at least attempted. But it's not every casual players game. And by 'casual gamer' I don't necessarily mean run & gun player, but maybe a new player who is curious about proper team play but might not be the best fighter in the world. He should get a chance.

I'm hoping that the new command structure will bring new life into TG gameplay and also in general. Also I'd like to see some PR MOD mechanics brought into the missions to help change the respawn system from either instant respawn or seagull, into something more adaptive that not only the l33t can live with.

[sparks50 0]

Tactical Gamer you mean? You know the server #1 plays Domination and stuff? No real waiting period there.

I agree, PR mod has some good things to it in occasional public teamplay(though SLs run around at will without plans). Heres a interesting mission that has all these things including squad rally points and kits:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=71922

I have proposed it at Tactical Gamer, but meeting sceptics, perhaps you could help me push it through? :)

http://www.tacticalgamer.com/armed-assault-tactics-missions-mod-discussions/139269-insurgency-based-off-pr.html

[CarlGustaffa 4]

TG=Tactical Gamer, yes. I know, but most of the times I've played Domination (my favourite mission), it appeared like quite ordinary Domination (not much custom settings etc like not being able to use enemy advanced vehicles, restrictions to ammo etc). And it don't normally play out as organized as I see when realistic missions are played.

I'd like to see it customized:

* Only one MHQ active. Requires a litte more work than just setting a switch though, but easy enough.

* More infantry platoon oriented.

* Dedicated pilot slots.

* Less rewards.

* Less enemy armor and air support (current levels are just insane for an infantry based platoon).

* Program the respawn to at least 2 minutes. I wanted 20 minutes but my own guys almost killed me, lol :)

* No paratrooping magic. Maybe teleporting should be disallowed when you have been on the server for more than 10 minutes?

* Disable the recapturing.

* Either disable the island defence, or make it much less potent. UAZs with MGs and AGS can be scary enough for the infantry.

Vanilla Domination is just too forgiving and encourages Rambo style players. I guess I am a hard man to satisfy, lol :D

Haven't tried Insurgency yet, but will sure look for it.

[bravo 6 0]

I don't know how to explain but ill try my best.

Is it possible in ArmA2 to the following:

Example:

You (soldier1) are the leader of other 5 soldiers (soldier1, soldier2, soldier3, soldier4, soldier5, soldier6, Ais or players), can you (soldier1) order that soldier3 will be leader of soldier4 and soldier2?

Can soldier3 lead/order/control soldier4 and soldier2 as a normal leader but keeping soldier1 (you) as hes leader?

[Spooner 0]

Example mission and screenshots for a more complex example using multiple levels of HC command hierarchy. I didn't extend command hierarchy down into fireteams in the example (I have a company and two platoon commanders here), but they do work and are infinitely better than using the old fireteam system which was very awkward.

You also get much better on-map control which is closer to a good RTS game in versatility (add chain of waypoints, select own and get context-sensitive attack option when hovering over enemy, etc). Although buggy, HC is the system that will make command a pleasure rather than a chore and is 10x better than PR for describing a hierarchy, even if Arma1 was terrible at it.

Also, we have built-in VOIP/chat command channel now, which people have been asking for in PR for about 200 years ;) And commander channel, so we catch up with PR on that too.

[sparks50 0]

So the new Command channel is for groupleaders and commanders to speak to eachother, but I still wonder what the new commandER channel does?

[Spooner 0]

In truth, I haven't had the opportunity to play a decent game of MP to have actually used them. More importantly, HC is broken in MP, I think. My wild assumption is that the Commander channel allows you to talk to your HC commander (they would reply in their Command channel) and that Command channel talks to all leaders who are your HC subordinates (they would reply in their Commander channel).

At least, that is what I'm hoping, so don't take this as correct on any level!

[LordHorusNL 0]

Would somebody that already has the game check if teams in you squad (red/green/blue) can use their own formations this time? or if they still use the players/leaders default formation.

[Spooner 0]

No, they don't, because there is no reason at all to be able to do this in A2. I am sure that this is one of the reasons they actually bothered with this HC system (i.e. because the A1 teams system was extremely limiting).

If you want to do this, just set each fireteam as a HC subordinate group to your squad leader group and you can change individual formations, etc, since they are their own independent group which you have complete control over in the HC interface.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Spooner

[frederf 0]

Agreed Spooner, this new HC system (if done correctly) makes any effort on the old hackney color/pseudo group system a waste and a distraction.