Can Platoons be Outdone? OR: Are Platoons "So 2003"?

[kaffis]

Okay, I made this post elsewhere, and I was asked to break it out for discussion on its own merits, rather than allow it to hijack the other thread. So, done, PhoenixDog. ;)

Example? I don't seem to understand how platoons would be redundant or unnecessary save for a mission to take Random Outpost #42
Design the mission system so that higher level commanders (we'll cover how we could stratify command usefully a little later) can create high level, "big picture" missions. "Capture facility X a couple hex layers behind enemy lines." This mission is created because facility X has strategic value, be it resources, continent benefits, denying the enemy one of the above, etc.

This is obviously a big mission, that will require massive amounts of forces. MORE than a platoon, even! So how does it get organized?

Well, squad leaders accept the mission, and create submissions for their own squad to support it. Again, depending on the level of the commander, said squad leaders might still be creating some high-level missions. "Capture facility Y" where Y is a facility along the front line that has influence over X, perhaps. He'd immediately support that mission with one for his squad to complete, "Destroy turret emplacement Z." He'd also survey enemy force disposition, and perhaps add, as a task to be requested to complete for his Capture Facility Y mission, "Suppress enemy tank activity on the northern approach to the facility." He orders his squad to set to work destroying turrets, or capturing control point Alpha, or whatever his mission was.

Another, low-level, squad leader, looking for some action for his squd, pulls up a window, and sees that there are missions to capture X and Y, and that the commander who's taken charge of the Capture Y mission has put in a request for tank suppression. Knowing his squad is full of crack pilots, he calls for them to load air to ground weaponry, and they go to work, earning bonus xp for tank kills in the designated region.

Etc. I'm not going to go and invent an elaborate tree of thirty such missions, but the idea is that the mission system can support a hierarchical structure by which commanders of different levels can create missions that support other commanders' missions, and can create their missions to call for certain support tasks they anticipate needing. The UI would need to be designed so that you can see what other groups around you have selected as missions, to help commanders know whether an appropriate force has been dispatched for a given task or whether additional support is needed.

In this way, you can involve an arbitrary number of squads in an operation of arbitrary size and scope, creating a chain of command on the fly (based on whose missions support whose), and allowing each commander to address manageable situations according to their command level.

You can then modify a follower-like system (such as Higby suggested at one time) so that upon conclusion or abandonment of a mission, the people involved in that mission can rate, as it were, the commander who issued the mission. If you feel ambitious, you can (and probably should) try to implement a system that weights missions by difficulty, impact, and level of success, and apply those as modifiers to the ratings the commander recieves. In this way, the theory is that good, active commanders will rise to the top, and be granted the authority to issue the missions with the larger scope. Generally, commanders would get partial credit for the actions and successes of the missions supporting them, the idea being that talented middling commanders will be motivated to seek out good higher-ups to support, too.

Now, I realize that all this is completely theoretical, and pretty ambitious.

But, hopefully, it's enough to illustrate that when you give commanders the ability to delegate responsibilities and mission tasks to other commanders, you can completely eliminate the need for platoons. Such a system enables relative strangers or multiple smaller groups of occasional allies to work together and organize as effectively as large outfits. And that builds good community, and a strong game.



Now that this is standing on its own, I'll just add a few more lines.

I really think that, while ambitious, this sort of thing can be done. And I think that it would really set Planetside 2 apart from the pack. If you put the love into it, and particularly the UI for it, it could have the makings of an intuitive, easy (and fast!) to use, and informative system for coordinating forces continent-wide. A framework like this has got the potential to allow for granular management of mission objectives at all levels of play, smoothly integrated calls for help or support, and to integrate smoothly into both Outfit play and the command certification system.

How would it integrate into Outfit play? Quite naturally! Offer UI sorting filters so that Outfits can quickly and easily find each others' missions, and prefer to support their own missions. If Outfits want to get really protective of their command structure, I suppose you could offer the mission commander privacy options, so that only Outfit members could see/support their missions, but I think that, overall, that probably ends up being a net negative to the system's integrity from an Empire standpoint, and it would be better to simply allow the Outfit's members to naturally prefer their own, and if they don't trust somebody else to support their mission when they create a supporting mission, simply duplicate the effort with their own support mission.

Really, though, the TL;DR to take away from this comes in keywords: hierarchical, granular, support, scaleable, informative, integration. If you design a mission system around those goals, you can completely obviate the need for platoons. Go ahead and keep them in, some people will still like them. But they can be made dinosaurs that artificially limit the number of squads working towards a given task (as evidenced by even the hyper-organized outfits complaining that 3 squads isn't enough!!!), while at the same time breaking down the artificial barrier of "You need X number of players directly reporting to you to get Y done." Put the tools in place, and talent will rise to the top, no matter how many people they tend to associate with permanently.

I just want to see people, especially as we approach beta, with high aspirations for the mission system, rather than going into this new game looking for an exciting new possibility to fail so they can protect their precious platoons.

[Razicator]

Great Wall of Planetside Universe...

I honestly see where the original plans of omitting platoons came from. With in-game highly customizable VOIP, there's really no need for platoons other than being able to see in a glance everyone on the map, which should be no problem for an organized outfit anyways. Things like platoon-locked vehicles and no grief points against platoon members can easily be fixed in other ways. But the inclusion of the platoon will help the more disorganized zergy outfits and squads for sure, so I'm all for platoons.

Plus it'll help bring the "massive" scale that PS2 wants to the newcomers. First time they get invited into a giant platoon, they can see where everyone is on the map. Assuming of course this doesn't happen on the outfit level.

[PhoenixDog]

I had a reply going in the other thread...But since got lost in my banter with silly TR and NC rabble =)

Anyway...I loved the idea you've come up with. I'd love to see a more hierarchical structure to the mission system. The entire idea for a single global mission to take Bio Lab X could branch off into many sub missions requested by the squad leaders involved themselves, and in turn accepted by other smaller squads would make such a grand unity of an empire.

My only concern is that you were mentioning the redundancy of platoons. That a system such as this would make platoons unnecessary. Platoons will still have a large need on Auraxis. I know within my outfit alone we have had more than enough people on ion PS/1 at any given time to fill a platoon ourselves and complete rather complicated objectives. Within a single outfit, platoons will still be a very heavy requirement to be successful; especially which platoons being rumoured to support 100 people. A single outfit can have their Infantry, Armour, Air, and Special Ops divisions all within the same platoon structure, coordinating with one another much easier than we did in PS/1. Platoons will still be necessary.

However...Back to your post at hand. I can see a structure like this incredibly useful for (lack of a better term) less organized outfits or players. Obviously with the community like it is, there are groups already established for this game, many from the first game. But for smaller outfits, random players, or just people hopping on for a bit, a mission structure like this gives them something to do. It makes them feel useful. Of course the major engagements such as Tower A or Base B are handled by the larger forces of the empire (See: Large Outfits). But when a small outfit has a few people on, and they form a squad of about 6 people...They want to help just as much. So they open up the mission objective for "Capture Bio Lab X". Once opened, all these side-objectives appear below it. One of the missions that hasn't been selected is "Capture Outpost G". They click that mission and it says "Xen of Onslaught is currently in need of assistance in holding off the NC advancement on Bio Lab X. We need a squad to engage the NC at Outpost G and secure it for the VS". The squad accepts the mission and heads out. Now this small squad of 6 people feels they are making a difference helping a large, organized outfit complete a goal.

[Grognard]

Okay... Now, I realize that all this is completely theoretical, and pretty ambitious.

But, hopefully, it's enough to illustrate that when you give commanders the ability to delegate responsibilities and mission tasks to other commanders, you can completely eliminate the need for platoons.

I just want to see people, especially as we approach beta, with high aspirations for the mission system, rather than going into this new game looking for an exciting new possibility to fail so they can protect their precious platoons.

I always remember your name from this common theme, you are completely against platoons, I get it... However, nothing you mentioned necessitates the castration of platoons. Why limit platoons? Why not a robust mission system and platoons? Even companies, and from what Smed said about 10 squads... well, thats a company.

There is no good reason a well constructed mission system should eliminate platoons, or companies. Good sized outfits can make good use of platoons, and I suspect that is the real issue here.

[Zebasiz]

Totally love the entire concept of that mission structure. But as others said, I don't think that itself eliminates the need for platoons. Because you can have the larger objectives focused on by platoons, who set missions within their squads for the smaller step objectives. Who themselves can send missions for backup etc.

[Shade Millith]

This is supposed to be a MASSIVE multiplayer game. Constricting a group to a single squad of 12 people would be in very poor form.

Platoons were used to organise large groups of people. Just because there's some stupid 'mission' system in doesn't mean anything.

If you are going to organise a large group of friends, the 'mission' system is completely worthless.

[Toppopia]

We need a way to organise massive amounts of people, thats why people will play this, for massive battles and massive teamwork, which this mission system creates, and what platoons create.

[Canaris]

Mission system plus platoons is win/win, why would you want to limit large outfits by forcing them into singular squads only?
My outfit in PS1 still regularly runs full platoons and I can only see benefits for keeping them in PS2.
I've read your arguement over there removal and can't agree with it soz.

[Coreldan]

I do not see a good reasoning to leave platoons out. Most likely we will manage all the same without them, but whats the downside of having them?

I'm planning on operating with at least a platoon worth of guys all the time if barely possible. Sure, we can just work as individual squads, but I still can't see whats the harm in allowing us to be in a platoon as well.

[SKYeXile]

i can only see 4 of my squad on screen in the map of GW2, you know what this makes me?!?!! ANGRY!!!!!! warbands and platoons are pretty fucking vital in every mmo iv played. I think SOE practically invented raids didn't they? not having them in a game over 10 years later is pretty fucking stupid.

[kaffis]

I'm not against platoons, guys. An awesome mission system can co-exist with platoons plenty peacefully.

What I don't want to see is operational advantages given to platoons that aren't available to the mission system.

My only beef with platoons is that lots of people want to castrate the MISSION system in order to make their ability to round up 30 guys, or 2 groups of 30 guys, or whatever create a barrier to entry for the "strategic game" so that smaller groups of players are at a disadvantage. And *that's* the mentality that bothers me.

Creating a hierarchical mission system allows for such commanders to be completely scaleable, and facilitates cooperation with strangers towards sensible objectives, so the brilliant strategist who's part of an outfit that fields, say, 20 guys can have his good ideas be just as valid and gain just as much support as the leader of the military-regimented 200-man outfit in command of 4 platoons from his outfit. If the smaller-outfit guy's strategy is as good or better, why not create a mission system that helps him lead without resorting to mass recruitment of strangers? Nobody loses; the empire benefits, and the big outfit carries on as before.

Finally, a mission system along the lines of what I propose is actually a tool for organizing MORE people than platoons allow, because it has no cap on the number of squads that can participate or support a given mission. My suggestion is about opening up the game to MORE massive organization that doesn't have to resort to centering around the outfit.

[Trafalgar]

I have low aspirations for the mission system. I forsee people spawning, making a tank or other expensive multi-person vehicle, and driving to the objective(s) by themselves without waiting for anyone else or waiting for a large force to assemble in order to attack simultaneously. Just all streaming in slowly and endlessly with no coordination to allow the enemy to pick them off.

Driving vehicles away as soon as they spawn works in something like Star Wars:Battlefront (I or II), where the number of players per side is limited, the maps are fairly small, and vehicles spawn and periodically respawn without costing resources, and are useful enough that it's better to use them immediately to gain an advantage than to sit around hoping for more to appear somewhere else that's under your control. Wouldn't work so well in PS2, I would think.

[Stardouser]

What I don't want to see is operational advantages given to platoons that aren't available to the mission system.



Where is it written that platoons can't be used to accomplish mission objectives? Does being in a mission mean you can't be in a platoon?

[TeaReks]

Instead of getting rid of platoons they should add companies into the game.

Three to four platoons can equal a company.

[kaffis]

Instead of getting rid of platoons they should add companies into the game.

Three to four platoons can equal a company.
Again, this is the kind of mentality that worries me. More barriers to entry on "getting anything significant done."

I don't want signs, or even the perception of signs, that say "You must know THIS MANY people to matter."

[Grognard]

I'm not against platoons, guys. An awesome mission system can co-exist with platoons plenty peacefully.

What I don't want to see is operational advantages given to platoons that aren't available to the mission system.

My only beef with platoons is that lots of people want to castrate the MISSION system in order to make their ability to round up 30 guys, or 2 groups of 30 guys, or whatever create a barrier to entry for the "strategic game" so that smaller groups of players are at a disadvantage. And *that's* the mentality that bothers me.

Creating a hierarchical mission system allows for such commanders to be completely scaleable, and facilitates cooperation with strangers towards sensible objectives, so the brilliant strategist who's part of an outfit that fields, say, 20 guys can have his good ideas be just as valid and gain just as much support as the leader of the military-regimented 200-man outfit in command of 4 platoons from his outfit. If the smaller-outfit guy's strategy is as good or better, why not create a mission system that helps him lead without resorting to mass recruitment of strangers? Nobody loses; the empire benefits, and the big outfit carries on as before.

Finally, a mission system along the lines of what I propose is actually a tool for organizing MORE people than platoons allow, because it has no cap on the number of squads that can participate or support a given mission. My suggestion is about opening up the game to MORE massive organization that doesn't have to resort to centering around the outfit.

Well, now this sounds much more reasonable to me. Unfortunate that this wasn't the original post, because, to me, it came off as very bitter to larger outfits. So, with this clarification, I can finally agree to the jist, here. I dont think that a large organization should have any more advantages, per se, than a small one, save for those that are simply inherent from raw numbers. It is just a fact of conflicts, that numbers do, in fact, count, other things being equal, which is rare. To address your concerns though, I agree there should be a system that has the ability to reflect a sort of... "per capita" contribution, and I think the mission system will, from what I have seen so far.

However, if some hypothetical solution also was to incorporate the disfranchisement of organizational structures (platoons/companies) so necessary to larger groups, that we will certainly have... then I am fundamentally against it. It conversely projects onto larger groups, the very inequality that you percieve for smaller groups... where is the fairness in that? It just does not make sense to me, to make things more difficult for larger groups, so smaller groups have an undue advantage, in an FPS that stresses balance and scale. I do think that per capita parity is important, since that is just another way to say "fair", regardless of numbers...

At any rate, I can agree to the idea of the mission system not taking a back seat, and I dont think it will. I think it will be complimentary to small, as well as large groups, precisely as it should be.

[kaffis]

At any rate, I can agree to the idea of the mission system not taking a back seat, and I dont think it will. I think it will be complimentary to small, as well as large groups, precisely as it should be.
Exactly. I see in the mission system the opportunity to be a really scaleable resource for organizing both friends and strangers in a much more elegant system than simply cramming more squads into a platoon.

[The Kush]

Rofl why would you eliminate platoons? The threads I have seen on here in the last few months have slowly started to get worse and worse.

[acosmo]

ideally all war machine organization should be at the discretion of the OL.

[SgtMAD]

if you don't like platoons then don't join one, quit trying to nerf everyone that wants to organize more than a damn squad,this is ridiculous.

we better nerf any third party voice programs too,I have heard a rumor that the organized outfits all use them and that makes them more powerful than a single squad.

and 30 coordinated ppl are always going to be more powerful than a single squad and there isn't anything you can do to stop that.

I like being able to glance at the map and see where all thirty guys are without having to ask anyone,its so effective that the US military is now doing it.

I want to see the ability to have three platoons on my screen,make it like the old PS HUD with the three squads showing but make each of the displayed squads the first squad in each platoon so if I click on any of the PL leaders I can then only see the three squads in that platoon. then you can manage 90 guys instead of 30

[StumpyTheOzzie]

i can only see 4 of my squad on screen in the map of GW2, you know what this makes me?!?!! ANGRY!!!!!! warbands and platoons are pretty fucking vital in every mmo iv played. I think SOE practically invented raids didn't they? not having them in a game over 10 years later is pretty fucking stupid.

You always manage to perfectly summarise what I want to say.

[Grognard]

Exactly. I see in the mission system the opportunity to be a really scaleable resource for organizing both friends and strangers in a much more elegant system than simply cramming more squads into a platoon.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, squads for some, platoons for others, even companies... All the while, the mission system coexists, neutrally. What you call "cramming more squads into a platoon", I call "organization". Again, the mission system, and platoons/companies are in no way mutually exclusive.

To be perfectly clear... In my opinion, the mission system should support whatever organization is in effect, whether that be a single lonewolf, to a full company. The mission system should not supplant unit structures, rather give goals, rewards, and feedback to those structures.

[kaffis]

To be perfectly clear... In my opinion, the mission system should support whatever organization is in effect, whether that be a single lonewolf, to a full company. The mission system should not supplant unit structures, rather give goals, rewards, and feedback to those structures.
I don't disagree. However, we need to not get so caught up in trying to make it easy for the entire empire to organize under one outfit and have the entire thing fit into a DIVISION!!!!! that we ignore tools to facilitate smaller units working together without feeling like they have to submit to each other to do so.

I mean, when was the last time your outfit invited a pick up squad to their platoon? Probably never, I'm guessing.

But I bet that pick up squad wants to contribute, and I bet they even have something to contribute. I want to make it easier for them to contribute in a useful manner, so that the outfit is glad to have them around, instead of deriding them in command chat and trying to figure out how to just funnel them via global.

[Grognard]

I don't disagree. However, we need to not get so caught up in trying to make it easy for the entire empire to organize under one outfit and have the entire thing fit into a DIVISION!!!!! that we ignore tools to facilitate smaller units working together without feeling like they have to submit to each other to do so.


That seems reasonable to me, too.


I mean, when was the last time your outfit invited a pick up squad to their platoon? Probably never, I'm guessing.


Its sorta funny that you should mention this scenario... very interesting... since, the outfit I am contemplating running (and I have fleshed it out already - took two over months to do... sitting, waiting for me to pull the trigger on membership), will have a dynamic specifically for "pick-up" squads, and individuals...

Without giving too much away, I operate on a different paradigm on in-game organization than I have seen in other outfits. This is part and parcel of why I am so adamant in my stance on this subject.


But I bet that pick up squad wants to contribute, and I bet they even have something to contribute. I want to make it easier for them to contribute in a useful manner, so that the outfit is glad to have them around, instead of deriding them in command chat and trying to figure out how to just funnel them via global.

My eggs are not in one basket, but even Rome put auxiliaries to good use. The trick is to incorporate them in such a manner so as to not lose cohesion with your outfit troops. There are ways to do that, but platoon/company structure is necessary.

Personally, I would welcome pick-ups. Then again, this outfit will not be auxiliary-phobic.

[Novacane]

I'd like to see Platoons be expanded. Why not implement companies, battalions and regiments.

Squad = 10 Players
Platoon = 3 Squads (30 players or 3 Squads)
Company = 3 Platoons (90 players or 9 Squads)
Battalion = 3 Companies (270 players or 27 Squads)
Regiment = 3 Battalions (810 players or 81 Squads)

Have the higher commanders be able to issue commands to the next lower member.
The higher commander can see everyone under them on the map, all the time.
Lower commanders can only speak in one level above them (voice or chat).
Ability to command a higher level is directly related to the command cert.

The higher the commander, the more of an RTS style map they would have.

This would satisfy the largest single outfit operations.
If you wanted to support a larger alliance style organization you could throw in:
Division = 3 Battalions (2430 players or 243 Squads)

I'd assume that this would work better than just having people that are trying to lead just yelling over chat calling everyone idiots cause their running around in circles like decapitated chickens.

[Xyntech]

I hope Smedly wasn't just misspeaking in that one interview and that platoons really can be comprised of up to 10 squads. If you want smaller platoons, cap yourself at 3 or whatever, but I like the idea of having up to 100 players in a single unit.

Remember that even if they do try to take measures to split up the 2000 players across the map, that's still 20 groups of 100 that can be fighting in different locations. The first game tended to have between 100 to 150 players per empire spread across an entire continent, while Planetside 2 will probably have more like 500 to 700 players per empire spread across a continent. That's at least 5 100 man platoons that you could have rolling. Maybe 2 platoons are working on one base facility fight, while one platoon is taking another hex, one platoon is controlling air space and doing resecures, and another 100 or so players are doing more of their own thing outside of a platoon in smaller squads.

The fact that we have 2000 players instead of four or five hundred players fighting on a continent is really going to make larger platoons have a lot more value than in the first game.

[kaffis]

I hope Smedly wasn't just misspeaking in that one interview and that platoons really can be comprised of up to 10 squads. If you want smaller platoons, cap yourself at 3 or whatever, but I like the idea of having up to 100 players in a single unit.
The thing that worries me about this is that smaller groups of players are going to feel lost and ineffectual if the norm is for platoons of 100 players to be engaging cohesively under "one command."

Trying to use the mission system to coordinate this kind of thing includes that smaller group of players.

Unless you're in the habit of inviting randoms to your outfit platoons (Hi, Grognard, apparently..), this ends up being very exclusionary, especially to new players if you look to platoon-like squad groups as your main organizational tool.

[Xyntech]

The thing that worries me about this is that smaller groups of players are going to feel lost and ineffectual if the norm is for platoons of 100 players to be engaging cohesively under "one command."

Trying to use the mission system to coordinate this kind of thing includes that smaller group of players.

Unless you're in the habit of inviting randoms to your outfit platoons (Hi, Grognard, apparently..), this ends up being very exclusionary, especially to new players if you look to platoon-like squad groups as your main organizational tool.

I think the mission system will keep players from feeling left out. Zergers gonna zerg. As long as they are having fun, getting to shoot at something, and are being led by the hand to where they are needed most, I doubt they will be too focused on anything else.

No reason that platoons and the mission system can't coexist.

Platoons will just be helpful for more organized groups who want to keep closer tabs on each other.

[Graywolves]

I'm sorry but missions system, VOIP, and even the ability to see all outfit/squad members on the map still falls short of what you gain from platoons and higher units of organization.

Sure the more organized outfits will just organize themselves, group people up and send them on their way. But then the game becomes a lot of work. Once you've deployed everyone loses focus and it takes a great deal to keep people on the right track. You might have two platoons/two squads going for different objectives and then half of one group gets mixed up and follows 'the other blue dots' on their minimap.

Many outfits are filled with current/retired/former military personnel. They don't want to experience a Charlie-Foxtrot in the battlefied after years of organization. Saying the Mission System is enough organization is like saying Waypoints was all you needed in PS1 and that squads should have just been unlimited in size.


There is so much more to organization then deploying to the objectives. If I need a rez am I going to take up comms for 10 seconds just to describe where I am when I could have easily said "Gold 5" maybe another syllable for company level.

If platoons/higher organization isn't implemented then the players will just implement it themselves with whatever difficulty comes from that until it is added. And no this does not hurt smaller outfits or w.e. If you want to run a small group then don't recruit people who think you 'need' to have 40-50 people running at any given time. People who leave Outfits over not having a full platoon will leave you off of not having the numbers because that is what it comes down to in their reasoning.

[GhettoPrince]

Well, no, not really, three squads make a platoon, under the new idea, three platoons would also make a company.

All that would mean is a separate voice/chat channel for the squad leaders so they could organize a little more effectively. Even in the 500 person fights of planetside things would stagnate into two zergs trying to break each other, just because there was way too many people to organize.

There's going to be 2000 people on a continent now, and most continent fights are faction vs faction, that means you could easily have 1000 people on your side, in that situation, a company isn't a powerful force, it's less than 10% of your total forces. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if people start organizing companies into battalions. (although at that point you would have 27 people involved, and even on a seperate chat/voice channel it would get complicated)

Now I know that something like this will be abused by power mad tryhards who like to pretend video games are the real army , but if it's just a separate voice and chat channel , so that the squad leaders can all communicate with each other quickly than I can see this being really important.

[Canaris]

but even Rome put auxiliaries to good use.

I'm not surprised that Rome put the Auxiliary to good use since they made up such a large section of the Roman army, also our version of Auxiliary and there's was very different, Roman Aux's were just soldiers (usually volunteers and not conscripts) drawn from the non citizens nations of Rome who gain citizenship at the end of there service. The Aux units were a match for the standard legion, kinda like the French foreign legion in design

sorry for the side track, Roman history is a passion of mine :D

with all the potential that Platoons/Companies can have on a game like PS2 leaving the out would just be mucho loco senior ;)

[Xyntech]

I feel about the mission system and platoons the way I feel about most of the more controversial changes in PS2. There is a lot of merit to both ways of doing a lot of this stuff. In the end, I think it's best to work in the new ideas (mission system, ADS, driver controlled main guns) with the old (platoons, run and gun, dedicated gunner certs).

For some stuff a compromise won't work, but for a lot of it I really think you can have the best of both worlds.

[GreatMazinkaise]

I'm not surprised that Rome put the Auxiliary to good use since they made up such a large section of the Roman army, also our version of Auxiliary and there's was very different, Roman Aux's were just soldiers (usually volunteers and not conscripts) drawn from the non citizens nations of Rome who gain citizenship at the end of there service. The Aux units were a match for the standard legion, kinda like the French foreign legion in design

sorry for the side track, Roman history is a passion of mine :D

with all the potential that Platoons/Companies can have on a game like PS2 leaving the out would just be mucho loco senior ;)

Tell that to some of the ancients gamers... Legionnaires usually get the Wehrmacht treatment while the Auxilia are fodder.

[TeaReks]

30 players working together will and should always have an advantage over 30 player by themselves.

[Grognard]

I'm not surprised that Rome put the Auxiliary to good use since they made up such a large section of the Roman army, also our version of Auxiliary and there's was very different, Roman Aux's were just soldiers (usually volunteers and not conscripts) drawn from the non citizens nations of Rome who gain citizenship at the end of there service. The Aux units were a match for the standard legion, kinda like the French foreign legion in design


The bolded is precisely why I would want to pick them up... I find an equivalency in "becoming a citizen" and "joining the outfit" at the end of their service/play session. I chose my "Roman comparison" specifically for that reason.

Now if I could just manipulate everyone into maniples... :D

Ad triarios redisse!