734 replies to this topic

[Meneiupptus]

It is far easier than you think to lead a warrior. Hopeless causes make heroes flock to and propaganda can make the evilest deed seem easy to swallow. I like what you said there Azantia and I like your Idealism, but remember the greater good of the whole outweighs the needs of the Warrior sometimes.

In that respect I ask you is a Chain of Communications in the best interests of all players in the Federated Suns?

I will answer the same question/ In my opinion a Chain of Communication will allow the entirety of the aligned units to easilly deploy in concert with each other. Since this game is apparently a themepark by what I have read it really won't be much of an issue though. Orchestrated warfare is so much easier than actually having to deal realtime. I do not prefer that but then again I don't make the rules.

I will Also state that if players are making their own military units for the House right now... bringing them into this at this time will allow us to come up with a set of rules we all can follow voted on by all of us. Remember anyone bearing the AFFS will reflect on us all when they do whatever they do. I for one have stricter standards of game play for myself and do not like to align with griefers and shiitetalkers. Actions are my words in battle. If the people are left in a state of Anarchy that is what will escalate. I have near 17+ years of online gaming experience to go with on that. Take that for what it is worth.

As for the Developers not hard coding Military command structures... in my opinion that was foolish in a wargame. They had the option to pick and choose leaders by ability, charisma and example but they let it go for fear someone would disapprove. You don't have to make them House Leaders like back in the day, but some form of organization actually builds the feel of a military lifestyle and what we have here now is a gaggle of Merc Units. They may have as well destroyed the Houses and called it a new game...

[Azantia]

@ Lahyenne.

As a united states SOLDIER, i can assure you
Soldiers can be warriors
not all Soldiers are warriors
The most effective WARFIGHTER, is a Soldier and a Warrior.

I think your interpretation of a warrior is that of an undisciplined fighter who tries to wage war. That very well may be what a warrior is to you, but that is not what a warrior is to me.

When i refer to being surrounded by "Warriors" I refer to being surrounded by individuals who have the discipline and fidelity of a soldier, but the spirit of a warrior.

The goal of any Combat leader is to instill good order and discipline, and provide purpose, motivation and direction in his soldiers, but beyond that the combat leader seeks to develop a soldiers fighting spirit, a.k.a. the Warrior spirit.
If you have not seen active combat service, I dont expect you to understand the difference.
If you HAVE seen active combat service, and dont understand the difference, then you had poor leaders, or you are just a soldier and not a soldier and a warrior.

EDIT : likewise there are so many factors that go into war that a single picture cannot be used to make a point. Its almost laughable to anyone who has been to war to think about. Being successful in War is a combination of too many things to list here. Being successful in COMBAT, i.e. force on force warfare down to the squad vs squad level is somewhat more easily defined, but still would take a post longer and more detailed than anyone would like to get into at the moment.

If western armies "dominated" the poorly trained barbaric "warriors", then what happened in Vietnam? What happened to the Disciplined and feared Russian army in Afghanistan? What is happening to the U.S. Military in Afghanistan?

I really dont think you have a good grasp of what it means to be either a soldier or a warrior.

Edited by Azantia, 05 March 2012 - 08:34 PM.

[Azantia]

Meneiupptus...you claim that it is easier to lead warriors than soldiers? Can i ask you what experiences you have leading soldiers OR warriors in real combat? If you would be willing to share I would be willing to listen. I would be interested as to when/where you lead these soldiers and what your military occupational specialty was, what type of unit you were in, what your mission was and what you commonly experienced in the field. Send me a private message if you would like to discuss it.

[Azantia]

@ Hellen Wheels, Got alot of respect for you Robinson Rangers, and Pappy seems like a strong leader. I would be honored to stand with you guys in combat for House Davion.

"Stand next to me, you'll never stand alone"

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

Azantia, on 05 March 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

I think your interpretation of a warrior is that of an undisciplined fighter who tries to wage war. That very well may be what a warrior is to you, but that is not what a warrior is to me.

That isn't my interpretation, those are two very specific words that are used in the study of military affairs. I can confidently say that in regards to military theory a "warrior" is a traditional fighter like one would see in the armies of Gaul. His "soldier" counterpart would be a Roman Legionnaire. This distinction doesn't seem to match up with the point that you're trying to convey. I suspect you've managed to stumble across this debate by using terms that had definitions that you were unfamiliar with - which happens a lot as this theory doesn't get a lot of press outside of military academies. Unfortunately I'm currently in one of those academies.

Azantia, on 05 March 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

If western armies "dominated" the poorly trained barbaric "warriors", then what happened in Vietnam? What happened to the Disciplined and feared Russian army in Afghanistan? What is happening to the U.S. Military in Afghanistan?

I really dont think you have a good grasp of what it means to be either a soldier or a warrior.

Vietnam and Afghanistan are both unconventional conflicts. I made it clear in my post that I am referring to conventional war as they are two very different beasts.

[Azantia]

You will have to be more specific about which academy, as if you are not studying at one of the major military academies for the Army, Air-Force, Navy or British Royal Sandhurst or equivalent then you dont really have a base to speak from and even then - unless you have been in real combat and lead troops in real combat, where all that theory you talk about meets the grinder, then you dont know what you are talking about. You would do well to remember that if you expect to lead troops in a future military career.

As for you implying that the terms "Soldier" or "Warrior" are ones I unfamiliar with, then think about this : I am a Soldier (And Warrior) in the United States Army. Which Country and Military branch do you serve in? As a Non-Commissioned Officer in the Army I think I understand quite deeply the terms "Soldier" and "Warrior". The terms Soldier and Warrior are used plainly and EVERYDAY in the United States Military.

Lets go to the United States Soldiers Creed shall we?

I am an American Soldier
I am a Warrior and a member of a team
I serve the people of the United States and live the army values
I will always place the mission first
I will never accept defeat
I will never quit
I will never leave a fallen comrade
I am disciplined, physically and mentally tough
Trained and proficient in my Warrior tasks and Drills
I always maintain my arms, my equipment and myself
I am and expert and I am a professional
I stand ready to deploy, engage and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat
I am a guardian of freedom and the American way of life
I am an American Soldier.

Even the United States Military wants our soldiers to be both Soldiers AND Warriors

If you look at the Infantry, Ranger and Special Forces Creeds the attitude and scope of the creeds is to go Beyond what is expected of a soldier, and it captures the mindset and spirit of A WARRIOR. And no one knows better the difference between a Soldier and a Warrior than they do. Likewise when we are talking about a combat arms mindset, its soldiers and leaders dont use the term "Soldier" very much. They prefer the term "Warrior". Cause thats what a true Warfighter is and aspires to be. More than a soldier ----> A Warrior.

You are arguing semantics of what the term (To you - based on what you have been taught) Warrior and Soldier mean.

I am saying that there is a very distinct difference between a Soldier, and a Soldier and a Warrior. Once again, if you havent been in combat, I wouldnt expect you to understand the difference.

What is also funny is your interpretation of Conventional and Unconventional warfare. Yes these are modern military terms, but let me tell you War is War, Conventional or Unconventional and what the Warfighter needs to succeed in War doesnt change.

Now if you are trying to tell me that your time and education at a military academy (which still has not been clarified as to what level of military academy we are talking) means more than years of military service including 26 months of active day to day combat service, then I would say not only that you dont know what you are talking about, but you need to go back and study more.

Edited by Azantia, 05 March 2012 - 10:55 PM.

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

Azantia, on 05 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

You are arguing semantics of what the term (To you - based on what you have been taught) Warrior and Soldier mean.

You continue to misunderstand me. I am saying that we are using different definitions of the same words to describe two completely different debates. It's not that either definition is incorrect, it's that they're not being used in proper context with each other. I.e. - there is no argument to be had.

Azantia, on 05 March 2012 - 10:32 PM, said:

What is also funny is your interpretation of Conventional and Unconventional warfare. Yes these are modern military terms, but let me tell you War is War, Conventional or Unconventional and what the Warfighter needs to succeed in War doesnt change.

Now that I have to actually take issue with - on a larger scale the way an unconventional war is conducted is entirely different to that of a conventional conflict, and for good reason. It is dealing with completely different objectives and completely different enemies. Yes, the individual needs to be made up of the basic positive qualities that are sought after in the modern soldier - but the way he conducts himself and, specifically, the way he interacts with locals and their property is drastically different. The traditional tactics of fire superiority, out-maneuvering, security of command lines, flexible chains of command - these just aren't as effective when your major opponent is more an ideology and less an identifiable physical force. I hate to quote Mao, but his analogy of the insurgent as a fish and the local populace as the river is apt.

For what it is worth, although I doubt it will earn me any respect, I will finish my time at Norwich in early December of this year and with any luck start OCS within twelve months (I'm told the waiting list is depressingly long).

Edited by lahyenne, 05 March 2012 - 10:48 PM.

[Stone GKR]

Azantia, on 05 March 2012 - 08:20 PM, said:

If western armies "dominated" the poorly trained barbaric "warriors", then what happened in Vietnam? What happened to the Disciplined and feared Russian army in Afghanistan? What is happening to the U.S. Military in Afghanistan?

The answer is: POLITICS! Each conflict featured Superior forces constrained by Political decisions leading to defeat in 2 cases, with the 3rd case pending. It is hard for us "old timers" to remember that we are dealing with folks that were not around back then. But another case in point is this.

7th Corps conducted the "Hail Mary" in Desert Storm to defeat Iraq. 6 months later it was destroyed by Democrats in Congress as part of the "peace dividend". The pen was mightier than the sword.

People Define "Warrior" in different ways. That is just the way we are. But what is all this "demanding"? I read post the seem to be an angry person demanding others prove themselves to you. Notice I said "seem". This is an online game. What we did real life in the Army does not translate well here. But stop demanding people prove they should be able to say something.

This should be fun, not a fight. Stop dividing ourselves up. The first House that pulls everyone together will be the strongest.

Stone

[Stone GKR]

Prime Directive of a House Command:

Any person selected for a House Command slot MUST be loyal to the House above any unit they may have belonged to prior to that House position.

I thought I would try this again. Yes I have played MPBT games before, but I was originaly just trying to do 2 things:

1. Help the House by pointing out common sense.
2. Poking fun at the old MPBT Solaris folks by saying "karma's a *****". Maybe I should call KW up and me and him can read the posts here and enjoy it as the tables have turned.

Here is the thing: I am not here asking to be in House Command. I dont care who is in House Command. I have been there, and done that. To be honest, look at the post here now and ask yourself who in their right mind wants to put up with this crap for any period of time.

But I have also spent more than a few years working with all five houses in MPBT Solaris and I can tell you things that worked and things that lead to failure. I am willing to help, but you dont have to take said help.

The House the unifies first wins.

Stone

[Azantia]

Stone allow me to say, I did indeed misjudge your original post, it happens. I think a majority of the individuals here (myself included) want to have a unified house, however, when we voiced our opinions in the very early goings of the discussion of how we believed it should be handled, and what we are expecting, several individuals started saying how they had established communities that had done the CoC thing before and had earned their place. That is what escalated the thread to its current state of sudden flare-ups and bottled up frustration. All I am saying is weather or not I am involved through my chosen unit, on any level within the chain of command or not, I believe it should be fair with respect to all individuals who wish to participate, based of course on availability (Time) and leadership potential/ability, regardless of who or what they played in the past. There are alot of different battletech communities and more independent fans who maybe never had the time or ability to get involved in organized league play or complicated / in-depth gaming communities. From my foxhole (perspective) I feel that there are several individuals who do not believe this philosophy should propel us forward towards launch.

As for pulling everyone together, well lets just say I have my doubts. I hope in the end it all works out, but in-house we have some individuals with completely opposite principles and philosophies on leadership in general, and I think in the end, forcing those individuals to work together or in close proximity will only lead to bad-blood.

Edited by Azantia, 06 March 2012 - 02:24 AM.

[Meneiupptus]

You asked what my credentials are in leading people Azantia...

US ARMY Combat Veteran. Does that qualify me to lead.. eh who knows you be the judge. Words are worthless until tested.

[Dihm]

FYI, this is a computer game played for fun. Military credentials not necessary.

We are not actually "soldiers" or "warriors". We are gamers.

[Azantia]

Meneiupptus, as a US Army Combat Veteran, I am very surprised you hold the stance that you do regarding the term "warrior" and find it surprising that you would not be able to identify with the spirit of the post regarding a Soldier AND a Warrior.
As far as making you more or less qualified to lead, I couldnt say, I have never seen you lead?? Thats not where our conversation (That is, between you and I) is currently at. You made the statement warriors are easier to lead than soldiers, I have found that personally, from experience that the opposite was true, more on that later. If we are talking about leadership, I have stated several times before in this thread just cause you have done it before (as have I) does not mean you are the MOST qualified leader for the job, which is the stance we have held from day one here that seems to have caused so many problems. I dont care what someone has done before. Likewise as Dihm has stated, this is simulated combat / a game so many different types of leadership that would not necessarily work in the military / combat will work here. Especially because units will be comprised of individuals who for the most part are not military. What I DO believe is if you have lead in combat before, you should be able to recognize good leadership and bad leadership principles fairly easily. Likewise If someone has "lead before" I expect more of that individual as a leader. Which is also my problem with all the individuals from MPBT who held the stance they did. It did not show that they meant what they said about wanting to blend communities and in my personal opinion was an indication of weak leadership principles.

Regarding your question about the chain of command (or in your words a chain of communication?) I have answered that question several times. Chain of Command should be fair with regards to all gaming communities, not just the MPBT community. That was the stance that several individuals held, claiming that they had an established community that was somehow better than others and they had "earned their keep". That is what started the whole deal. Those same individuals are the ones who started the threat asking what others thought. When they didnt like what we had to say, they got upset and in the end they started their own private forums outside of here. The conversation was settled for the longest time.

Back to my question in regards to leadership : I asked because of your reference to it being easier to lead warriors than soldiers, which I thought was rather strange and gave me the impression you had not served in the military nor been in combat. I dont know why people get upset or "push back" when people ask them to qualify their statements. As I stated before, when I imply warrior, i mean an individual who possesses a true warrior's spirit, and in this case, I mentioned that to me a Soldier who has a warrior's spirit (since not all soldiers do) is far superior than a simply soldier. A Warrior has a much higher standard for himself and his leadership from my personal experience. Simple soldiers do not have the same personal standards and only care about making their jobs as easy as possible, and therefore prefer weaker / more passive leadership.

Hence my statement : Warriors are more difficult to lead than a SIMPLE soldier. While you disagree with that fact, you didnt really make it clear why you believe a soldier is more difficult to lead than a warrior.

I agree with you that words are worthless until tested, and I think that is the exact principle that needs to be focused on when we are talking about individuals here who claim that they are interested in the "Good of the House" but who clearly only care about having control of a Chain of Command.

Edited by Azantia, 06 March 2012 - 09:41 AM.

[Jack Gallows]

Dihm, on 06 March 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

We are gamers.

I am a meat Popsicle.

[L zard]

I'm the bone!

[Azantia]

L`zard, on 06 March 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

I'm the OLD bone!

fixed it for you

[Egomane]

Ok... Time for a little outside interference. Please forget for a moment that we will be on different sides in the game. This is not aimed at house Davion specificaly but at everyone. It is just that the discussion is the most heated in this part of the forum at the moment.

Why I think the CoC of previous Mechwarrior games will not work in MW:O in 5 easy points

Point 1: This is not the good old time. This is a new beginning! We will have new players mixed in with the old. People don't like to be ordered around just because the guy/gal doing it, has done it in the past with others. We should burn down the old and rebuild from the ashes. New players and veterans together. If a CoC is the a result of that rebuilding process, fine. If it is a council of equals, that will be fine as well. If it is something completly different, that also works. But we should rebuild with open eyes, looking for opportunities to work together. Sometimes the old ways are just that: Old!

Point 2: Military leaders are not automaticaly good leaders! Just because you might have lead a squad or platoon somewhere doesn't mean you are qualified to lead in a game. Even if the game is based on a military structure, at its core it remains a game. I have seen a lot of military leaders fail to lead in civil life. The reason for that most of the times is very simple. In the military leadership is given to you and respect is not earned it is given as well. Leadership without true respect will not work outside of the military. No matter in which army you might have served.

Point 3: This game will be available world wide! A leader will have to deal with different cultures, different understandings of right and wrong, different ways of life, different time zones and different ways of leadership. So far, I have not seen one self-proclaimed leader capable of combining all of this together into a working formula. Not only can a single person not be online 24 hours a day 365 days a year, but he can never make it right for everyone. He will drive away as many people or more as he will gather around him. That brings me to...

Point 4: Numbers! Right now we have somewhat over 60k Users registered for the Forum. PGI claims that there is an even higher shadow number of registered players. For the sake of simplicity, let us assume, the total number is 80.000 players. Also for simplicity, let us assume not everyone of them will play MW:O when it is released and cut that number down to 40.000. We now divide them up equally between the six houses, mercs and lone wolfs. That will give you 5.000 players you need to lead. While it might not sound like a lot, this is an army. But unlike a military unit, those are 5.000 individuals that can't be impressed with rank because they are ordered to be impressed. You will have to impress every single one of them to make him or her follow you. Whoever truely achieves that, has my deepest respect. But I will still judge him or her on every move he makes, so that this respect could be a very hard thing to mantain.

Point 5: Fun! This is a game. We are here to have fun, not to be ordered around. If some have fun in being ordered or in leading it is their choice of playing the game, but please never forget that there are others who will not share this goal with you. They are not lesser players because they don't agree with you. I have seen many gaming communities (not online but in the real world) that died, because this has been forgotten over time. Only those communities seem to survive that have no top to bottom structure. Sooner or later it will not be fun anymore to be ordered around. You get power struggling and will poison yourself from the inside. That may be far in the future, but it will happen if you are not very carefull. And it will destroy the fun for everyone even remotly involved.


I'm not saying a chain of command is a bad thing. But I am saying that the way it has been done in the past, or in the military should not be indicators of how it should be in the future. Lets not look at what you have done in the past, but what we can do in the future. This whole topic will probably be much more civilized and constructive then.


Now I will revert back to being a capellan pain in the behind of my enemys. Have fun everyone!

[Azantia]

Forgive my rant for a moment :

1. I cannot agree with you on principle, even if I agree with a majority of your post because, ah, well, your a Cappellan.
2. Never Trust a Cappellan!!
3. I say we use "extreme" interrogation to find out his true purpose here!

/Rant over.

The spirit of your post is appreciated, and I agree with the majority of it.
Now if you will kindly turn to leave, it would make it alot easier for me to stick this knife in your back...Thanks!!

[Demi-Precentor Konev]

I've said this before and I'll say it again:

These House forums are probably here for a reason. If the community is eventually given control over how the House military operates, we will need to be organized. The other Houses will be doing the same thing and the level of competition will escalate quickly. For the game to remain fun, the various houses will need to be on somewhat equal footing. Not a lot of people will want to play MWO if one faction constantly dominates. To achieve that level of organization, we will need to emulate basic concepts of military command. Even if the extent of our control is deciding which planets to attack - that is still a difficult dance to orchestrate. I'm not suggesting we require everyone to read Vom Kriege and write up OPORDs, I'm suggesting that everyone realize that the essence of the BattleTech universe is conflict between the major powers. The more balanced and competitive that conflict is, the more enjoyable the game will be.

[Egomane]

lahyenne, on 06 March 2012 - 11:06 AM, said:

These House forums are probably here for a reason. If the community is eventually given control over how the House military operates, we will need to be organized. The other Houses will be doing the same thing and the level of competition will escalate quickly.

I can't find a similar discussion in the Rasalhague, Kurita, Steiner and Liao Boards (even though I could swear we had one in Liao in the very beginning, but I guess it's just my imagination). Only Marik and Davion seem to be needing it. And the Marik thread has changed from its early intentions, so it leaves your house only. Guess that explains why I only noticed a heated debate here.

From my point of view the others are more into building a team and understanding for their house, while you are trying to create a structure that even in your house is not welcome by everyone. Take a step back, look around you, and try to think about why your way of doing it should be more successfull then that of the others. If you can find good reasons and are able to communicate them to your future comrades in arms (in virtual life), you might succeed in what you try to achieve.

And now I will leave this thread for good. There are to many knifes pointed my way and my doctor said, I should avoid getting stabbed because it is not good for my health.

Edited by Egomane, 06 March 2012 - 12:29 PM.