Originally Posted by Hank Rearden

I don't mind your missions, Falcon. I do wish you wouldn't command, however... or would consider reading some command philosophy doctrine before doing so.

Here are my suggested concepts:

Behfelstaktik:
(lit. detailed-order tactics), control by detailed order or command push. - Wikipedia

The above school of tactics was applied extensively by Russian commandants during the second-world war and has been disproven as an effective means of leadership. Commanders would quite literally issue orders to their subordinates about which directions they were to face, where they were to stand and what gear or equipment their men were to carry precisely. The philosophy is akin to the collectivist nature of communism, expecting that every man is willing to die as a comrade collectively and will stand to the last for his Commander's orders, precisely where he was told to die. This model, favouring micromanagement is inherently attritional by nature resulting in catastrophic casualties as NCOs and Junior Officers lack the capacity to execute tactical-level decision making, due to a fear of transgressing against senior orders.

Auftragstaktik:
In mission-type tactics the military commander gives their subordinate leaders a clearly defined goal (the mission) and the forces needed to accomplish that goal with a time within which the goal must be reached. The subordinate leaders then implement the order independently. The subordinate leader is given, to a large extent, the planning initiative and a freedom in execution which allows flexibility in execution. Mission-type tactics free higher leadership from tactical details. Thus, strictly speaking the German word is something of a misnomer. It is not a tactic per se (and certainly not limited to the tacticals). It is more of a method of leadership. Thus, the proper German designation is Führen durch Auftrag, literally leading by task as opposed to Führen durch Befehl, i.e. leading by orders. Direct orders are an exception in the German armed forces, while "tasks" are the standard instrument of leadership from high command down to squad level. - Wikipedia

This above school of leadership delegates tasks to subordinate (junior officers and NCO's) who relay the orders to their men, formulate their own plan of attack within the rough framework of commander's intent and achieve results independently, working in coordination with other independent force groupings ranging from fireteams up to companies. The focus in this command philosophy is that strong individuals working toward achieving tasks (provided they perform their own duties as a unit diligently) will both respect their abilities and

Emergent Leadership/Emergent Behavior:
An emergent behavior or emergent property can appear when a number of simple entities (agents) operate in an environment, forming more complex behaviors as a collective. If emergence happens over disparate size scales, then the reason is usually a causal relation across different scales. In other words there is often a form of top-down feedback in systems with emergent properties. The processes from which emergent properties result may occur in either the observed or observing system, and can commonly be identified by their patterns of accumulating change, most generally called 'growth'. Why emergent behaviours occur include: intricate causal relations across different scales and feedback, known as interconnectivity. - Wikipedia

Emergent behaviors are those which manifest spontaneously (as the name implies). Emergent Behavior is unpredictable, but can be theoretically be plotted. In its purest form it is similar to a hivemind. Ants and swarming bees represent the pinnacle of emergent behavior in the natural world. Emergent leadership is the sudden transferal of responsibility from a leader to his subordinate (usually by necessity/chain of command), and is measured quantitatively as the speed with which the subordinate accepts the new position of responsibility and assumes command. The best example of emergent behavior in ARMA2 is the artificial intelligence which responds to orders like 'Formation: Echelon Left' with an uncanny speed and certainty, forming a perfect Echelon directly to the squad leader's left, perfectly spaced and adjusting position/orientation in response to his every movement. When a commander is terminated, the AI responds within milliseconds, delegating the next tasks, a direct transferal of consciousness, understanding perfectly what the previous squad leader was doing.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that your command style is inherently that of Behfelstaktik and that you prefer emergent behavior styles. The assumption in emergent behavior is that the central intelligence of the 'hive mind' is more intelligent than its members (the commander). The reason that task-driven command philosophy is used in contemporary fourth generation warfare, idea driven, OOTW, EBO et al. is because while commanders are expected to be educated, the assumption that their 'view' of a battlespace is somehow superior by virtue of rank or intelligence is incorrect. Subordinates require initiative to operate effectively in asymmetrical warfare conditions. Commanders delegate tasks, not the situation of individual units. I speak from experience because I had some rather frustrating personal experiences in Project Reality as a commander, came over to ARMA2 and educated myself as to the precise nature of command philosophy. Commanders are responsible for delegating tasks and ensuring that the needs of their subordinates are adequately met and their actions are synchronized according to his/her intent. Based on your demonstrated love for emergent behavior and order-driven command philosophy, I'd suggest that you do not in fact enjoy playing with other players and prefer the perfect synchronicity of teamwork you experience while commanding artificial intelligences.

Conclusion:

So, my commentary is this: The next time you command, think about the concepts I've just explained to you. Engender competence and cohesiveness not through authoritarian shouting or strict and prescriptive order-driven tactics, but rather by allowing your team-members to adapt themselves to functioning as team members, whose individual skills and abilities contribute to the success of your objectives, rather than clashing with your command structure at every step. If you want to delegate tasks to individual NCM's, consider joining as a squad (or better yet, fireteam) leader. That's about where it is acceptable to prescribe the situation of individual personnel in the battlespace. Patrol officers, upper NCOs and Officers should strive to stay out of the line of fire as much as possible and direct units towards objectives. Specific bits of kits like satchel charges or antitank weapons are squad-based but their use can certainly be overriden by platoon if the need arises. Just bear this in mind, they're my suggestions.

On the topic of your maps, I'll say this: I enjoy the scenarios greatly, but generally feel as though I'm a Reservist who has been hastily deployed to the field as part of some widespread conscription. You equip your men like conscripts and beat them like dogs. The USMC or any other modern fighting force would not go to war against the forces of Russia or a band of Insurgents with 21 men, 2 mortars, M-16s an MTVR and some Paraflares. Maybe it's something that you don't like, but the Military Industrial Complex (to which you owe most of the amenities of your life, including the computer you are playing on) manages to remain what it is because it keeps (and has kept since NSC 68/2) a serious technological edge over all global competitors. Perhaps you long for the days of equally matched forces beating each other down with purely attritional might, but we're only successful at assymetrical engagement and MOUT because we have the technological and doctrinal edge over our competitors. Comrade Falcon, your map making skills are unparalleled, I only wish you'd pay tribute to the glories of modern technology and stop hating all the amazing toys that let soldiers soldier as individual strong links in a cohesive and initiative-driven chain of command.

Here is the problem I would love to be able to command in the way you mentioned by giving objectives pointing out things to consider and in battle keeping aprasied of the overall situation in order to adabt quickly to changes but the fact is that doesn't work the way you think it does on TG right now.

If I were to command in the style you suggest this is the way it would go. I would say for instance, lets move to this cross roads then into town and take it, we know there are enemy positions here, here, here etc. etc. etc. What would happen is 3 squads would run in one huge mess all tangled together they would stop at the cross roads where everyone would from 3 small circles looking at their SL's. If we continued they would all run along the same axis of attack into town and if by some miracle we hadn't been all mowed down by an MG and managed to clear it we would sit in the middle of town looking at each other. The fact is that your initiative-driven chain of command relies heavily on effective squad level and sub-squad level unit cohesion, effective and prolific intersquad communications and not only individual initiative but the knowledge of what to do.

The simple fact is TG is not there, not in our communication procedures not in our level of unit cohesion and not in our basic infantry skills. I think commanding at a higher level is a good goal to have but the simple fact is that in my experience more direction is needed, this is why I am more specific is squad movements and facings and put emphasis on formations, so that squads can be deconflicted, put good effect on target and the platoon can be covered from unexpected attacks. However from everything I have ever read I also think that you are confusing some higher level (battalion and divisional) level concepts with tactics. A platoon commanders job is to direct the general movement and fire of his squads as well as platoon level assets, direct fire support and coordinate with both higher command and other friendly forces.

Just a few more things about my commanding, one of the best ways to get me to stop micromanaging is take charge, get a squad organized and acting intelligently with organized fireteams that know what their doing and I can give you more general orders. Also even when I direct more specific things I am only trying to do so in order promote deconfliction etc. orders are not commandments. If I put a mark on the map and its in a bad spot don't set you squad up there, its impossible for a commander to see everything at once, use some tactical sense deploy else were but let me know that's all I ask.

Again I think promoting some advanced infantry schooling and playing some more infantry centeric maps would go a long way in making TG a better and more tight knit experience. Once we get good at infantry we can branch out but as I said before, crawl, walk run.
-Falcon

P.S.

Originally Posted by BarnesBL0278

I personally have no problem with his mission loading, with a single exception: Ammunition. We NEED some resupply desperately, but me and Falcon talked about that one night and he agreed, so scratch my only real complaint.

As for the leadership styles, Hank Reardon is right in some ways, though to say that Falcon is always authoritarian is not necessarily true. I usually end up as a squad leader on his missions, and he generally takes council from his SL's. I can't speak on behalf of the formation setups, because my squad usually has the formation down pat quickly, thanks to outstanding fireteam leaders. I can see him getting meticulous at times, but in no way does this negate his capabilities as a leader. We all have off-days. But, one of the 11 leader ship principles is to know your weaknesses and seek self-improvement, so hey. Never can learn enough I suppose.

BACK ON TOPIC. This thread is not about Falcon's missions insomuch as ways that we can regain the TG way of life on the servers without mailing them dogtags and ID cards and holding courts martial.

No I admit I am not a perfect platoon leader but I'm also not a Lieutenant in the army so I don't lead a platoon for a living. But I try to do my best and apply what I know of the way it is done in the real world to TG.

NOW BACK ON TOPIC!!!