The Commander should be able to see the squads from the overview without having to log out, and have the ability to kick people from squads and put them into different squads to rearrange them. This way when half of Alpha Squad goes west with half of Bravo Squad, and vice versa with Bravo going north, the Commander could put people in the squads they belong in.
It would work well in the beginning of the map, not something for the comm to do in the middle or end phase.
i dont see why not. this is one of those 'duh' suggestions that should have been implemented with squads in the first place.
Yeah man, I was just comm tonight (won every time as comm, w00t!, only time I lost was on escort [lawl, NF rules on escort]) and I had the squads: Alpha Squad (4) Bravo Squad (5) Charlie Squad (4) Juliet Squad (2) So I tell the Juliet Squad members to join Alpha and Bravo respectively to maximize squad points, and they say things along the lines of: "*&^% you Comm, make me" I raged a little, then gave up, just went on ignoring them.
i had that once, i told them to move to the absolute corner of the map and defend that position and stay out of the way of anyone else including enemies got the message across
It could be made easy. Click, drag, hit a key (or ctrl-key) -- just like assigning a group in an RTS. No need to have the comm fiddle with individual members -- do you think the comm cares who the leader is, most of the time? If you really need that, have a 'make squad leader' button when someone is selected. It'd help with some other things, too, and it couldn't hurt.
alpha bravo charlie are the newb squads that people join because everyone tells them they are supposed to join a squad. if you want to join a real squad with real teamwork and a squad leader that isn't a moron you join one of the other squads. if a comm hassles me too much i usually just ignore him.
If 5 people join, for instance Foxtrot, I will not bother them, because they have become a full squad that I can command, but when people do something like this: Alpha Squad (2) Bravo Squad (3) Charlie Squad (2) Foxtrot Squad (1) Zulu Squad (2) with a 10-man team on a map with only two fronts to fight (west and east, for example) I have to scramble to order them: "Alright, Alpha, Charlie, and Echo go down the Eastern Front, Bravo and Zulu go down the Western Front." And of course, because people are retarded, I will have some Zulu going east or some Alpha going west, so I have to tell them to get with their squad so that we do not have 7 people on one front and 3 on the other, and watch as the three die horribly. At this point in time I have completely forgotten which squads I have assigned where (well not completely, but I have to spend time recollecting which squads go where instead of remaining autonomous), and with this disorganization teams tend to fail because they have no order. The simple solution would have been Alpha (5) and Bravo (5), not only does this ease the Comm's job, but they can each accumulate more squad points.
Also with this suggestion, obviously giving the Commander ability to lock squads as well, and even starting maps with squads Delta-Zulu automatically locked, or the server computes how many squads the team needs, for instance 30 people in the server, 15 on each team, 3 squads. 64 people in the server, 32 people on each team, 7 squads, etc.
But from the very definition of the word "Commander", the Commander should have control over your squad, he acts as the commanding officer of your platoon, and as such should have power over the organization of his team. Going back to my previous example, even if the commander sorted everyone into Alpha/Bravo, Alpha/Foxtrot, w/e, he might still have one of the people he sorted rage their assigned squads and jump around to the other squads. The Commander could do no more than continually move the team member, for which he would still jump around. If, in any of my virtual military units, I came across a member who did not work with his squad (not practicing with squad members, not playing with them, not adding them to friends, etc.), I would punish him. Correction :p
I usually act independently of the commander with my own squad and I am very successful. Giving full control to this manager that we call the 'commander' is giving power just for its namesake.
One player shouldn't be able to interfere with all the rest without mutual consent. With an opt-out system, one can object.
Yes, you are very successful, which means when you have captured two refineries in the east and you find out the commander is walled in, you go for the third refinery, because hey, it isn't like the commander is part of the game, just a name. Yep, the commander has no significant role on a team, you might as well play without one. Empires is a team game, where whichever team has better teamwork, wins. Not using teamwork in Empires is like trying to Half-Life 2 without killing the Combine, both will only end up in failure. There is an opt-out system, the vote that comes at the beginning of each game. You vote out the commanders who will cause your team to fail.
I don't play commander because I'm better off observing what's happening on the field as well as keeping my team of infantry from dying. Oftentimes, I'm better commanding as an infantryman than as a dummy in the CV.
to add to this, the intelligence you are recieving from an active squad leader near to you will be far more pertinent than that of the commander. sometimes a squad leader may make a judgment contrary to that of the commander, and this might be because a squad leader has more information about the immediate situation.
Yeah, if I have a competent squad leader on my team, who has competent players in his squad, that's five less cats I have to herd, which is five more cats that are gonna do their best to wreck the enemy's shit