Command, orders, and communication - Page 2

**Twisted_Firestarter** · 06-13-2005, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CingularDuality

If a leader disobeys when he sees things that the com might not, he might be embraced by the masses and coms. He'll be sought after as a leader. Small unit leadership was successful because of this. Know the commander's intent and use your own discretion on how to accomplish the mission.

I am diametrically opposed to this. Follow your commander's orders and accomplish them to the best of your ability. Your job is to implement the commander's plan, not to come up with your own.

**Vulcan** · 06-13-2005, 02:29 PM

It seems to me you can communicate with the commander via many ways, through comm or point out spots of enemy forces. If you have a different opinion voice it but the the goal is to follow a commanders orders so his plan unfolds. If it is unsuccessful then so be it, it will be on his head not yours.

Obviously letting an opposition take certain points for the purpose of a plan is very tactical and has good merit. If you read the art of war you'll understand many great things about strategy and tactics. This game utilizes that book more than any i've seen.

**CingularDuality** · 06-13-2005, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted_Firestarter

I am diametrically opposed to this. Follow your commander's orders and accomplish them to the best of your ability. Your job is to implement the commander's plan, not to come up with your own.

There are going to be all kinds of dynamics involved in this, and it's going to come down to what Wyzcrak is so fond of reminding us: trust. I think that we'll eventually find that certain combinations of commanders and squad leaders are going to be more effective than others. Some of these commanders are going to let their squad leaders do their own thing while advising them via orders. Some commanders are going to expect prompt obedience to orders. I think that the commanders that give their squad leaders some discretion are going to succeed more often than the commanders that try to run the entire battlefield from their limited vantage. Time will tell.

Take these three scenarios. In all, the commander has used the GUI to issue a squad orders to attack a flag. In one, the commander says nothing. In the second, the commander says, "Wrap things up where you're at and make you're way to the flag indicated." In the third, the commander says, "We've got a clear flag to capture, I want you there NOW!".

All three squad leaders were given the same order, but the intent was expressed differently in all three. The first one gave no intent. You don't know how fast he wants you there, or anything... The second one gives the squad leader a LOT of discretion as to how to make his way to that flag, while the third clearly indicates that there's no time for the squad leader to think about anything, just get there ASAP.

Different commanders are going to have different styles of leadership. As are the squad leaders... Communication will be vital regardless of style.

Let's not forget that this IS just a game and that we're all here to have fun.

**Pokerface** · 06-13-2005, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted_Firestarter

I am diametrically opposed to this. Follow your commander's orders and accomplish them to the best of your ability. Your job is to implement the commander's plan, not to come up with your own.

A commander doesn't just give orders. A commander has GOALS.

If a squad leader understands those goals, and sees from his point on the ground that compliance with the order will compromise the goals the comm hopes to acheive, then that squad leader whould do two things.
1) Disobey the order.
2) Explain why, quickly and concisely.

The comm/squad leader relationship, much like every other relationship, is about communciation and trust. The more of the big picture the grunts see, and the more fine grains the comm knows about, the better the team will perform.

Grunts aren't Tennyson-like fodder out there. They live, breathe, and think. To disregard that for blind compliance is poor judgement at best, and disrespectful at worst.

**Apophis** · 06-13-2005, 02:51 PM

My concern with some of these suggestions is that it opens up the command role to commanding by discussion. If I have 5 squads in my command and three of them are following orders and two of them are not, the two that are not most likely just threw a big old wrench in the plan. Those two squads have also put the three GOOD squads at risk by not providing the adequate support that the commander had planned on providing.

I think that squad leaders can provide feedback and suggestions, but when it comes down to it if the commander does not follow their suggestions; they still need to follow the commanders orders.

You can't have an effective commander or battle plan if you have to make wild guesses as to which squad leaders will actually follow your orders and which squad leaders just want to do their own thing with no regard whatsoever of the overall plan.

I keep hearing "trust" thrown around. I think squad leaders need to trust that the commander actually has a plan they are trying to execute and the commander needs to trust the squad leaders in carrying out their assigned objectives in the best way possible for their squad. I have already begun learning what commanders I can trust to get the job done (in whatever way they choose using the resources and tactics that best fit their squad) and what ones can't be trusted.

A commander doesn't need to micro-manage down to the soldier level, that's what the squad leaders are for. But the squad leaders DO need to take directives from command otherwise their entire plan could fall to pieces.

**Pokerface** · 06-13-2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

My concern with some of these suggestions is that it opens up the command role to commanding by discussion. If I have 5 squads in my command and three of them are following orders and two of them are not, the two that are not most likely just threw a big old wrench in the plan. Those two squads have also put the three GOOD squads at risk by not providing the adequate support that the commander had planned on providing.

It's not about leading by discussion: it's about making sure that all relavent information is made available. We've had a nice discussion in the NS Forum about this very thing already. If you're a grunt, and you think that the comm is missing something, make that something known, but be prepared to move on anyway.

**CingularDuality** · 06-13-2005, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

I think squad leaders need to trust that the commander actually has a plan they are trying to execute and the commander needs to trust the squad leaders in carrying out their assigned objectives in the best way possible for their squad.

Throw in the importance of communicating intent, and this is it in a nutshell!

Wait, no it's not...

The part highlighted in red is wrong. It should read "for their team".

**Dog** · 06-13-2005, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apophis

My concern with some of these suggestions is that it opens up the command role to commanding by discussion. If I have 5 squads in my command and three of them are following orders and two of them are not, the two that are not most likely just threw a big old wrench in the plan. Those two squads have also put the three GOOD squads at risk by not providing the adequate support that the commander had planned on providing.

I think that squad leaders can provide feedback and suggestions, but when it comes down to it if the commander does not follow their suggestions; they still need to follow the commanders orders.

You can't have an effective commander or battle plan if you have to make wild guesses as to which squad leaders will actually follow your orders and which squad leaders just want to do their own thing with no regard whatsoever of the overall plan.

I keep hearing "trust" thrown around. I think squad leaders need to trust that the commander actually has a plan they are trying to execute and the commander needs to trust the squad leaders in carrying out their assigned objectives in the best way possible for their squad. I have already begun learning what commanders I can trust to get the job done (in whatever way they choose using the resources and tactics that best fit their squad) and what ones can't be trusted.

A commander doesn't need to micro-manage down to the soldier level, that's what the squad leaders are for. But the squad leaders DO need to take directives from command otherwise their entire plan could fall to pieces.

I crew on a 5 person sailboat. I'm the "trimmer/tactician"...I call tactics and keep the situational awareness high...
The skipper drives the boat...
If our bowman stops to question a sail change or tactic, we either crash, lose speed or lose position...

Whoever is at the helm is in control of the boat.. and everyone does what he says.. that helps us win... if 5 of us did our jobs the way we thought they should be done,, we'd be last... guaranteed... I've been on boats with a weak skipper and it's a debacle... the timing and execution is wrong on everything...

If a commander is calling for a direct assault and a flanking move and the flanker doesn't show up because he knows better... then the assault will fail...

I think at this point you "follow your orders" if the commander makes a mistake everybody learns.. .

**Wyzcrak** · 06-13-2005, 03:53 PM

This problem has already been solved on the NS server. Maybe the solution will prove somehow insufficient for BF2, but I submit it for your considerations:

The rule is simple and not open to debate: you follow your leader's orders. PERIOD.

That is the rule.

Now. Look at rules in history. They're broken. Often. In gaming, with a rule like this, that's ALLOWED due to TRUST.

If the rule is broken, you're held ACCOUNTABLE for that, whatever that may mean (chastisement, kick, ban, etc). The more trusted you are, the less accountable you're going to be. Yes, this is a video game, but we're real humans, and that's how life works with REAL HUMANS -- trust earns you the right to dance outside the box.

**Twisted_Firestarter** · 06-13-2005, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

A commander doesn't just give orders. A commander has GOALS.

But it isn't the commander's job to tell you his long or short term goals. So, from a non-commander's point of view all he does is give orders.

**Pokerface** · 06-13-2005, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted_Firestarter

But it isn't the commander's job to tell you his long or short term goals. So, from a non-commander's point of view all he does is give orders.

Maybe not in the heat of battle, but grunts SHOULD know why they're supposed to be in certain places, and not in others.

**Twisted_Firestarter** · 06-13-2005, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Grunts aren't Tennyson-like fodder out there. They live, breathe, and think. To disregard that for blind compliance is poor judgement at best, and disrespectful at worst.

The US has the best armed forces on this planet earth and I assure you there is no discussion going on on whether to follow a commander's orders or making a suggestion in liu of those orders. And I'm pretty confident that this military tradition of following the line of command is anything but poor judgement and has nothing to do with disrespectfullness.

**Vulcan** · 06-13-2005, 04:10 PM

part of the commanders role is staying out of combat, which does not pertain to everyone. It's good to have a few commanders capable of doing the job, because you sometimes wanna get in the action.

You have the bridge lieutenant.

**Wyzcrak** · 06-13-2005, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pokerface

Maybe not in the heat of battle, but grunts SHOULD know why they're supposed to be in certain places, and not in others.

Agreed, but that won't always come in a monologue from the commander in the middle of the game (and Poker knows that). Again, this goes to trust...

You're either going to regularly issue commands non-new grunts understand and appreciate or your're not. If you do, you'll keep commanding. If you don't, the social framework of the game itself will dictate that you eventually cease commanding.

IceCold · 06-13-2005, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twisted_Firestarter

The US has the best armed forces on this planet earth and I assure you there is no discussion going on on whether to follow a commander's orders or making a suggestion in liu of those orders. And I'm pretty confident that this military tradition of following the line of command is anything but poor judgement and has nothing to do with disrespectfullness.

While you're correct regarding obedience to orders, in the United States Marine Corps, the commander's intent is part of every operational order. Small unit leadership is exactly that: leadership. Knowing the commander's intent allows the small unit leader to determine the best way to follow the order when the original plan falls all to hell (as it always does...). Squad leaders are not zombies. They excercise discretion and initiative.

They also don't argue or disobey orders, though...

06-13-2005, 02:29 PM	#17 (permalink)
Vulcan Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Age: 30 Posts: 7,764	Re: Command, orders, and communication It seems to me you can communicate with the commander via many ways, through comm or point out spots of enemy forces. If you have a different opinion voice it but the the goal is to follow a commanders orders so his plan unfolds. If it is unsuccessful then so be it, it will be on his head not yours. Obviously letting an opposition take certain points for the purpose of a plan is very tactical and has good merit. If you read the art of war you'll understand many great things about strategy and tactics. This game utilizes that book more than any i've seen. __________________ TG Primer - CSS SOP's - INS SOP's My Computer: Asus P5q - e8400 - gtx 260 - 4gb ram - Seagate 32MB cache 2x500 GB Raid 0 Vista Ultimate 64 - Audigy 4 - G15 - MX 400 professional - KDS 17" CRT monitor

06-13-2005, 02:51 PM	#20 (permalink)
Apophis Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Rhode Island, USA Age: 36 Posts: 9,030	Re: Command, orders, and communication My concern with some of these suggestions is that it opens up the command role to commanding by discussion. If I have 5 squads in my command and three of them are following orders and two of them are not, the two that are not most likely just threw a big old wrench in the plan. Those two squads have also put the three GOOD squads at risk by not providing the adequate support that the commander had planned on providing. I think that squad leaders can provide feedback and suggestions, but when it comes down to it if the commander does not follow their suggestions; they still need to follow the commanders orders. You can't have an effective commander or battle plan if you have to make wild guesses as to which squad leaders will actually follow your orders and which squad leaders just want to do their own thing with no regard whatsoever of the overall plan. I keep hearing "trust" thrown around. I think squad leaders need to trust that the commander actually has a plan they are trying to execute and the commander needs to trust the squad leaders in carrying out their assigned objectives in the best way possible for their squad. I have already begun learning what commanders I can trust to get the job done (in whatever way they choose using the resources and tactics that best fit their squad) and what ones can't be trusted. A commander doesn't need to micro-manage down to the soldier level, that's what the squad leaders are for. But the squad leaders DO need to take directives from command otherwise their entire plan could fall to pieces. __________________ Diplomacy is the art of saying "good doggie" while looking for a bigger stick.

06-13-2005, 03:53 PM	#24 (permalink)
Wyzcrak Join Date: May 2003 Location: Memphis, TN Posts: 14,155	Re: Command, orders, and communication This problem has already been solved on the NS server. Maybe the solution will prove somehow insufficient for BF2, but I submit it for your considerations: The rule is simple and not open to debate: you follow your leader's orders. PERIOD. That is the rule. Now. Look at rules in history. They're broken. Often. In gaming, with a rule like this, that's ALLOWED due to TRUST. If the rule is broken, you're held ACCOUNTABLE for that, whatever that may mean (chastisement, kick, ban, etc). The more trusted you are, the less accountable you're going to be. Yes, this is a video game, but we're real humans, and that's how life works with REAL HUMANS -- trust earns you the right to dance outside the box. __________________ Steam Community? Add me. \| Join #tacticalgamer \| Search Results Legend \| New Posts Forum Filter \| Postbox Toggle \| Live Thread Review \| One Line Results \| Free Remote, Encrypted Backup Darkilla: In short, NS is pretty much really fast chess. With guns. Apophis: I haven't seen anyone say that SM's are better than non-SMs. Nordbomber: This is THE first server I've seen where either side can comeback from out of seemingly nowhere with the right teamwork. en4rcment: I have NEVER experienced the type of gameplay that I have found here. Nightly I am amazed at the personalities and gaming talent. Root: Welcome to TG. Feel free to punctuate your sentences correctly. Monkerz: Its gonna take all my skills to beat those boys off in the future.

06-13-2005, 04:10 PM	#28 (permalink)
Vulcan Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Montreal Age: 30 Posts: 7,764	Re: Command, orders, and communication part of the commanders role is staying out of combat, which does not pertain to everyone. It's good to have a few commanders capable of doing the job, because you sometimes wanna get in the action. You have the bridge lieutenant. __________________ TG Primer - CSS SOP's - INS SOP's My Computer: Asus P5q - e8400 - gtx 260 - 4gb ram - Seagate 32MB cache 2x500 GB Raid 0 Vista Ultimate 64 - Audigy 4 - G15 - MX 400 professional - KDS 17" CRT monitor

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links