While I personally will be staying away from the command role until I get a really good feel for the game, one thing that is concerning me is what if you get stuck with a... below-average leader, who is ordering you to, as a poor example only, to walk on top of the hill to see whats on the other side. An AC20 and LRM barrage later, and I'm stuck with a repair bill which is, essentially his fault (assuming I have to follow his orders, following the fact that this game is a simulation ect. and I do realise anyone who silhouettes themselves on a hill deserves more than an a AC20 and LRM sandwich).
This works both ways, so we could have a truely Admiral Thrawn level commander, but whose leading 3 lances of people whose defination of the word team is just 'people who I shouldn't deliberately shoot'. For role warfare to work, I believe we need people who a. truely understand the full depth of their respective roles and b. willing to act as such. So how could a commander influence people to follow their commands, and respectively how can you fairly ignore an inept one?
Originally I was going to roll with a heavy mech but thinking about this is making me want to take a lighter scout mech. I imagine they would have to have a little more latitude when it comes to orders.
The best method I can see to prevent this would be to have seperate lobbies for the less serious of us and some for the more tactical gamers, but that could lead to divisions down the track. Not to put to fine a point on it, but I'm expecting at least one 12 year old trying to bring on an Atlas with command gear and expecting to be god ("sorry commander, but I can't hear you over the sound of your teamkilling!").
If anyone has heard any info on this, any suggestions which might put my mind at rest, please say so. I'm a long-term MW/BT fan and I dont want tactical issues ruining MW:O for me.
Edited by Alymbic, 20 May 2012 - 01:06 AM.