Rank + Mission Management Would be Great to Have

[HaHa]

Everyone starts out as privates.. as your score grows (succesful missions/kills etc.. you gain in rank).

Privates: listen to their captains (or roam on their own if they wish)
Captains: have privates to control for single missions
Lieutenants: fight and control captains (i.e. multiple missions)
General: control the lieutenants, formulate battle plan etc..

A captain would have subordinates assigned (automatically) to him as they login. He can then assign tasks to those individuals. Upon succesful completion experience points are given (think Chain of Command).

A lieutenant assigns missions for captains. e.g. there might be a NE sector commander and a NW sector commander lieutenant.

A general has final control over the mission system.

As people login they are automatically assigned different command positions depending on their experience level. Once one is at a position they remain there until they logout.  

The key point is score/experience will actually mean something. The better you do/more experience you get, the higher you will climb up the ladder and hence have more control over the countries decisions. Yes, it's similar to wwIIonline but a heck of a lot simpler.

[This message has been edited by HaHa (edited 04-29-2000).]

[StSanta]

While that immediately sounds like a good idea, it has some less than desireable sideeffects. One being a coercion of players into a role they might not wish to have. At times, I enjoy planning strikes and coordinating things, but it's far from always.

I'm not big on authorities either  , and the only people I can guarantee I will listen to are my mates in JG2.

Under no circumstances will I follow an order given by someone flying a Spitfire.<BG>

Maybe it is better to keep it informal as it is now - when there's a good number of JG2 squaddies online, for instance, we get some great coordinated attack, all done voluntarily and without feeling a "pressure" to live up to the command responsibility that comes with your rank.

But ranks would be cool. Maybe based on score, but that would make score monging more prevalent, and that's not perfect.

Then again, it might counter the "oh, this is just a sim, I will fight til I get shot down/run outta fuel and ditch and forget about the immersion factor" bit.

Oh, ranting again  

--
StSanta
EAC Underwater Operations Team
"We sunk the Ark II and killed off the dinosarus, woohooo!"
JG2

[-raxx-]

Haha,

An interesting idea you have to create cohesion and goals for a side.  A command structure is good if you have a series of like minded people who need to be lead towards a common goal for the good of the country.

Then there are the Rooks I fly with.  A bunch of individuals who couldn't agree to what day of the week it was, much less who to attack and bitterly resenting the fact that one might know better than another, (we'd still dive in and clear his 6 if any dastardly knight or bishop tried to shoot him though).

Organisation of the level you mention is probably best left at a squad level.  Each has their own CO and command structure.  Some prefer a strict military system with the CO passing orders down like you mention.  I prefer to have people take the reins as they feel fit and if they like it to keep on at the job.  I was the Bomber Commander for the RNZAF in Warbirds for three years.  Each week I'd create missions with recon photographs, timings and fuel loads, target assignments and post these up on a web site for the rest of the squadron to read.  From these other pilots decided to give it a go and one took over the reins last year when I stopped flying Warbirds to be involved here.

Like I said your idea is interesting but I think that it would be better left at a squad level.

raxx

[Beefcake]

EHHHH! Major General Beefcake has ways of making you talk!  



[This message has been edited by Beefcake (edited 05-06-2000).]

[Swoop]

just 1 minor question:

In what armed force does a Lieutenant outrank a Captain?

Swoop

[This message has been edited by Swoop (edited 04-29-2000).]

[daddog]

And those that fly the most would inevitably become the leaders. Regardless of their leading ability or how effective their tactics are.  

Stsanta also had several good points. I to tend to only listen to my squad mates and a few others I have come to respect in this community. Not some kid who is out of school for the summer and logging in a huge amount of hours.

Though I like your idea in part   I am not sure how to make it work. Raxx is right, better keep it to a squad level where pilots have already agreed to be under some kind of umbrella of authority. If they don't want to be there they can just leave the squad and go to another or fly rouge as long as they want.

I really wonder how it will work in WWIIOL Haha.  
-------------------
daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels   
Snapshots
   
Where men become friends, and friends become brothers.

[Kieren]

I can make this simple; anything you want that will enhance your gameplay without taking away from the way I want to play is fine by me.

I well remember some megalomaniacs of WB ACA, and I won't be held under that type of despotic rule.   I'm sure everyone can relate their own experiences from whatever sim you have played.

[Minotaur]

Um, I like the idea sort of...

I think I need to be a commander, not the Cammanding Officer, but maybe the 2nd or 3rd in command.

This is because I have experience reading posts on other BBS's about RAF infantry.  Which I thought was a cool job and qualifies me to boss alot of people around.  

------------------
Mino
The Wrecking Crew

[RANKER_ONE]

Greetings !!

Don't talk to me about RANKS look at
topic regardind Call sing  

By miself I go where someone need a ....
Mad Bomberor if I found a bunch of
guys trying hard to get a field and they
are well orgonise EX: JG2 guys  
(who need an officer!!)

Be there where it counts and that's it  

------------------
THE ONLY PROPER DEFENCE IS OFFENSE

 Best regards gents  
Ranker...out!!!

[This message has been edited by RANKER_ONE (edited 04-29-2000).]

[Cobra]

Ahhh...ummm..I am more quailified than Mino, because I have read those posts more than him...at least twice.  Plus it wasn't the RAF infantry it was the RAF Artillery which was formed to support the RAF Submarine force, because they kept loosing too many tanks.

But 4th in command is a more powerful role anyway....You're like Al Haig!!  Then you can say stuff like  "I'm in Charge HERE!"

Seriously HaHa...this was kicked around another thread too, and I think it has to start at the squad level.  If the squads can get together and do co-op type stuff, then the infrastructure for people to join or not join those particular operations should be there.

Cobra

[This message has been edited by Cobra (edited 04-29-2000).]

[eskimo]

I will fly and die for my fellow Buccaneers, and a few others who have proven themselves.
And sometimes I just want to do my own thing.

eskimo

[Beegerite]

I made a similar suggestion a few weeks ago and found out the meaning of the words anarchy, free-spirit, egomaniac, loner etc.
Bottom line there is no question in the mind of any intelligent individual or student of history that wars aren't won by hotshots going off on their own to do what they want when they want it.  However, the only feasible way to do this is within squads.  The other night me and a m8 flew 2 B-17's and gave out our presise eta over the attacked field.  Within 5 mins. we had all hangars and ack down.  Do you think we could get a goon?  Think again!  No goon and in a bit the field was back up to snuff.  My final idea is that if there's anyone here truly qualified to be a military leader he/she should scan their diploma from one of the service academies in the U.S. or a similar institution in another country e.g. Sandhurst and they would then be recognized as capable of leading their sides.  Unfortunately, they may find out the meaning of the word "fragging"  
Beeger
P.S. I do like the idea of ranks based on proven ability by e.g. the last tour's ratings.

[HaHa]

Ok a couple things. The option to command is just that, optional. If you log in and it says you can be assigned command of the NE sector do you accept, "Yes or No". If you don't feel like commanding you just say no.
The option to follow is likewise optional. If a captain says, "you've been assigned to my sector, please do blah blah". If you don't want to follow, then you can go do your solo fighting (although most people I know, desparately want some battle to fight in when they login). If you follow the assigned mission you can get experience points and hence "climb" up the ranking ladder.. otherwise you get plain old kill score points that aren't worth anything  

[Hangtime]

"The peacetime qualifications for promotion - age and seniority - do not apply in combat"

--- Air Marshal J.E. "Jonnie" Johnson, RAF

"Why let rank lead, when ability can do it better?"

--- Commander Randy "Duke" Cunningham, USN

"In the air, there were no 'generals' or 'colonels'. He who had the most kills, he was the leader. It worked very well in the war."

--- Colonel Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann, Luftwaffe

Hmmmmmmm.... a theme here? Yup. I react when the voice of reason and expericence speaks in the heat of a fight. Anything else is noise.

I have; as an American, as a Veteran, as a Taxpayer and as a Voter who exercises the franchise learned to question authority. Any authority. Its something of a national prerequiste.  

I respect proven experience... but not appointed authority. Ever.

My 2 cents.

Hang
 

[StSanta]

nice quotes Hangtime  


------------------
--
StSanta
II/JG2