Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

    This thread addresses a critical, and potential contentious, issue brought to my attention via a PM from Starstriker1. Starstriker graciously gave me permission to repost his PM here as I believe that my answer, and a discussion of my answer, would benefit the TG PS2 community.

    First, the PM itself:

    Originally posted by starstriker1
    Hey E-male,

    Excellent platoon leading last night, as always. I did feel, however, like my squad's positioning was being micromanaged a little bit. A lot of the time, I'd be moving my squad from hill to hill only to have the platoon marker plopped down right where my squad marker already was! Personally speaking, I'd prefer to manage my squad's actual movement myself, and have my objectives be more of a "do X at position Y for reasons Z" so that I can examine the terrain, the opposition, and my squad and figure out the best approach. My personal SL preference is to have a degree of autonomy.

    Not intended as a criticism or a demand to alter your leadership style; as a squad leader I always have a bit of tunnel vision with regards to the bigger picture, so I don't have a good sense of whether the situation actually required the orders to be as fine grained as they were. I just wanted to let you know my perspective on it from an ant's eye view! If you are managing my squad's point-to-point movement, though, I think it would be helpful to know what purpose that movement is serving in the grand scheme of things so I can make sure that our kits and precise positioning are doing the job we need to be doing.
    And my reply:

    First the matter of last night. Yes, I did find that in a few instances squad leaders were moving off their assigned positions (or the platoon staging area) before I had given any order to do so. In fact I directly called out one SL for doing so, I do not recall if it was you.

    As to "moving my squad from hill to hill only to have the platoon marker plopped down right where my squad marker already was!" this is a management strategy that you witnessed. In some cases I will call a squad back into position, in others I will simply confirm the already-taken action. It is easier to lead men to where they are already going in some cases, and the platoon leader needs to assert a sense of order and control as other SLs and squad members take their cues from the general tone set by leadership. Thus the confirmation of an improper movement, on occasion.

    Nonetheless, the fact that a SL's judgment may be correct in such instances NEVER justifies moving off an assigned position. Such actions undermine command and can create copycat behaviour. The correct procedure sees the SL open comms with the PL and recommend the desired action. I cannot emphasis the critical importance of following this 'unwritten' standard operating procedure.

    Assigning the movement, placement, and tasks/objectives of a squad are for the most part the prerogative of the platoon leader. Within this prerogative the PL relegates a great deal of authority and autonomy to the squad leader, which the SL will exercise over his squad members.

    You raise the issue of explaining/justifying orders. Sometimes this is essential, and we often see Randy, BigGaayAl and other expert-level platoon leaders doing so. But mostly this is unnecessary. The PL needs to keep OFF the platoon channel as much as possible. I often see inexperienced leaders providing excessive explanations and justifications -- this creates considerable noise in the channel and interferes with comms across the platoon.

    Nonetheless, you raise a good point when you note that "it would be helpful to know what purpose that movement is serving in the grand scheme of things so I can make sure that our kits and precise positioning are doing the job we need to be doing."

    The point is well taken and I will make a note to keep this in mind. This is an issue that I hope to see further discussion on here in this thread.

    You also note that "I don't have a good sense of whether the situation actually required the orders to be as fine grained as they were." Often it is the case that your PL does not have the complete picture either. That is why sound platoon management requires a delicate balance between generalities and specifics.

    The important thing for squad leaders to keep in mind is that they are a small part of a larger structure. The PL positions elements within the structure so that they are mutually supportive and, usually, focused on the same targets and objects. A squad that wanders off its position, or worse, lacks cohesion, represents a threat to the integrity of the overall structure.

    Point-to-point movement is the foundation of my operational procedures as a platoon leader. The precise positioning and movement of elements within the platoon is, in my opinion, the foremost priority and responsibility of the PL. This does not rule out innovation and initiative from the SLs. This does not reduce SLs to mindless pawns. As noted in another post, I expect all command elements, all TG SLs, to be in teamspeak, in the TS command channel with me, for advisory purposes. I will make an effort to emphasis this from now on, as it remains an often overlooked element in the TG PS2 command methodology.

    I hope others will voice their thoughts on these very important issues.

    Thank you StarStriker1 for bringing them to our attention!

    EDIT:

    See my discussion of cohesion and tactical movement in the draft document: Squad and Platoon Management in Virtual Environments.
    Last edited by E-Male; 06-29-2013, 06:02 PM.
    sigpic

  • #2
    Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

    In general I think you struck a pretty good balance. When I referred to the platoon marker going down where we were already going, I mainly meant those instances where you'd already given the squad a general movement order with regards to an end goal, but then began assigning the intermediate waypoints. I can definitely see the logic behind coordinating those movements in order to have squads provide proper overwatch for one another, and I'll happily play ball with you if that's how you want to run things, I just have two counterpoints to bring up:

    1) The squad in question is likely to have a better understanding of local threats/opportunities than the PL and may have a safer or more advantageous route. I know your position on that is "that's okay, just check with the PL first" with regards to altering the route or the intermediate steps, but that adds to the comm chatter significantly, as do fine grained platoon leader orders. Front loading the orders with the mission parameters lets the SLs worry about the details of implementation... that's why they're THERE, right?

    2) At least with the way I run things, I find having broader orders that I can implement piece by piece is a good way to drill the squad, which is often full of pubbies whose natural instinct is to sprint off in all directions. By giving me a longer term goal and then letting me implement the point-to-point manuevers you've given me an opportunity to emphasize and practise squad cohesion and careful movement.

    Again, last night you gave me plenty of opportunities to do both of those things, it only felt like I wasn't getting the opportunity to manage my squad in a few specific instances. And, counter to my own points up above, I do know that not every squad we run has as much of a micromanaging prick of an SL as mine tend to, so closer PL control makes a lot of sense in that regard in terms of managing unknown quantities within the platoon. You can trust people like Wyatt or Jengles to run an armour squad and choose good firing positions as well as keep their squad cohesive, supplied, and safe, but it'd be unlikely that a first time SL would show the same judgement, and would likely benefit from some higher-level micromanagement. It'd be a little assinine to insist that the PL be familiar with the playstyles and experience level of every squad under him and tailor orders specifically to them, so "lowest common denominator" (which I DO NOT mean dismissively or as an insult!) orders ensure that everyone is covered and the PL isn't gambling on the SL having the right squad, experience, and situational awareness to do things how he'd have them do them.

    I'm only speaking to my own personal preferences as a squad leader here. I enjoy exercising precise control over my squad and having the tactical freedom to come up with and implement my own approaches to a broader objective. However, my preferences may not align to the needs of the platoon as a whole, or the specific leadership style of the PL, so I'm hardly going to insist on them to the platoons detriment! I'm not going to take my ball and go home just because we're not going to play my way. :)

    As far as assigned positions go, the squad in question wasn't mine, but I still have to apologize because I did have a hand in it (and apologies to the other SL for not fessing up on the spot when E-male called him on it, didn't want to clutter the comms). Us and another squad were hunkered down on the waypointed hill, and I noticed that between the two squads the hill wasn't built nearly wide enough to provide enough firing positions for everyone, and we were incredibly clustered if an enemy Liberator came along (which actually half-wiped my squad earlier at Haven Outpost, so I was a bit wary of the possibility). I spoke to the other squad lead over proxy chat and suggested he move his squad to the adjacent hill to spread us out a bit.

    My understanding of the order (and, I presume, his as well) was that we to take the waypointed position to provide overwatch. Where it appears we erred is that we thought that "one hill over" was still part of the position we were to hold, and so no PL confirmation was required. Clarification as to how broad the waypoints are meant to be to be would be helpful, but I'll remember in future to assume that your waypoints are meant to be treated as precise unless otherwise specified.

    As far as explaining the intent behind orders, I'm not asking for long-winded explanations, just short elaborations to give me the basic context. For instance, instead of just being told to take a hill, it'd be nice to know if it was something we were supposed to provide anti-armour overwatch from, if it's just a staging area, if we're meant to block an enemy advance, or if it's so we can gain a flank on an enemy force, etc. So instead of "move to the platoon waypoint" the order becomes "move to the platoon waypoint and do X". As a squad leader, I can usually intuit what the PL is looking for in a specific order, but if at all possible I'd like not to guess at the PL's intention.



    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

      Thank you, Starstriker, for bringing this up. I've been having the same concerns and agree with all your very well made points.

      My experience is that, every now and then, I encounter simple orders such as "move here", from both PLs and SLs, where I feel a great deal of context is missed to the detriment of the squad. I feel that giving "move to x with the intention of y" orders is the smallest amount necessary to be effective, in most cases. The only exceptions would be where combat is heavy and time isn't allowed even for brief explanation (mainly for SLs to SMs) or where the overall goal has already been outlined with the original order, and all the others very clearly fit the same intentions.


      Without that information you are left with two options: the first is an SL that cannot elaborate on orders because they don't know any more, resulting in SMs picking varying kits, looking in all directions and being slow to react both to threats and the next order; the second is for the SL, or SM, to predict what their next orders will be, assign/pick kits based on that, order everyone to watch a particular direction and prepare them, for example, to move on the objective. I find myself tending towards the second.

      Unfortunately, the moment you assume wrong your squad is even less equipped and prepared than if you had said nothing. Worse, if the clarification of orders, such as "provide cover fire for Delta", comes after telling people to "get ready to charge, fire condition yellow, we're aiming for X building, I want medics in the back ..." etc. this creates a disconnect between the PL and SL (as well as SMs that are listening in) as orders are constantly being abandoned and changed. Of course, that's certainly not the PLs intentions and it happens even without their knowledge but, without the extra detail, it can happen nonetheless. To all blueberries in the squad, this creates the impression that we are disorganised.


      By contrast, if the rule were to explain then, when exceptions occur, the people under you will have a good insight into your previous line-of-thought and a much better chance at predicting your intentions. Furthermore, up until then, everyone has been able to see the logic behind each order, making them more willing to follow what appear to be overly simplistic and unexplained orders when they are occasionally given. While that mainly applies to getting non-TG to follow orders more efficiently, it also alleviates frustration for TG members. None of us want to feel like pawns with every move, shoot etc. action being dictated to us, but it's very easy to do things that have clear reasoning and effective teamwork at their heart (I.E. "hold fire" becomes "hold fire until I say. We're waiting until Bravo is in position for coordinated firepower").


      In a similar vein, there's an issue that I've definitely seen a huge improvement on but I think is worth noting here. Now and then, after capturing a base, everyone is simply told to "load up" but not told where we're going or, at least, are likely to go. Those moments are perfect for switching kits, deciding tactics and, once the destination is concrete, explaining the mission to your squad. I fully understand that PLs need time to decide, but I think a heads-up goes a long way.

      Happily, I've seen PLs asking for regular opinions on the next destination which, as a by-product, deals with this issue in those instances. However, I don't see the harm in habitually running things by SLs even when confidently making decisions. This would satisfy the good practice (forgive me for not remembering exactly) that leaders should have a good idea what the people one step above and below them are thinking and doing at all times. Besides, SLs don't always have something to add and, even if they do, you don't have to agree - only listen and confirm/deny. As Emale pointed out, this is exactly where the use of the Command Channel in Teamspeak should be used, so that most do not hear the discussion.



      |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

        I see the other half of the debate is about where the PL role ends and the SL role begins. In my opinion, the PLs job involves deciding strategy, platoon movement from base to base, general approach to a base and designating objectives for each squad (as well as ordering full platoon tactics like MAX crashes). The more you engage in combat, the more the SLs should be taking over.

        Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
        1) The squad in question is likely to have a better understanding of local threats/opportunities than the PL and may have a safer or more advantageous route. I know your position on that is "that's okay, just check with the PL first" with regards to altering the route or the intermediate steps, but that adds to the comm chatter significantly, as do fine grained platoon leader orders. Front loading the orders with the mission parameters lets the SLs worry about the details of implementation... that's why they're THERE, right?
        My thoughts exactly. Once a PL decides the general direction to attack a base from, the SLs are better placed to pick the exact route and cover during the approach for the majority of occasions. At this point, transition of command duties has already begun and, rather than the SLs taking up comms by routinely requesting simple movement orders, this should be flipped on its head so that the PL only advises the SLs on exact positioning. I have no doubt that there are times a PL could not possibly keep up with the rapidly changing situations of combat, decide which cover is best from afar and relay it through our comms procedure for multiple squads at once (and would override all inter-squad comms for those already in place anyway).

        Originally posted by starstriker1 View Post
        Again, last night you gave me plenty of opportunities to do both of those things, it only felt like I wasn't getting the opportunity to manage my squad in a few specific instances. And, counter to my own points up above, I do know that not every squad we run has as much of a micromanaging prick of an SL as mine tend to, so closer PL control makes a lot of sense in that regard in terms of managing unknown quantities within the platoon. You can trust people like Wyatt or Jengles to run an armour squad and choose good firing positions as well as keep their squad cohesive, supplied, and safe, but it'd be unlikely that a first time SL would show the same judgement, and would likely benefit from some higher-level micromanagement. It'd be a little assinine to insist that the PL be familiar with the playstyles and experience level of every squad under him and tailor orders specifically to them, so "lowest common denominator" (which I DO NOT mean dismissively or as an insult!) orders ensure that everyone is covered and the PL isn't gambling on the SL having the right squad, experience, and situational awareness to do things how he'd have them do them.
        You're too kind Star :row__584: Wyatt has more experience with armor than I and, the last time I lead armor, you missed me sending most of my squad to their death before you took PL.

        I would counter that and say that our -unwritten- leadership SOPs should be aimed at pleasing the players that regularly step up to lead - after all, we do strive to be effective on the battlefield. If an SL is new they should look for other ways of learning, such as by having a regular SL in their squad to talk them through things (either of them actually wearing the SL hat), by practicing in solo squads and, of course, by learning from their mistakes. Not through PL micromanagement that holds back the rest of the platoon and certainly not when very little conversation can actually take place between the two in any case.



        |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

          Originally posted by MrJengles View Post
          You're too kind Star :row__584: Wyatt has more experience with armor than I and, the last time I lead armor, you missed me sending most of my squad to their death before you took PL.
          You spent the rest of my tenure as PL knocking it out of the frickin' park, so I think we can forgive that. ^_^

          Re: the "Load Up" order... a thought, which I'll try out next time I'm in the PL seat... an alternate approach might be to tell squads to pull a Sunderer, but to hold up in the spawn room (or next to a deployed Sundy) until the next target has been decided. That gives the SLs the flexibility to change their squad's kits, but also lets them get to a common position and have their transport ready to go, minimizing the time spent getting to transport once everyone's ready.



          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

            Originally posted by MrJengles View Post
            I see the other half of the debate is about where the PL role ends and the SL role begins. In my opinion, the PLs job involves deciding strategy, platoon movement from base to base, general approach to a base and designating objectives for each squad (as well as ordering full platoon tactics like MAX crashes). The more you engage in combat, the more the SLs should be taking over.
            This is the opposite of my operating methodology. The PL's rôle in command, coordination, and control does not end where the enemy line begins. Quite the opposite, in fact.

            There is no essential reason for creating the divide you propose. Combat situations are the very instances when things fall apart without central command. Yes, the advisory and intel rôle of the SL increases in CBQ situations and at the front lines. But it is in these very situations where central command increases cohesion, force ratios, and ensures coordinated lines of fire between squads.

            The more you engage in combat the more you require the coordinated mutual support that comes with efficient and effective central command.

            Proper management of the platoon prevents things from degrading into chaos. Effective management of a platoon creates expanded space and elongated time which allows for coordinated response. I have always argued that the key to squad and platoon management is control of space and time.

            When squads are so overwhelmed that they cannot communicate or move effectively this is a indication of command failure. What you call micromanagement I call sound control and coordination of units across a battlefield.
            sigpic

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

              Keep in mind that two points raised by MrJengles and Starstriker1 are important and ones that I will make part of my documentation of platoon command and leadership:

              The PL should encourage SLs to act in an advisory capacity.

              The PL should provide SLs with briefings on objectives.


              The rest of this thread amounts to a minor dispute over the degree of control the PL exercises over SLs. I stand by my command methodology while recognizing that I need to increase the advisory rôle of SLs and provide SLs with more briefings on strategic decisions and immediate objectives.

              Again, I will ask SLs to meet me half way on this and get in the TS command channel with the PL. Many may be unaware of the ongoing background tactical discussions that take place between command elements in the TS command channel, conducted there so as to keep advisory comm traffic off the in-game VOIP channel as much as possible.
              sigpic

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                I still haven't set myself up on the TG TS, I really ought to get that going as a matter of habit. You never know when you'll all of a sudden be leading a squad or platoon...



                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                  The problem of command responsibilities, trust, and areas of decision making are actually common issues among 20th century militaries. For those interested, here is a unclassified (U.S.) discussion of such issues. From an ethnographic perspective it is curious and significant that similar issues arise in the context of virtual warfare. As many long term TG members well know, the current discussion is but one in a long long series of similar threads here at TG.

                  What these discussions usually lack is concrete reference to actual data. Impressionistic opinions dominate both sides of the debate. To this end I would like to turn the discussion here to a more concrete analysis of actual gameplay footage. Thus I offer the following 20 minute, unedited, video record of a TG platoon operating under my command.

                  By focusing our debate on actual in-game footage we will be in a better position to analyze decision making processes, leadership styles, and the delegation of responsibilities and related matters.

                  To this end let us begin with an analysis of command decisions, SL actions, and platoon cohesion with the following footage.

                  sigpic

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                    I think it is difficult to discuss these events without a prior briefing of the PL to each SL. Furthermore, I think it is difficult for SLs and PLs to mix if they are not first on the same general page of strategy, convention, and internalized values. I remember the above video's engagement on the plateau but I think I had a crash during this particular part.

                    There is an inherent problem when coordinating squads that all sort of blend into the same role; a zerg mentality follows as the similar squads directly absorb in one another. There is also a problem with the limited PL->SL interface (should be more like the BF commander able to give markers directly to SLs). I'd suggest that all Squad Leaders try to follow the PL orders but simultaneously makes a clear distinction between your squad and all the others. It might seem counter intutitive but the Squad Member's first and foremost duty is not to the platoon but to the Squad and its Leader. Blurring this distinction eventually leads to redundant team work (where the medic's/engineer's of Alpha Bravo and Charlie are all healing the same person/group of people).

                    When it comes to pick-up Platoons a little bit of sloppiness is expected. When it comes to Outfit Dominated Platoons we must strive for a little bit of belt buckling.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                      Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                      . . . Furthermore, I think it is difficult for SLs and PLs to mix if they are not first on the same general page of strategy, convention, and internalized values.
                      You raise a very significant point: leadership is easier to exert within an environment defined by a common set of values and conventions.

                      Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                      There is an inherent problem when coordinating squads that all sort of blend into the same role; a zerg mentality follows as the similar squads directly absorb in one another.
                      You raise another very significant point: cohesion within a squad and differentiation between squads is vitally important to maintain.


                      You note that "There is also a problem with the limited PL->SL interface."

                      This is an important consideration but would also suggest that there is considerable depth of communication within TG's platoons that are facilitated by in-game and external (TS) systems.

                      This is a fascinating way of defining the relationships within the platoon: " It might seem counter intutitive but the Squad Member's first and foremost duty is not to the platoon but to the Squad and its Leader. Blurring this distinction eventually leads to redundant team work . . . "

                      And this point almost made me cry "Yes, Yes, Yes!":


                      Originally posted by Ytman View Post
                      When it comes to pick-up Platoons a little bit of sloppiness is expected. When it comes to Outfit Dominated Platoons we must strive for a little bit of belt buckling.
                      sigpic

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                        Originally posted by E-Male View Post
                        What these discussions usually lack is concrete reference to actual data. Impressionistic opinions dominate both sides of the debate. To this end I would like to turn the discussion here to a more concrete analysis of actual gameplay footage. Thus I offer the following 20 minute, unedited, video record of a TG platoon operating under my command.
                        Just to nitpick, while much better than impressionistic arguments, live video of a single op doesn't constitute data, it's just a substantially more accurate anecdote. Clear data would require a statistical/scientific approach.



                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                          Here is a micro-analysis of a 3 minute segment from the video above, focusing on a bounding overwatch maneuver. Note the precise control of squad movement and positioning. Also note that no explanation or justification was given for the maneuver by the platoon leader.



                          Analysis of Platoon Leader Decisions and Orders: Example Bounding Overwatch #30/06/2013

                          Opening Situation:

                          Bravo squad lead (Transportation squad) previously suggested moving the platoon to a high plateau overlooking Dahaku Southern Post, which currently held by the enemy. The platoon leader accepted this recommendation. The video record begins with the platoon on the plateau suppressing a variety of enemy contacts below to the south and south west flanks.

                          My intention is to move the platoon to a superior position from which to engage the enemy flag at Dahaku Southern Post, which lies to our west. My plan is to move the platoon in stages to the north and then west and then south down to the target. I will use high ground as holding positions where the platoon will group up. This series of movements begins with ordering Delta squad to separate from the platoon’s current position and move north to a secure rock the provides cover from enemy fire. The move-to position is guarded by a friendly tank under Bravo’s command.

                          Sequence of Orders and Events
                          (0:18) Platoon leader orders: “Comms: Delta to the platoon mark, everyone else hold.”

                          Platoon leader moves to platoon mark with Delta.

                          (0:57) Delta squad leads reports “Delta is on the platoon way-point. Awaiting orders.”

                          A new platoon mark is placed north of Delta’s position.

                          (1:03) Platoon leader responds: “Delta Standby. Charlie move to the [new] platoon mark.”

                          Charlie responds: “Charlie copies.”

                          (1:13) Charlie begins moving to the platoon mark.
                          (1:13) Delta begins moving to the platoon mark without authorization to move.
                          (1:13) Platoon leader orders: “Delta hold your position. Charlie is going to leap-frog over us.”

                          Delta complies and holds position.
                          Charlie is grouping up at the platoon mark.

                          (1:50) Platoon leader orders Delta to move to the mark: “Delta move to Charlie’s position, platoon mark.”

                          Platoon leader moves with Delta to Charlie’s position.

                          (2:19) Delta completes the bounding overwatch are informs the platoon leader: “Delta is on point.”
                          sigpic

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                            Platoon Leader's Analysis:

                            My error in the above segment was to assume that Delta knew what it meant to "Stand By". I should have said "hold your position until further orders" or "hold your position until Charlie confirms that they are in place on the mark".

                            I moved Delta out to Charlie when Charlie was still in the process of grouping up at the mark as it was clear to me that the objective was reasonably secure (and it was).

                            I failed to instruct Delta to provide overwatch on Charlie as Charlie moved to its new position. With trained squads this would not be necessary but it is better to assume that squad members have little training and are not aware of such operating procedures.

                            This highlights the platoon leader's need to be explicit in his expectations and provide squad leaders with sufficient information regarding their immediate rôle.
                            sigpic

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Platoon Management VS Micromanagement of Squads

                              I don't think anyone can really misunderstand "stand by". Players from Delta moved because they saw a path being created by the platoon waypoint and it made sense to them to move with the platoon, which is probably how many PLs run things in PS2 - as one giant blob. Of course, listening in to Charlie's orders (which, I note, assumes they have Platoon VOIP on and pay attention to other squad's orders) they could work out why they were waiting. Similarly, it's not until that point that Delta SL is likely to know what you're doing, at least, not if they missed Bravo's suggestion, or if it had been your idea. It would be preferable for Delta SL to be able to explain the order to his soldiers before or during the move.

                              I further note that most of Delta are hiding for protection, rather than getting firing angles ready for cover fire. This is in keeping with an effective "move and hold" order, instead of a "move and cover fire for Charlie" order. As I said before, it's much easier for SMs to follow orders when they understand why, and much easier for the SL to effectively command his soldiers when they can elaborate on brief explanations.

                              Indeed, because of the mishap, you ended up practically explaining the order in any case "Charlie is going to leap-frog over us" which was enough to get Delta back on point. This could easily be said from the outset, maybe change it to "leap-frog North", and perhaps coupled with "provide cover fire". Honestly, watching that with no knowledge beyond the title, I expected you to go West to attack the base but, of course, I don't PL and looping around seems a much better way of attacking.

                              Put simply, you can be as precise as you like with movement orders, but we cannot always know what is expected which presents the dilemma for SLs I explained before. It takes very few extra words for context, may well save you explanation later down the line, helps keep everyone in-line and allows squads to be more effective.


                              You do great at platoon leading Emale, so I hope this doesn't come across the wrong way. Merely constructive criticism, and searching for the best balance between SL and PL comms/roles to be more effective.



                              |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X