Issues with Issuing Orders

[Heiko Alkema]

Units are easy, just make a new category in the archives for defunct units. I'm not so much concerned about that, all the popular Hollywood units will be snatched up pretty quick and others will just fall into those. That's my prediction, anyway.

Ranks, though, I'm on the fence. The way we do it now, the fact that higher ranks require higher quality... Well that's a lie. They require much longer applications. And this is viewed as superior to lower ranks. I don't like this superiority complex. There's no reason sergeant Heiko, as a character, should be viewed as a lesser character to captain Silvan despite being the clearly more developed character.

I'm leaning toward removing the application length requirement entirely. As long as you can write a coherent application with proper English grammar, you can have any rank you want up to Captain. I don't feel any ranks above Captain are really necessary for our purposes.

For units, I want to worry about bonuses and differences later. We need to figure out what we want to do with units in a more general sense first and look at the nuanced differences between the various nations afterward.

Tanks obviously really need a good deal of thought-juice poured all over them. A nice thick lather.

[Mac Bargett]

To prevent newbie players from making high ranking characters we could have a set of rules where the first character you make has to be a low level rank, then anyone who has been around for a few months can get a low NCO/Officer rank, and then anyone who has been around for a year can get a high NCO/CO rank. The time lengths are just an example of course.

And to lower cp costs and to promote the use of different ordnance, we could implement supply logistics. For instance, every month (again just an example) each country has only a set number of each shop item that can be bought and added to the division page (or whatever becomes the new division page). The limit would be considered the number of men trained or number of weapons and vehicles produced, where there would be a lot of regular items (boot troops, basic weapons) and only a few of the currently expensive items.

Another idea is to have resupply and maintenance costs. Every month (again, just an example) the player has to pay a certain amount of cp for the units they have. If they don't, the units would perform inefficient in battle or even be taken away from that player and be open for anyone to use.

[Deleted]

I'll go into discussion about the specific NPC character and equipment in the thread I'll write in a minute, but I'll say that "permanent" is something that in essence, things are not. Rifles to tank treads, they can be broken. If you look at history, most tanks "lost" were either totally destroyed and not worth retrieving, or unretrievable and/or unrepairable after anadonment by crew.

I disagree about the necessity of ranks above Captain. Ranks tell you a lot of things. The role of the person holding it. In combat situations, its easy to tell a person's role by his rank. Company commanders have company command ranks. Battaliom commanders have battalion command ranks. Too many Captains and it soon becomes unclear who is running the ship. While initiallysuch a unit system would consist of a loose federation of companies and platoons, at some point a battalion commander would be named. Then regiment, and division.

I could see there being battalion sub-boards popping up with only a single company to avoid struggles for battalion command. Eventually they would be filled by people willing to take a lesser role of company and platoon leader. Popular commanders would have their battalion filled while unpopular ones struggled to fill holes.

As far as applications go, I've found myself wondering a few times I started with Hautt as a junior NCO. My application was all right. Then I made Jan Nordmann, and was worthy of 2LT. Right after that I made Anton Trubachev. I put even more effort on that, and was awarded 2LT again. I wanted to scream "this is Hautt! Just got Jan accepted at the same rank! Just give it to me!" My writing ability hadn't changed, but I still had to write this ridiculously long app to get accepted for LT... AGAIN.

The real guts of the app is the writing sample. I'm finding that 90 percent of my characters histories are stuff I make up AFTER the application. Instead of knowing his entire past and going from there, I start with a few nuances and roleplay with those until I "discover" the character. Think I created Hautt? Wrong. I had no ieea of who Hautt really was until I tried him out. This arrogant paper-pushing badass-wannabe murderer prick manifested himself in the first few posts of the first thread I ever had (when Heiko stabbed him). After that, I knew who he was. Character building relies (for me anyways) more on interaction with others than any story planning. Which is why IO is addicting. You never know what you're going to get when you interact with others.

Anyways, to Mac's post. The system makes sense. A squad leader who can't handle a squad probably wouldn't make it long enough to apply for a higher rank. If he disappears wihout explanation, though, is it really best to remove his unit? I'd think just take him out of the roster and keep the unit would be sound. The unit is wctive, it's the player who disappeared. I just imagine helping get someone set up under my command and he just disappears. I'd hav nothing to show for it.

What if I wanted to control a company from both the company and battalion level? this would harm promotions. Instead of earning command of my battalion, I'd just make a new character once I'd earned the right to make a character of that rank. Incentive to build a character is harmed. On the plus side, I'd be able to participate in battles as a company co with one character, and control it from the battalion co character.

I see a scale between focus on combat and focus on management. At the squad level, it's much closer to combat, since a squad requires less management. On the division level, its almost entirely focused on the management aspect.

Divisional commandere have division-level problems to deap with. Organizing the regiments and independant battalions. Talking to the larger unit hqs about their problems. Regiment commanders manage their battalions and indpendant companies. And so on.

A section leader tells his platoon leader about his dislike of the Jagdpanzer IV. If the platoon leaders hears enough like that, he takes his problem to the company CO. It can go to the battalion commander, who finds a short fix to the problem, or to the regimental commander who authorizes upgrades to Jagdpanzer IV/70, or to the divisional CO, who might decide to stop replacing losses, phasing it out in favor of an upgrade to Jagdpanther. Division, Regiment, and Battalion HQ have purpose. That is helping the front line guys to be as effective as possible.

For someone who paid for their unit, this would put strain on their pocketbooks if there were not fixes.

1. They can take their unit somewhere else. Leave the 9. Panzer Div in favor of the 12th, for instance.

2. Decision-makers pay for their decisions. In this case, regimental COs paying for upgrades they decide to implement, or division COs paying for new types of vehicles. This makes small changes possible by small people, and big changes by big people. If the issue is thin armor, section leaders might buy field modifications, such as treads and sandbags. Unauthorized, but useful. Doing everyhing they can to make them effective is expected. Buying whole new vehiclee they can't afford is not. Ir they can afford a new vehicle, it's ultimately up to their CO to implement it, as that changes the roster he decided on. An actual purpose for chain of command.

Now to logistics. Everything here is composed of THINGS. A Panther isn't just a Panther it has a specific type of gun (75mm KwK42 L/70), which carries so much ammunition of this and that type. The gun has a price, the ammunition has prices. If the gun is destroyed, it's a matter of money tor a replacement and time to replace it. While not possible for shop listings, a sticky with all this info would be useful. It would be set somewhere it can be read, too. Understood. Right now I'd have no idea how much a repair would cost unless I needed it repaired. It's abstract rather than definitive.

Define it somewhere and it makes things much more detailed and knowable. Refueling a tank would be a matter of knowing how much it holds, how much fuel you have, and how much fuel costs. How much it uses can be estimated without needing a precise number.

I do dislike the idea of monthly costs though. 1. Different units might use differrnt amounts. A tank that doesn't move around should cost less than one that moves around a lot. One that fights needs less ammo than one that doesn't, so wh stick the same price on them? If we can quantify the specifics, supply is no longer abstract, but estimable, predictable. It also gives a value to wise use of resources. Training is no longer useless, it is a way to save ammunition and fuel, and keep units from making costly mistakes.

We have a scale with realism on one side and arcade on the other. Realism, while harder to implement, is much more rewarding when it is, an saves a lot of headscratching later.

[Sgt. John Walters]

When it comes to making an officer character, it should depend upon a unit's need. So for example if the 3AD needs two officers, then two officers may apply. I seriously think there should be a limit on multiple characters though, sorry to those who have a lot. It just seems a little stupid, but thats just my opinion.

[☭ Joseph Petrov]

I agree with the first part of your post, sort of, I do think something needs to be done to keep too many of one type of character being in a unit. Of course, that could be easily fixed (in theory at least) by letting people have greater control over their character's chosen unit. So instead of all being crammed into the 3ID, they could be spread out over the 1ID, 2ID, 3ID, 4ID, 5ID, ect. ect.

As for your point about character amount limitations, I have to disagree with you there. I find it convenient to multiple characters for various purposes. And there being people with several characters hasn't seemed to cause a problem in the past.

[Sgt. John Walters]

Alright I see your point, but I still think it should be limited. Maybe like two per side max?

[Deleted]

Ehh. I've written an application for four brothers. That would bring me to six. Unnecessary? Perhaps. But they are totally different characters. I'll be able to roleplay different roles and scales of command. AT section leader. Armor Battalion Commander. SS. Army. Whatever. I can handle it.

[Heiko Alkema]

As far as limits on the number of characters, I think most players know their own limit on how many characters they can juggle. And sometimes you don't realize how useless or useful a character will be until after you create him/her.

For instance, my character Jonathan Strange was created as a throw-away character just to fill a spot in the 3ID. And he ended up being the character that I've actually used the most out of all 4 of my characters despite not even being my favorite. You just never know and having a versatile stable of characters to draw on actually helps keep the game alive by giving you more options to fill roles in others' threads rather than trying to shoehorn characters into roles they have no business filling.

At most, I'd only support limiting new member to two characters until they get more familiar with the game. After that, have at it.

[Sgt. John Walters]

Nov 24, 2013 23:22:09 GMT Heiko Alkema said:

At most, I'd only support limiting new member to two characters until they get more familiar with the game. After that, have at it.

Now that I can agree with.

[Ziu]

The entire site is cluttered and clunky. There are old threads and guides everywhere, and it is a little disconcerting to see abandoned neutral threads from 1-3 years past. It gives the site a sense that it is dying or most inactive, rather than coming back to life. The typos in some of the board descriptions could also be removed - giving the site a grammar-check would, in turn, give it a bit of polish.

I also think the site needs more colour, somehow. Everything is quite grey and drab, and the outdated threads add to the dullness. Everything looks half-baked and unappealing at first, something I attribute to the V5 update that (from what I've read) broke some of the board's coding.

Finally, the Wiki. I checked it not too long before coming here, and it is messy and outdated as well. There's not a standard, simple, clean layout that all the pages follow, and it looks to be 2 years out of date.