Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

Oh, it must work some other way than I think, since what I think is only based on what I see and what I see must not be what goes on every night during prime time...

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

That is a whole lot of assumptions and a direct insult to the play abilities of every person who logs on the server. We're not poor teamplayers or we wouldn't be here. However, many people are here for different experiences and trying to enforce one particular definition of what playing at Tactical Gamer ought to be like is just another example of the autocratic style that necessitated my first posting. I'll agree we could do better on all fronts, but that is achieved through education external to serious play time not by crafting missions and then commanding them with the intent of reinforcing a certain style or perspective.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

It's not my initiative driven chain of command. It's a tried and true doctrine at work in the German, Canadian, British and American military establishments (heavily advocated by the USMC Officership, I might add). As a commander it's your responsibility that every squadleader knows individually what they have to do. Squadleaders have the responsibility to pass that along to their men. Using direct chat, standing in front of the automatic rifleman telling him to 'turn left and walk 10 metres then face 165' while preparing to leave the base is certainly not facilitating any higher learning and is in fact impeding that same cohesion you desire. Precisely my point.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

I never mentioned tactics... those are command philosophies and elements of chaos theory which I presented to you, at play at all levels of professional military leadership. Tactics occur primarily at a fireteam or section level, ranging up to companies. Leaders in those spheres pursue operational objectives on orders from their superior officers (usually the mapmaker in ARMA2 eg. Take this Town, Retrieve the Hostage etc.) However, micromanaging the platoon in the manner that you do is outside the range of what is termed 'acceptable and effective leadership styles.' It is authoritarian, more effective than laissez-faire leadership but still does little to promote anything but a distaste for visionaries.

My request: Transition us away from infantry platoons and lessons about the late 1970s and early 1980s (sorry, the -1990s-), emphasize combined arms, permit flexibility in pursuing objectives, allow technology to enter the battlespace and play its integral role in tactics and maybe consider making the commander a Coy. level leader of diverse, varied platoons.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

Again, your assumption is clear that everybody not in the enlightened position of command is somehow less intelligent and capable. That's my primary problem, you treat your enlisted men as though they are somehow subordinate in intellect or capacity, which does not engender respect. I am thinking back to three prior experiences:

One where you insisted on a massed-line advanced over open ground in lock-step until repeated artillery barrages obliterated 70% of the team and you /quit in frustration. One of the comments following that map was that both squadleaders and fireteam leaders felt as though their positions were completely overruled and that they were no more important than assistant automatic riflemen.

The second is one night at 0130 EST a few months back where you spent forty-five minutes berating us angrily to get into perfect column formation on bravo server, the culminating effect of which was that one frustrated automatic rifleman who took offense to your tone teamkilled us all in formation. Restarting that map we quickly fell into organization and marched for 20 minutes cross country in column at a walking pace with weapons on safety only to be obliterated by an enemy MG and mortar fire (I'm assuming it's the same MG that you mentioned above).

The third was a mission where a slow infantry advance gave way to heavy casualties while the squad I was leading using bounding overwatch took none. We disregarded orders and moved ourselves into a concealed overwatch position behind a main objective while the rest of the platoon was ordered on a line march into a side-objective mortar position. While we prepared our assault and I informed you of our competent elimination of three patrols and preparations to sieze a critical objective, the platoon was wiped out and the map ended due to casualties, my squad still intact.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

Operations occur on a combined level. If you want to command a strictly infantry platoon, that is fine, but assets define maneuver. Without Armour and Air support, you find yourself in an attritional war where the only option is to dig trenches, which I notice feature heavily in a number of your missions. Trench warfare went out of style at the end of the great war with the advent of the Mark 1. I'm a fairly competent armoured crewperson and commander in the virtual realm. Advanced infantry doctrine and advanced armoured doctrine are completely separate disciplines and many in the community probably do not necessarily love being forced to accept the most mundane combat roles rather than pursuing their chosen trades. I understand section-level tactics and basic infantry doctrine are part of a general combat education, but you can't expect us all to be 'good little grunts' without heavy support. Maneuver cannot be achieved by massed-infantry attack alone. Maybe Russia or China have upheld these principles but western warfare was altered irrevocably by the advent of Blitzkrieg and the writings of Guderian. You might consider checking him out as well, very enlightened discussion of armored operations.

Originally Posted by Falcon_262

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.

In the real world of the Russian military perhaps. You might consider creating OPFOR specific infantry maps, since that would best exemplify your desired loadout and C2 (though most professionals acknowledge it as C4 in contemporary operations) structure. I'd also encourage you to always make artillery consistently an on-map side-objective, even in your limited maneuver maps, since a special forces assault, airstrike or armoured spearhead would be employed simultaneous to the line infantry advance to neutralize that enemy capability, unless there was no existing intelligence. Operations and Maneuver do not occur in a vacuum. Artillery is as you have said a big killer of infantry, but it's not fair to assume that a plan would be formulated and initiated without acknowledging that colossal risk factor or doing something to mitigate its combat effectiveness.

On that note: Do we actually have any serving reserve, national guard or regular force officers here at TG in Arma2? I'd like to hear from a true military professional. It's my career intention, but I'm curious if there are actually any professionals educated in military science who would deign to play a video game.