Ted
Hi.
Is it just me or is anyone else a bit wary of this Squadron Commander order?
I don't like the idea of other politicals/players being able to run others ships/squadrons.

The whole point of games such as these is the challenge of coordinating the moves of several players to get things done.

I know in the past the DTR players used to allow one player to submit turns for all their ships to make sure the all arrived for battles on time.I didn't like it then(although it's water under the bridge now)and I certainly don't like it now!!!! mad.gif

Players should be responsible for the movement of their own ships,not just hand them over to others to play the game for them!!!
Gandolph
i personally like it, it allows me to allocate the control over my squadrons to another IMP player when im on holiday or awar for a day or two, or generally just fancy a rest biggrin.gif

the only hope i have is that the squadrons are still alive when i get back after Geoffs been running them for a week ohmy.gif
llywelyn
I can see Ted's point and to a point agree with him.

For sequencing of orders so 'plan x' works smoothly should be more of a function of the involved personnel communicating with each other. As in RL, sometimes these plans work while other times..... fubar.

Whilst a FET member, I had no arguments with sending a list of my orders to other members to look over for coordination, but it was always 'my' orders. This requires all the involved people to actual work together. Sure it fails at times, but that is part of the fun - to me of the game.

If you want to remove doubts of coordination, give the respective fleet to the player going to run the battle and accept what they do. - <g> and hope they give them back <bg>

Seriously, I would much rather prefer the ability to have others run be removed.

It's a token gesture because, I could still give Ted, for example, the code for my turns and have him run the ship anyway <g> -- no ted, you're not getting my ships! cool.gif

Llywelyn
Steve-Law
A good point and I'm leaning towards agreeing with this.

I can see the idea here, e.g. have one affiliation fleet and all players submit ships to serve in it under the command of the squadron commander. This is a theortically good idea, but not sure if it's actually a good thing or just making things too easy and open to abuse.

(There are ways to allow people to control your positions while you are away without this.)

Mica Goldstone
Combat in Phoenix has always been something of a science. Getting to grips with settings and quite what to do is a nightmare. The squadron order allows a new player with a shiny ship to enter combat on lead-rein. This gives them the benefit of not screwing up but also allows them to feel that they are involved in an important part of the game. As time progresses, there is no reason why they cannot take over the running of the squadron. Personally I see this as a very good way of working together and an excellent instruction tool.
Romanov
.....but the current squadron printouts are only seen by the Squadron leader. The other ships just get an update of the number of orders and the new location and any battles they are involved in.

For a newbie this will be even more confusing.

Trying to read the squadron order movements is very hard. Especially since it appears that the squadron leader's orders are not clearly highlighted ie you get a

-=Starfury (68130)=-
Scanned:

type break for all ships but the squadron leader.
David Bethel
They way i saw it was that squadrons were usually a player control thing. There is nothing to force you to make 1 big squadron, i assumed that most squadrons would be wholely owned by 1 player and their would be many at one battle.
Steve-Law
QUOTE (David Bethel @ Oct 8 2004, 08:48 AM)
They way i saw it was that squadrons were usually a player control thing. There is nothing to force you to make 1 big squadron, i assumed that most squadrons would be wholely owned by 1 player and their would be many at one battle.

What was the reasoning for Squadron Commander?

Did you have a purpose/reason in mind or was it added just for completeness?
gordon
I see the squadron as a tool that allows me to move some 50 odd ships at a time using a few lead ships. I can use it instead of the tedious copying of orders for all the ships ... something that is not all that much fun. I can now spend the time on new players, developing my bases as they have my full attention, and most of all I can use it for IC roleplay.

I don't see it as a tool to get all my ships to a battle as they were already getting to the battles without problems.

But if you don't like the squadrons, then don't use the function.

Furthermore, I can use the squadron as a promotion/mission ... ie a COH player deserves to be promoted, so I make him an Admiral and transfer a dozen or so ships into his personal squadron. I retain ownerships of the ships, but he gets to move them around and attack things. Or as a mission I could put a few ships into his squadron and tell him to go patrol/show the flag in certain areas .... once again removing the ships once the mission is over.

The way I see it, the squadron orders open up new posibilities for play. It doesnt hinder or take the fun out of things.


Gord
Steve-Law
I think it's clearly an "each to their own" thing. For me, if I wanted another player to run some of my ships (other than holiday cover) I'd just transfer them to him/her, either for the duration of that mission, or more likely just permanently.

Actually "owning" the ship is much less important, to me, than seeing that it does the best job for the aff.
David Bethel
QUOTE
Did you have a purpose/reason in mind or was it added just for completeness?


Completeness. I figured that some ppl _might_ have mixed player squadrons and want to transfer control ie its a pure option and not a requirement to work that way.