Just Following Orders!

[UloDeTero]

Its late, I haven't thought this through, and it's probably more useful when there are more characters, but anyway, here goes:

I've seen comments before now about how there's no real warfare/combat capability in Cantr. This, I think, addresses that. There could be a button somewhere that allows the player to specify another character, whose orders will be automatically followed.

Let's say there are eleven characters on a ship. One is in charge (let's call him the General). If each of the other ten characters specify the General as their superior, then the General can directly control their actions (through icons similar to his own). Each character/player can manually cancel those orders at any time, in the case of projects, when they're awake (disobeying orders). They can also 'deselect' the General at any time and select someone else as superior instead (Mutiny!)

This would be useful to make co-ordinated actions, attacks, etc. In a non-warfare environment, it would also be useful to have married characters automatically obey each other, or walk together down a road at the same time. These kind of actions would also be immediate, therefore no need to wait around and try to co-ordinate things when half the underlings are asleep.

One 'con' is that it could be abused by the 'superior', but this is of course a voluntary thing after all. Another might be programming (as usual).

[Zanthos]

ehh i feel this would really help pirates and kill sleepy coastal towns, because now only 1 pirate would have to be awake to wreck havoc on everyone.

[notsure]

And I'm not sure I like that "married couples automatically obeying each other" bit...

notsure

[Talapus]

Linking together attacks would unbalance combat. Anyways, automation has typically been frowned on and avoided. I don't think this suggestion really stands a chance.

[shapukas]

I dont like this. Now at least some aforts needs to plan the attack. But if generals woud be implemented, then the attacers would have the greatest advantages. Ofcours the comands could be limited. Lets say general could comand only in boarding the ship, or leaving it. Cos naw you have to risk unlocking it, or try to drag the person into the ship. Sometimes it takes few days to board the ship for all the crew.

[DELGRAD]

Umm
NO

Leaves characters under another players conlrol. Hello, multi.
And none of this, "I am not the player of these characters". You are controlling multiple accounts.
Please create another CANTR account and try this.

I see only massive abuse of this.

[UloDeTero]

Zanthos, Talapus, and Shapukas. I agree with what you're saying, but if attackers can co-ordinate attacks this way, then so can defenders. No more "is anyone awake that can help me fend off this pirate attack?"

Notsure. Again, this would be voluntary. Submissive partners could use it. Or not. It's up to them.

Delgrad. Um... Jumping to conclusions, much? Believe it or not, I have no idea who 'multi' is.

[Doug R.]

The potential for abuse is high, and it wouldn't necessarily be voluntary. "Generals" could order their troops to use this option, regardless of a player's wishes, and the player will have to comply if they want their character to remain in the organization or even free. Characters could unwittingly be forced to do things that their characters would not do, even if they do it voluntarily.

No, having any sort of control over another person's character is fundamentally against the spirit of the game.

[SekoETC]

If this was implemented, which looks very unlikely, there would have to be a delay between attacks and also chance of hesitation or failing to follow orders. ...Like if a person hadn't hit many people in their life, they might freak out when they see blood or they might refuse to attack a person who has much weaker equipment than themselves, or a person who hasn't spoken or done anything since you came to town. Also people should be able to add people to a safe list and if they were ordered to attack these friends, they would be likely to rebel.

[Piscator]

That truly sounds sounds like a society simulation. You define your characters behavioral options and then just lean back and watch them doing all the stuff on their own.

Seriously, I'm not totally against some automation, but this suggestion would (yet again) give too much advantage to attackers. A group of attackers, literally striking in the same second... How would you be able to defend against that?

[joo]

Not only does this violate the "characters should not be able kill each other in one hit" tenet, but if the General decided to suddenly give out a crazy, nonsensical order like attacking a random person for no reason, the player wouldn't have the opportunity to obey or disobey based on the character's morals.

[formerly known as hf]

Automation is generally a bad idea. We don't even have automatic retaliation, we're not gonna get this.

The way I see it; automation reduces the scope for improvisation, creativity and novelty (upon which socio-political change thrives) by having a large number of people conform to pre-set, hard-coded guidleines. Nothing social is hard-coded.

More specifically, this would destroy the need of any militiary group - pirates, townships or otherwise, to spend time gathering together and preparing a wakeful, prepared and well-knit fighting community - an essential part of the functioning of those groups.

[Jos Elkink]

I strongly agree with HF - this is very much contradictory to the fundamental design of Cantr and would change it simply into a different kind of game.

Warfare is possible in Cantr as it is, it is just slower paced. As is the game in general.

[saztronic]

Warfare, as such, is not possible in Cantr. Ridiculously complicated maneuvers involving the coordination of a number of sleep characters and literal days worth of action, might, in the extremely rare cases where people are willing to invest the resouces, result in some pale facsimile of warfare.

But onslaughts? Ambushes? Protracted armed struggles on open battelfields? Legitimate attempts to take over established towns?

No way. Not under the current design. Which, in my opinion, is a flaw.

Which is why I would support this suggestion. Obviously I'm in the minority.

[Dogonabun]

<snip>

I also support this suggestion, and don't think it should have been tossed aside as easily as it was.