Kay Wolf, on 02 February 2012 - 02:02 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.
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:
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:
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:
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.