Re: A chain of command is NOT a democracy.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 11-05-2008, 01:01 PM

If any player who takes the helm on Kashan 32 or 64 from the beginning and up to the 12 minute mark and who then commands the round, deserves a ribbon and a commendation and should be able to do whatever he wants the next round.

That map from .7 is what makes commander's commanders. And it is a grueling job. Qinling is tough also, but nothing stands out like Kashan. Whether you say it all proper as Ka-sean or in the hillbilly don't care way as : Ca-shan (say sham but replace the "m" with a "n"), its going to be a rough ride. And it is one of the few maps that having a plan from even before its played, or remembering to remember other commander's strategies will help you get ahead.

Then of course you have to deal with 3 man locked CAS squads..........it is inevitable, maybe its something about 3sums that drive people wild, who knows, but 3 man CAS squads run rampant on that map.

Kashan is the ultimate test for a CO, and the true colors of players comes out. I have never seen more people not want to follow CO orders on a map other than Kashan, and when I have commanded and asked them to do so, and when they have not done so, without I might add giving me a reason, an alternative or a simple situation report or intel, thats when i throw the report down, sometimes if i know an admin is a SL ill say it to all squads and ill also put it in global chat, other times ill just put it in global chat, all depends on how disrespectful the person is.

Kashan, that should be our training map for CO's, it is an interesting map don't get me wrong, i enjoy that it is large and the terrain is a cross between tan, and mars brown, but kashan is a huge B. Belhade I hope someone wrote you up for a ribbon, because from your post and other stuff i have read, it seems like you did a heck of a job and should be commended!!

As ferris and others have stated before, follow orders, and communicate. Obviously there are exceptions but for the most part its pretty straight forward what goes in PR. The TG PR Server is the #1 PR server for a reason.

**viper759** · 11-05-2008, 07:34 PM

this is the interesting part to me.

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

If the commander gives you an order, you will run with it no matter how far he makes you run.

if that order was on the TG server than baseraping the main isn't allowed so you can also explain to him how TG Don't play that. But other than that if the commander asks you to jump you ask how high?, And if he asks to you to run you say how far? And if he asks you to build, you say Bunker? FOB? Sandbags? Where?

Originally Posted by sirsolo

Well, it's all circumstantial. When your commander orders your Apache to move over the bunkers, for me that's a kind "I'd rather live and be usefull"

Can't give you a yes or no answer.. But sometimes its true.

This reaction may be adding to why people don't feel comfortable commanding.

~Sirsolo

Edit: Oh man, am I ever late..

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

As ferris and others have stated before, follow orders, and communicate. Obviously there are exceptions but for the most part its pretty straight forward what goes in PR. The TG PR Server is the #1 PR server for a reason.

**Reaperassault** · 11-05-2008, 09:53 PM

Not that this is my forum or game but I feel the need to express my opinion to the people here.

Commander orders are given in the hopes that they are followed or out of ignorance. It is the responsibility of the commander to do the best he can just like any other soldier on the field but his position has the largest impact so his mistakes are felt the most. In this line of thought it seems to be the responsibility of the SLs and SMs to evaluate the given information, just like any other piece of intelligence. If there is enough logic behind the order the squad is expected to carry it out and do the best they can to accomplish their objective. The CO must also make an effort to make sure that he is provided with the means to do his job and this provides the base of communication and teamwork between the CO and SLs which will provide that team with a large advantage over a team that does not have that effort put into it. That is the basis of TG, teamwork & communication. Through some common sense and maturity and we have a winning combination.

In the case of ignorance, it is up to the SLs to teach the CO and help that player understand the situation. This is a fine line between teaching and imposing your own will on the commander. If the CO orders you to take an asset into an unfavorable situation that you know is going to waste said asset ask for a clarification/reason on the order and either comply or provide a good reason (i.e. not some thing like but I don't want to, or I want to go kill people over here) and ask the CO to reevaluate his decision based on the new information. Do not be disrespectful as anyone will see that as a sign of immaturity and lose a bit of confidence in that squad and stop communicating and break down the teamwork that is so hard to achieve. If the CO has reevaluated your information and has decided to keep his orders as is then man up and do the best you can. If the CO changes his orders the process begins again and teamwork begins.

I might not have more that an hour played in PR (.7 at that) but the basics are the same. We are TG. We play better and have a set of standards that we do our best to up hold and we do our best to excel and achieve more than we expect. In doing so we must be careful not to overstep our bounds and become blinded by our glory, we must keep our team in heads and constantly evaluate what we are doing and why we are doing it. That is what makes TG special.

**KomradeObama** · 11-09-2008, 02:36 PM

Well I had a few very nice games Friday night as CO, with lots of communication and squads that worked together.
I also had a very spotty internet connection and kept getting dropped.
But to all the squads on Friday night ...........Thank You

**KoopaTroopa** · 05-17-2009, 06:38 PM

If you get a seemingly-nonsensical order, talk to the CO and ask him/advise him that it shouldn't be followed. If he relents to your advice, good to go. Ask for new orders or keep at what you're doing.

If the CO is unresponsive/uncommunicative to your advice, jump on Teamspeak and contact an admin.

If the CO listens to your advise but then orders you to follow that seemingly nonsensical order anyway, then you shut the **** up and follow that order. If you don't like that, drop your subscription as an SM (if you have one), delete the TG tags on your username in-game and promptly get your ass off TacticalGamer.com servers.

**TMan** · 05-17-2009, 08:12 PM

Commanding is a difficult, thankless job - no points, no killing, no advancing on the enemy. If someone is giving it a good honest effort, give your support. This server is about following orders and giving others the chance to lead. Unless the order is insane, you follow it and give feedback if practical. Otherwise, do it and move on.

**Berlancic** · 05-18-2009, 12:37 AM

Exactly, and use constructive criticism when you recieve orders that you don't agree with. That way the commander can see what you think is wrong; you're both on the same page, and you can come up with a better solution that the SL and the commander agree with.

Arguing constructively is very good. When you argue with the commander about strategic relevance of an objective that he is ordering you to attack, you're doing something good by informing the commander of what's wrong.

Arguing by saying people are retards and not listening is hard for a lot of us to resist saying, but it's not the right thing... in my opinion.

I think I just said the opposite of the title of this thread, oh well.

**Revark** · 05-18-2009, 10:46 AM

I said it on 2142, so I will say it here.

Summary:

50% of the people will play the TG way and follow orders

50% of the people will play their way and decide which orders to follow.

Can you imagine how that would go on the battlefield in Pakistan,.. "but I dont want to launch the attack there, I think it is more tactical over here, I think the commander is an idiot.

Who else has actually been in the military and respects chain of command?

Delta*RandyShugart* · 05-18-2009, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by Berlancic

Exactly, and use constructive criticism when you recieve orders that you don't agree with. That way the commander can see what you think is wrong; you're both on the same page, and you can come up with a better solution that the SL and the commander agree with.

Arguing constructively is very good. When you argue with the commander about strategic relevance of an objective that he is ordering you to attack, you're doing something good by informing the commander of what's wrong.

Arguing by saying people are retards and not listening is hard for a lot of us to resist saying, but it's not the right thing... in my opinion.

I think I just said the opposite of the title of this thread, oh well.

Instead of "arguing constructively" how about suggest an alternate plan of attack if you do not completely agree with what the CO states. Remember the when the CO gives orders to squads he is going with the intel he has received, so if he doesn't receive that much information he doesn't have that much to go by, thus why you might not agree with what he is asking you to do.

By intel, i don't simply mean stating "enemy tank here", give grid coordinates, don't get compass coordinates, if you say "tank/FOB at 145 etc" that really doesn't do any good because your SL symbol doesn't show which way you are pointing and the CO shouldn't have to use his memory of the compass setting to figure out where you are.

Put observe markers down and say what it is you are spotting, that way A) no in-game voice command is given alerting enemy in the area of your presence, and B) the CO can alert other squads in the area.

If you find yourself with a new CO, give him some tips/hints, and make sure he is in the CP, the CO shouldn't be used for players trying to get into locked squads.

Also just because a CO might be younger than you doesn't mean that you don't have to listen to him, be as thoughtful as you would to anyone you live or work with, and if you don't agree, re-read the primer and the rules.

Delta*RandyShugart* · 05-18-2009, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by Revark

Can you imagine how that would go on the battlefield in Pakistan,.. "but I dont want to launch the attack there, I think it is more tactical over here, I think the commander is an idiot.

Isn't this already happening on the Pakistani battlefront?

**DarkDancer** · 05-18-2009, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by d1sp0sabl3H3r0

Regardless, the point is to communicate with your CO and work it out if you don't agree with the order. You can do this regardless of tag.

Nothing more to say!

**mrhoopla** · 05-18-2009, 10:55 PM

On the subject of commanding, I'm interested to see if the DEVs will institute some radical changes in 0.9. I'm sure they've noticed the fact that people rarely command, even on teamwork oriented servers like TG.

I think the cure-all in this case would be to remove the restriction of the commander to the command post. But perhaps have extensive spawn-time penalties if the commander dies, so to discourage him from getting into firefights?

This is realistic, considering the general proximity of platoon/company commanders to the front lines. And 32 soldiers on a team is barely even a platoon-sized force.

**Berlancic** · 05-19-2009, 02:49 AM

Originally Posted by Delta*RandyShugart*

Instead of "arguing constructively"

To correct my part, suggesting an alternate plan is great idea. I just would rather arguing my point because the commander can see what I am seeing.

Better yet, suggest an alternate plan and give pointers to prove to the commander it's a good plan.

EDIT: I'm not looking at the whole here, 'I' is just saying what 'I'd' rather. Suggesting is much better very likely because it gives the commander quick smart a plan. Arguing will only point out the reasons why one plan is bad and has to spend more time creating another one! You put foward a good point randy.

**Mix0lydian** · 05-19-2009, 09:06 AM

During a public round, is the CO allowed keep his team from using MBT's after the 20 min mark on a map like Kashan 32/64? I would like to experiment with a team relying solely on IFV's (as transport, not "light tanks") and trans choppers/CAS, playing majority infantry. Of course this would require very good CAS pilots and spotting.

**snooggums** · 05-19-2009, 09:19 AM

Originally Posted by Mix0lydian

During a public round, is the CO allowed keep his team from using MBT's after the 20 min mark on a map like Kashan 32/64? I would like to experiment with a team relying solely on IFV's (as transport, not "light tanks") and trans choppers/CAS, playing majority infantry. Of course this would require very good CAS pilots and spotting.

I don't see why not, it would be like grounding the choppers on Muttrah once everyone has landed and there is no more use for them. If your tanks just get killed, keep em home.

Thread Tools

Display