Less control over companions often means more tedious babysitting. If you can ensure the following, I have little need for direct control:
-They don't waste ammo by bursting miniguns on rats, so you don't have to manage their ammo supply all the time
-They don't fire bursts through friendly targets, especially if they are supposed to be intelligent people and not savages used to spears and stones
-They don't charge into battle when an ally accidentally hits them
-They don't block bottlenecks, refusing to move even when repeatedly asked to
You have to have companions shooting you and each other in the back. Cant have a Fallout game without it.
The thing is that of it isnt a bugged out, unfinished, undeveloped mechanic as it was originally - it wont be so jarring at all.
Especially if it corresponds to a specific character (like Sulik, Mayron or Vic for example) and especially if it happens more while they are at low levels.
Then, if you make it so that you can influence those NPCs to decrease it to some extent - through dialogue and through skill upgrades, - it becomes a worthy gameplay element.
This good effect increases further if the game does not treat companions as pokemons you can collect all at any time or have any of them as easily as you want.
And i hate the system where they all level up automatically to be on the same level whenever you take them - which really negates any sort of choices that could matter about any of it - while the opposite effect happens if the game treats the companions differently.
Namely as originals did - which was perfect and should be used more.
Dont do any more than that.
Individual independent companions are great stuff.
i would suggest that how much you can influence them in combat to be dependent on charisma and intelligence.
Dont know how you can do that but it should be done.
Van Buren was actually supposed to have something like what you say, based on Charisma + Persuade. Essentially, you used it to control your NPCs, and prevent them from disobeying your orders during distress and running for the hills. You could even assume direct control. Perhaps have a resource to be spent through that (Respect? Morale?).
This is why I'm pro-division of Speech into Persuade and Deception, because both can do different things. You can't maintain a party in high morale through deception. Also it would be too much stuff in one skill.
I just cant go with any type of direct control. In this case. Even if it was a matter of spending some resources. Im afraid it would only add a complicated thing to pull off that wouldnt pay off really, in the long run.
I mean... thats better then nothing. But...
I think a lot can be done with the way originals went about it. While it really isnt such a big bad thing as a lot of people think due to bugginess and the way it would happen in originals.
While players making obvious mistakes themselves added to that a lot.
I mean, giving an SMG to a crazed tribal, or running infront of an enraged supermutant wielding a minigun... and then complaining about it. I mean really...
Just that added about 50% to perceived "problems" with it.
While it was the easiest thing to remove SMG from Sulik and give a different weapon to Marcus - and everyone knows it.
As for dialogue, if something like it is already supposed to be in Van Buren or the team can do it... i leave that to the team to decide.
Im fine either way, really.