Chain of Command

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

[Apex]

I just wanted to ask now how exactly the chain of command is going to be,
how will be the ranks and how many troops(division, bataillion) one will command.
Can we reserve names for our divisions?

[Unkn0wn]

The chain of command is there to ensure that there is a certain unity amongst the army, it's important that higher ranked officers will give out battle orders to the lower ranked players. This way an actual war strategy can be formed and executed by the Axis/Allies.
Aside from that, higher ranked players will also be responsible for spreading out to the resources amongst the others.

We are also looking into possibly giving higher ranks some small "extras" on the field, however we'll give you more information on that later.

As for divisions/companies.
What we know for sure at this point is that each commander (For the alpha: Captain/Colonel/General)
gets only one division, he will pick a doctrine to go with this division and then assigns a name to his division. So if he were to pick Infantry, he could name his Infantry Division: The 210th Infantry Division.

This division can be split into a maximum of 5 companies, each company can best be seen as a "small army". (And since they're a part of a specific division, they'll all be the same doctrine ofcourse.)

How large are these companies going to be?
Well I think that will largely depend on the amount of resources you save/spend.
(But keep in mind, you will usually have a big reserve pool of units per company as there's a maximum of units you can take ingame, depending on wether it's 1vs1 or 2vs2, etc.)
-> Ucross might be able to help you other better on this though.

Division names will be unique, I'm not sure if we'll run a reservation program but if you join up early enough you'll have a big chance at getting the name you want.
(Although I can imagine a division named 101st Airborne won't be available for long.)


Feel free to ask any additional questions, we'll do our best to answer them .

[Harry Palms]

Hi all. My first post here.

Forgive me for being anal, but:

According to Ambrose¹

"Airborne and infantry division in WWII armies were made up of:

• Squads (usually nine to twelve men)
• Three squads to a platoon
• Three or four platoons to a company
• Three or four companies to a battalion
• Three or four battalions to a regiment
• Three or four regiments to a division
• plus attached engineers, artillery, medical and other support personnel

US, British and Canadian infantry divisions were from 15,000 to 20,000 strong on D-Day.
Allied airborne divisions were about one-half that size.
Most German divisions were less than 10,000."[/i]

So we have 10.5 men on average in a squad (lets call it 10). Three squads to a platoon is 30 men. Three platoons to the company gives 3*30=90 men. So we are fighting COH battles at company level (Company of Heroes, oh I get it now ). On to rankings (there's a point here, bear with me):

• Squad - Sergeant

*

• Platoon - 2nd Lieutenant

*

• Company - Captain
• Battalion - Lieutenant Colonel
• Regiment - Colonel
• Division - Major General

So for each division, we have:

1 General commanding the division
3 Colonels commanding regiments
9 Lieutenant Cols commanding battalions, and
27 Captains commanding the companies.

That's 40 senior officers to each full-strength division.

Now if we, as suggested, cut out the regimental and battalion-level officers, we get only 6 players per division.

My question is: what if this game is a huge success and we get 1000 players in on it? We end up with 166 division compared to 25 if we go down history lane!

I suggest we keep the historical chain of command. I feel it will be more engaging for the players to have more ranks to rise through (or levels to beat in game terminology). It looks good on the box as well, NOW! WITH HISTORICAL CHAIN OF COMMAND! Guaranteed to kill 99%

A gameplay device to involve the regimental and battalion officers could be a system where higher ranking officers choose which officers, junior to them, would play certain battles - or even choose when to get into the hot seat (for instance a regiment leader may want to appoint himself in an important battle - or knowing his men (as the fine officer he is), choose the best among the ranks).

On a psychological level, a Captain would probably think twice before he engaged a Lt. Col. on the battlefield. As you have suggested, special bonuses should be awarded for rank (a sort of veteran's bonus, just as applied in-game). A division leader, the Maj Gen, would perhaps also have to think twice before he sent his high ranking officers into battle - what if he lost them?

I hope this isn't all nonsense.

Glad to be here,

Harry

*Not needed.
^{1. Stephen Ambrose, D-Day}

[Unkn0wn]

Hey there and welcome aboard.
Might I start off by saying that you are making a great point and I am really pleased to see that you are supporting this point of view with proof by Stephen Ambrose. (A great expert indeed.)

I alone will not be capable of really providing a solid answer to your question as it's quite a complicated subject to translate into a game like EiR.


The hardest thing about translating a chain of command into a game, is the fact that higher officers do not actually control any forces... Well in theory you have the Major General controlling his division, but if these divisions are ran by Colonels (also players) what will the Major General get to do aside from issueing orders?

So we simply decided that in order for each player to actually be capable of playing. (which is what most players would want to do anyway, there won't be that many players up for a mainly administrative role.)
We decided that we just wanted each player to be in charge of an army group, which can then be divided into max 5 companies. (So that the player can have his forces on multiple fronts and play max 5 matches in a turn if he wishes to do so, which lasts a week.)

But yes, with this comes the problem of great historical accuracy when it comes down to following the chain of command. Players will have the ability to be promoted aswell, but in the end they'll stay in charge of their own division. (They'll just get extra's.)

Heck even the general will just be playing a division.

So let's assume we one day have those 1000 players, that'd actually mean theres 500 divisions on each side .



I'm glad you are actually bringing this up, and I'd like to press that none of it is actually put in stone yet.
It can still be changed if we find a more correct fit for EiR but as I hopefully managed to explain, it's quite the delicate process and currently this is one of the only solutions.

Our goal is to let every player control an army, make the army exist out of multiple smaller parts so that he can play multiple matches and in the end also give the player the ability to gain experience in combat & earn additional ranks with additional abilities being unlocked if he does so.


Probably no answer to your question I'm afraid but I hope it does aids you in some way .

[Harry Palms]

Thanks for the reply, super interesting.

I've been thinking hard, huge effort on my part. 

let me answer _{"Well in theory you have the Major General controlling his division, but if these divisions are ran by Colonels (also players) what will the Major General get to do aside from issueing orders?"}

Naturally, anybody playing EiR will also be COH players and would probably be bored out of their minds if they didn't get to fight battles.

So each senior officer could have companies attached directly to them, apart from being in command of officers under them.


In this example, the division consists of one regiment, two battalions and 12 companies.

I guess it would be simple to scale the division, say new players joins at battalion level - when battalion level is full, a new regiment is created, moving one player one level up and so forth.

Casual gamers may want to stay at battalion level, in order not to have so much administration to do.

History goes out the window, but high level administration and decision making that flows through the whole team from top to bottom is in place as well as retaining the fun for higher ranks. This could open up for corps leaders issuing orders to divisions as well - and now we are talking major table top strategy that flows all the way down to the in-game squad tactics (I think only wwiionline has this).

[Unkn0wn]

Hmm, I must say thats a really interesting idea.

So if we would apply this to EiR, it would mean the following:

One Division
4 Regiments
16 Batallions
64 Companies. (+ 21? one for each officer)

Available ranks for one division:
1 Major General
4 Colonels
16 Lt. Colonels
--------
21 ranks for one division.
(And applied to 1000 players, 500 on each side this would roughly mean 25 Division per side!)


I'm really liking it.
However:

1. There would still have to be a general of war above all the divisions to spread out resources, etc.

2. each division could have their own forum HQ, website section, what not.

3. So in the alpha, in which we'll have about 10 players on each side for testing purposes.
It would come down to having 8 batallions (8 Lt. Col) divided into 2 regiments (2 Col.)
(With all the players being part of just one division and very high ranks controlled by devs for the time being to make sure it properly works before handing it over to a player )

4. One slight issue perhaps would be the doctrines.
We were planning on giving each division just one doctrine, howevr, if theres over 25 people in one division it might be a bit dull if they all had to play just one doctrine that they might not even really like )

So either we let players choose a doctrine, then have 3 divisions per side in the alpha (each with only 3 - 4 players if we have only 10 players per side) so that players can really play the doctrine that fits them best and we devs can actually get all doctrines tested.

Or we find another solution and allow different doctrines in one division?
(Although this could bring in difficulties when it comes down to naming the division, you can't really have it called Infantry Division when theres armor & airborne doctrines in it .... or can we?)
 

[Harry Palms]

I'm really liking it.
However:

1. There would still have to be a general of war above all the divisions to spread out resources, etc.

Corps leaders - they would have supreme charge in what countries/sectors of countries to attack/defend and send out their division leaders to do it.

2. each division could have their own forum HQ, website section, what not.

That would be cool.

4. One slight issue perhaps would be the doctrines.
We were planning on giving each division just one doctrine, howevr, if theres over 25 people in one division it might be a bit dull if they all had to play just one doctrine that they might not even really like )

I think it would be a mistake to impose doctrines of players. Instead the divisions could form naturally. So new players would choose to any division to their liking.

If everybody loves armored doctrine, well, you'll end up having an army with a lot of panzer! It wouldn't be a problem as I see it. If an army has only a few players who play airborne, the army would end up have just a few airborne divisions. Or if no one cared for airborne, that army would simply not have an airborne division until someone showed up and it would be formed.

So either we let players choose a doctrine, then have 3 divisions per side in the alpha (each with only 3 - 4 players if we have only 10 players per side) so that players can really play the doctrine that fits them best and we devs can actually get all doctrines tested.

Good idea.

Or we find another solution and allow different doctrines in one division?
(Although this could bring in difficulties when it comes down to naming the division, you can't really have it called Infantry Division when theres armor & airborne doctrines in it .... or can we?)

That would be silly. The players should fill in the ranks of divisions as they see fit. No more space for armor players? form a new division.

Hows that?

[naradaman]

I like this idea a lot as well. Nothing in the chain of command has been hard coded yet, though we had basically decided how it was going to work. If the design/theory guys want to follow this method (now or in the future) it shouldn't be much more complex than what we're planning.

[Unkn0wn]

That would be silly. The players should fill in the ranks of divisions as they see fit. No more space for armor players? form a new division.

Hows that?

Yes thats a pretty solid idea.
I also like the idea that one side would not neccesarily need to have an airborne division for instance, if no one wants to play, the army won't have it, simple as that indeed .

We'll just see what players want to be, shove them in a division, and the army & divisions get shaped depending on the amount of players, the doctrine choice they make, their ranks, etc.


Now all you need to do is convince the other devs .
(And cheers @ naradaman)

[Harry Palms]

They may be convinced when they see the bad-ass logo and sigs I'm designing at the moment 

[Unkn0wn]

Oh yes Fldash told me you were doing some graphics.

Can't wait to see.

[Ucross]

Sounds excellent.  I like the accuracy and it seems efficacious.

There are some fundamental flaws though.  No one wants a chain of command litterally.  So the chain of command was institutuded very liberally.  In other words the general makes suggestions to the colonel's and the colonel makes suggestions to the captains.  Even getting the suggestions made and looked at might be a stretch.  This new system might be more confusing and convoluted than necessary.  If however, like you proposed, the game becomes incredibly successful, then perhaps it might be more pertinent to add in the new 'regiment' and another rank.

[Forefall]

Agreed with Ucross.  Currently a system with higher ranked players offerring objectives to lower ranked ones is necessary.  Actual orders would be tedious and bothersome. 

For example, a Colonel receives the suggestion to retake the north munitions fields.  He decides it is a worthy and feasible task and so specifically sends one of his underlings, say Capt. of the 32 Infantry squad to spearhead it.  Tactically, the colonel may receive a larger portion of the available resources to complete this task, and the colonel may, in turn, distribute a large amount to the 32 Infantry squad in the hopes they can effectively drive to and capture the munitions.  If either the captain or the colonel doesn't like these suggestions or disagrees, they would be free to fight as they see fit, but reprimands in the form of a decreased resource pool would be obvious.

[Unkn0wn]

We also need to review the ranks on the current system as Captain is someone who is in control of a Company, while players will be in control of a batallion at minimum.

Lt. Col < Col < Major General is a far more correct approach.

We don't have to be all correct on "realism", but staying as accurate as possible is the least we could do.

[Ucross]

Sure, that's fine with me.

[Harry Palms]

Agreed with Ucross.  Currently a system with higher ranked players offerring objectives to lower ranked ones is necessary.  Actual orders would be tedious and bothersome. 

For example, a Colonel receives the suggestion to retake the north munitions fields.  He decides it is a worthy and feasible task and so specifically sends one of his underlings, say Capt. of the 32 Infantry squad to spearhead it.  Tactically, the colonel may receive a larger portion of the available resources to complete this task, and the colonel may, in turn, distribute a large amount to the 32 Infantry squad in the hopes they can effectively drive to and capture the munitions.  If either the captain or the colonel doesn't like these suggestions or disagrees, they would be free to fight as they see fit, but reprimands in the form of a decreased resource pool would be obvious.

Sounds fair enough. Taking orders isn't really my deal either, in games or IRL. What we get is

• a structure for adding veterancy bonuses among ranks in a logical and well understood fashion - everybody can figure out why a Maj Gen is the Man
• in-built organisation tool. The more the army organizes and communicates, the better it performs

Your example is perfect, just what I was imagining. Instead of a reprimand or a decrease in anything, it would be beneficial to wave a carrot instead of bonuses for completed missions. Heck, it could be missions instead of orders. Mission complete, you gained xp and resources/whatever. Mission not complete, nothing happens - ie a player shouldn't be punished on the administrative level for losing a battle while under orders (during mission). It's bad enough to lose as is.

[Ucross]

veterancy bonuses?  Care to explain?

Also, the in-built organization I would feel is the same using the current rank or the new ones.

[Unkn0wn]

Well with this system I believe the player will generally feel that he is a part of something bigger.
(This could improve orders flowing through the rank, communication and whatnot.)

While with the old system, if everyone just has a division, you don't really get the feeling that theres people above and below you, since even though they have a supposedly higher rank, they are in charge of a division, just like you.

[Harry Palms]

veterancy bonuses?  Care to explain?

Veteranc... I really ment rank aka anciennity (aka veterancy) equals more bonuses - as fldash said in the interview "We are toying with the idea of giving players command points based on their hierarchy level meaning a general may have access to all of a doctrines abilities, a colonel most of them, and a captain only a few."

[Lai]

It would be nice if the axis could have ranks in german. They sound much better. ^^

This would mean that:
Captain = Hauptmann
Lt. Colonel = Oberstleutnant
Colonel = Oberst
General Major = Generalmajor* (but german pronunciation)

Taken from: http://personal.inet.fi/koti/lochness/CoH-levels/
* from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_(Germany) however not sure about this one.