I'm thinking we don't need a dedicated leader so that there isn't so much pressure on one player. It's tough to lead a mission in GR and when the mission fails the leader might feel bad at letting down 8 other players. In JO, you could be misleading 8+ players. I think we should keep it really simple and decentralized. Each player knows to take a base or defend a base. As long as players form small groups and come up with ideas to attack or defend. If a few players happen to respawn at default base one can say, "Hey, let's jump in a Stryker and attack." They form a group and execute the plan.

The problem with one leader is co-ordinating many players that can be spread across the map. We all know how easy it is to get split up while attacking. If somebody dies and has to respawn (ie: can't be revived), do we want the leader to give out orders to that player? What does the player do? It's best if the system is decentralized because the player can go find another group of players that are about to attack. What if the leader dies? Well, he can't lead very well if he can't tell what's going on. He can try to lead from a distance over comms but that increases comm traffic and he won't be making very good decisions. Should another player take over the leader's role? Who decides that? Is that done before the mission is executed? That takes too much time.

How many times in GR has it happened where the leader dies and the group breaks down? Not much if the group knows the objective. The leader dies and the group still attempts to get the job done. Sometimes somebody steps up to continue leading and sometimes nobody steps up. The plan is still the same. It's kill everybody and maybe do a little something else like plant a charge. It can be the same for JO but it's easier because the objective is always the same. Take over the next base. Everybody knows what to do and doesn't need a leader to say, "Hey, we're going to attack now." Of course players are going to attack. They want to attack and all they need to do is make sure they are all attacking at the same time. Plans can be dynamic. If a player at base gets in a helo and starts loading up on troops, he can say, "Hey, front line troops, I'm bringing reinforcements. Hold out a bit until I bring them in." Would a leader at the front lines thought of this?

I still go for a decentralized system where anybody can lead for a short period. It just has to be groups forming and disbanding as needed with very little need for planning.

Also on the big (150 player) servers I think you can get some benefit with a GR style team. Chinook carrying 3 fully crewed AAV + Little Birds deep in the enemy rear area on one of the big maps could kick some ass without diverting too much manpower from the front lines.

I actually don't like the 150 player games too much. The numbers are too high, lag can be a problem, framerates can be a problem and it's just a nuthouse. And still, is a leader required to do this? What if somebody says, "Hey, let's all load up a chinook with vehicles. We'll go behind enemy lines with helo support and do some damage. Who's in?" Remember, there are players like Cing that don't want to be ordered. They want freedom of choice. There's also co-ordinating that. How long would it take to get set up? What if you have to pick up a player and you all get shot down by an enemy "spec ops" team? You start over again. I've played some games where we spend half the time trying to get to the same place at the same time all together. I find it more effective if each player gets to the objective by his own means. If a large group is discovered together, sometimes it's just a couple of stingers/AT/RPG shots away from wasting 10 minutes of preparation multiplied by the number of players on board. If one guy gets discovered and eliminated, there will be many other groups out there that have a chance of getting to the objective.

By having an attack and defence lead, you can quickly and easily set up some method, as Icecold pointed out above, and be given a role to do. Imagine it like ghost recon, except it's against human opponents . Lead doesn't need to make it complicated either. A simple "medics at back, gunners at front, we'll assault from the west" is good enough and it can be built from there. It would be nice to have a massive, co-ordinated assault with APC's and Helo support but that's probably a pipe-dream.

This works well with a small team. It worked nicely against Tactical Elite. For a larger team, I say we get multiple attack and defend leads (more for defend if there's more than one base to defend) and launch attacks that way. I find the game much better when working in groups of 3-5. The lead doesn't even have to say, "Medics at the back, gunners at front." Medics should know to stick to the back and heal as needed. They should be self-automonous. The gunners should know to distract as troops move. A member of the group only has to say, "Give me suppressive fire!" These kind of on-the-fly decisions are really effective. During the Tactical Elite match, Shadowrip suggested getting in a helo and attacking the next base. It was just on-the-fly when we were just took over a base. I was attack lead but he suggested the plan. A dedicated lead environment might discourage this type of play where a team can take advantage of a situation that suddenly arises. I didn't say much as a leader that match except to call for the defense team to reinforce.

I know some of us want to play tactically and some want to play "on-the-fly". I'm trying to think of ways to satisfy both types of players. I am discussing with the admins about setting up a tactics session where anybody can lead a small group in a defense mission. I find the best tactics come from defending. Everybody is in the same place and equips differently to be able to handle anything.