14 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

BattleTech and, by extension, MechWarrior, have always been combat based games, usually with units or elements that represent themselves as a group organized as military or para-military organizations, with fealty to, or outright belonging to a House, Periphery State, Clan, or Mercenary Unit. Mercenary Units, themselves, often pledge loyalty to the contract they take from the highest bidder, or at least to a potential employer who will not starve them to death and/or leave them stranded on a world, without parts, supplies, lube, or sundries.

Within every military element, whether it is very lax or very tight, there is a rank and command structure, or at least some folks at the top of the unit, who 'run' everything, and then the rest of the scrubs.

So, my question(s) is/are... (feel free to copy and paste the questions, or quote and cut any but the questions, if you like. House folk should feel free to sound off, here, as well...)

1) What is your take on rank, command structure, positions within a unit, and level of obedience to any of those?

2) What sort of unit structure would you build? How would you deal with rank, advancement requirements, discipline, obedience, etc.?

3) If you're planning to be a merc unit commander or House commander, at any level, what do you consider to be most important to the unit (you can label these, and anything else you think of, by order of importance, if you like) and how would you like to see things done with regards to them: logistics, training, your TO&E/Wartable, command & staff positions, operational concerns, support concerns (web sites, forum admin/mods, building new policies, graphics, educational opportunities in the BT universe), recruitment policies, officer candidates (tactics, strategy, resource/asset management), etc.?

Now, I won't lie to you that I'm collecting ideas for improving my own command structure and internal elements, prior to actually having them restored from more than six years past, but I'm not looking for specific strategies, tactics, etc. I would actually prefer to learn those in-action.

[Meth0s]

It depends on one's goal as a unit.

Ranks and an organized command structure can add a lot of RP-style enhancement to the team, comraderie, and the like. When I first started playing with an organized team in MW4: BK, I really enjoyed the idea of ranks, promotions, and gaining new roles/responsibilities. However, these can easily de-evolve into authoritarian regimes that are merely there to prop up the egos of the leaders, and can make the team less flexible when changes need to be made.

Thus, what I prefer is natural organization. The first people who start will often take up key roles to get the unit going, such as drop-calling, automation (in planetary leagues), recruitment, web site developer, organizer, tactician, etc. Then as new members join, they take in the roles that fit well with the team. At some point there is a visible leader outside the team, and perhaps a core-leadership, but largely it is a group of friends with a common goal that acts without much centralized direction/authority.

As for dealing with obedience issues, my thing has always been to talk to the person about what was done, what the unit stands for, and that this person needs to commit to bettering him/herself in order to remain within our community. I am not afraid to let somebody know that he/she should take his/her talents elsewhere. It can be difficult to avoid drama, thus the rest of the team should be informed in a fair manner.

Of course, if you are a House, with say 300 members, for matters of efficiency it helps to have a command structure so that you can communicate more easily. But this is not necessary for most teams these days.

[Kyll Long]

Good topic Kay. Im sure my thoughts on this are known. Just haven't seen any discussions on this go far on any of the main boards (Lord knows I tried). It'll be interesting to see the results here. (For those who haven't seen my thoughts just look up some of my older posts I might throw in my two cents if there is actually interest in the topic as a whole).

Edited by Kyll Long, 21 November 2011 - 10:25 AM.

[Havoc2]

I believe this is totally up to the unit and their "core"

The group I belong to has been gaming with each other through various games (MMOs, MW3/4 and other FPS) for the last 15 years or so.
Needless to say, our command "structure" is what we decide to do, not what someone at the top tells us to do.
We still have 1 or 2 people who generally take the "command" roles but most of our decisions are done by committee as in "Who should we fight next? I was playing in a match with XYZ player from ABC guild, he was an ***. I say we crush ABC. Sounds good to us."

Newer groups will obviously have a different approach and a command structure will obviously be required until a member proves his/herself. From there, I guess it's either work through the ranks by whatever means the group recognizes or be really good at something (or have the time available to dedicate). There's nothing more irritating to a group than a person who wants more and more responsibilities and then can't find the time to do them.

[Threat Doc]

MethosFurey, on 21 November 2011 - 10:20 AM, said:

Of course, if you are a House, with say 300 members, for matters of efficiency it helps to have a command structure so that you can communicate more easily. But this is not necessary for most teams these days.

I really enjoyed all of what you said, and I think it's about the same way I've always wanted to go, and I need to be more mellow this time around. The communication thing is what always got me... Between '97 and '99, when AU was up and running, I had an average of 32 people on ICQ with me at any given time, and I was talking with them all, getting nothing done, and we only had 43 folks in the unit at the time. That's when I got the idea that, perhaps, command structure was a whole lot more important, and started limiting my activities so folks would get the point that I'm a human being, as well, and have things, both in real life and, at that time, for the Army, that are also important.

I don't want to make myself inaccessible to anyone, but I'll never get anything done if I'm talking to 3/4ths of our unit all the time.

}{avoc, on 21 November 2011 - 11:19 AM, said:

I believe this is totally up to the unit and their "core"

The group I belong to has been gaming with each other through various games (MMOs, MW3/4 and other FPS) for the last 15 years or so.
Needless to say, our command "structure" is what we decide to do, not what someone at the top tells us to do.
We still have 1 or 2 people who generally take the "command" roles but most of our decisions are done by committee as in "Who should we fight next? I was playing in a match with XYZ player from ABC guild, he was an ***. I say we crush ABC. Sounds good to us."

Newer groups will obviously have a different approach and a command structure will obviously be required until a member proves his/herself. From there, I guess it's either work through the ranks by whatever means the group recognizes or be really good at something (or have the time available to dedicate). There's nothing more irritating to a group than a person who wants more and more responsibilities and then can't find the time to do them.

Okay, but in my experience, groups I've played in who ran their command that way more often than not had zero disciplined troops, and people got on-line to fight whenever, which never lead to any manner of cohesive play. How did you deal with that?

[Beaker]

In TB we have::

Sempai
Everyone else.

Sempai is elected every 6 months. BCs used to be appointed per drop.

Worked out well, nice and easy, and avoided any "I AM THE BOSS!!" type arguments.

[Alen Crest]

The way I plan on tackling this issue is to have a dossier. Where we will have the kills, missions, major mechs used, and whatnot that can be recorded by the in game boards (like if they have a spread-out after the battle or a leader-board like many counsel online games) I want to have this in a website that I will make on our personal section. where I would pick the best ones based upon the Dossiers, ability to fallow orders, and ability to give orders to be lance or even company commanders. Then I will leave it up to the commanders to pick there soldiers according to the dossiers and the soldiers could even apply for there positions (like if someone wants to be under someones command, or if they would rather pilot an assault mech rather then a med)

I know this will take time, effort, and even skill on my part to make happen. But to my experience this works for groups of people that know nothing about each other work effectively together. (works for the US Military for job applications)

[Threat Doc]

Beaker, on 21 November 2011 - 01:19 PM, said:

In TB we have::

Sempai
Everyone else.

Sempai is elected every 6 months. BCs used to be appointed per drop.

Worked out well, nice and easy, and avoided any "I AM THE BOSS!!" type arguments.

See, I think that's great for a unit that's just starting out, or has been together with this same formula for a long time. The problem is I started this unit for the board game in 1985, I built it from the ground up and then, in 1997, I started my own merc unit, and my best friend, Emil, new through MW3, came on board -and has been XO ever since-, but the unit has always remained in my hands, has always been handled by me, and I was never voted out, and no one ever even recommended such a thing. I think, however, as I said, your system can work for newer units or those that have been that way for a long time.

Alen Crest, on 21 November 2011 - 01:33 PM, said:

The way I plan on tackling this issue is to have a dossier. Where we will have the kills, missions, major mechs used, and whatnot that can be recorded by the in game boards (like if they have a spread-out after the battle or a leader-board like many counsel online games) I want to have this in a website that I will make on our personal section. where I would pick the best ones based upon the Dossiers, ability to fallow orders, and ability to give orders to be lance or even company commanders.

This is precisely what I would like to do, but I want to build an Access file instead, that allows me to put down a group of points for each of their accomplishments, recommendations, time-in-service, etc., and then track their points and, if a slot is open in the TO&E, the individual with the highest points would fill that slot. However, I'm not sure how restrictive I want to be this time around, which is, of course, the reason for this thread.

Quote

Then I will leave it up to the commanders to pick there soldiers according to the dossiers and the soldiers could even apply for there positions (like if someone wants to be under someones command, or if they would rather pilot an assault mech rather then a med)

THIS is something I hadn't thought about, and it is not a bad idea. I think I was under too much of an impression of starting small, and then building up.

Quote

I know this will take time, effort, and even skill on my part to make happen. But to my experience this works for groups of people that know nothing about each other work effectively together. (works for the US Military for job applications)

Agreed. Don't get me wrong, although this is the way I've used for years, I'm not trying to validate my use of it, because it's most assuredly brought it's set of problems. However, if there's an even means of making this happen, where it's fair for everyone, and they can refuse a promotion if they want, then I think it might just work right. Hmmmm

[Strayed]

From personal experience copying the clan command structure is a good way to go, however tends to be bias towards those who can duel well rather than fight wars. Depending on size you want to keep the number of "officers" to a minimum and minimise how long it takes for orders to reach the co to the grunts. I've seen quite a few pilots ranked as officers who couldn't lead a pack of lemmings off a cliff; so you got to make sure if you got a command structure those on top won't abuse power or be an arrogant sod.

Mercenaries tend not to care much for rank and file though. They fight for who pays the best and will follow a co who will get the the most cash while getting them out alive. Using rank structure can annoy them. Only high profile merc units will probably follow a ranking structure.

However real life speaking, let people play with who they want to play with and stick them with who they get on with. With mercenaries in particular this is the case cause they will be smaller than and more tight knit than say the AFFS. If you can lead people, by all means lead, but if you can't, really don't bother.

Hope this helps.

[Threat Doc]

Strayed, on 21 November 2011 - 03:00 PM, said:

Depending on size you want to keep the number of "officers" to a minimum and minimise how long it takes for orders to reach the co to the grunts.

This is a good policy. I don't know about the Clan structure thing, hehe. That, however, is a role-playing matter.

Quote

Mercenaries tend not to care much for rank and file though. They fight for who pays the best and will follow a co who will get the the most cash while getting them out alive. Using rank structure can annoy them. Only high profile merc units will probably follow a ranking structure.

From the bottom looking up I can agree with this. From the top-down, however, it's absolutely necessary to have a rank structure, as in any modern military force.

Quote

However real life speaking, let people play with who they want to play with and stick them with who they get on with. With mercenaries in particular this is the case cause they will be smaller than and more tight knit than say the AFFS. If you can lead people, by all means lead, but if you can't, really don't bother.

Hope this helps.

That makes sense to me, as well. However, the truth is that you get a gaggle of folks together, and six or seven or more of them like to play together, and they won't drop with anyone else, and that's not cool. I am hoping that, for those who've been in the military, as I have, it will be easier for them to fall into Lances and a rank structure. I'm glad, indeed, that the Merc Corps HQ will have us setting up in lances as a base unit.

I suppose, using my favorite example of McKinnon's Raiders: The Fox's Teeth, there could be one officer per Lance, and then everyone else are MechWarriors? Save the rank structure for later, maybe?

[John Clavell]

Having a top down structure is good, when a decision needs to made it can and will. However, this is a game by definition. Over the years I've come across different people who want a ridged structure, others who want a lot less to no structure. The thing I standby, and have learned over the years is, recruitment is an important stage. What kind of team do you want to be? This pretty much dictates the people you should be recruiting, and the type of leadership structure you should have.

If you lean more towards being very competitive and very top-down. Then recruiting people who don't care much about winning and want to have a bit of fun on a Friday night probably will not fit will into your corp. However, I've made this mistake, and learned from it. I've seen it happening in other units and factions across different games.

You need to know what your unit is about, and only recruit people who believe in that vision, if you can you will be successful. If your recruiting a mixed bag of people to flesh out your roster, then it might cause problems.

In the gaming environment, command basically equates to administration. It's not a glorious position, it's a lot of work on top of playing the game. I want to see my team be successful, and I get enjoyment out of that, so taking on the administrative and logistics tasks is always worth it. The command are the people who believe in the team and too want to make it be a success, they help share the admin and logistics tasks.

In EVE Online, there is always a big discussion about what is most effective command. Do you have one man at the top giving orders? Or do you have a command council? The confines of the game tend to dictate what kind of leadership structure you'll need, as well as how many people will be in your corp.

I've always preferred to have a top down structure. However, building a 'team' is the most important thing. This team has to work together, and I'd always want to hear the teams feedback. When needed, it's possible to make a decision alone, if needs be. But otherwise, listening to your players and fostering them is important.

I don't see the point in having lots of rules. But the ones we do have, which is basically common sense stuff about making other feel uncomfortable or unhappy. Disrupting the team in a negative way will be warned and or removed.

There is no 'one thing' which is more important than any other when building a team. Like a real life company, you need to find your pilots strengths and promote them. You need to be effective at administration, recruitment, finances, advertising, marketing, and strategy, the whole lot! If your not good at one or more of these things, then find people who are.

Anything to do with Battletech lore, is window dressing. It's role-play and has a much much smaller role to play in your team being effective and successful. It's obviously something we all care about, or we might not be playing MechWarrior. How much you want to role-play will contribute to how you and your team interacts with the game. But it wont win or lose you battles.

Edited by John Clavell, 22 November 2011 - 09:39 AM.

[Threat Doc]

John, that is the absolute best advice, and the most succinct and accurate way I've ever heard anything about command put. Bravo, <S>. There are a few things in there I've not ever taken the time to consider, but I will consider them, now.

[metro]

John Clavell, on 22 November 2011 - 01:05 AM, said:

...---...

Well put Mr. Clavell.

[John Clavell]

Thanks guys. <S>

[Threat Doc]

I had absolutely completely forgotten that I started this thread so very long ago. Could I get a moderator to merge it with the following thread, please?

http://mwomercs.com/...-and-positions/

If not, that's fine, but the subjects are so close together, maybe joining them wouldn't be such a bad idea.

Also, for those who are newer to the Command scene than this post is to you, feel free to continue commenting, please? I love to read the responses and, I truly believe, threads like this help edify me as a unit Commander. Thank you.

I do have one more question for all who are involved...

We have now been told there will be various things MechWarrior's in our units can be assigned to do at various levels, especially through http://mwomercs.com/...re-association/ , and that we will be able to set our ranks, positions, and awards/achievements.

First, what would you like to see, in regards to functionality and UI concept, for the Merc Corps Interface?

Second, how do you believe, based on what you've read from Community Warfare - Association, and other news concerning the Merc Corps HQ, that your ranks, positions, and how you set up your awards/achievements for MWO will be affected?

Finally, what would you like to see that would alleviate the problems you believe you will have?

Hey, has anyone noticed a thread, or threads, begun to handle any recommendations for modules and in-game achievements, yet? Should we discuss those, here?