Dont Teamspeak and similar undermine it all?
Player couriers running written orders from player officers.
Player couriers running "letters" that, when opened update that units movement or attack orders.
AI couriers running written orders from player officers
AI couriers running "letters" that, when opened update that unit's movement or attack orders.
Player officers write letters to specific unit officers that appear on screen after a delay.
Player officers write "letters" to specific unit officers that updates his orders after a delay.
USA Sergeant
Dont Teamspeak and similar undermine it all?
Thomas Bernstorff Aagaard
USA Captain
Exactly.Originally Posted by thomas aagaard
41st Pennsylvania 1stLt C.O / 41st Ensign.
USA Captain
Yes. Though I imagine there will be events (If events as we knew them in previous, similar games are present in this one) that attempt to enforce not using such tools.
Captain Joseph Thomas,
"Danville Blues" Company A, 18th Virginia Volunteer Infantry Regiment
CSA Captain
unless officers and signallers are willing to learn signal flags I don't think it would workI prefer the signal corps
CSA Captain
not everyone is going to be in the same teamspeak.
USA Captain
But what would be the appeal to that? How would be chosen as General? Events like that seem like someone trying to sit on a fat horse so he can tell others what to do. Teamwork should be about mutual co-operation not some guy telling you off. This is a game after all, not the actual army. I don't know what the appeal of having some stranger tell you and your guys what to do is but if that's what you think oh well. Adding in a team chat could easily negate the whole thing all together and make things simplistic. Not to mention if a general is standing near a friendly force you could easily not hear a goddam thing. "Then make them be quite" you say, but what the appeal to be sitting dead silent, waiting for orders from some guy you don't know and then listening the your officer talk because hes the only one allowed?
41st Pennsylvania 1stLt C.O / 41st Ensign.
USA Captain
What on earth do your apparent issues with player generals have to do with the use of couriers?
Last edited by TheBoberton; 10-25-2016 at 01:54 AM. Reason: Corrected the phrasing
Captain Joseph Thomas,
"Danville Blues" Company A, 18th Virginia Volunteer Infantry Regiment
USA 1st Lieutenant
has anyone actually expressed any interest in playing as a courier? We don't know the player limits yet and if it isn't that high and people are taken out fo combat roles to bring written messages the game won't be as good in my opinion. You need as many human players as possible in combat roles. AI would be stupid and take time out of development
USA Captain
To be brutally frank, if the limit for player count is low enough that the removal of a small number of players to act as couriers will have a significant effect on combat, there will be no need for them, because there will be no generals to send orders.
Captain Joseph Thomas,
"Danville Blues" Company A, 18th Virginia Volunteer Infantry Regiment
USA 1st Lieutenant
still doesn't answer the question of who would have fun roleplaying as hitler in world war one and being a courier. The option of the general 'writing' or sending orders and then them coming through by a delay is the best option in my opinion.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
