Before I start, I'd like to apologize for my words - they matter not but I need to get rid of 'em.
Yesterday I took part in the events which were hosted on an EU server. We had 80 - 100 players most time and it looked like fun first. Usually, I'm not biased towards a side and since I'm not part of any regiment, you can find me either fighting for the Yankees or as Johnny Reb.
Too bad, the event lacked any organization on Union side that day. We simply had no experienced officer (and only a few regimental boys) on our side and Rebs had an easy time taking us down. In one match, Union had suffered nearly thrice the casualties Confeds had just due lack of proper leadership. The other match we had an officer that had a bit of experience, we didn't win and still suffered bad decisions, but at least we kept our morale and had proper lines set up.
Now that's not the reason why I'm writing down those lines.
There was a small discussion going on dealing with "locked event servers for regiments". In fact, the entire talk started since we had no experienced officer leading our troops, instead the officer spot got either bugged (no officer at all) or was occupied by someone with questionable experience.
I'm not much of a fan of "locked" servers, unless a clan battle is going on (read: two regiments want to duke it out undisturbed). It simply will lead to following scenario: regiments will stay away from public servers, public players get denied experienced leadership by officers and soldiers organized in regiments resulting in a questionable gaming experience aka "no fun".
Now I do have some battles under my belt, maybe not that many like most regimental players, but still know the drill well enough. Most of the battles I took part had organized players and publics and we all were following a simple set of rules: if you're in a regiment, you follow your officer. And if you're not in a regiment, you tag along with one of the present ones and do whatever they do. Nice and simple, everyone can do that, even when not doing any drill preparations.
However, it simply doesn't work if no experienced officers (read: officers from any regiment) with some of his boys is present and able leading a line. Then the game simply falls apart. Picking the officer class alone doesn't make anyone an officer, but uses up a valuable spot. Picking the officer class without some boys supporting you also does not work since you need a certain amount of players to set up a line willingly - which isn't always working with a pure public line. In fact I believe, it's less the officer setting up a properly organized line but the players he brings with him - which IS a boon of regiments. They all know their job and officers usually can think about the ongoing battle. They don't need to organize a line by hand, that's what NCOs do and the players by themselves.
That means: any good officer player comes with his own boys and sets up a line as "rally point".
And that's when my argument starts to get weight. If no organized regiment is around, you'll end with a bunch of random players. Even when they know the deal, if there's no one to lead them, they simply won't work together in any meaningful manner. And even when they manage to stick together: a host of ragtag bunch of misfits isn't a line and will get gunned down at every situation, regardless if they act on their own or if they're led by an inexperienced officer that's simply an officer 'cuz the player took that role. No organized gameplay is no fun. And if regiments can lock themselves away, they'll remove the only element that makes a random public battle an organized one: their regiment. In a way we'll end with a self-fulfilling prophecy: regiments stay away from public servers due lack of organization - which is caused by regiments that do not play on public servers. Odd, isn't it? Thankfully, we don't have the option to lock servers currently, which means we still can enjoy organized public battles.
Now let's wonder if my mindset is wrong, shall we?
Yesterday I took part in a battle at Nicodemus Hill (spelling?) as Union soldier. We had roughly three formations: one left, one center and one right. None of 'em had nearly enough players to break through. The center formation was more or less a skirmishing unit without an officer or whatsoever and we kept firing at them Rebs. Since we had no proper leadership, we couldn't really support any of the flanking units. Als there was neither coordination nor did anybody came up with the idea of using messengers. I'm no leader in WoR, I simply don't know the drill. It's not that I can't command "at the ready - aim - fire", it's more the tactical part. When do I move my boys where? And since I know that, I simply don't pick the officer class. I do sometimes pick the NCO, his main job is to relay orders from the officer in charge to his end of the line. That's something I can do but even that role is rarely pick'd by me.
So, now I ask you: shall I pick a commanding role if I don't know enough doing that job 'cuz nobody else is taking command? Won't that lead to the very same situation I was describing above? A unit led by a poor officer with zero experience, no soldiers supporting him ... does that help anybody? Is my mindset wrong here?
As I said before: for me, there are a few simple rules: if a regiment is around, I stick with 'em and do what they do. And I will do my damnest to do a good job - and won't take valuable spots as officer, I will free up the spot of NCO or flag bearer if asked. Actually, I would do the same if I were part of any regiment.
I'm just saying. I can't join a regiment due lack of time and some other reasons any time soon, but I do enjoy volunteering in any line battle bolstering a regiment's number. At least I would feel devastated if regiments could lock themselves away from public servers in the long run - which may harm the game itself. As I said: organized gameplay is fun as hell, a lack of organization is not.
</end of words>
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by rbsmith7
