The only way I see the alliance thing working is if the WC makes an alliance with a faction over a certain objective (e.g. Orks are getting a massive buff from this facility, SM and Eldar team up to get rid of them), and while the alliance is active allies count as friendlies for friendly fire purposes, or perhaps a penalty for shooting and killing allies. Of course, this alliance would only be valid in that certain area, rather than the entire map. I like the idea of local alliances much better than an overall planet-wide one. Imagine fighting to take over this fort, fighting alongside allied troops, watching them closely in case the alliance suddenly breaks and their guns turn on you. It definatley fits in with the Warhammer 40k universe. But even then...it just seems restrictive on the players. I don't like the idea of no friendly fire between allies at all personally, even on a very small scale, but some kind of penalty/restriction is the only way I'd see it working. It's nice to believe that factions would naturally ally with each other for a common goal, or listen to the WC, but in practice it'll never work. People would just shoot each-other for points and being dicks for the sake of it. Which is a shame really. Organic alliances formed by players rather than a puppet master War Council would be really interesting. So on the whole, I probably think that a local area/objective/mission alliance system that can be broken/made by the War Councils at any moment with a penalty for shooting allies would be best. It would be very interesting, to say the least, considering I've never seen this kind of thing successfully implemented before.
It has nothing to do with chest thumping and everything to do with the fact that micromanaging people pisses them off. No matter where you are on the chain of command, you only have business interacting with the positions in about two rungs in either direction. The WC has no business issuing orders to specific fireteams and squads. This undermines the entire concept of a chain of command. It has nothing to do with being lone wolf McFuckface and everything do with giving units in the field tactical flexibility and enough autonomy to get their jobs done the way they see fit.
Exactly. And as I have stated in other posts, most lone wolf types (I won't address the very insulting term used elsewhere in this thread to describe lone wolf players) can be used to great advantage. They just won't be micro managed nor want to deal with drama of being in a large guild.
Totally. You get a few loners together who actually care about supporting their teammates and accomplishing objectives and some damn impressive things can happen. More often than not though, I just see those lone wolves are merely K/D kiddies who will watch the faction as whole lose ground and objectives so their precious ratio stays up.
I agree with this, that's why I think that if there are any limitations due to alliances, they should be restricted to a very small area e.g. a facility. Anywhere else on the map/continent you can fight who ever you want. Also, perhaps restricting the war council by making it so that they can only make one such alliance at a time per continent (so the entire battlefield isn't riddled with confusing and restrictive alliances)
Ok so we have a campaign starting, who works out the strategy? Very curious to see what Bob and Whisly have to offer? IB
Yeah that is the bad lone wolf. They don't get that K/D in a squad based game means next to nothing. We already discussed the 'death by map' part of all this. However we are sort of getting away from the point of the thread. I hope there never has to be an alliance of any type to be honest. I don't have the energy to look it up right now but I thought the last poll had all the faction pretty even. I could be wrong. You always have to consider the Orc 'wild card' free to play. As that can fluctuate on any given day, but I think over all, spreading the player base across all the time zones the imbalance will come at different times of the day as opposed to one faction being more or less populous than any other over all.
Oh I have always been in support of a War council. I like the carrot on a stick method of rewarding players for responding to map pings, or objectives set by the council. I will never support a council that can in anyway force any player to do anything. So, to answer your question, the war council should have strategic control (by control I mean suggestion) over the faction and your subordinate leaders will obviously have tactical control over their players. I am against big guilds having the only say in how he faction is run as I find them to be drama riddled and at best loosely coherent to the bigger picture as they are usually more worried about what is best for themselves. Hope that helps.
There realistically is no way to Micromanage individual squad level engagements, no human could do it.
