And now we come to the greatest enigma in the topic of war, one that has been present since the beginning of organized armies, one that has shaped the plots of novels, movies, and the actual course of military events. It has plagued those who fight, and bears down on the shoulders of those who command them. It is summarized in one question only, a question that has been asked and contemplated by countless commanders and everyday soldiers. One simple question:
"Do I follow this order?"
This suggestion is not about the production or features of BCoF itself, but rather how we, the community, will act upon it. This suggestion could very well be applied to NW, but I feel it just doesn't have the immersion and factors of battle that we're all hoping BCoF will have, which is why I'm posting this here. This suggestion may seem...intriguing to some, and to others extreme to the highest extent of the word. Please just remember that everybody has their own opinion, and therefore the right to run an event the way they choose to.
This idea was first spawned in my brain while looking over this very board. I came across TheBoberton's post in my own "Grand Commander" thread:
The problem with North and South is that it goes so far as to give the general's staff 'rankers', whereas it should simply be the general and his various aides. And the abilities shouldn't really be forced, to be honest. Insubordination was and remains present on a battlefield, and it really should be up to the regimental commander's intuition as to whether or not directly following the orders is worth the risk.
As I said before, insubordination, or the questioning of orders has been the most pressing topic in war for ages upon ages. It was certainly present in the Civil War, as well as the Napoleonic Wars, but like I said, NW doesn't have the capacity for this kind of organic course of events. BCoF will, if it's made the way we are hoping, with 3-D VOIP, the possibility of runners, huge maps, and large amounts of people, make commanding an army (1 team of players) a much more challenging prospect. In this way, orders may be jumbled or lost by runners, orders may arrive too late, or find that new ones are needed; generals themselves may very well make a personal mistake in tactics, and send the entire team onto a path to tragedy. It is here that the minds of each subordinate commander, and my suggestion, come into play.
In BCoF our main concern is immersion. This is why we're pushing for 3-D VOIP, realistic artillery and destruction of environment, etc. We want to be
in the Civil War experience. My suggestion is about immersion, but not specifically about the in-game experience. I'm talking about the system of battle as a whole, stretching beyond the servers into the community itself.
As speculation, organized events in BCoF will probably make each team have an overall general more often than not, considering the massive scale of things making complete organization essential to victory. These generals will, of course, issue orders to each regiment under his command, maneuvering them to places of his choosing and issuing other such general commands, leaving the specific combat details to the regiment commanders themselves. But what if a commander doesn't agree with an order he's received? What if he's seen something the command group has not? Predicted something the general had not taken into account? Does he follow orders anyway? Or does he go against them and do what he feels is the right course of action? If he does the latter, what will that entail for him?
As perhaps a way to enforce the role of an overall general, and add immersion to the experience, if a regimental commander goes against an order and is caught in the act, should he be punished? In the real military, a court martial would be the way to deal with issues like this, so having something of the like for these events would make for a much more interesting experience. A regimental commander would, if he disobeyed orders, be summoned to the place where the general's staff of that day currently is (TS channel or something), as well as the host of that event, and be put on trial for his actions. If he can convince the staff that his actions were necessary and primly effective compared to what the outcome of the specific order would be, then he would be free to go. If not, the the officer would be placed on probation, either for leading in a line battle, or even (this is based primly off people's preferences) be banned from the event for one week, or two etc., depending on the perceived severity of the offense by the general's staff and event host (let's just call them judges).
This would not only make sure a general's role in events is bypassed and made obsolete, but also make a regimental commander's decisions of loyalty versus free will and will to survive a
massively more interesting prospect. No more would there be events of random lines doing random and even silly things all over the map. Centralization and coordination would be made so much more critical, and battle would be made that much more authentic.
As I always say, I hope this concept fills you with as much excitement as it does for me. Thanks for reading, and please post with any suggestions.
