157 replies to this topic

[SilentObserver]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Okay, say you're one of my guys for a minute... what if, for the sake of the team, I instruct your Lance to move to Waypoint Alpha on a Northwesterly route, and you take a straight route or even Northeasterly? You come across an entire company of bad guys and they rip you to shreds. Now, not only have you disobeyed the original plan, but my adjustment to the plan, you've gotten yourself killed, which has lost resources for our unit, and you've alerted the enemy not only to your Lance's general position, but likely also given up the one ace in the hole we needed to win.

Well if your command is "Waypoint Alpha on a Northwesterly route" i would hope if included a WP B with about how far east you wanted us to swing or, if not a nav point then at least an "circle around the hills to the east". If it didn't and my lance stumbles into an ambush then its own both of use (unless i went west then thats my fault). On you for not being clear, and on me for, in hindsight, picking a bad route.

However if, when i am moving my fire lance into flanking position I have to cross some open terrain. It is assumed the enemy is advancing on another axis and i SHOULD be able to cross unmolested. If, when i start to cross we start getting hammered by long range weapons I am not only gonna stop advancing across that field i'm gonna fall back, regroup and plan another route. I'm gonna do this immediately, I'm gonna say something on the radio to announce that things have changed and you are more than welcome to assist in the op replan. I am not going to get my entire lance sliced to ribbons because you wanted us at NAV A.

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Oh, and falling back... your job is to hold the line, not fall back when you feel it's expedient, even if you have to sacrifice yourself until I can get your line reinforced, call in artillery, or get other elements into an ambush for the bad guys you're facing, now.

Under all but very rare circumstances. my mech standing is better than it being a burning pile. If the line is collapsing and support is not coming fast enough I'm gonna fall back. As a commander you are not going to be able to watch the health of all the mechs on the field ot be able to decide when people can pull back and when they can hold.

You've never been frustrated in Mechcommander (1 or 2) when a particular pilot was being focused on. If he had just fallen back then his lancemates could have drawn fire and everyone would have made it to the next objective but no he followed orders to the letter and got his mech shot out from under him. I accept that a computer will do that. I expect a real mechwarrior to keep his machine alive.
Later in the post you said that the Soldiers need to trust their commander. The commander also needs to trust his soldiers. I am trying to hold the line. Sometimes that means in need to give some ground and reposition. If my mech is being focused down by a pair of assaults. just standing there and getting fragged helps nobody. if i can displace back and get some cover that will help our team.

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

Just in those two careless sentences, you've lost two matches for me, straight out the chute. In MWO, if information is used correctly, and then you decide you're going to lone wolf it, you're going to end up causing problems for the rest of the element. Is that cool for you?

I cost YOU two matches? I'm sure you ment to say you cost US two matches. That first sentence is everything i fear about someone taking a commander role. That somehow they feel that this is thier match and all the other players are just pawns serve their whims.

I fight for my team. and I will do everything in my power to help the team achieve its objectives. If the team loses then i lose. But i sure as hell didnt lose anything for the commander.

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 PM, said:

My dispute to this is, if I have better intel than you do, if I have a better view of the overall battlefield via the BattleGrid, if I tell, or ask you to go somewhere, it's because I have that better intel, that better view, and you need to trust me, or there's going to be an absolutely excellent amount of finger pointing, at you, and I'm just going to stand by and let it happen.

Look, I'm not asking everyone to follow my orders blindly, not in the least; I'm asking people to trust my decisions, because I am making the best possible decision I can based on circumstances, intel, and what's out the wind shield on my 'Mech, as well as my experience and the little bit of tactical prowess I have. When PGI said they wanted team-based gaming, that's what they meant. I'm also not telling my Lance Leaders that I intend to micromanage them at every turn, and we'll try to have the best possible strategy set up that we can to complete the mission and/or objective(s), but there will be important changes in the game.

My rebuttal would be that: Sure as the commander you have all the big picture stuff in front of you. At the same time you also have a lot to look at. you can't be monitoring the health/ammo status of all the teams mechs all the time. Each mechwarrior is responsible for his machine and playing his part. As i mentioned earlier. You expect us to trust you. You have to also trust me to make tactical decisions inside of the grander strategy.

I can guarantee that all the decisions that I make wont be optimal, some will be disastrous. But i know that the same will apply to you.

[Lorcan Lladd]

I'll just leave this here.
http://www.cracked.c...lways-suck.html

[Alabamatick]

You've got to remember that it's just a game and when it goes live nobody listens to advice/orders, (good or bad) anyway, as most people just want to run around in a mech and shoot stuff

[Threat Doc]

SilentObserver, on 02 February 2012 - 03:33 PM, said:

Well if your command is "Waypoint Alpha on a Northwesterly route" i would hope if included a WP B with about how far east you wanted us to swing or, if not a nav point then at least an "circle around the hills to the east". If it didn't and my lance stumbles into an ambush then its own both of use (unless i went west then thats my fault). On you for not being clear, and on me for, in hindsight, picking a bad route.

If I tell you I want you to circle Northwesterly to waypoint Alpha, and I'm not more clear than that, and you run into bad mojo, then it falls on me, and it's not for you to worry about.

Quote

However if, when i am moving my fire lance into flanking position I have to cross some open terrain. It is assumed the enemy is advancing on another axis and i SHOULD be able to cross unmolested. If, when i start to cross we start getting hammered by long range weapons I am not only gonna stop advancing across that field i'm gonna fall back, regroup and plan another route. I'm gonna do this immediately, I'm gonna say something on the radio to announce that things have changed and you are more than welcome to assist in the op replan. I am not going to get my entire lance sliced to ribbons because you wanted us at NAV A.

I agree with that, and that's not even remotely close to the example I used. Of course if you're being cut to ribbons by stepping into a minefield or you're getting hit with artillery, then yes, I expect you to withdraw to a safe location and/or find the spotter, report your troubles to me, and then yes we can adjust the plan. Stay on target, here, please?

Quote

Under all but very rare circumstances. my mech standing is better than it being a burning pile. If the line is collapsing and support is not coming fast enough I'm gonna fall back. As a commander you are not going to be able to watch the health of all the mechs on the field ot be able to decide when people can pull back and when they can hold.

Okay, so you're selfish enough to not be willing to sacrifice your 'Mech to allow reinforcements to arrive to help your buddies in the remainder of your Lance? Okay. After that point, I have no use for you in my unit.

Quote

You've never been frustrated in Mechcommander (1 or 2) when a particular pilot was being focused on. If he had just fallen back then his lancemates could have drawn fire and everyone would have made it to the next objective but no he followed orders to the letter and got his mech shot out from under him.

How do you know what I've been frustrated about or not? I've played ALL of the BattleTech-based computer games, and I'm here to tell you that, about the 6th or 7th time I'm playing through a mission, and I have to lose a MechWarrior to save the others, it DOES frustrate me. Anything before that and I'm pretty cool and collected, knowing that, if I have to sacrifice one pilot to complete the mission, I will.

Quote

I accept that a computer will do that. I expect a real mechwarrior to keep his machine alive.

The moment it happens that, in order to save the rest of the Lance you, or your Company Commander, have to leave a man behind, you come and talk to me, then. You never know if you're going to have to sacrifice for even the hope of a withdrawal, and that's one of those hard decisions a real leader is going to have to make some time.

Quote

Later in the post you said that the Soldiers need to trust their commander. The commander also needs to trust his soldiers. I am trying to hold the line. Sometimes that means in need to give some ground and reposition. If my mech is being focused down by a pair of assaults. just standing there and getting fragged helps nobody. if i can displace back and get some cover that will help our team.

That's when you take the moment to express to your commander that you need to displace, and why. More often than not, with appropriately fed information from the ground troops, a commander can adjust fire real-quick on a plan, and help you get where you both need to get and are able to help the unit better.

Quote

I cost YOU two matches? I'm sure you ment to say you cost US two matches. That first sentence is everything i fear about someone taking a commander role. That somehow they feel that this is thier match and all the other players are just pawns serve their whims.

No, I meant what I said, because you were arrogant enough to believe your ability on the field was better than my ability to direct. If I tell you that I need you somewhere, no I can't force you to do it, but you can lose the match for the entire unit if you don't do what I'm telling you. My job is to keep you alive as long as possible, to direct you in the best way I can to complete the objectives that are necessary to win, and it's not about YOU, it's about the entire team, including me, so if YOU move out of position, and you don't know precisely what it is I have in mind, YOU are responsible for the loss. If I sacrifice you needlessly, seeing you only as a number or an asset, rather than an individual trying to do his best for THE TEAM, then I'm nothing more than a poser and I should remove myself from command.

Quote

My rebuttal would be that: Sure as the commander you have all the big picture stuff in front of you. At the same time you also have a lot to look at. you can't be monitoring the health/ammo status of all the teams mechs all the time. Each mechwarrior is responsible for his machine and playing his part. As i mentioned earlier. You expect us to trust you. You have to also trust me to make tactical decisions inside of the grander strategy.

Oh, I do trust the individuals in the team to make sound tactical decisions. However, if I need you in a strategic position, and you decide your tactical decision is more important than the overall strategy, then YOU are responsible for losing the match, unless I can compensate for the lack of care and respect shown to the team and I through your...

Alabamatick, on 02 February 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

You've got to remember that it's just a game and when it goes live nobody listens to advice/orders, (good or bad) anyway, as most people just want to run around in a mech and shoot stuff

That's where good training comes in.

[Morashtak]

If (when?) the game were to have true military units then we would have;

Lance (squad) members - accountable to each other and answerable to the Lance commander.
Lance commander - accountable to the Lance and answerable to the Company commander.
Company commander - accountable to the company and answerable to the Battalion commander.

With no direct consequences for being a habitually bad commander (loss or command/rank) it will be on the community to spread the names of the best commanders and what they bring to the game.

Until the time comes when we can form our own companies that can promote/demote and assign duties to those with a special knack we will have to muddle along and learn how to make bad commanders better and good commanders sought after.

[Joanna Conners]

Quote

Poppycock! Regardless of how well every single team shakes out, working so closely together it's scary, someone some time is going to need to make a decision, period, and that decision might be to leave a Lancemate behind to cover a retreat. Remember, no matter how good you are, there's always someone bigger, smarter, or faster than you are. I love the idea of having a team that can read one another as though they were in the same room and well-tuned, even though they're really hundreds or thousands of miles separated, and I've seen teams that are very very good, but never one without a leader. ALL groups have leaders, it's simply how we work, and there's no such thing as a group without one.

So my group didn't exist? I'm pretty sure I exist. My friends are pretty sure they exist too.

We all led. Whoever was in the best position to make a tough call made it. The group respected that and responded. We all had the ability to see and hear what was going on. A group can still make the hard decisions.

It might not be common, but don't say it's impossible.

[Lorcan Lladd]

Die for us, he said.
I'm not paid enough for this, I said.
Of course, if he sent a couple million C-bills on my way in advance, enough to pay for a new 'Mech, then just maybe...

[Threat Doc]

Demona, on 02 February 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

So my group didn't exist? I'm pretty sure I exist. My friends are pretty sure they exist too.

We all led. Whoever was in the best position to make a tough call made it. The group respected that and responded. We all had the ability to see and hear what was going on. A group can still make the hard decisions.

It might not be common, but don't say it's impossible.

Who formed your team; did you just suddenly come together out of thin air like some manner of bad Chinese fantasy film? Did that person, or anyone else in the Lance have any manner of authority, perhaps expressed a need to go this place or that, whether in-game or not, or were you all psychically attuned to come up with exactly the same answer at exactly the same time? Did someone start the email(s) that helped you all decide what League(s) you would play in, or was there, again, that psychic link, as in bad Japanimation? When a match was over, did any one person log out any more than anyone else, or did all of you log out at the very same split-second?

If your answer to any of these questions is yes, then your group did not, indeed, exist, or you're lying or, at least, embellishing. There was a leader, there was someone who pointed you in a direction, and the rest of you may have been in-tune enough to agree 99 out of 100 times, but someone took charge and, whether s/he needed to play in a command role or not, s/he was still the commander.

Stop playin' the games.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 02 February 2012 - 05:41 PM.

[Zerik]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

If I tell you I want you to circle Northwesterly to waypoint Alpha, and I'm not more clear than that, and you run into bad mojo, then it falls on me, and it's not for you to worry about.

Well, actually.... If I follow your orders to the word, and because of them get turned into scrap metal. That IS for me to worry about. I'm the one that has to pay to have my pile 'o scrap patched up and turned back into a war machine again. Unless you are willing to pay the repair bills of everyone who is fragged under your command.

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

Okay, so you're selfish enough to not be willing to sacrifice your 'Mech to allow reinforcements to arrive to help your buddies in the remainder of your Lance? Okay. After that point, I have no use for you in my unit.

This is assuming that there's a magical case of "One soldier must die so that another may spawn?"
Otherwise, if I have been following order up until a point where whatever team I am with needs to support another team, and my choices are sacrifice myself so my teammate can get there in time, or we both arrive too late to help...Well, both teams have been truely let down by their Commander. I'm not saying that it dosen't happen, but a Commander should strive to keep all assets alive and functioning, and you sirrah seem rather sacrifice happy...Seriously though, in the vast majority of situations, a living unit on your side is better than a dead one.

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 04:59 PM, said:

That's when you take the moment to express to your commander that you need to displace, and why. More often than not, with appropriately fed information from the ground troops, a commander can adjust fire real-quick on a plan, and help you get where you both need to get and are able to help the unit better.

The primary issue wih this is assuming that someone who is under fire by the enemy will be able to explain the situation to their commander and recieve a response before that window between falling back to a better defensive position and being destroyed closes. War is fast, and dirty. A quick response by a platoon leader, even if it's not exactly what the Commander wants, is better than the loss of that platoon.

But, all that is just my 2 cents worth. I myself have plenty of ability with tactics, but when it comes to commanding others to make those tactics happen it dosen't work out that well. With that tactical knowledge, even when a Commander cusses me out for trying to dare improve upon their plans, or declares me a failure for not following orders involving an objective halfway across the map when I'm on the other side, having just completed their previous orders while the new ones were issued only 30 seconds ago (true story); I know that working as and with a team is usually most effective. Just because the Commander might be a prik that can't dig his own head out of his ***, dosen't mean everyone should ignore him. Relieve him of command in favour of a better leader, or try and stick to whatever plan is laid out (I prefer the former). That way if it comes down to your team losing, you can atleast say "I did my part" even if the Commander is the typical bad Commander who blames everything on his team.

Edited by Zerik, 02 February 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[Tifalia]

To be honest, you will get people who are given a leadership role and will try and use that to elevate themselves above everyone else, thinking themselves the boss, their word is law et cetera but people who think and act that way only do so because the people they are in charge of are too afraid to stand up and voice their opinions, or question motives, tactics, strategies in pre-battle briefings.
If I do not like how someone is behaving (that they are doing things for their own self interest and not for their unit/House as a whole) then I am not afraid to stand up and speak what is on my mind, but will not leave said unit I actively fight with unless I feel there is absolutely no other option.
I will follow someone into battle, but I do so with not only both eyes wide open but with an open mind as well.

Edited by Tifalia, 02 February 2012 - 07:11 PM.

[firestarter]

After reading this thread it make my curious as to how many active or prior military we have in this community. I would be very interested in joining/creating a unit that enlists solely military veterans. That way there is a common understanding of rank structure and chain of command. Anyone else interested?

[Zerik]

firestarter, on 02 February 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

After reading this thread it make my curious as to how many active or prior military we have in this community. I would be very interested in joining/creating a unit that enlists solely military veterans. That way there is a common understanding of rank structure and chain of command. Anyone else interested?

After being in an outfit in Planetside compromised 80% of military veterans, I'd say it was a great experience...Even if I was in the 20% of civvies

[Jack Gallows]

This is how it's going to work, for me.

I'm going to play a Commander role, and see how good at it I am. I'm going to be running my own unit, so we'll be dropping into missions together. We're going to work out the kinks and learn the game together, and share strategies we learn and evolve. It'll get to a point that people won't have to question or doubt "orders" I give and will be free to give advice as needed. Just because I'm a Commander role player doesn't mean you can't get active feedback, and I intend to use it.

If I'm playing with a group that isn't my own people, or not just my own unit, I'll talk it through with them to see what they think is the best course of action, even if that means I pick a different role and need to become a Defense, Assault, or Scout role based on what the group needs and what the Commander calls for. If they're new to the role, I'll let them take command anyway, because that's how you learn. I don't care if they suck worse then rotting Capellan eggs, I'm going to be there to support them.

Lifes too short to get heated in a game because you pre judge if a person is going to suck at their role, or try to break up the group by not helping out. There's going to be times where you are going to be handicapped by a really bad commander who won't take advice, yells out orders as if he's gods gift to warfare, and rages all over the comm channels like an infant. You do the best you can in those circumstances and work with the people who are actually being good players (attitude and teamplay wise) and finish the match, and move onto the next.

I'm not going to assume anyone has a right to command me in game, and I'm not going to assume I have the right to command someone. I'm going to extend them all the courtesy I'd wish they'd extend me, and be kind and give them the benefit of the doubt, because I'd rather make friends then experience hate because someone misunderstood the boundaries of a video game role.

Edited by Jack Gallows, 02 February 2012 - 07:33 PM.

[Threat Doc]

Zerik, thank you for your opinion.

Well, Firestarter, I've been trying to recruit individuals whom I believe will be more disciplined, and I have a means of telling those who will be more apt to act in an appropriate manner. We have a disciplined Command & Staff, though we still like to joke around, a lot. However, when MWO fires up, we're going to do our best to move as straight-forward and disciplined as possible.

[MuffinTop]

firestarter, on 02 February 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

After reading this thread it make my curious as to how many active or prior military we have in this community. I would be very interested in joining/creating a unit that enlists solely military veterans. That way there is a common understanding of rank structure and chain of command. Anyone else interested?

I'm on board for this gig, so sign me up.....Semper Fi!

Veteran
US Navy FMF Corpsman

[Nick Makiaveli]

Nevermind. Based on what the devs have said (that I missed earlier) I have nothing else to say on this topic.

Edited by Nick Makiaveli, 03 February 2012 - 05:28 AM.

[Psydotek]

Didn't they say command doesn't necessarily equal rank?

I think we're getting command mixed up with rank way to much here. Command = Tactician for the most part when it comes to roles.

[Ian MacLeary]

Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:06 PM, said:

Tom Jane is not WISE... he's a moron with pistols, hehe... I really wish they would bring that series back, or another movie.

You mean Jayne Cobb, right? I don't even know who Tom Jane is.

And Jayne's not an moron - he's just very direct, and selfish, and short-sighted, and tends to think with his fists... Okay, maybe he is a bit of an *****.

[Threat Doc]

Nick Makiaveli, on 02 February 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

I like how Kay is willing for me to die to save his command. Makes me wonder if that isn't why he wants to be the commander.

Seriously dude, you are acting like you are a real military leader. Tossing around comments about hard decisions and casually talking about sacrificing mechs when we have no idea about repair costs our how much an individual match will affect our faction etc.

Going to stop here before I say too much and catch a mod's PPC upside the head.

You're missing the entire point, and I never said anything about NOT working with a team for the win... you're assuming that. Again, you know what assuming does, right? I don't think I'm a real military leader, even though I was encouraged heavily by the varied chains of command I served with in the Army to go Green to Gold, because I had the skill, talent, and demeanor to be an officer. That means leaving conversations where petty individuals who refuse to study and understand the entire conversation, who will not see anything they choose not to see, will continue to harp on ideals they do not understand in order to talk down to others. Have a nice evening, Nick.

Ian MacLeary, on 02 February 2012 - 08:45 PM, said:

You mean Jayne Cobb, right? I don't even know who Tom Jane is.

And Jayne's not an moron - he's just very direct, and selfish, and short-sighted, and tends to think with his fists... Okay, maybe he is a bit of an *****.

You're right, Jayne Cobb, my bad. Yeah, in that show he's a moron. I was able to appreciate Baldwin better as John Casey in Chuck, though.

Exit, Stage Right! I have the answers I came for, and now the conversation is dissolving into petty bickering by petty folk who wish to bash others rather than give appropriate answers and help move the conversation along.

Edited by Kay Wolf, 02 February 2012 - 08:56 PM.

[Jack Gallows]

Psydotek, on 02 February 2012 - 08:37 PM, said:

Didn't they say command doesn't necessarily equal rank?

I think we're getting command mixed up with rank way to much here. Command = Tactician for the most part when it comes to roles.

It's not that, we know command doesn't = rank. But, it does lend to the idea that they need to be smart and able to understand the battlefield in order to assign objectives/do their job, which is an indirect and direct way of kind of being giving orders.

Calm and understanding individuals will work it out, just have to maintain good communication. Too many people jump at others or are too quick to condemn, need to have a little bit more respect for your fellow player and it'll make the experience that much better.

Edited by Jack Gallows, 02 February 2012 - 09:19 PM.