Project Reality Forums

Note: This post is intended to be an example for a gentlemen's agreement for squad leaders and commanders. If You are not going to take one of those playing positions during the game, You may very well ignore it.




Motivation
Currently, we have a playing culture that defines a strict relationship between the squad leader (SL) and the squad member (SM), with all authority and disciplinary measures lying in the hands of the SL. With one or two exceptions, once a SM joins a squad, he either accepts the leadership of a SL, or he leaves it.
However, there is no such clause in the relationship between the SL and the commanding officer (CO). While the first demands full authority, the latter often must beg so that his orders followed.
This situation not only makes it difficult for the commander to bring his strategy and playing style into motion, but often confronts him with ignorance or disrespect from the squad leaders and other team players, and is one of the reasons why the CO position is a very unpopular one on public servers.

Proposal:

Three rules should be implemented for to establish a GOOD LEADERSHIP PRACTISE of the CO-SL-SM command chain:

1. The CO position must not to be taken by an unexperienced or even new player. Since the commanders role requires multi-task approach in leading human subordinates, the CO player should have at least some experience in squad leading. Also, knowledge about the games assets, rules and playing modes. Thus, the natural progression from squad member to squad leader to commander should be absolved by every aspiring officer, which then should be able to judge what is expected from him: Decisions in strategy, logistics/organization and squad coordination are his tasks, and not tactics.

However, the playing style solely depends on the CO player. Beeing new to the role, he might want to help out with re-organization, communication and logistics of the squads and ask for the opinion of the SLs. Old wolves, on the other hand, might want to give the team a kick with defined orders and a full battle plan. It is the responsibility of the SL to decide how far he is able to utilize this important position.

2. If the CO does not know how to play his position technically, he is wasting assets (soldiers and equipment). In that case, he should either step down immediatly from his position or be reported to the server admins. Basically, the same rules apply to a lame CO as to untrained incompetent helicopter pilots or a driver solo-ing his tank. Note that there are some servers on which You might be kicked this kind of destructive behaviour.

3. CO orders have to be followed by the SLs. Period.
In reality, a bad commander means You are going to die, or You are good enough to perform a tactical miracle and win the situation. You may suggest him another order, but in the end, the COs decision is binding.
Also both, the SL and CO, agree to comply with good communication practices (i.e the CO adressing single squad leaders, the SL initiating communications by "Squad 4 here, over!", and waiting for the CO reply, general use Voice over IP, et cetera).
Of course, plain stupid orders ("Run around in circles like a squad of chickens") should be ignored. In such cases, the CO is attempting to waste assets. See (2) on how to proceed further.


There are some servers out there on which CO orders have to be followed. I hope that more of them will take these rules into their policy, and that SLs and COs re-think their relationship and hopefully, adapt these suggestion into their gameplay. Having an potentially influential CO position will have a huge positive impact on the gameplay of this mod. After all, 9/10 of all players do want to have a commanding officer on top of the command chain.

Cheers,

Gibbon-6




p.s.: Please sign this is You comply to this agreement, or feel free to share You thoughts on this topic.

There should be tests and trials COs and SLs go through before being allowed to be a CO or SL. PR should maintain a list of approved players who are signed off in their training records and run a script that checks who the CO is or SL is. If the player is not signed off on his training records then he will not be allowed to form a squad or become a CO.

wuschel wrote: 1. The CO position must not to be taken by an unexperienced or even new player. Since the commanders role requires multi-task approach in leading human subordinates, the CO player should have at least some experience in squad leading. Also, knowledge about the games assets, rules and playing modes. Thus, the natural progression from squad member to squad leader to commander should be absolved by every aspiring officer.

However, the playing style solely depends on the CO player. Beeing new to the role, he might want to help out with re-organization, communication and logistics of the squads and ask for the opinion of the SLs. Old wolves, on the other hand, might want to give the team a kick with defined orders and a full battle plan. It is the responsibility of the SL to decide how far he is able to utilize this important position.

Really now? My first 3 games of PR went like this. First one, SL, second one Medic, third one CO.

I was even recognized in the "Player Recommendation Thread" for commanding. There are always exceptions to the rules and I think this is sort of, elitist.

TBH, of course experience can help, but being a CO is basically playing some sort of RTS. In other words, you don't need to be good at aiming, or shooting, or what-not (in-game). You don't even need to be a good SL. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean good SL's don't mean better CO's. I mean, I know I am good at closed SLing (I'm bad at pubbing SLing).

What I am trying to say is that, a CO should know the limits of the game, but he definately doesn't have to be good at it. I am horrible at manning tanks (espeically driving), flying aircraft (asside from transports helis) and bad at sniping, but I definately know how far they can go. That's what you need for a CO. Someone who knows what each squad can do, someone who is some-what stubborn (against SLers), and can plan for the worse (in other words, be aggressive, but be cautious)

In this version a lot of players don't know how to respond to a commander just because they've never actually had one.

Also, if you play on Tactical Gamer, which I almost always do, it's a server rule that CO orders must be followed. If a squad doesn't listen then you just report them

Already do this but I agree. Especially on the third one. If your commander comes up with a weird order from the SL perspective, suggest a new one. If you still need to execute the original one do it. Just blaim the CO if anyone wonders why your doing this.

Its a slap in the face for the CO, if he decided to stare at a map screen for 1,5 hours and you negate his orders because you have a better idea.

wuschel wrote:Note: This post is intended to be an example for a gentlemen's agreement for squad leaders and commanders. If You are not going to take one of those playing positions during the game, You may very well ignore it.


Motivation
Currently, we have a playing culture that defines a strict relationship between the squad leader (SL) and the squad member (SM), with all authority and disciplinary measures lying in the hands of the SL. With one or two exceptions, once a SM joins a squad, he either accepts the leadership of a SL, or he leaves it.
However, there is no such clause in the relationship between the SL and the commanding officer (CO). While the first demands full authority, the latter often must beg so that his orders followed.
This situation not only makes it difficult for the commander to bring his strategy and playing style into motion, but often confronts him with ignorance or disrespect from the squad leaders and other team players, and is one of the reasons why the CO position is a very unpopular one on public servers.

Proposal:

Three rules should be implemented for to establish a GOOD LEADERSHIP PRACTISE of the CO-SL-SM command chain:

1. The CO position must not to be taken by an unexperienced or even new player. Since the commanders role requires multi-task approach in leading human subordinates, the CO player should have at least some experience in squad leading. Also, knowledge about the games assets, rules and playing modes. Thus, the natural progression from squad member to squad leader to commander should be absolved by every aspiring officer.

However, the playing style solely depends on the CO player. Beeing new to the role, he might want to help out with re-organization, communication and logistics of the squads and ask for the opinion of the SLs. Old wolves, on the other hand, might want to give the team a kick with defined orders and a full battle plan. It is the responsibility of the SL to decide how far he is able to utilize this important position.

2. If the CO does not know how to play his position technically, he is wasting assets (soldiers and equipment). In that case, he should either step down immediatly from his position, or be kicked from the server. Basically, he has to suffer the same consequences as a incompetent helicopter pilot or a driver solo-ing his tank.

3. CO orders have to be followed by the SLs. Period.
In reality, a bad commander means You are going to die, or You are good enough to perform a tactical miracle and win the situation. Also both, the SL and CO, agree to comply with good communication practices (i.e the CO adressing single squad leaders, the SL initiating communications by "Squad 4 here, over!", and waiting for the CO reply, general use Voice over IP, et cetera).
Of course, plain stupid orders ("Run around in circles like a squad of chickens") should be ignored. In such cases, the CO is attempting to waste assets. See (2) on how to proceed further.


There are some servers out there on which CO orders have to be followed. I hope that more of them will take these rules into their policy, and that SLs and COs re-think their relationship and hopefully, adapt these suggestion into their gameplay. Having an potentially influential CO position will have a huge positive impact on the gameplay of this mod.



Cheers,

Gibbon-6


p.s.: I kindly ask the moderators to make a vote about his topic. Thanks.

Really, I think you should edit your first role, as combat experience in the game itsellf for tactical sitiuation sis not really needed siince this a game, however i agree that he has to be knowledgeable of the game assets and limititation, however this does not require the player to be experienced at, any player who read the whole PR manual (which i did before i even tried the game, and found it really useful) shoeld ave more than of a clear pciture of what his faction is capable of, he also can rely on some important notices and advices given the manual to facilitate making right strategical decisions.

There is slight contradiction in terms if you are talking about gentlemen's agreement and enforced server kicks at the same time.

Taken from Gentlemen's agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"A gentlemen's agreement is an informal agreement between two or more parties. It may be written, oral, or simply understood as part of an unspoken agreement by convention or through mutually beneficial etiquette. The essence of a gentlemen's agreement is that it relies upon the honor of the parties for its fulfillment, rather than being in any way enforceable. It is, therefore, distinct from a legal agreement or contract, which can be enforced if necessary. The phrase's first recorded use was in 1888 in the Report of the Railway Accounting Officers published by the Association of American Railroads Accounting Division (page 337)."

Hello,

thanks for the replies, and thanks for bringing the other vote topic to the top, which clearly states that 9 of 10 players do want to have a commander coordinating the game.

Ome99 wrote:Really, I think you should edit your first role, as combat experience in the game itsellf for tactical sitiuation sis not really needed siince this a game, however i agree that he has to be knowledgeable of the game assets and limititation, however this does not require the player to be experienced at, any player who read the whole PR manual (which i did before i even tried the game, and found it really useful) shoeld ave more than of a clear pciture of what his faction is capable of, he also can rely on some important notices and advices given the manual to facilitate making right strategical decisions.

Of course You can command without having ever led a squad, or even without even beeing in a firefight in PR. However, note this: Without having been in the heat before, I think You are going to be overwhelmed by all the information that is relayed to You.
Also, You will not be able to make good judgement in many situations. It is easy to command a squad to attack a specific enemy position just to see them fail. In may be better to know that this squad is not going to make it, because it lacks certain kits, or it is attacking in very unforgiving terrain.

In short, my point is this: As a squadleader, how can You understand Your squadmembers, if You have never actually been one? The same applies for the CO, who should have played a SL in order to command him in a good and effective way. As a CO, You have to know what is important, what is expected from You, and what is not.

[quote=""'[R-MOD"]Eddiereyes909;1057868']Really now? My first 3 games of PR went like this. First one, SL, second one Medic, third one CO.

I was even recognized in the "Player Recommendation Thread" for commanding. There are always exceptions to the rules and I think this is sort of, elitist.[/quote]

Sorry, but as You said it: You are an exception. Playing for the first time, the majority of the players does not perform well as squad leader, and for sure, they do not know what to do as commander.

Also, this is not about elitism, but it is about making the overall CO-SL-SM gameplay better. Do You think military officers start out as Grand-Fieldmarshals?

[quote="lucky14""]TBH, of course experience can help, but being a CO is basically playing some sort of RTS. In other words, you don't need to be good at aiming, or shooting, or what-not (in-game). You don't even need to be a good SL. Nonetheless, it doesn't mean good SL's don't mean better CO's. I mean, I know I am good at closed SLing (I'm bad at pubbing SLing).

What I am trying to say is that, a CO should know the limits of the game, but he definately doesn't have to be good at it. I am horrible at manning tanks (espeically driving), flying aircraft (asside from transports helis) and bad at sniping, but I definately know how far they can go. That's what you need for a CO. Someone who knows what each squad can do, someone who is some-what stubborn (against SLers), and can plan for the worse (in other words, be aggressive, but be cautious)[/quote]

Exactly. It is just that we an RTS here that requires a high level of communication skills and making the best decisions on the basis of a limited amount of information.

fubar++ wrote:There is slight contradiction in terms if you are talking about gentlemen's agreement and enforced server kicks at the same time.

Taken from Gentlemen's agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are right. I will change the text accordingly.

Thanks, keep it coming.


Gibbon-6

i like having a good CO, but a bad CO can really suck the fun out of a round. i have had commanders than will refuse to use the specific squad VOIP channels to give orders, totally clogging up the VOIP so bad that i have to mute them (even after i repeatedly asked him to use specific channels and told him how). i have had other commanders give me an order to attack a certain area (via the map markers) and then proceed to spam me with the same request over and over cause i moved my marker (to spot an enemy, for instance) even though i confirmed his order over VOIP. when you get a combination of these two problems, having a CO makes the game far less enjoyable.

that being said...having a good commander who knows what he's doing can make the game much more fun. sadly, we see good commanders about 1 out of 20 times. i will follow CO orders until the CO demonstrates that he doesnt know what he's doing. i will not listen to COs that clearly dont know what they're doing, or COs that tell me where to put my RP (yeah, that's happened...CO told Murdercitydevil to put down his RP when we were literally surrounded by enemies, then proceeded to spam us with negative commander remarks like "my grandmother could do better").

if you're going to be CO, you MUST use specific VOIP squad channels. otherwise, you're most likely hurting your team more than helping.

Also, the CO can't be overbearing. Let the Sler's do the tactics, while the CO does the strategy.

lucky14 wrote:Also, the CO can't be overbearing. Let the Sler's do the tactics, while the CO does the strategy.

Of course-la, as I wrote in my statement:

As a CO, You have to know what is important, what is expected from You, and what is not.

Not tactics but strategy, logistics and squad coordination is part of the CO life. Added that to point (1).

Threedroogs wrote:i like having a good CO, but a bad CO can really suck the fun out of a round.

[...]

if you're going to be CO, you MUST use specific VOIP squad channels. otherwise, you're most likely hurting your team more than helping.

True. These kind of COs should be removed from the position as fast as possible, as they are practically wasting assets ( in Your case that would be disturbing the communication.

See also points 1-3 of the Gentlemen's agreement. Experienced player would not do it.

Antonious_Bloc wrote:In this version a lot of players don't know how to respond to a commander just because they've never actually had one.

Once I take the CO position, I try to give all of them a quick radio HOWTO via text chat and inform them about my leading style. That helps in most cases, although I have to repeat that.

Antonious_Bloc wrote: Also, if you play on Tactical Gamer, which I almost always do, it's a server rule that CO orders must be followed. If a squad doesn't listen then you just report them

Yes, I wish this would be on every server in the game.