119 replies to this topic

[Grendel408]

Honestly, Kay, and anyone really... if you want to experience how other units run their command, bounce around from unit to unit (letting them know ahead of time would be good too) that what you want from a unit is to learn how it operates at a command level and on to the lowest level... move on to the next, and next and next until you've found everything you're looking for. No two units will ever be ran the same... you may find methods you've previously thought wrong for your style due to your specific approach on the matter. All in all... I'm up to give anyone a slot in my unit if they want it. We all start off somewhere, and I didn't just toss myself into the leadership role one day and tell myself this is all I can do from here on out... I stepped into it after learning how many different units operate and took those ideals and formed my general method... that's not going to work exactly for everyone, but maybe for some.

[Durant Carlyle]

That's basically what I did, Grendel. I ended up going through several units like the Robinson Ranger Brigade and the Death's Hand Brigade (on different characters at different times).

DHB was going through some upper-management shakeup drama that I didn't know about until I became a full member. If I had known about it during my intake stage, I would have saved myself and them the trouble and bowed out then.

My detail-obsessive nature doomed my stint with the Robinson Rangers. Their web and signature guys didn't appreciate my suggestions. That and the fact that quite a few of the members had no idea what part of the unit they belonged to, or how to refer to it -- despite the easy to read organizational chart that was available to all.

I'm more of a logistics type of guy -- I'll make sure your web site, signatures, and other graphics are all error-free. Paperwork is a cinch for me. I'm not creative at all though -- I couldn't write a good story or create graphics to save my life. And I don't really do field leadership -- most of my plans are very non-specific. I primarily pilot lights and I've found it's difficult to give orders while running for your life. Overall field command would be something I'd delegate, while remaining in charge of one lance.

I have the same problem as Kay -- if I see something I think is wrong I'll tell people, and they very often don't like what I have to say. So in reality, leading my own unit is really the only way I'll be happy. My real problem is getting recruits. It's almost like I have to get an ad-man to sell my unit to people so they'll want to join.

[Threat Doc]

Durant Carlyle, on 04 November 2013 - 08:52 PM, said:

I'm more of a logistics type of guy -- I'll make sure your web site, signatures, and other graphics are all error-free. Paperwork is a cinch for me. I'm not creative at all though -- I couldn't write a good story or create graphics to save my life. And I don't really do field leadership -- most of my plans are very non-specific. I primarily pilot lights and I've found it's difficult to give orders while running for your life. Overall field command would be something I'd delegate, while remaining in charge of one lance.

I have the same problem as Kay -- if I see something I think is wrong I'll tell people, and they very often don't like what I have to say. So in reality, leading my own unit is really the only way I'll be happy. My real problem is getting recruits. It's almost like I have to get an ad-man to sell my unit to people so they'll want to join.

Damn, Durant, it sounds like you I would get along well enough, especially if I could come off my high horse and be willing to share command. My problem is not only that "it's lonely at the top" in my estimation, but that it's being able to trust people.

I know a LOT of people would tell me that I take things far too seriously, but to me taking it seriously is PART of the fun, for me. I, like Durant, have a very special skill, and that's being able to take a whirlwind of paperwork and logistics and turning it into a finely-tuned instrument. I like to say of myself that it's so others can come and play and not have to worry about that stuff, but the TRUTH is that I geek out over it; I literally enjoy the logistical side of the command house so much more than the battlefield side, but I found, even back in '97 when I first began playing, that I have to be in a command position. I don't, necessarily, have to be THE top guy, but I have to be in the top five. I have natural leadership ability, I have the logistics side going for me, and I love to organize EVERYTHING. Look at my web site, and look at the Excel file I linked, and you'll see it.

I don't really have a problem getting recruits, but I'm not terribly expedient at it... which is not, necessarily, a BAD thing, because you sort of want the unit to grow in fits and starts. Also alternate to Durant, I LOVE to write and create graphics, even though my graphics are still in the... sort of... amateurish stage, I think.

Truthfully, I wish I could just kick back and relax from real-life a little bit more than I do, now, and get back to doing what I really want to do... run Armageddon Unlimited, hehe.

[Grendel408]

And here's where I differ from you two polar opposites LOL! I do the graphics... I do the paperwork... I do my share of field command... but I also have my XO with full rights to do as he needs cause we're of like-mind. I think the only other person that is being required to do any sort of paperwork is my defacto awards officer (he doesn't know it yet) because between him and I we've devised our awards system (based of MWO profile stats) which we will likely dish out awards monthly so it gives time for folks to tally up stats.

I tried being a micro-manager back in my AstroEmpires days in running guilds... even then I had a few people to take some of that load off me... but I believed it necessary that I take on the rest of the duties, and it let my account fall behind in progress. You need to keep momentum in leadership... taking on too much will often burn most folks out, or make the team under their command believe they won't have a chance of advancement because leadership tends to all things internally... it's a control issue really LOL! I had it... I still have it... but I'm learning you gotta let some folks step up... if they're doing something wrong, tell them in a tactful manner... it may be blunt to them, but explain in detail your ideals and more often than not... they will either step up and do what's needed, or step down and allow someone else to fill the void.

[Threat Doc]

Grendel408, on 05 November 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

I think the only other person that is being required to do any sort of paperwork is my defacto awards officer (he doesn't know it yet)

Hehe.

Quote

I tried being a micro-manager back in my AstroEmpires days in running guilds... even then I had a few people to take some of that load off me... but I believed it necessary that I take on the rest of the duties, and it let my account fall behind in progress. You need to keep momentum in leadership... taking on too much will often burn most folks out, or make the team under their command believe they won't have a chance of advancement because leadership tends to all things internally... it's a control issue really LOL! I had it... I still have it... but I'm learning you gotta let some folks step up... if they're doing something wrong, tell them in a tactful manner... it may be blunt to them, but explain in detail your ideals and more often than not... they will either step up and do what's needed, or step down and allow someone else to fill the void.

Truer words...

I think, when the unit is new, or small, having one individual take care of business is the right way to do things. However, you're right and, if I come back to command I will have to force myself to learn, is to allow others to help me out. I mean really help me out, not just me screaming about getting help with the unit, and then no relinquishing control, but honestly letting them do so. I'm bad about that, but at least I'm attempting to address it.

[Grendel408]

For a small unit, give or take 20-30 members, you can easily do it all on your own... but don't set a standard that others view. This time around with BSI, I grabbed my XO right from the start... only recently have we begun to spread duties outward (awards) to others. Another thing I do that I may have neglected to mention... I let my entire unit know what I am planning, publicly. That way, if they don't like it before I implement changes, they have the chance to speak up or be silent. The silent majority never wins... look at the political voting system of my country LOL fml... It all comes down to how you start the unit, and continue to drive it in the direction you want it to go... but keep in mind that those you bring up to positions of command directly under you must be kept in the loop as much as your lowest ranking member, otherwise all that breeds is discontent and distrust in command authority... starting with the officers and moving down to the lowest. This is what happened with my previous unit, this is why I took those willing and formed BSI... it's one to be a leader and have the respect and trust of your team, and it's another to be the leader that doesn't lead or show face to his team, but acts like everyone is status quo... So, if you're a leader by title, with duties delegated out to subordinates but don't lead other than by means of handling internal work and maintaining a venue for site hosting... that's not really leadership as a whole, but a small part of it, so a command structure must be put into place that is cut-and-dry for everyone to understand... roles are issued, and duties must be maintained otherwise it just all falls apart. This might be the general problem some face when forming their own unit to command... power cannot be absolute

[Threat Doc]

I think it's extremely important to determine how information is compartmentalized. It's been my experience, in the past, that too much information is just that, too much. Now, with the entire unit, I will share information that needs to be shared with the entire unit, such as combat and training drops, information about the game and/or the unit where I'm seeking input or goals about the unit, and of course showing good will and decency. I even have a thread with official "letters" regarding someone being promoted, earning an award, etc., and it looks like official letterhead with the message about the promotion as the body.

If there's something that shouldn't be public, that is unit-centric, then I'll publish it in the Enlisted section of the forums. If there's something Enlisted personnel don't need to know, whether it's something relatively classified, or it would simply be too much information for them, I keep it to the Officer and Lance Leader section of the forums, or the Officer group through email. It breaks down further for Command & Staff folks.

For example, it is not only not necessary, but could be detrimental to the command structure overall, if I publish the most recent Personnel Workbook. I do this mainly so command Officers -yes, there are non-command Officers- will be able to get in, download the PW, make their modifications and upload it, again. By keeping older copies, it's easy to back something off if it needs to be, using the older PW as a reference, or a replacement. Why could it be detrimental to the command structure? Say you've got someone in the unit who has been with the unit for a full year; this individual does not participate all that much but, when they do, they generally do well, and they've not worked on any of the ED OPPS, yet, but they've proven they were capable of doing some things in the field, without needing to do the school work, but not the many things there are. They might believe they have the skinny on everything taking place in the unit, but they haven't bothered to really touch on it and see what they do and don't know.

On the other hand, someone's come to the unit with a design and, within six months, they have completed all of the ED OPPS, proven themselves on the battlefield, compete often and well enough in-game, and their promotion points and time-in-service allow them to move up. Who am I going to move up? The slacker or the one that's digging deep? This is why merit raises, in my opinion, do not work, because you know what they've done, or are doing, now, and you've seen them do a few good things in the past, and they absolutely kick *** on the battlefield. However, you don't remember the horrible nasty argument you got into just three months ago, where the individual you are promoting by merit talked to you like you were the biggest piece of dirt on the planet, told you that you didn't know what you were doing, and offered absolutely nothing constructive to change what they saw as wrong.

Okay, so that's merit promotions and positions, which I honestly didn't mean to get into, but then it goes into the reason I don't share the PW. It's just ammunition for the guy who's been there longer, to wonder why he doesn't have the same points as the guy that's only been there half the time.

Likewise, the Leader Addy's don't need to be published at the lower levels, as those are for Lance Leaders and above to copy and paste to contact their people quickly.

Some of these things might seem petty, or unnecessary, but trust me when I tell you, for me, anyway, it's best to compartmentalize information.

[Durant Carlyle]

My communication with my hypothetical unit members would be compartmentalized as well. Most of the stuff would be public, even the punishments as I outlined in an earlier post. But there are some things that are meant to be seen/heard by "upper management" only, like in any other business.

I would also keep a "command diary" of sorts, noting any disagreements and insubordination. I wouldn't hold isolated incidents against people, but if it became a pattern or they started colluding with others, things would definitely start changing fast.

I would also encourage my other leaders to do something similar, perhaps even setting up a blog-type section for each. That way I could look theirs over and perhaps head off any small problems before they become big ones.

That Excel spreadsheet looks to be a daunting amount of stuff to keep track of. I don't think I'd use something like that unless my unit hit a "critical mass" point in membership.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 06 November 2013 - 09:34 PM.

[Threat Doc]

With the Excel file, I have two things to say:

1) You should have seen me trying to keep track without it; it really freed me up to be able to do what I wanted to do, which was to play with my friends, and

2) If you start it when the unit is fresh, you get used to the size. I used it from the very beginning, November 5th, 2011, when I brought on my first MechWarrior candidate and, as the unit grew, I find that my reliance on and use of it was pretty much total, and it was perfect.

The Pre-Unit tab you really don't have to edit that often, mainly just when the application to the unit is made. In fact, you shouldn't have to edit it at all. You only need to change date formula's on the Time-in-Service tab when someone takes on a new position, meaning they're taking some responsibility off your shoulders, anyway, and then not again until they move up in position, go back to a MechWarrior-only position, or leave the unit. This, of course, is something you can look back on, to review, and see when someone entered and left a position, to keep records as accurate as possible. The Education tab only needs to be edited -and this only with numbers- when someone submits their ED OPPS for grading. If I run AU again, I intend to keep everything as optional as possible, and I have a way to do so, now, so I don't imagine a lot of ED OPPS intake. It's pretty much the same thing with the Awards tab, as long as you remember the few awards that are upgraded -and points transferred to the Participation tab- with the sixth award of each, and resetting the old award. The requirements for gaining an award are pretty stringent, so editing this is not a big deal, and again it's just numbers. The Participation tab is super easy and, perhaps, needs to be edited once per month, when looking for records. The Promotions tab is, generally, already set up, and all you need to watch, really, are whether the unit level columns change colors, what someone's promotable rank and their actual rank are, and then determine if you have positions available for someone at their level, so you can determine if you promote them or not. Now, if I can walk through the requirements for it, by memory, in just this short paragraph, it's not really that hard.

With 76 other people in the unit, if I wouldn't have had this I would have been pulling my hair out, working on the unit about eight hours per day, and never getting an opportunity to play.

Here's a question for you, though, what would you consider to be punishable offenses, and do you think lambasting someone publicly is the best thing to do? Why?

[Durant Carlyle]

As I stated in an earlier post public punishment is to prevent rumormongering, which can be just as destructive as the original offense. Any offense that requires any kind of intervention by "upper management" would be made public.

[Threat Doc]

Good afternoon <S>.

Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned that they were going to begin making awards based on the available tracked statistics of MechWarrior Online. I thought this was a good idea, so I went through and began updating my awards list, which is relatively extensive, to reflect the available, and supposed, statistics that PGI have already made trackable, or likely will make trackable in the future. Please let me know if I'm missing anything?

FROM IN-GAME
Damage (25x damage done in-game = C-Bills; straight XP per point of damage; maybe no awards from this)
Kill (5000 C-Bills per; 50 XP per; gunnery awards from this)
Savior Kill (7500 C-Bills per; 150 XP per; Above the Call or Commendation Medal, but not per-game)
Kill Assist (7500 C-Bills per; 150 XP (split among all who aided in a kill once the bad guy is killed; likely will not track this))
Spotting Assist (2500 C-Bills per; 25 XP per; perhaps something for Recon)
Capture Assist (unknown C-Bills, I couldn't find a number; 50 XP per; likely will not track this, unless for some objective award)

GENERAL STATS (Web Site, from here down; I see no awards coming from these)
MechWarrior Credits
Kills/Deaths
C-Bills
XP
Wins/Losses
Kill/Death Ratio
C-Bill Average/Month
XP Average/Month

MECH STATS
Will only be tracked for Chassis Mastery, for 'Mech Piloting Awards. Still not sure how to work HALO Awards, but I'm thinking it will have to wait for the DropShip game mode.

WEAPON STATS
Tracking accuracy at 50+ matches. Ballistic and Laser Weapon Specialist Achievements at 75%+, and Missiles -since they're pretty screwed up- at 20%+. If PGI gets the missiles to be more accurate, or figures out hit detection for them, so this percentage goes up, drastically, I'll raise it, then.

PILOT MODULE STATS
I'm not certain how or why I would track these; but, then, I've not been able to get into owning any modules, as yet.

MAP STATS
Tracked for number of matches played, by type (Arctic, Desert, Temperate, or Urban; I've not yet decided whether to also allow Zero-G in this).

GAME MODE STATS
If we get some real planetary-required objectives involved in MWO, then I will likely begin tracking those, but not until then.

______________________________

Okay, so thus far I have the following mixture of awards and achievements:
General: 26 Achievements and 16 Awards (Achievements work into awards if enough umph is given). Of these, 8 Achievements and 7 Awards are iterative, meaning they can be earned several times, and converted to higher Achievements or Awards once they reach a certain number of iterations. Then, there are 9 Achievements and 3 Awards which are not iterative, but on earning all in a category, are requisite to higher awards. The remainder are one-time achievements or awards that do not convert to higher awards.

Command: 2 Achievements and 1 Award. Of these, both Achievements are non-iterative, but make available a higher award once earned. The 1 Award is iterative and converts to a higher Award.

Assault/Defense: 7 Achievements and 2 Awards. Of these, 4 Achievements are iterative and convert to higher Awards, and the other 3 are not iterative, but on earning all in a category, are requisite to higher awards. Both Awards are also not iterative, but on earning all...

Recon: 1 Achievement and 0 Awards. The 1 Achievement is necessary to earning a higher Award.

Now, I see how skewed that ratio is, and intend to work on it, though I'm uncertain, right now, as to where to start, and believe it will be predicated on what PGI builds into the game, so I'll have to wait, unless you guys have some ideas?

27 Achievements out of 38 are already set to work with the game, directly, depending on how PGI allows Commander's to set up the awards in the Merc Corps Interface, and 10 Awards out of 19 are set up the same way. I know I have a lot more work to do, but this is not a bad start, at all. Honestly, if the DropShip game type makes it in, and it can be tracked, I can get 4 more Achievements and 1 more Award to automate. Some of these are both automated and discretionary, so I'm hoping PGI allows us to set things up so they will iterate both automatically, on reaching the thresholds they're programmed for, AND by the hand of someone with authority to give out Awards and Achievements.

What do you all think?

Edited by Kay Wolf, 17 November 2013 - 03:34 PM.

[Jonathan Paine]

So imagine a #2, but where the CO and XO doesn't really show up that often. Imagine that there may or may not be an XO (which may or may not be me), and that most players only recognizes that there might be an XO as long as there is no real mention of there being an actual XO. Furthermore, if you imagine that the possible acting XO actually attempted to issue real commands people may or may not decided to follow or lynch the XO.

Yup, I think that covers some of it.

Edited by Jonathan Paine, 17 November 2013 - 03:48 PM.

[Threat Doc]

If I'm understanding you correctly, and that's something it took me three times to come to this point, any CO, XO, or command team that forms a unit, and then fails to show up when they have time, shouldn't have begun the team in the first place. It is absolutely essential that the CO show up for at least one hour, or more as can be afforded, per night, the XO to show up and participate in drops as often as Humanly possible, and the Training OIC show up at least five days/nights a week. Being part of the Command Staff is not for the faint of heart, or for the irresponsible.

[Grendel408]

Jonathan Paine, on 17 November 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

So imagine a #2, but where the CO and XO doesn't really show up that often. Imagine that there may or may not be an XO (which may or may not be me), and that most players only recognizes that there might be an XO as long as there is no real mention of there being an actual XO. Furthermore, if you imagine that the possible acting XO actually attempted to issue real commands people may or may not decided to follow or lynch the XO.

Yup, I think that covers some of it.

This is what killed the previous unit I was in... funny thing is that CO of the unit (which will not be named due to respect) is still clinging to the idea that the unit is alive when it's really dead... just, dead. I make it a point to show up daily... if I miss a day, I make sure my presence is shown on our unit website... active leadership is key to keeping a unit alive... doesn't matter if there's 30+ members... once leadership starts hiding or becoming inactive... or claiming the game is broken, or awaiting a certain feature to be implemented into the game... it's over for the unit because if leadership isn't active, what incentive does that give for members of the unit? Activity drops off... Leadership views this as a gradual decline from it's members, and eventually quits the game... this is what can kill the enjoyment of playing online games with live people, no drive equals no fun... As Kay said... if a unit leader forms a unit... then hardly makes face-time with their unit and barely plays... or plays on the hosted voice program, only never playing the actual game the unit recruited for... is just stupid, shouldn't have formed the unit to begin with, these types usually tend to be those bidding for power or some form of control because they lack that in reality... I hate controlling-types... don't run a dictatorship for a video game... games are meant to be fun... even on a competition level... once the fun is taken away (by leadership or problem-children) it's time to move on to something else.

[Shepherd]

I'd say the clan I'm in would be #4 in your list. We borrow heavily from clan lore for our positions.


If I were starting from scratch I'd probably be around 3 or 4 in your list.
Privates are rank and file players of all skill levels.
Corporals are players who exhibit uncanny ability in a focused specialty. i.e. somebody who is an amazing scout or sniper.
Staff Sergeants are players who are good at web admin and other background functions.
Sergeants are those players who show some leadership potential but who won't or can't commit to being a full-on leader.
Lieutenants are those players with the skill and ability to lead. They lead 4-man drops and can lead 12-man drops.
Captains are the cream of the crop leaders. These are the players who lead the 12-man competitive drops.
Colonel or whatever is higher is for those who want to have high rank Maybe a founder or whatever.

I wouldn't get too caught up over having to have appropriate numbers - i.e. in a lance according to lore you have two privates (or a private and a corporal), a sergeant and a lieutenant. If your lance is a lieutenant and 3 privates, or 4 lieutenants, that's fine..

[Threat Doc]

So, in AU, those who will come for the sake of having fun, will be able to do just that. Those who want to go higher in the unit can do that, too. I have brevet ranks for those who don't want to perform in all aspects of the unit, and they can continue to go up, but if someone works their way up, works through all aspects, by choice, they can supplant someone who's decided not to.

I want people to come and have fun, and fun can be represented and/or shared in multiple ways -there is no single definition-, but anyone that comes to play in AU must understand, as well, they are part of a team, and need to support the team if they're going to be active in it. What is worse?

- Having people come to the unit to share the cool name, gaining rank or position only for the sake of being in the spotlight, and then not performing, or showing up, for the reasons they were placed in the rank and/or position in the first place,

- Or, having people come to the unit who really want to be there, to share in a vision, a dream, to improve themselves and the unit by their actions, and to be there often -not all the time, obviously- for the unit, to fight and act honorably.

I know what I think, and I know that some people actually enjoy earning and learning their place and position, rank based on their skills, abilities, steadfastness, and loyalty. Then, there are most people, the followers, who couldn't care less about doing anything other than what they want to do, couldn't care for anyone else's vision, period. I need to find more of the former, and keep the latter where they want to be, which is somewhere to play.

[Tekadept]

How does F8L do business as a? With a smile. we have a poster on our recruitment threadthat illustrates our "ladder" that you need to climb.

Pretty simple for us, there are applicants (waiting to be vouched for by 3 members), regulars, and Veterans (reach by being in the unit for 6mths), and Founders. We are self-policing, and whilst still small, but growing steadily have excellent attendance and camaraderie without laying out strict requirements..

This is a game, and honestly I "personally" don't see the reason for CW requiring somebody to do "paperwork" or have a chain of command. Ultimately you shouldn't be trying harder in a game then you do in real life, unless that is your thing. For us, you don't need to climb the corporate ladder to show you share a vision . Guys that what to improve themselves can just drop drop drop with each other, learn off each other and get better without having a "Training Officer"

Some guys like having rigid structure and want to be in a paramilitary good for them, if thats what they enjoy (as you said yourself Kay), I am Glad to see there is plenty of units out there who are able to provide that for them.

As far as awards Kay, If you were to do them, one thing is you want to make it as painless as possible, you dont want somebody have a full time job tabulation peoples stats to see if they are eligible for an award, you want to make the award requirements very easy for your award clerk to determine, Unless of course CW handles it automatically.

I just hope all the Merc Commanders here at the end of the day enjoy themselves with whatever they do to run their unit, that is the goal after all

Some might say that somebody who doesn't have a strict military structure isn't competitive? I guess CW will be the pudding

[Sergeant Death]

Quote

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.

I'd give u ten Likes for this statement, if it were possible!

i hope PGI will give alist of all Units to CW Management UI, so Players and Unitleaders alike can find others to talk/play with ^^

[Grendel408]

It's very true though, anywhere you go really LOL! Why walk around burning bridges... which is easy, when you can challenge yourself to build new ones? You may not even be on the same side of the coming battles once CW is released, but does that stop unit leaders from forming bonds with other units out of mutual respect (despite allegiance, unit size, skill, ranking differences, etc.)? The Devs gave us a game, gave us a home to come play in, why not share it as much as possible with the community as a whole? They gave us a venue to play at, some of us unit leaders take that next step with websites/forums and whatnot to attract like-minded folks... I'm happy to report that my unit is 1 member away from it's Battalion-level goal, 35 members and I began recruitment Sept 1. We're all really laidback folks who enjoy the game, and we enjoy it more since we can play together... I'll probably still recruit players after our goal is reached and these players will be in a Ready-Reserve Status until further expansion... but I feel good knowing I can help the Devs in keeping the game alive by forming a unit for people to join and have fun together in... is it as strict and demanding as some of the units out there (that have yet to post here LOL!)... NOPE! But then again, that's not for everyone, some love the milsim units, while others want something more relaxed. We all get that here... that's also why I believe Kay formed this thread, to reach out and get the unit leaders (at least those committed to the game) to show their love, their style of command, and to maybe also learn from other units... we're all in this together, whether we're shooting at one another, or covering their six. At the end of the day... I'm having fun with my unit knowing we're enjoying something together.

Edited by Grendel408, 21 November 2013 - 11:07 AM.

[Threat Doc]

What you guys are saying is absolutely the truth; I think it's important for unit commanders to get to know one another, whether they are able to become friends or not, and so we can all remember when we're facing off against one another that, in the heat of the moment, horrible things may cross our lips or fingertips, but at the end of the game we can all go back to being friends.

I really like what you had to say, Grendel, about desiring to be in a MilSim more than anything else. That word, right there, might cut my unit introductory pamphlet writing in half... thanks.

Tekadept, on 21 November 2013 - 07:43 AM, said:

As far as awards Kay, If you were to do them, one thing is you want to make it as painless as possible, you dont want somebody have a full time job tabulation peoples stats to see if they are eligible for an award, you want to make the award requirements very easy for your award clerk to determine, Unless of course CW handles it automatically.

From the things I've read, thus far, CW is going to be handling a lot of things automatically. What I'm hoping is that PGI will allow us to base awards and achievements off of in-game statistics.

We will never need an awards clerk, because as people move up in rank they become more and more privileged as either or both a Valid Recommender or Final Authority. Valid Recommender is the minimum level from which someone can recommend an award for someone else in the unit, and a Final Authority is some who, after what they deem to be an appropriate investigation, will be able to put that award into someone's record. The Excel file I have should allow me to, periodically, whether taking a day per month or one every few months, to go through all personnel records in the Merc Corps Interface and make sure they match what's in the Excel file.

Now, here is my present listing of awards --> Armageddon Unlimited Awards PDF <--, but keep in mind that I am going over these, now, in an attempt to automate them as much as possible, and I'm adding or removing awards that I believe will be onerous and contrary to maximum play time. Here is a list of the changes I'm looking at thus far --> AU Awards Pending Adjustments PDF <--. I'm hoping to leave the more special, non-automated awards for special periods of recognition in my MilSim unit.

Quote

Some might say that somebody who doesn't have a strict military structure isn't competitive? I guess CW will be the pudding

I don't necessarily agree with that; strict military structure isn't everything. However, team work and team players are. If someone claims to have a super-loose unit, but then is very picky about whom they allow onto their team, is that really any more free than a MilSim unit that takes pretty much anyone and expects them to fight if they want to fight, or allows them to show their stuff through means other than combat all the time? Is there real dedication from anyone who has no ability, nor requirement, to show they understand what the unit is about, if there are no hurdles to leap over?

That being said, ALL unit types are valid, and ALL unit types are necessary portions of the overall culture of the MechWarrior universe. Each unit has its own culture, its own way of doing things, its own way of thinking, and everyone has conflict, spoken or not, acted upon or not, with everyone else's culture, because they think differently. It is what it is.

For my part, I would rather have people prove they understand what they are getting into, that they have loyalty enough to the unit and respect for themselves to earn their way up -I have nearly 17 years of experience with putting people I thought were skilled into positions of authority in AU only to have them show their treachery the first opportunity they didn't agree with something that had been a part of the unit since before they joined- and, once they've earned their way up, to prove they can take on the vision and goals of the unit, through continual proof. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, personally. That's how we were able to recruit and retain 77 people, 171% of the people we've had in our greatest iteration of AU, in other words EVER, and all but a couple of them absolutely excellent people, was because of our MilSim properties.

So, again, it takes all types.

For my part, like Grendel said, I absolutely enjoy coming to this thread and talking to good people about what they do and how they do it, for the sake of sharing information, but also so I can improve my own leadership qualities. For example, someone in this thread -I believe it was Durant Carlyle- explained that he tends to look at things from a business/corporate point-of-view, which is something I never considered doing, before, but I am, now. When I reboot the unit this coming July, I will have a much different mindset than I've held on too, bullishly I might add, for nearly 17 years, now.