The game, as it stands, is a massive clusterfuck. People run back and forth dying and bleeding. It's all very messy to be frank.

My suggestion is that we can vote in a commander to replace the AI. He has access to a larger map split up into Sectors (although he can zoom in to more detail). He coordinates on a large scale and is in charge of all 1000 men. If we ever get some semblance of logistics then he's in charge of that.

The commander can then appoint sub commanders to Sectors. They have about 300 men under their command and are actual characters. They can call in fire support and coordinate the next tier down- Leaders

Leaders are actual combatants with 50 men under their command. They control roughly one grid-square but can move troops anywhere within one square of it. They follow orders, basically.

This would require more control over AI so the leaders don't just have a swarm around them though, still thinking on a way to solve that without adding too much complexity.


That's roughly 48 players accounted for, each in command of their own area and working together. This lets fights have more structure but keeps the 1000 man limit so no intensity is lost. But what is 48 isn't the cap?

Well then we have Squads! Squads are entirely player-based and answer directly to the commander. They get slightly better equipment and are used to help bolster defences and rally offensives.
-----------
Just my mild brain-fart but I think some sort of command structure is needed to get the most out of this game. Comments ahoy!

Don't get me wrong, I love the idea and can imagine it being hugely fun, but it does sound like a lot of work. Maybe in Running with rifles 3.0 after a couple of years?

First, I find 1000 men (that's roughly 500 vs 500 with even base division initially) way too much for maps of the current size. Someone on the forum specifically requested it to be able to set a lot of soldiers out there, and we allowed it, even if it was expected that it wouldn't scale well.

With the latest modifications I've made for the upcoming 0.35, 200 vs 200 seems to reach the upper limit of my liking already. With 150 vs 150 there's actually even some sense in the battles as there's more space and the AI doesn't end up in one big messy crowd during the battles. It isn't a big surprise, as the AI has been so far developed to deal with small team fights only and not having to specifically take much into account that there can be several teams in single place.

So, what your scenario might need, would be
* support for a lot bigger maps
* someone creating such big maps
* a commander interface for the player, which would be pretty much a separate game really what comes to mechanics
* the interface to give orders to AI lower in chain of command
* AI features to follow the orders, deal with big battles and other teams
* most probably voip support of some sort

Testing all this might be pretty hard, getting enough people to play at the same time with good enough connections and getting crash logs to analyze from everyone.. I mean, I'm pretty sure this won't happen unless I somehow start getting paid for doing this and can quit my current day job

Just one soldier that controls all of them doesn't seem right in my opinion but the ability to issue orders is indeed necessary,
also giving a boost to squads would be unfair.

In my opinion it could be like this:

The player would be able to issue orders at any time, regardless of the rank, however, only those who belong to his/her squad would actually "hear" him.
The AI would also be able to issue orders, though that ability would be only to those who would be leading a squad themselves.

The orders could be placed in the numbers on the keyboard like this:

1- Cover me!
2- Give supressing fire!
3- Split up! (for example when a grenade comes. Just to warn those who have their backs turned and didn't see it comming, or just to split up to also disperse the enemy)
4- Hide! (for when you're performing a stealth mission with 1 or 2 AI soldiers to provide you with cover and not get you into trouble by getting seen)
5- Cease fire! (You're running with a squad of 3 men to sneak in a base but on your way one of your soldiers sees the enemy and engages in combat, you manage to win the fight, however you're the only one left, or on the other hand, you get shot. This order is to avoid situations like that by having your squad ignore the enemy sight)
6- Fire at will! (This one is just to cancel the order above)
7- Patrol the area (This order has 4 (or all, what's your opinion on this?) of your men make sure the perimiter is safe, if one of them starts firing against the enemy an arrow pointing in his direction will appear)

Just an idea

_________________
Look behind you. What I'm not there? I see... then look forward. Still not there? ...On the sides? Up and down? ...Where the heck am I? ... Oh wait! Yeah! I'm the one that's trying to find me ._. That's rather silly isn't it?

Well, I think an Operation Flashpoint/Arma interface would do well here. F1-F6 keys would allow you to select soldiers to do the action (no selection would mean giving the command to all your soldiers). Then the actual numbers would be commands, although I can see there wouldn't be enough of them to cover all needed commands. This could be solved by combinations. (Hitting 1 twice would be "Follow me", 1 then 2 would be "Flank Left", 1-3 "Flank Right, 1-4 "Retreat", etc.)

Quite frankly, I don't. All I see is a dozen points where everything would just break apart. Even if the considerable resources would magically appear to get all that implemented, in all likelihood the game would appeal to a very niche crowd.

A game like that requires a lot from the players. There must be willing and able commanders all the time. In reality, this would happen rarely. It also assumes all the players are willing and able at following the orders they're given. In reality, this would be even more rare (a cynic would say impossible). The game mechanics would also need a lot of altering to produce the gains from any successful tactical play, as I don't think this is the case (the mechanics support action, even arcade style, play)

It's worth keeping in mind that any new capabilities given to players turn very quickly into requirements. That is, if the player is given the chance to do something beneficial, he also must do it, or he's wasting opportunities / not maximizing his play. Most players try to play as well as they can, so a lot of things to optimize makes playing the game a lot of work. This remark was mainly aimed at the command suggestions presented; commands might be a good or even a needed feature, but the number of commands should be considered very carefully. I'd be amazed if more than 3-5 commands were actually needed (basically absolutely everything that can feasibly be automated must be automated, and so on).

I think most of those could be simplified to less buttons and making assumptions from your mode and actions, as has been intention so far, so some of these have been already made, some not.

(3) Splitting up due to grenade should be automatic. As someone sees it, he shouts something, and others become notified of it.

(4) (5) If you carry a suppressed weapon, it indicates to your group that you're now going stealth. It would mean that they need to stay out of enemy sight at all times when there's no local alert, also by crouching / going prone yourself, it could signal them hide/don't move. They shouldn't start firing even if they see an enemy, unless you fire or the enemy starts firing. If you start firing with your suppressed weapon, those in the group who also possess a suppressed weapon, should concentrate the fire to where you are shooting, to maximize the probability of hitting a single target, to avoid him being able to alert others from incoming fire, and stealth is about taking them out one by one. Of course those who do not carry a suppressed weapon, shouldn't open the fire until there's a local alert.

(6) If you don't carry a suppressed weapon, it mostly means that the fire is open, you want your squad to spot enemies and fire at them, and especially if you shoot, they should shoot. If you want to arrange an ambush or something, just pick the suppressed weapon to indicate to your group that being silent is good.

Aren't (1) and (2) pretty much the same thing? To spray bullets to the enemy, preferably the enemy that's firing against you, to distract them / keep them busy while you're reloading /attempting to make a move to another position? I can't immediately see how this could be done without specific command for it, except for the reloading.

So that would require 1 button for suppressive fire command, 1 button for splitting up. Split up could be a mode, so that pressing the same button again would mean to regroup. Splitting up when there's no fighting around would mean to patrol around the leader.

That's 2 buttons instead of 7, even I might be able to use that.

I never played any game of the Battlefield series, but didn't they have some kind of commander interface in it, in some version?

I can't recall exactly right now, but for sure commander systems/interfaces have been done. I just have never seen a great one, but I've seen quite a few poor ones. Systems like that are more common in smaller niche games, I think, and probably for the reasons I mentioned.

Of course a good commander system could probably be developed, I just have no idea where even to begin, as there are the obvious issues mentioned.

Another way to look at this is by considering how many absolutely brilliant games there are out there with no commander system.

Exactly.