Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Suggestions for new Company System

  1. #1
    Bl1zzt3r's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2017
    Location
    Skirmishing on Pry Ford
    Posts
    150

    Lightbulb Suggestions for new Company System

    Now that each regiment (or at least each non-skirmisher regiment) has been divided into 2 companies I feel as though there are a few suggestions that I would like to pass on to the Dev team in hopes that they either add/ fix these features or are inspired by them.

    1. Clean up the UI.
    With the recent addition of all the new companies, it has cluttered up the user interface when selecting regiments and there is no separator between the companies for the two regiments which leads to people accidentally selecting the wrong company as everyone tries to rush to spawn. I am going to second an idea that our good moderator Leifr suggested which was a drop-down/ sub-company UI system in which once selected infantry only the regiments are viewable and you must click on your respective regiment to view its companies within.



    As shown above when selecting the 32nd Pennsylvania the player has the option to chose between both companies however, instead of promoting the idea that there are 4 small regiments on the battlefield which is a complaint heard quite frequently the player is counted towards the total count of the regiment.

    A feature that would work really well with this new idea would be displaying the player's regiment above their company, I understand that currently you can only see the company lettering of those already apart of the same regiment however, with everyone's names displayed quite similar it would be another thing to help the eye distinguish each other.

    2. Organizing chain of command.
    One thing that is apparent in most public matches since the update is that sometimes the companies feel as if they no longer belong to a regiment and instead are their own small regiment. This is largely because there is a clear lack of chain of command or proper organization promoting these companies sticking together. Something that could fix this would be establishing a "regiment commander" role where one player has overall command of his respective regiment and would need to work in tandem with his two company commanders to maneuver his regiment around the battlefield.

    Something that would clearly display who this commander would be could be either:

    - Limiting his rank to regimental staff ranks ie. Major, lieutenant Colonel and Colonel.
    - Uniquely colored nametag similar to the current officer however, a different and more prominent one.
    - Instead of a Company tag above his name perhaps a regimental one.

    Furthermore, another thing which I might suggest is taking a look at the NCOs. Currently there is 4 NCOs per company with no limit to a specific rank which IMO takes away from the importance / stature of those ranks. Much like how I suggested with the "regimental commander" perhaps limit specific ranks to only one player putting importance on who that player is and thus allowing for further established and organized chain of command should the company commander be killed.

    Two simple changes that could help with this problem:

    - Much like my "regiment commander" role, limit sergeant major to one per regiment.
    - Limiting 1st Sergeant to one per company, effectively making them 2nd in command should the company commander fall.

    3. Artillery Sections.
    A possible feature I would like to see implemented as the server pop increases is the implementation of a company like system for artillery batteries. During the civil war artillery batteries were divided into sections with most having 2 and some 3. The system would ideally be similar to the one already implemented for infantry however, much like the recent removal of the cavalry companies this system would depend on each specific map and the amount of batteries present ie. Nicodemous Hill has 4 batteries for CSA and USA therefore, none of those should have more than 1 section however, maps such as Dunker Church with 2 batteries for union should have at least 2 sections each. The sections would have the same layout as the current battery organization however to create a more realistic and further organized unit limit certain ranks.

    Example:

    Edgll's Battery:
    - Battery Officer: OgKegster22 (rank limited to Captain as there is no reason for a battery to have anything higher than a captain)
    - Battery 1st Sergeant: DiamondD0g

    Section A:
    - Section Officer: SpankMeDaddy123 (1st or 2nd Lieutenant)
    - Section NCO: 4 dudes (highest rank being sergeant)
    - Privates

    Section B:
    - Section Officer: DefinitelyaTroll (1st or 2nd Lieutenant)
    - Section NCO: 4 dudes (highest rank being sergeant)
    - Privates

    Attached Images Attached Images
    Last edited by Bl1zzt3r; 12-11-2021 at 02:30 PM.

  2. #2
    My post on reddit was flagged as spam, I'll be re-creating it, but wanted to just put it here to supplement Johnsons push for collecting feedback. Regarding Johnsons' suggestions... I do think an in-game indication (possibly via the UI as he suggests) would go a long way in suggestion to players how the units are organized. I understand UI in general may be a bit of a placeholder, so could understand if that is just WIP for a long time. Other commenters elsewhere had similar UI suggestions.

    I like Johnson's suggestion of implying seniority among the company commanders. I think both in real life and in the game this is was a thing, with localized commanders needing to defer to who was most senior in rank (or in length of service in case of a tie). Currently, I think additional time is spent on who is leading or deciding overall strategy then there was before due to the need to communicate with 4 people of equivalent rank rather than two. Defenders seem to lose out here as their positional advantage can be eaten away by time spent discussing.

    Personally, my take on feedback or things to consider on tweaks for the Company implementation are:

    • Requirement of a minimum player count threshold in server before allowing players to select spawn as Company B of a particular regiment. I think the minimum should be maybe between 50-80, but perhaps larger as this was supposed to help facilitate larger server sizes. Update: As I've played this more through the week, I've noticed players manually compensating by selecting the larger regiments during low population settings. This may be fine to ignore after all.
    • Initial Spawn Formations should put a little more space between the Companies I've seen many games start right now with time being spent sorting men into companies. I think it's kind of funny, given that I'm sure we are already organized as companies at the start.. but players still feel the urge to do this because the comms get muddy quickly. I know this is probably more work than it's worth, but maybe like 10 feet between the Company columns would be sufficient for this.
    • Mechanism to facilitate COs of same regiment to work together Currently, there's a bit of a gray area for the company A and B COs in figuring out who's running the regiment. Does the person who selects the higher officer rank have superiority? If there's a tie... Do they just run their units separately? In general, it takes a few seconds of time to introduce yourself and establish these expectations at the start of a match now, even if the COs are acquainted... Here are some possible ideas for helping that along even if just one were used:



    1. Additional 'Free Time' pre-match I think 30 seconds to a minute of mustering comms time before people are allowed to spawn in after roles are selected may be enough to arrange this, and would just allows the officers to agree to separate roles or combined efforts with one of them assuming primary command
    2. Company B Officer being eliminated/replaced with conventional NCO Whether formally or informally, I do believe the 2nd CO slot should be a secondary position, that pretty much just supports the primary CO's decisions. When I'm in that slot, I defer to the other one as part of this agreement so the regiment can operate strongly. There are limited cases where the 2nd Regiment may operate independently, but until that happens, it's mostly overkill to exercise too much authority from the additional CO slot.
    3. Customary (maybe in-game emphasis?) on A-Company CO being the overall regiment commander. I think the CO of A Company being understood by the players to being the overall regimental commander would be a great custom, and kind of give the kind of hierarchy we need to sort through these issues quickly. If someone wants regimental command, then they should be gunning for the A company CO slots. An in-game indication of superiority here would greatly be appreciated to communicate this to the player base at large.

    [*]Automatic Default Initial Regiment & Company selection up Match Start One issue I've noticed lately concerns the very imbalanced regiment and company selection allocation at the start of more fully populated server matches (for example, 1 company may have 40 to 50 players, another 20 or so, and the remaining a lot less). While this is due to manual preference, as a result of it being defaulted to 'unenlisted' for all players at the start of the match, I sincerely believe most players are not selecting regiments based off thoughtful preference rather than whatever is simplest/fastest to click to get started. I think it would be very valuable if matches starting with players intially assigned players evenly across companies at the start of the match across the basic Private roles. This way the players that want to just start a match are able to without being forced to make decisions they don't care about and the overall support roles are allocated for maximum effectiveness per private. If a player does have a sincere reason to select a particular regiment or role, they are still able to do so, so there would be no loss for such players.
    Last edited by Rawlins; 12-13-2021 at 04:32 AM.

  3. #3
    @Rawlins All your suggestions make sense with Pub Matches and the Skirmish Areas we have in the game now. The system was implemented for the big main maps and event units I think. In Events you have more than 2 participating units per side and the discussion of which unit gets the flag, CO's and NCO's was always a pain.
    Companies participating in events are the largest part of this community and they are the backbone of this game. With 400 slot servers, this company system makes sense and was much needed. Your suggestions make no sense for these events, but for public games.... yes, you are right. I think it would be nice to have more options in the server admin menu like you suggested. Most pub matches are held on private servers, so a few more options for admins would make more sense. There you can introduce some restrictions like 1 or 2 CO's per regiment and other things like minimum requirement for spawn as B Company. Reglimentations for a wide open system restricts other play styles. There is no need to nerv it.The admin menu needs to be more powerful and provide more options for the server. I think this is the best way to solve some of the above problems. Btw... sorry for my bad english... is not my first language
    Last edited by Jack Stone; 12-12-2021 at 03:12 PM.

  4. #4
    Arguments about whether the game mode should be or not designed for public server play are not really something I believe to be debated... I believe the developers have already been clear that the game modes out of the box are designed for non-clan play in mind... modding capabilities are nice but are probably a lower priority than the core game mode design they are trying to complete

    One additional point I'd like to add (will update the post I had earlier with this bullet) is an 'auto suggestion' or 'auto assignment' feature because in public match starts it seems like a large potion of players start by selecting the first company of the first regiment and then sequentially down from that with significantly lesser numbers. This may be a petty request as I have seen games where manual allocation has been close enough to equal earlier on in a match and/or there are legitimate reasons for selecting a single regiment this much (low pop servers). However, as a default selection that players can manually override, to inform players that are truly just trying to simply assign themselves as fast as possible without caring to overall allocation, this would alleviate a lot of issues seen.

  5. #5
    I'm right there with you and your arguments are good.
    You're just trying to find a system that works for all situations.
    Less populated servers and much populated servers.
    But since almost all servers, with a few exceptions, are provided by the clans you portray as marginal, and the provision of servers also costs a lot of money, you should give them the opportunity to configure them to their needs.
    To grant each server owner these possibilities and to set the changes you have in mind individually, brings more variety and thus also more possibilities into the game.
    If you could also make these settings visible in the server list, each player can choose for himself which server he wants to join.
    A range of options would therefore be better for everyone and not restrict anyone to a single existing system.
    Diversity is more important than barriers.
    And as I said in the beginning... It is the clans that provide the public servers at the moment.
    So they are already absolutely important for the game.
    Making assumptions about what the developers are planning doesn't help here.
    The current situation is crucial here.
    Once a meta has been established, it will be difficult to break it again.
    I am sure that the developers have a plan for their game and that they are following it very closely.
    So far, they have transported this absolutely exactly to the outside.
    I'm glad that everything is going step by step here and I thank them for not catering to everything the community wants.
    Otherwise they would not be finished, because they would then always work on changing sites.
    And there are still enough construction sites.
    For example, the Melee system, which urgently needs to be revised.
    Because when the cavalry comes, that plays an important role.
    They had listened to certain people in the community and introduced that you can no longer push others away and that was a mistake.
    When you run into a crowd in real life, of course you push people away, and in the game the system that was introduced brings completely different problems.
    These are only examples and should only clarify, that the community's opinions are not always helpful.
    They regliment an existing system and take diversity out of it.
    But we also know that what has been introduced so far is only to pave the way for future things.
    For example, a command level may be introduced.
    Except for the developers, no one knows if the changes made so far are just to make the current state of the game playable, or if they are a template for future projects.
    The game is not finished and everything can still be changed.
    Guessing what has priority and what doesn't, doesn't help at all.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •