Catraphact

I will try and answer the initial poster's questions, as I believe that so far, few of the other posters have. He did not ask people about examples of what they felt "unreasonable orders" were, though, a cursory examination of his post might lead to that conclusion.

He actually asked three poignant questions relating to three important variables in a squad's structure: The Squad's "Purpose", "Position" and its "Timing" and how much control the commander should have over each of those three things.

I will now attempt to answer each one of those queries in turn and try to explain my opinion of what a commander's role is and the appropriate amount of control that he should have.

Billyinorganic, you said that:
Very true.
Again, very true.
Correct, and that area you mention can never be utilised properly because PR is an online Video game based on a limited engine with casual players who play for one selfish reason: to enjoy themselves. This is not "war" ,as some people who take this game far too seriously, believe. It is a mere game and complex co-ordination of the level you describe can never be achieved with public players. Ever.

A commander can only try. He can assign, delegate, plan and co-ordinate. He can, in your words, control the "purpose." He can tell them to attack or defend or to "build Firebases in E6." You are right when you say:
My answer to your question is: that is the only thing the commander can do. I honestly do not think it can be stretched out any further. The commander must "macromanage" the game, check his map to see if there are enough bodies on the flag and co-ordinate intelligence between squads. He is the conduit when two squads are attacking the same flag and have something to say to each other. He cannot, and should not micromanage.

You are right about the fact that there is a primitive control of position that the commander as. It cannot be more than "Go to E6 and try killing people on your move marker." He cannot control formations or anything like that. The primitive level of control that a commander has is enough. Anything more would stretch even the abilities of the best multi-tasker. A commander always has a lot on his plate. He has Squads relaying information, he has to deal with suggestions, he has to ask for sitreps on defence or attack. He has to mark tanks for the tank squad, mark targets for CAS, has to give build orders and generally control the strategy of the team. Adding in Squad Positioning does not help. Thats what squad leaders are for. I believe that answers your question over what I think the appropriate level of control a commander should have over his squads.
The third aspect you bring up is by far the most interesting. The question of timing. This mainly concerns people in two or more squads working together. This is a true test of a commander's ability. A good commander is the glue that holds the team together. However, no matter how good the commander is, he cannot always do this. It depends on the Squad leaders. It depends on their awareness. It depends whether the know that another squad will come to back them up. A commander can only make them aware. The degree to which the two squads co-ordinate an attack will always vary.

Some squad leaders are strict, others aren't. When there are different opinions even over how SLs control their squads, the commander is too far off a figure to matter. It is a public server. TG encourages teamplay and most people try to work as a team, but it is a game. You can never have "perfect military co-ordination."

You can have moments of co-ordinated brilliance, but they are fleeting. A good commander can only make SLs aware of their position. He can tell them what squad is coming to back them up with what equipment. He can tell them to hold the attack till the tanks arrive. Hell, he can even tell one to attack from the left and the other from the right. However, how well two infantry squads or how well tanks and infantry co-ordinate, is up to the SLs.

A good commander, in short, can only try.

billyinorganic

Thank you all for the feed-back, everyones input has been received.

"I am just curious what you would think would be an unreasonable order?" -Delta*RandyShugart*

A unreasonable order is one which is attempting to control a level of detail which the commander should not interfere with. For example, the majority of things which a squad leader has his members do is within a live fire-fight is within that realm of complexity that the commander should not interfere with. Although positioning prior to the live engagement i feel is a reasonable domain of commander control.

"In general I think it's, when the commander is being to the detriment of the team. For example like constently not allowing SL's to operate and then take the 'moral high ground' in a TG sense (egos please plonk down here). Giving outragous orders like those mentioned above. Not being tactically aware of the whole situation and being caught up into something, and so making a critical error but not allowing the SL to take note and advise. Or the other way round, actually. SL's do that too, and I've done a few mistakes in my time so I can safely say, we all make mistakes. I guess live, learn, trust to trust again."-Taip3n

This is getting into what i feel causes insubordination. A type of challenge for power emerges in the game, with the SL not trusting the commanders capability, or the commander purely being a fool and not understanding the situation at all.. (for example making tons of assumptions about where everything is and planning squad maneuvers within those assumptions. But then again, squad leaders need to talk more to their commanders, when they engage enemy they should let the commander know.


"The biggest problem I have, is that one squad inevitably arrives close to the objective first. It is NEAR IMPOSSIBLE to explain to that squad that I dont want them to attack yet, I want them to hold up and hide, wait in their position for the other squad to get into his position. So one squad attacks from the norht, the other squad in the south as an example. This can be very deadly and I do this all the time as an SL, but I basically do it without the other squad being aware of what Im doing

Ive actually yet to pull this off successfully being a commander. Someone in one of the squads inevitably gives their position away and initiates the firefight too soon, pinning that squad down and stirring up the bee hive before both squads are in good positions.

Its not a hard order to follow (stay still and stay alert, wait for our reinforcements to get into position) but youd be surprised the huge vast majority of PR players who cant follow that simple order." -Fuzzhead

This is really what i am getting at here.
All of my banter is really just attempting to ask,
"is it unreasonable to FORCE SQUADS TO FOLLOW MY TIMING OF ATTACK AND NOT RUSH IN WHEN I WAIT THEM TO WAIT?"

As a commander can get squads to attack flags or defend flags, a commander should be able to get squads to wait when he asks them to so that he can coordinate multiple squads together. It is not hard to get a squad to wait for another squad to get into position!!! and this is SO UNDER-used!

Either way, it's such a simple concept to have a squad wait for another squad... Seriously, what is better? to have two squads each attack a flag upon their own separate plan, without any timing, arriving at differnt times and perhaps after the other squad has died? or having the commander position the squads on say the east and west side of a flag and then to attack simultaneously from those positions?

bahh... Lines and fronts... each element of the game defines a line, like in foot-ball...
It's just a lot more complex for this game because each element has a huge set of capabilities, like shooting and moving and hiding... Either way... If the commander could reasonable assume control over the timing of squad actions i feel a whole new element of the game could be introduced that would make it funner. The reason i bring this point up in the first place is in response to what Catraphact was saying about the fact that this is a game.... And in light of everything which he and others had pointed out i feel that a commander having control over timing is not unreasonable and very easy to implement within the game. The only thing holding it back is laziness... and probably poor commanders who will cause squad leaders to not trust the introduction of this simple addition to the commanders expected control level.

Taip3n

I was Second in Command of PR PELA, in the 0.5/6?? tournament. ([PR]PELA|Taip3n 2ic- may the chinese dragon devour your enemy).

Michael_Denmark, our Officer in Command, was able to carry our squads to do exactly what you talk about - it is not impossible. I believe in it whole heartedly.

Extended lines or squad formations, holding fire, or holding areas of conflict, squads manouvering together, it all was there. It's not a problem when the team is desiring it. We wanted it because we wanted to be the best, we loved our team. And Michael was very strong willed but also insightful into what he wanted; we wanted it too and all pulled together. And it is VERY effective. Even when your back is up against a wall, you can still break the enemy with the right attitude.

My analogy of the opposite would be the 'running' mentality to go everywhere on the map. You know, run run run, oh there's the enemy, shoot, run run run, kinda stuff.

Luckily not many do that apart from perhaps when travelling great distances. But here is the analogy - when people run you hear them coming, people basically give there position away. A little squad leader sense, with the attitude of the squadmembers to not 'all of a sudden get into a firefight' but maintain discipline, does wonders.

Integrally, then, it is not only the good attitude of the Commander or the SL or the Squadmembers, it everyone together. Basic. Obvious even. But it's not all the commanders' fault.

High adrenaline games of bang bangs will always get the juices flowing to want to settle a good fight - even if it mean blowing your position, to some people.

On the other hand as an SL I have seen many squad members exactly doing that - respecting the commanders' decision and of course the SL. And it works when the rapport is good.

Billy, I'll be an SL for you anytime man. But training was what PELA had, a desire to win for 'Us' was another thing that drove us.. maybe what we have here is more the 'me' mentality surfacing again, when you say it is hard to control squads to form an attack together and not go bangbangs.. as to me.. that's just basic strategy.. a squad should be able to do that stuff.. let alone two working together.

billyinorganic

"But training was what PELA had, a desire to win for 'Us'"

Who are we, and what is our purpose for playing this game?
I like the idea that tactics can be taught to the public some how..
Training would be a feeling of a pub server, practice....
not so much droning on the I.

Taip3n

Not entirely sure what you mean. But will attempt to give answers in what I think you are on about.

The tournament allowed training before hand - so I suggest it is possible to be able to command squads - who are ready to listen and use things like timing and formations. A little thought here and you can 'train on the job'. Even allow for a few tries for the commander and yourself, and others.

If you believe training, as if you are in basic training, is like a public server, then I can assume you are not aware of the tournament, nor what some of the teams do there. Give it a try though as it's a good competition. I hope you get a good team so you can giove it a whirl.

If I read correctly, you assume I drone on about myself - or that you can think of others. If the former, wrong and absolutely, can't quote Kafka's experience in PR for a start, not mentioned PELA in rank or so ever but to do with the tourny then, you haven't a clue what you are on about to put it shortly - if the latter, yes, that's it, you got the idea, you're on the right track!

billyinorganic

Taip3n

just meant that it takes alot of sacrificing the I to train.. The pub server is not real training, just wondered how to get a training mentaility into it.

Taip3n

Ah. Did wonder if that was it but thanks for clearing it up to that point.

Dunno. Not sure is 100% possible since it's public, as you rightly point out. But you can work towards it as best u can. Aim high and it will come. Bit by bit, step by step.

Here is a good base in TG. I play in alot of good squads that work together and think it is possible to get close in some matches, some days and once in a while it's the greatest team in a month.. but not all the time.

But the bits and bobs like, listening, thinking about others or tactics, and the up and down team effort takes a bit of time, a bit of who is online, and some spice.

As an SL it's the same. One game, squadies are roaming but still as one, the next all together and firing on all cylinders. But to do training? No. Not here unless there's a tournament.. I guess.. Then people may actually put more 'effort' in to do the 'boring stuff' (though firing ranges are very informative - especially if the targets fire back :P ).

BostonBob

I know the difference from a good commander an a bad commander ..
It s just one thing ...
Does he have a mic ?

__________________
BostonBob Always Reload

Delta*RandyShugart*

The one thing I try to do when I have commanded in the past is to be as straight forward and clear as possible. There are times when i have been under fire that the commands i give are not always clear, however hanging back at the Main is a great way to issue the first major build orders for the map at hand.

Also pressing the B button with the squad you have highlighted is a great way to talk to individual squads, there are times when talking times when talking to everyone is important but for the most part especially in larger maps or when there is a lot going on talking to individual squads is essential.

Commander orders should though be followed at all times......and one should not really hesitate especially to disobey when you are asked to defend. I see that this order causes a lot of grief for some squads and SL's, but it is essential in winning a round.

__________________
|TG-6th|RandyShugart


"Ah yes, because epilepsy is so cool."- TheSkudDestroyer

Ask not what TG can do you for you, but what can do for TG.
9/11 - Never Forget