cyberzomby wrote:Also dont forget that a squadleader has eyes on the ground. So they know where the enemy is, what the situation is. If they expect an attack soon and I as a CO order them to move elsewhere Im very happy if the SL informs if the oncoming attack.
Thats why I said the SL should make suggestions or tell the CO if he questions his orders and why he does. Also if you have to inform your co when he wants to send you elsewhere you failed in informing him that you had incoming when you realised you had incoming, but thats not too bad.
What Iam saying is, yes you should object your orders if you see a valid reason, but the final word has always the CO.
The idea is to make suggestions if your CO is a newbie... if he choses not to listen to those suggestions then Diddums FOLLOW HIS ORDERS!!!!!! then when it all goes tits up you simply say "that's what you told me to do..." which is far better than when you go rogue and balls it up for your whole team, that's the COs job
Sadist_Cain wrote:The idea is to make suggestions if your CO is a newbie... if he choses not to listen to those suggestions then Diddums FOLLOW HIS ORDERS!!!!!! then when it all goes tits up you simply say "that's what you told me to do..."
and you just wasted an hour so you could say over and over again 'thats what you told me to do'. you also wasted an hour of the other people in your squad and might have allowed a bad commander to ruin their fun too.
I do agree with Cain and Cassius. We would like to see more Co's (as players) and what do we do? Dont follow orders if we think they suck. Thats not gonna get us more Co's players.
[R-MOD]Saobh wrote:This "Boots on the ground always know better" attitude is ridiculous.
Example: The CO could have received the info that an enemy squad was inbound to cap the flag behind you rendering your cap useless. But on the way where stopped by an other squad or any other reason, so you ended up defending against thin air. But in the end the CO's focus was not having his flags steam rolled while everybody is on the front.
The bottom line as a squad on the ground you see much but you also miss much mostly the big picture that only the CO can have. Thus the importance of following orders, and the chain of command exists however stupid it might look at the moment.
But yeah if you have an inept CO or he isn't receiving the proper intel the situation is going to be a mess. Like in real life... you just have to hope for the best and follow orders.
Or be your own boss
You can find out a lot in team chat. You really don't need the commander that much except when it comes to dropping big bombs. You have to consider that the commander only knows what people tell him. He will always be making decisions on second-hand knowledge and old information.
However this is besides my point, if you're in the middle of capping the enemy's flag you have to understand that aborting a flag cap to travel to another far off flag on foot is a horrible decision and blindly obeying orders is stupid especially in a game where everyone is some random person.
Well you can only find out a lot in teamchat when the squad leaders have time to type it all up. And frankly if they do: they are not performing good enough or are just defending and the enemy hasnt shown up yet.
I agree with you on what your saying about the Commander and finding out. However, when theres someone in charge you can shape up the team and coordinate the team. What if you (sl 1) type to sl2 to attack flag and he think hes got a better plan? Happens a lot in games when theres no CO. Squads run of to there own mission they think is viable.
With a CO he at least sends them on missions that accomplish 1 central objective. At least thats the idea.
viper759 wrote:and you just wasted an hour so you could say over and over again 'thats what you told me to do'. you also wasted an hour of the other people in your squad and might have allowed a bad commander to ruin their fun too.
Its part of the game. So much can ruin your fun. Failed pilot, failed anti tank and yes, failed CO. Bad commanding is part of the game, just like a failed HAT gunner, but they will get better.
Solid Knight wrote:You can find out a lot in team chat. You really don't need the commander that much except when it comes to dropping big bombs. You have to consider that the commander only knows what people tell him. He will always be making decisions on second-hand knowledge and old information.
This is more of a debate as to whether CO orders should be followed but...
You may not need a commander and that he only knows what people tell him but he should really be asking for information. The average Joe may not even know there is a commander as a lot of the time the CO doesn't know what he's doing. The times I've been CO, I'll introduce myself and then go through suqad by squad asking for a SITREP.
A lot of times, you'll find that squads are in trouble, have an enemy contact but won't bother telling their CO. Especially on maps like Kashan, I'll make it clear that I want ALL enemy tank positions reported. Then the reports start rolling in, squads are notified and before you know it, you've won!
This cannot be efficiently done via team-chat. If your CO is reporting enemy locations to the team and communicating with SL's on a personal level and asking for SITREPs etc.. you really should listen to him, help him and he will help you as long as you follow orders.
When, however, you have a CO not speaking, not reporting or anything he really should be doing, I'll mostly ignore them if they give me an order via map markers.
[R-Div]Robbi "There's nothing more skanky than eating out of a tub of hummus with a screwdriver."
[R-DEV]Matrox "CHINAAAAAAA!!!"
Exactly my point! And thats what I do as well. I ask squads whats up and to report. If I see a squad is getting wiped out (with all the skull signs) I ask the squadleader what happend and where he thinks the fire is coming from. I make a mental note, put a marker down and start thinking of how to solve the problem.
The commander argument is actually easy to look at the way I see it.
You either.
A: ***** because another squad put down two firebases in bad spots when you've got a good one but can't place it cause the map is full.
or
B: ***** because the commander is taking forever to give you approval for your firebase that you'd really like to get up and running.
As it stands if you have a decent squadleader your not looking at the game as a 32 vs 32 player game. Your looking it as a six vs whatever shows up in front of you. How many of you actually trust 'smurfs' (Blue players on the map.) I'd bet few of you do.
When I think about the big picture I think more along these lines. How useful are the commanders tools? Most of you have played every PR map many times and thus intel and style of player tends to flow through chat rather quick.
Yes the Jdam and Artillery is destructive but the timer limits its usefulness and its a one shot, two if your lucky per round weapon. You could have this weapon or you could increase your armies strength 1/32th which would make up for that I honestly believe.
The only true usefulness I can see the commander position being forced to be used would be kit allocation and rally placement, However that screws skirmish style maps along with servers starting out. He could be a communications officer and remove teamchat but that really hurts admining a server.
My two cents.
Proof that cheese love is better then any other.
[R-DEV]Cheeseman: "As tempting as the woman in Katarn’s avatar might be I'd still pick Cheese if I had to decide between either one. "
Haha! this reminds me, i was a CO once. And it was Kashan, i was commander from the start.
So i had squads going everywhere, following orders, i wanted to surprise the mec at south village, so i sent an apc with inf there, which was not to use Close combat but long range fire to take tickets from them.
Anyway, i told one squad to go to the north village, but he didnt want to, so i told him noone else is going there. He still said no and he was driving with his truck far far north away from that. Then about 30 seconds later he went to North village saying he would cap it since noone else did it.
Then i told him to go to the south of the South bunker, to build a bunker there. Instead he went straight for south village and was yelling at me telling me to stop doing his job, i was kinda amused at the thought that he was yelling at me. Anyway i asked if he wanted to be part of my team, if he wants to follow orders, he said no. Which was kinda annoing. So i just gave up, and went with a couple of friends in an APC.
If im a SL and the commander gives me an order, i will follow it like he is my god!
Please stop the "thinking" of what is best for the team, if you fell like something is being left out, then tell the commander. But still follow orders so that he sees his mistake, or you see his ingenuity. I swear to god, if i ever will go CO again, ill be damn sure to be able to decide what the different squads will do, and where they will go. Cause if dont get that, im not gonna go CO.
Im hoping that SL could have 500 m informatonal awarness. On the map, so he can only see that on the map. And the SM only sees the squad. and nothing else, maybe important things, but nothing more. Cause well, if i want to be a SL or CO i want to be in complete control. Or else its just not satisfying for me. I might be the only one thinkning this way, but i feel its better. If my squad can only see their squad, and maybe 100 m informational awarness, then i could control my squad alot more, since they fail if they go alone.
As commanders, the SL doesnt always know who is doing who, mainly because of the B/V button we can now speak to individual squads.
But i just think that the attitude towards commanders is really harsh, and should be fixed, i dont know if its hardcoded, but thats what i hear from the devs.
As i proposed, less info for the grunts, and abit more for SL, etc will balance it. But then, what if the team doesnt have a commander?
commanders essentials are to have good intel from squad leaders that tell them about every major contact and all the enemy movements the squad leaders can see. The commanders job is not to take suggestions, its to use his wider judgement to establish a plan and follow it through that takes into account all squad leaders and all contacts. If this doesnt happen, Squads will go off and do their own thing, whereas it would be more effecient and would aid the team if something more coordinated and single-minded was carried out.
however, the problem is commanders who dont have a clue what they are doing (genuinely), then their plans will be dump and so will their overall command. However, that is what i thought the mutiny function is for.....
Depends on how good of a commander he is. If he's constantly in communication with squads, and constantly keeping track of the battlefield, then yes!
If he's asking for orders that are just ridiculous I just start to ignore.
I do have one story from the TG server though. Some clan-member of TG went as commander and told my squad and I to go defend somewhere. The issue was-we were already pinned down in a firefight against 2 enemy squads. I informed him of this, he didn't respond, but kept giving me the order to defend, which I kept denying so that my guys wouldn't get confused.
Finally, the area he told us to defend got capped as we were on our way up after winning the firefight. All I could hear in my ear was him yelling at me for not following orders, and that if I failed to listen to him again, I was getting a kick for not following CO orders.
these are the type of commanders that should be ignored.
Actually,even if you ignore the Commanders on TG, your getting kicked anyways, so ignoring a CO on TG is NOT an option(kinda weird, Admin CO kicks you because you couldn't do the order he wanted you too since you were pinned, and that just ruins teamplay more)
Oh, one more thing, it's kinda on a double standard, having all the clan members operate all armor/air, but all public players are stuck infantry. I don't know if that is how it is at TG, but yeah
Well keep in mind that TG is not a clan but a community. SO! even you can put TG infront of your name just to show you dig that style of play. Thats why it seems TG is playing it all clan-whore like but they arent. Any guy who is just a fan of the TG teamwork can put TG infront of his name.
"