119 replies to this topic

[Grendel408]

Another thing I'd like to add folks is what I do in particular with my unit versus what others may or may not do themselves. I do have a setup rank structure which is based on merit and skill... We are currently developing awards/medals based off of MWO player stats to give incentive for performance which my unit has generated concepts for me to design and implement. I do not enforce unit colors (I do encourage it, but it's not the end of the world), so if players want to blend with their unit they can, or be as flamboyant in color as they want. Lastly... I pay for my unit's site and Mumble server ($30 a month total) so that players can spend money elsewhere, be it MCs or whatever in life they need... this is a small cost to me to help my unit... if I get into a tight spot, my team is more than willing to donate, but it's not something I expect nor require of them.

[Shamous13]

Unfortunately allot of people get their e-pein on when they get their shinny bars and start flaunting their rank around, I guess this is the nature of the beast in a dictatorial setup, people will always take it to an extreme, Respect is earned trough actions and when the wrong people are promoted to a point of incompetency and start demanding respect, then a unit or company will fail and implode very fast.

This has caused many units to have very high turn over and mass exoduses in the past.

[Threat Doc]

Grendel408, on 23 October 2013 - 11:35 AM, said:

Lastly... I pay for my unit's site and Mumble server ($30 a month total) so that players can spend money elsewhere, be it MCs or whatever in life they need... this is a small cost to me to help my unit... if I get into a tight spot, my team is more than willing to donate, but it's not something I expect nor require of them.

As do I. Mine's not quite that expensive, more like $50 per year, but I do all of my own pages by hand-code. I will not pay for a server if I can help it. NGNG has a great server, and there are other great servers available for free, elsewhere, or at least there were. I have learned, from the very recent past, that if we are to get a TS3 server -this is the only type I'll use, now-, I will have to pay for it, so that it remains a unit asset.

Shamous13, on 23 October 2013 - 11:49 AM, said:

Unfortunately allot of people get their e-pein on when they get their shinny bars and start flaunting their rank around, I guess this is the nature of the beast in a dictatorial setup, people will always take it to an extreme, Respect is earned trough actions and when the wrong people are promoted to a point of incompetency and start demanding respect, then a unit or company will fail and implode very fast.

This has caused many units to have very high turn over and mass exoduses in the past.

I have experience that three times in the past, and then I pre-emptively closed my unit in Sept 2012 because I saw it getting done for the fourth time. This was because I automatically promoted people I felt could do the job into ranks and positions they proved, EVERY SINGLE TIME, they did NOT belong in. One of them was a former Army Captain, for God's sake... he had the training, he knew what the chain of command was supposed to be about, and he was doing a great job until he backed up someone else, both of which had agreed that the system we were using is the system they liked, who did not adhere to the agreed upon system. Not only that, the former, a kid by comparison, who seemed to have his head screwed on straight, had not even participated in the system he agreed to uphold.

That's the entirety of the WHY I set up the educational opportunities I have, and the reason I set up the Excel Workbook I did, which I intend to post a link to here, modified for others to be able to download and use, when I get it done. My philosophy, my training, everything I've learned throughout my life, not only from BattleTech, but from other sources, as well, is that psychologically it's best to have a rank and file system, lines for MechWarrior's to follow, so they can move ahead and take the place they earn for themselves. That way, not only do they have a right to say "excuse me while I whip this out", they also have the good sense not to, and will support the unit in a far better fashion than any of my other crews have in the past.

On the flip side of that, these two things (ED OPPS and Excel WB) give me the ability to vet them as they're coming up through the ranks. If someone is a bad seed, countering the vision and goals of AU, I can sort of turn them onto the right track, or keep them in a duty further away from the Command & Staff and, by the time they make it into the C&S, if that's their goal and they stay strong, they will have a good voice, a tempered voice, with which to speak to the rest of their peers, and enough peers to down-vote them if they continue to be radical.

But, I didn't start this thread to force my way onto anyone else, or even try to talk anyone into doing things my way; I started this thread so I could hear other points of view, so I could learn -not as in intelligence gathering learn- how others do things, so I might improve the way I do things.

[Grendel408]

Sometimes the only way to learn is from the mistakes of others. I've got faith in many units here in MWO that want and strive for creating a greater good out of the community we all share, and we'll all fill a certain void that people will flock to. The key, as many have mentioned here, is not only providing the ideal scenario for being in a unit, but upholding those ideals and recruiting the right-minded folk. I've been in and out of leadership roles since I first started online gaming with MW2 in '95... since then I've learned quite a lot, but most of all... I've learned that you must rely on your team as much as they must rely on you and share respect, because without that... being in a leadership role is pointless. Take to heart what your team advises on or against, weigh the pros and cons, contact outside your normal circle to other units for advice... We are all one big gaming community, just because Kay sports a different unit insignia than myself, doesn't mean we can't communicate and form working bonds between units... that's what MWO is truly about.

Edited by Grendel408, 23 October 2013 - 02:16 PM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Kay Wolf, on 23 October 2013 - 11:24 AM, said:

Durant Carlyle, on 23 October 2013 - 10:55 AM, said:

Like I said in my first post, my unit would be organized by play time and play style (casual/hardcore). It would still have "hardcore" organization though.

Okay, but how would YOU do this?

I tried putting it in my unit's application, but recently removed it, for people to lay down their time-zones, most likely hours they would be able to play, and whether they were casual, moderate, or hardcore, so I could attempt to classify folks for better play, so they would be more apt to play with those who were their friends, or at least in their same zones and play-styles. The experiment failed when the unit did. However, from all of the data I collected from the 76 people I had in the unit, aside myself, it was really difficult to determine who would be best where. I simply found I didn't have the time, and my C&S back then were not backing me up well enough, to get that done.

Simple.**

Assume you have a group of players to draw from -- for simplicity's sake, let's start with 36 players.

First classification is going to be primary play time. Divide the day into three eight-hour blocks, and put everybody into one of those blocks. In our ideal example, each block would have 12 players in it.

Second classification is going to be play style. Shoehorn everybody in each time block into a preliminary unit structure, and have them play together in the units you've assigned. There will be some that get along right away -- keep those together. There will be some that cannot get along at all -- rearrange the units to separate those. Then there will be the majority, who can play with pretty much anybody -- assign those to fill in the holes as necessary. Eventually, our ideal example would end up with each time block's 12 players divided into three four-player groups.

Extend that concept to more players, and you end up with each eight-hour block sporting three 12-player teams with some backups in case of absences. Knowing the percentages, it likely won't work out that way ... but that's the idea.

As far as ranks go, within each 12-player company will be three lances. Within each lance will be one player who is less sucky at leading than the others. That player becomes the lance commander. Of the three lance leaders in the company, one will be less sucky than the other two. That player will be company commander. The two lance commanders and the company commander will receive the requisite ranks.

Extend that upwards to regiment size and you end up with:
1 Regiment Commander
3 Battalion Commanders (one of which serves as Rg Comm)
9 Company Commanders (three of which serve as Bn Comm)
27 Lance Commanders (nine of which serve as Co Comm)
108 players total

This meshes well with what we know about the proposed in-game mercenary unit organization.

** Note that I didn't say "easy." The battalion commanders really need to work together and support each other for this to work. Having some logistics-oriented players outside of the normal chain of command may help with this as well.

[Threat Doc]

So, there's no real easy way to ensure your MechWarrior's mesh well together, it's going to be quite a task, regardless?

When I was first running AU, I averaged about four hours per night, after work -I was still in the Army, then-, but during the second and third iterations that became even more, sometimes twelve hours per day, when I wasn't working. Because of that Excel file and the way I was doing things this last time around, this came down to one or two hours per day, which I could easily finish prior to prime-time, when everyone came on to play. However, still sorting people by zones, play styles, and play hours -some people were playing outside their daytime/early evening nominal hours-, I found was taking a good deal of my time, and I have yet to find an easier way to do things.

[Shamous13]

With the Charter System that we use It pushes the work to the "Charter Watch Captains" Members that wish to join a charter Post The following information up (See below). It's up to the person in charge of the charter to track, train, and setup the charter how they wish. Thus reducing the work load of our board members and CEO allowing them to focus their efforts else where and reducing burn out. this also allows people to group up naturally with others with the same play style, goals, and play times.

Call Sign:
General Play Times:
Preferred Role: Pick one- Scout / Flanker / Assault / Fire Support
Preferred Mech Chassis: Name One-
Preferred Weapon Type:
Total number of Mechs in Stable:
List of Chassis in your Stables
-Lights:
-Mediums:
-Heavies:
-Assaults:

Rate yourself on the following skills: none, low, medium, high
Command:
Piloting:
Team Formations:
Over all Gunnery:
-Beams:
-PPC:
-Ballistics:
-SRM:
-LRM:

Description: What are you looking for in a team?

[Threat Doc]

These Charter Watch Captains, do they need to have any sort of forum permissions or anything? Do they have any authority to go with the name?

I ask because a large problem I noticed in the Dragoons, Light Horse, AND Highlanders, before I started my own unit, and then also within there, was if someone was trusted with permissions or more authority, at least, quite a few folks would abuse that authority. Perhaps, if the authority can effectively be limited, and work still be completed, then it can lead to more trust than treachery, I think.

Folks, I apologize, I'm getting away from the original purpose of this thread, which remains to be to determine the various types of command out there. However, I've already been intrigued by what I've read, and I thank you for your contribution to this thread.

[Shamous13]

Night Watch charter System.

FORMING A CHARTER

What does a Charter do? In order to form an official team that represents Night Watch, with set training times and participant requirements, a Charter must be completed and submitted for approval. Charters are the formal description of Night Watch members who train together for specific goals, with a published set of rules, training times, and leaders. Informal and irregular groups do not need a charter.

Watch Captain: A Watch Captain is the team lead and primary drop commander for the Charter. Watch Captains have complete authority over their chartered teams, with abilities including, but not limited to: the ability to add or remove Watchmen from the Charter, set training times and requirements, and adjust charter goals and structure. While Captains are expected to step up and call drops for general membership when required, their authority ends at the charter. A Charter may have multiple team captains that run the Charter together, but a Charter may not be formed without designating a Watch Captain.

Sergeant of the Watch: If a Watch Captain prefers the desk to the field, he must designate a primary drop commander for the Charter. This Charter member assumes the Watch Captain's responsibilities in the field, and is expected to call drops for general membership when required. Secondary Drop Commanders for a charter may also carry the Sergeant of the Watch designation, and are also expected to call drops for general members when needed.

Forming a Charter: Watchmen that wish to become a Captain need to submit a Charter to the Company Board for review and approval. A Charter may not be formed without a dedicated drop commander, either a Watch Captain or Sergeant of the Watch. Watchmen that sign with a Charter agree to the rules and requirements outlined in that Charter, and may leave that charter at any time. Watchmen and Captains can be part of more than one Charter as long as there is no conflict within the team requirements of all Charters they sign. Example: A charter for a 4-man lance can join and be part of an 12-man dropship charter.

Charter Application Outline

Charter Name:

Watch Captain:
Watch Sergeant(s):

Team Size:

Training Day(s) & Time(s):

Training Requirements:

Team Requirements:

Describe the command style:

Describe the team structure:

Edited by Shamous13, 24 October 2013 - 06:29 AM.

[Blood Legacy]

I used the game itself as a guide when forming ranks for the unit. I imagine a couple more ranks may be added as we grow and when CW is implemented, but currently we are setup as follows:

Commanding Officer
Executive Officer
Company Commander
Lance Commander
Scout Commander
Scout
MechWarrior
Recruit

I separated out scouts and scout commanders because I feel those positions in a company require different knowledge and skills. Information is power and I need to have full confidence in the people providing my information.

[Fut]

Durant Carlyle, on 22 October 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

I just re-read the official thread on Association just to remind myself what exactly they would be including (subject to change, of course).

They already have all of the stuff I would want as far as organization goes:
Unit name
Unit tag
Unit decal chosen from a list
Unit description
Rank name/hierarchy/privilege customization
Assigning nicknames to lances/companies/battalions/regiments to give them individual identities within the unit
Assigning members to lances/companies/battalions/regiments based on whatever criteria the leadership chooses
Assigning ranks to members, and the ability to promote/demote them

This actually sounds like all you need to run a Merc Corp in-game. Which is really awesome on PGI's part.
The rest of the management required to run the Corp would have to be done on forums and such, which is standard practice for any organized group in virtually any game.

Really looking forward to this part of the game!

Durant Carlyle, on 22 October 2013 - 12:05 PM, said:

About the only thing I would like is the ability to submit a custom decal for the unit. But that would entail a lot of overhead on their end -- coming up with specific guidelines for what can and cannot be in a logo, dedicated staff to approve/deny submissions, and so on. If they can't do that, I would at least like to see something like EVE Online's corp logo selector. You can create thousands of different logos by playing with that customizer.

Ugh. The Devs really need to figure something out regarding the Unit Decals. Chances are they won't have enough selection, and people will all want to choose the same few "cool" ones. So there'll be bickering and drama on the forums as people argue over which Corp claimed which logo...etc.

Custom logos wouldn't be such a big deal, if PGI actually trusted their Playerbase. Sure there's going to be a bunch of people who make inappropriate logos, but there's always going to be more people willing to report that nonsense than not.

It's actually fairly similar to the custom sigs we see all over the forums. There's a set guide to what can be in them (1 image with a max size, 1 link, 4 lines of text) and there are obviously rules as to what content can be in it (common sense for the most part).
Nobody at PGI sifts through custom sigs one-by-one and approves them. They just let people put them up, and allow/request the rest of the users to report inappropriate content.

[Threat Doc]

Shamous13, on 24 October 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Night Watch charter System.

See, I ALWAYS think about a mercenary unit from a military standpoint, with ranks and positions, rather than as a corporation. Merc units ARE corporations, though, founded like businesses. Man, Shamous, it sounds like Night Watch is amazingly well thought-out, and not as organization-light as I thought. Amazing work.

I really like how you separated desk jockey's from MechWarrior leaders, while maintaining that a desk jockey can still be the Watch Captain, as long as they appoint someone to run operations in-game. Perhaps it's time for me to look into attempting to incorporate the corporation side with the fighting unit for the better whole.

Blood Legacy, on 24 October 2013 - 06:46 AM, said:

I separated out scouts and scout commanders because I feel those positions in a company require different knowledge and skills. Information is power and I need to have full confidence in the people providing my information.

This makes sense, and you're right, being a Scout is a whole different mindset, as the idea behind being a Scout, contrary to what a lot of MechWarrior's in this community do, now, is to not engage in combat, but to help others do so. I know, once PGI has the Scout role really fleshed out, well, Scout's will be able to act like Scout's. Really good.

Fut, on 24 October 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Ugh. The Devs really need to figure something out regarding the Unit Decals. Chances are they won't have enough selection, and people will all want to choose the same few "cool" ones. So there'll be bickering and drama on the forums as people argue over which Corp claimed which logo...etc.

I wonder if they intend to use the one's Hayden, and many other fantastic artists on these forums, put up in the unit logo threads. If that's the truth, then many of the logo's are already in-game, though they are, unfortunately, almost all tied to Canon units.

Quote

Nobody at PGI sifts through custom sigs one-by-one and approves them. They just let people put them up, and allow/request the rest of the users to report inappropriate content.

I know, right? And, with only about 200 Merc Corps registered in the Merc Corps unit thread -200 as far as I know-, I'm seeing a little bit of time wasted on unit insignia, but not all that significant, especially if they were to do approvals AS Merc Corps' were founded in CW. Make submission of the insignia a part of setting up the unit in the CW Merc Corps interface, but all logo's are subject to approval. It's going to have to happen, anyway, and though I keep receiving arguments about user-generated content and back-end costs and everything, this is one thing PGI really needs to put some thought into, because using generic logo's will NOT fly.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 24 October 2013 - 07:39 AM.

[Durant Carlyle]

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 05:54 AM, said:

So, there's no real easy way to ensure your MechWarrior's mesh well together, it's going to be quite a task, regardless?

Yes and no. The best bet is to initially let the unit form itself organically. Players will naturally avoid those they can't get along with and gravitate towards those they mesh well with. Once you have a good core group in each time block, it becomes easier. You put them on the organization chart, so everyone can tell where they are and what positions are open.

You bring new recruits into a training battalion and let them drop at their normal times. During that preliminary period, they will play with a bunch of core players and determine who they are most compatible with. When they are ready (after a minimum amount of time you set, of course), they fill out a transfer request which lists the unit they want to transfer to and why. Once this is received, talk with the lance and company commanders of the unit the recruit wants to transfer to and make sure they're good with it. If so, do the transfer and the recruit becomes an official member of the unit. At that point, the lance and company commanders take over responsibility for the recruit's training and such.

Shamous13, on 24 October 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

Call Sign:
General Play Times:
Preferred Role: Pick one- Scout / Flanker / Assault / Fire Support
Preferred Mech Chassis: Name One-
Preferred Weapon Type:
Total number of Mechs in Stable:
List of Chassis in your Stables
-Lights:
-Mediums:
-Heavies:
-Assaults:

Rate yourself on the following skills: none, low, medium, high
Command:
Logistics:
Piloting:
Team Formations:
Over all Gunnery:
-Beams:
-PPC:
-Ballistics:
-SRM:
-LRM:

Description: What are you looking for in a team?

This whole list (including my addition) should be on the application to the unit. It's stuff unit commanders need to know.

Kay Wolf, on 24 October 2013 - 06:26 AM, said:

These Charter Watch Captains, do they need to have any sort of forum permissions or anything? Do they have any authority to go with the name?

I ask because a large problem I noticed in the Dragoons, Light Horse, AND Highlanders, before I started my own unit, and then also within there, was if someone was trusted with permissions or more authority, at least, quite a few folks would abuse that authority. Perhaps, if the authority can effectively be limited, and work still be completed, then it can lead to more trust than treachery, I think.

In my hypothetical unit, any authority given by position starts when Launch is pressed and stops with the End Of Round screen. Very few people would have any kind of authority outside of the game. It would likely be only myself and the logistical types I mentioned in an earlier post.

Shamous13, on 24 October 2013 - 06:28 AM, said:

Night Watch charter System.

That's a good out-of-game system. How it'll work in-game depends entirely on how granular the controls and privileges are. I hope the system they choose will work for all of us.

[Durant Carlyle]

Fut, on 24 October 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Custom logos wouldn't be such a big deal, if PGI actually trusted their Playerbase. Sure there's going to be a bunch of people who make inappropriate logos, but there's always going to be more people willing to report that nonsense than not.

It's actually fairly similar to the custom sigs we see all over the forums. There's a set guide to what can be in them (1 image with a max size, 1 link, 4 lines of text) and there are obviously rules as to what content can be in it (common sense for the most part).
Nobody at PGI sifts through custom sigs one-by-one and approves them. They just let people put them up, and allow/request the rest of the users to report inappropriate content.

Signatures are not in the game. They are just a part of the forums, and have non-official status.

Mercenary unit logos would be seen in the game on 'Mechs and merc unit adverts, and therefore would be an official part of the game. Having non-approved official content in their game likely isn't on the agenda.

[Dreden Aelnir]

Well given the choices I'll go with 7. My TO&E , rank structure, and what the requirements are for achieving rank are set. I quash any sort of "drama" or epeen {Scrap} as it degrades the effectiveness/cohesiveness of the unit. Luckily I have an awesome core group and don't need to bring the "salt hammer of justice +5" out.

Unfortunately finding people that are both willing to take the game seriously at times and just have fun at others are difficult to come by. So we are having trouble filling out the last few slots. If anyone is shy of their 12 and wishes to discuss a merger PM me.

CPT Dreden Aelnir, Ebonheart Dragoons
http://sorshiaspie.enjin.com/home

Edited by Dreden Aelnir, 24 October 2013 - 08:10 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 24 October 2013 - 07:47 AM, said:

Yes and no. <snip>

So, to summarize, you're saying that, after the initial hire and training -for AU it's an assessment to determine if any training is needed and, if yes, they move along to training-, members are then responsible for themselves, for their placement? Would you make available units of varying time-zones and unit types... ohhhh... hmmmm... okay, the juices are boiling over, again... thank you. Aren't you worried, however, that players will decide to go nowhere, will have no ambition to be assigned, at all, and how would you remedy that?

Quote

I hope the system they choose will work for all of us.

I hope this, as well, and that they realize how geeked out some of us get (raises hand high in the air and begins jumping up and down, while shaking like a Chihuahua) with things like this?

Durant Carlyle, on 24 October 2013 - 07:56 AM, said:

Signatures are not in the game. They are just a part of the forums, and have non-official status.

Mercenary unit logos would be seen in the game on 'Mechs and merc unit adverts, and therefore would be an official part of the game. Having non-approved official content in their game likely isn't on the agenda.

This is yet something more I had not thought of. Still, our accounts in the forums are linked to our accounts in-game... I was going somewhere with that thought, but your point is well-taken. Still, perhaps a sort of commander's council could be formed and someone appointed in that council, whether a dev or moderator, or even someone from IGP, to work to approve these things and get them in-game, so PGI doesn't have to dedicate more than back-end to make this happen.

For me, and I'm speaking only for myself, here, though others are certainly welcome to agree if they like, it's EXTRAORDINARILY important that I have my unit's insignia on our 'Mechs, on everything, even advertisements -if PGI supports those in-game at all-, and I have made certain to develop our logo so it's clean, simple, respectable, and represents what AU is about...

This is a small version of what I have available. I need to make a more flat version, or use the one Hayden did for me, which is actually quite good. My thoughts are that most, if not all, of the Commander's in this game will have similar military-grade, or close-to-military-grade insignia's that are innocuous, inoffensive, and will not require a ton of reflection on anyone's time for approval.

Hmmm, I should have used my anti-aliasing better on this small one... perhaps it's time to touch this up.

[Threat Doc]

Dreden Aelnir, on 24 October 2013 - 08:09 AM, said:

...and what the requirements are for achieving rank are set. I quash any sort of "drama" or epeen {Scrap} as it degrades the effectiveness/cohesiveness of the unit.

Unfortunately finding people that are both willing to take the game seriously at times and just have fun at others are difficult to come by. So we are having trouble filling out the last few slots. If anyone is shy of their 12 and wishes to discuss a merger PM me.

How do you quash the drama, then?

See, I already know one part I need to get rid of, and that's participating in controversial threads; I'm learning that a unit commander cannot be as free as your average Private when participating with their 'friends' at a higher level of organization.

So, do you deal with things in a sort of passive, don't step on toes way, or do you get down to the nitty gritty and get in someone's face if they're acting like a {Dezgra}?

As for helping you fill things out in the Ebonheart Dragoons, I'm afraid I still haven't made a decision whether I'm going to boot up AU again, or not, yet. Part of the reason is I'm on hard times, and it's going to run some money to get a unit started up. Most of it, however, has to do with making sure the next time I run AU, if that happens, I'm being appropriately tough but fair.

[BlackPhoenix01]

Durant Carlyle, on 23 October 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

Simple.**

Assume you have a group of players to draw from -- for simplicity's sake, let's start with 36 players.

First classification is going to be primary play time. Divide the day into three eight-hour blocks, and put everybody into one of those blocks. In our ideal example, each block would have 12 players in it.

Second classification is going to be play style. Shoehorn everybody in each time block into a preliminary unit structure, and have them play together in the units you've assigned. There will be some that get along right away -- keep those together. There will be some that cannot get along at all -- rearrange the units to separate those. Then there will be the majority, who can play with pretty much anybody -- assign those to fill in the holes as necessary. Eventually, our ideal example would end up with each time block's 12 players divided into three four-player groups.

Extend that concept to more players, and you end up with each eight-hour block sporting three 12-player teams with some backups in case of absences. Knowing the percentages, it likely won't work out that way ... but that's the idea.

As far as ranks go, within each 12-player company will be three lances. Within each lance will be one player who is less sucky at leading than the others. That player becomes the lance commander. Of the three lance leaders in the company, one will be less sucky than the other two. That player will be company commander. The two lance commanders and the company commander will receive the requisite ranks.

Extend that upwards to regiment size and you end up with:
1 Regiment Commander
3 Battalion Commanders (one of which serves as Rg Comm)
9 Company Commanders (three of which serve as Bn Comm)
27 Lance Commanders (nine of which serve as Co Comm)
108 players total

This meshes well with what we know about the proposed in-game mercenary unit organization.

** Note that I didn't say "easy." The battalion commanders really need to work together and support each other for this to work. Having some logistics-oriented players outside of the normal chain of command may help with this as well.

You've just essentially summarized the exact structure of my unit there lol. Thank you for making my posting here easier... lol. If you look at the overall success of the Aces so far, this system is tried and true. It works very well - the key is having compitent and motivated Officers who know how to work together well and couldn't give a {Scrap} about what rank they are leading each company / battalion. Idiots in officer positions become detrimental to the system as I have experienced in the past. You have to be very careful and patient with assigning officers with this system. It will be easy to promote new people because they can lead on the field but the far more important aspect is their ability to run a company and have that company jive with the rest of the unit while keeping them motivated. Battlefield ability is secondary.

Edited by BlackPhoenix01, 24 October 2013 - 10:19 AM.

[Grendel408]

Well, from my experience in running clans/guilds whatnot over the years... every unit is different, and no two units can be run the same. It's not just the idea behind the unit that makes it difficult at times to lead, but the people behind it. It's hard to find like-minded players to join your unit, but it's even easier to gain the ones you don't want too. Proper screening, or advertising in your recruitment thread makes that world of difference. If you're starting a unit out small, start small (with a plan to expand) and as the unit grows, monitor and observe everything... there's times I will sit and just listen to my team as they play MWO and observe their communications, monitoring the type of mechs they run, to even running out and getting killed so I can spectate from some of my players to see how they deal with certain situations (without a commander alive)... sometimes being the commander of a unit requires sacrifice in order to make it more efficient... but don't push yourself over the edge and get burned out... and don't give out an officer position to anyone willing to take it (because to some it's a responsibility, to others it's a title they can abuse), sometimes the most willing are the worst, while the most unwilling tend to be the natural-born ones.

[BlackPhoenix01]

Grendel408, on 24 October 2013 - 10:24 AM, said:

sometimes the most willing are the worst, while the most unwilling tend to be the natural-born ones.

You can say that again...