Regimental Communication

[Toland]

From what I've seen from other posts, is that there will be a in game VOIP communication system, but I want to give some ideas to expand upon that idea of in game communication. However not based upon the individual player, but the aspect of massive based player battles with multiple regiments communicating with each other. However not only limiting communication between regimental commanders, but expanding it to communication between the general and his regiments. In my last post I mentioned a idea of a courier system where a AI would deliver a order from the general to a regimental commander, but instead of it being a AI, what if we gave it to a real player who had the responsibility with remembering or delivering a order/message from either general to regimental commander, or between regimental commanders. In my mind this would create a new level of immersion, but also eliminate the idea of just using a whisper system from Teamspeak, which to me would just ruin it. But also I think it would give players who want to be a courier a really cool responsibility and immersive task. And then again this could set up a new level of idea's where the opposite team may want to set up ambushes for couriers delivering long distance messages, or if a courier is killed with a order it could be used against a team, or could even turn the tide of a battle. I think there are really cool idea's that could go along with this, creating a new level of in game immersion.
I hope y'all like this idea and once again I'm open to criticism. :o

[Rithal]

This has been discussed in this thread a few months ago --> http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?363-Order-relay-preferences

It appears that the community is in favor of player couriers carrying written messages between officers. It would be great if this was the route taken by the developers.

I agree in that regiments using teamspeak to communicate among and between eachother will be an immersion killer for me, but I guess there is no way to stop it. I am definitely against it.

[Toland]

This has been discussed in this thread a few months ago --> http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?363-Order-relay-preferences

It appears that the community is in favor of player couriers carrying written messages between officers. It would be great if this was the route taken by the developers.

I agree in that regiments using teamspeak to communicate among and between eachother will be an immersion killer for me, but I guess there is no way to stop it. I am definitely against it.

Well I apologize Rithal, I didn't realize this had already been discussed. I guess i didn't look hard enough to see if this was a topic. :eek:

[Austro]

This has been discussed in this thread a few months ago --> http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?363-Order-relay-preferences

It appears that the community is in favor of player couriers carrying written messages between officers. It would be great if this was the route taken by the developers.

I agree in that regiments using teamspeak to communicate among and between eachother will be an immersion killer for me, but I guess there is no way to stop it. I am definitely against it.

Organized regimental battles with reputable leaders will probably make sure no one meta games

[Rithal]

Organized regimental battles with reputable leaders will probably make sure no one meta games

But then how do we insure that battles are led by reputable leaders?

[TrustyJam]

We're not planing on having a courier system. If we make it too difficult for the officers to communicate, people will drop the ingame system all together and use 3rd party services instead.

- Trusty

[Rithal]

We're not planing on having a courier system. If we make it too difficult for the officers to communicate, people will drop the ingame system all together and use 3rd party services instead.

- Trusty

This is a good point sadly :/ What do you have in mind instead of a courier system? :D

[Soulfly]

In-game VoIP, like talk to: all, own team, regiment...something like that i guess

[88thNY_InFaMY]

Most likely if I had to guess you have different channels for your OIC to officers and you have a team you have the regiment you are currently in ect.

[Rithal]

I would hope they don't do a VOIP system. I would prefer only VOIP for proximity talking, but not regiment to regiment talking. I would rather not have a 12 year old scream at me from across the map XD Plus, VOIP would destroy the immersion in my opinion. At least a text based ordering system, or a map based ordering system would be better in my opinion.

[Soulfly]

At least a text based ordering system, or a map based ordering system would be better in my opinion.

"Lets charge, but first let me take a look at my emails" :D Since we stepped away from the courier system, i think VIOP would be the best solution regarding gameplay. Yes having a system were some sort of letter pops up like in another game which name i cant remember sounds nice, but after 3-4 messages popping up in your fight during combat that would be annoying.

I am always thinking about how certain features influence the gameplay/ fun....It is not always about how something is historical accurate, its still just a game.

[Rithal]

Well there is always a map based system.

Every officer carries a map. A commander can select any unit on any level and order it to a certain location such as "Attack - Sunken Road" or "Reinforce - Burnside Bridge" or "Defend - Miller's Cornfield". When the order is issued, the marker pops up on the map of every officer in the unit and also somewhere on the hud. The officers then work together to get the unit to that location or can choose to ignore the order.

If instant "letters" are out of the question, then I would prefer a map system over VOIP.

[Soulfly]

We had a similar discussion in another thread, where map based coordination was discussed (i brought up the idea having an overview like in Ultimate General: Gettysburg), as far as i remember this is/ was not possible. Though i like the idea too seeing your units on a map and giving orders, i dont know how realistic this idea is...i mean in implementing it.

[Bravescot]

You don't need to see units like on a map like in Ultimate General: Gettysburg really. What you need is a clear historical looking map held by all officers.

The General's maps have a simple box or something with a number in it to show friendly units and the unit's name and strength so allowing them to see their full battle line. The Regimental commanders only have information on their brigade and then if their brigadier wishes to he can give them extra information. This would mean that a regiment on the far left on the map couldn't look at his personal map and go "oh look the right flank lost time to run". He's have no idea as he'd be fighting in his area. Enemy units get marked when say 10 people or the flag get spotted. The General's maps instantly get updated with this new info but they then must pass it down the chain. However if a regiment see's an enemy force their map in personally updated as they were the ones to spot them.

[Rithal]

You don't need to see units like on a map like in Ultimate General: Gettysburg really. What you need is a clear historical looking map held by all officers.

The General's maps have a simple box or something with a number in it to show friendly units and the unit's name and strength so allowing them to see their full battle line. The Regimental commanders only have information on their brigade and then if their brigadier wishes to he can give them extra information. This would mean that a regiment on the far left on the map couldn't look at his personal map and go "oh look the right flank lost time to run". He's have no idea as he'd be fighting in his area. Enemy units get marked when say 10 people or the flag get spotted. The General's maps instantly get updated with this new info but they then must pass it down the chain. However if a regiment see's an enemy force their map in personally updated as they were the ones to spot them.

Yep. This is also what I was thinking. Sorry for not making that more clear. A "hand held" map that appears to be drawn on (or painted. I have no clue how they made maps back then). I didn't mean a digital map, but a historic looking one I guess.

[GeorgeCrecy]

Actually, that is a whole discussion in and of itself which is really cool, and there were various ways that cartographers had available to them. However, you often saw area maps being raided and taken from the houses of those in the area, or perhaps from the county seat in order to have the best maps possible. So, when a general was going to fight in an area, he actually had to scramble to see about getting the necessary information. You had a variety from hastily-drawn maps made by scouts to beautifully lithographed and copied maps made by experienced cartographers either in the field or in a drafting house back in Washington and Richmond. Both sides had such equipage, though as is usually the case the North had it better, and such things were actually thanks to the Coast Guard, as they were most often used to map coast lines across the US seaboards. For more inland maps there were various private companies that did their own extensive works to which generals often also turned to.
This being all said, and as with what was done in WW2, many civilians actually kept a "live map" of the war in their parlor, such as taking a national map and using the accounts in the newspapers to map out the locations of the various armies and lines, at least, if their map wasn't torn down to be used by one of the generals who happened to pass by with a dearth of such material!

[88thNY_InFaMY]

There is a source mod called Empires which they have a commander system that works almost like a RTS where you are able to give orders to the other units I think this would be a great system for WoR since I assume there will be a Overall commander on each map for both sides with a map this scale not sure how orders will be carried out to full effectiveness.

[McClellan]

I've done an entire thread about VOIP.

[William]

I've done an entire thread about VOIP.

xD haha that answer 2 months later xD

[Bravescot]

xD haha that answer 2 months later xD

There are some points that do get lost in this sea of threads.

[RhettVito]

I would hope they don't do a VOIP system. I would prefer only VOIP for proximity talking, but not regiment to regiment talking. I would rather not have a 12 year old scream at me from across the map XD Plus, VOIP would destroy the immersion in my opinion. At least a text based ordering system, or a map based ordering system would be better in my opinion.


TS is your best friend for that lol

[Rithal]

TS is your best friend for that lol

While it is up to the player as to whether or not he would like to use Teamspeak, I think it sort of kills the fun for regiment coordination. However, some would argue that it is just a game and a global voice transmitting system is required for smooth online play.

[Bravescot]

While it is up to the player as to whether or not he would like to use Teamspeak, I think it sort of kills the fun for regiment coordination. However, some would argue that it is just a game and a global voice transmitting system is required for smooth online play.

VOI works fine in Arma for example. Not many none serious people take part in Arma events due to the military way they're run and I think the same might end up happening for WoRs.

[Legion]

I know this is an older thread but I was wondering if it is possible to control who talks to who in VOIP? Since you want to have a command system I think it would be strange for a private to talk directly to a general. I think generals should be able to talk to the next command and then they talk to their command and the commands continue down the line that way we don't have everyone talking and muddying the channel. So for instance privates could only talk to there regiment commander or something and the regiment commander can talk to his command that way orders can be relayed up and down the chain without to much interference. It's hard for me to put this idea into words but basically what I'm saying is that players can only talk to the people directly above or below them in the chain and communication is divided for each regiment except for the officers that way regiment can still have some communication with each other. This way the channels remain clear

[rebeldestroyer]

good idea I believe the game project reality does this. ( squad members can talk to squad leaders and squad members and squad leaders can talk to other squad leaders, squad members, and the commander)

[Legion]

Another thing is I think that when you die you can't talk to players who are alive until you respawn. That way losing officers has a real effect on gameplay. If a regiment losses it officer then it will cause confusion because the regiment wouldn't be getting orders. It would make green regiments all the more vulnerable to loss, in the heat of battle if a green regiment losses it's officer it could cause much confusion and could change the course of a fight. Without orders a green regiment would most likely not know what to do or where to go. It would also give people a good reason to aim for officers.

[Simon445]

I think 3D chat for communicating would be best, because it would be too much mic spam if everyone could hear you. Something like when you close to player you hear him better, when you far away you can't hear him anymore. Even enemy could hear you.

[Etherton]

I think 3D chat for communicating would be best, because it would be too much mic spam if everyone could hear you. Something like when you close to player you hear him better, when you far away you can't hear him anymore. Even enemy could hear you.

Tough to do but works great in Arma so why not eyy :P

[McClellan]

http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?366-Local-VOIP&highlight=local+voip

[William]

For RP communication some friends and i used mumble xD you can chat only to people close to you and as far you go away your voice gets quieter ^^

[Patrick Kurtz]

I would absolutely love the idea of couriers, taking written messages from one officer to another, it would just add much more realism to the game rather than a five year old in teamspeak yelling "get rekt m8".

[yoyo8346]

I too am in favor of an in-game courier system.

[A. P. Hill]

You all realize that since this is a "open" Army organization more or less, as people form their units they can appoint courier even though the devs have no plans for it. ;)

[R21]

This has been discussed in this thread a few months ago --> http://www.warofrightsforum.com/showthread.php?363-Order-relay-preferences

It appears that the community is in favor of player couriers carrying written messages between officers. It would be great if this was the route taken by the developers.

I agree in that regiments using teamspeak to communicate among and between eachother will be an immersion killer for me, but I guess there is no way to stop it. I am definitely against it.

The novelty of such a feature would wear off quickly and people probably wouldn't use it. The same discussion has been had on the Squad forums about in-Game voip and they try to keep it as simple as possible giving no disadvantage to those using it otherwise (like you say) people just use 3rd party programs and don't bother with the in-Game stuff. As much as I like realistic and immersive features in-Games concessions have to be made otherwise people just find workarounds or don't use them.

Though Couriers running across the Battlefield to deliver messages would be cool lol.

http://forums.joinsquad.com/topic/5979-voip-local-can-be-hear-by-enemy/?hl=voip