Too loyal?

[Ludio]

Many people on the forum have an extreme view of what they expect as a commander or what they will do for their commander. They seem to demand, or are willing to give complete and utter loyalty. I think that loyalty will be important, but I think that flexibility and the ability to ignore/change orders according to the situation will be imperative.

An example of the loyalty that some expect on these forums can be found in the Japanese Military during WW2. To quote Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan: "Inferiors were taught to regard the orders of their superiors as issuing directly from the emperor. This meant that orders were infallible and obedience to them had to be absolute and unconditional."

I think that a better method is taught by the US military for Ranger units. This chapter is for Special Light Infantry Operations from the Ranger Unit Operations manual. Under section 6-4 MOUT it says: "Offensive operations by a ranger force exploit the centralized planning and decentralized execution aspects of ranger unit training. Individual action and initiative are always channeled to accomplish the commander's intent. The ranger unit's offensive tactics are based on quick action and boldness."

So what do you think? Any intelligent discussion/debate is encouraged.

[Incompetent]

This, to me, boils down to your basic arguement of, does the guy with the map make the call or the guy in foxhole. Personnaly i think relying to much on high command gets people killed and impedes operations, and the NCOs and juniour officers are the best equipped to make decisions in most situations, as long as they make sure their overall goals are accomplished when they need to be.

[TheGreatCarbini]

Hehe, I was neevr very loyal to anyone or thing, just helpfull. Tell me to jump off a cliff for the cause and I'll say "hell no." But if you got a flat tire, I'm your enginer!

I am the rouge enginner, I appear from the shadows to maintain automobiles, then AWAY i go like a fox into a lake. WHOOSH!

[Ludio]

I was mostly refering to the Riddle of Command thread that Airlift started, as well as a few others about teamwork and such. In that thread many potential commanders argued that if someone disobeys their command they would kill them/kick them immediately. What if you ordered them to clear a room, but on their way they got held up, or saw a more important objective and forgot/didn't have time to tell you. By their logic they would kill/ban them, but they may have saved your squad.

I'm not talking about the guy sitting in a sanctuary and looking at the map, I'm talking about the guy in another part of the base commanding your squad.

[Incompetent]

Tell me to jump off a cliff for the cause and I'll say "hell no."

Jumping off a cliff on command isn't loyalty, it's retarded, Loyalty is following your friends into hell and trying to make sure that they come back, even if you die, and trying to accomplish your mission even at the expense of your life.

[Ludio]

Maybe I wasn't clear at the beggining, I'm not talking about loyalty to your fellow soldier. Basically it boils down to this: As a commander do you place more importance on loyalty or innovation.

[Incompetent]

In that case, still the same answer, they should try to accomplish their objective, if something,well, better comes up, they should try and get that too, but they should remember that people are depending on that room being clear, and people could die if it's not. Of course if they run into a major enemy group on the way, you can't really blame them.

Edit: thats not loyalty imho, thats being a springloaded puppet, so i would defenintly want my people to innovate.

[TheGreatCarbini]

Incompetent, thats what I'm saying, I would only go to hell and back if the trip was paid for and had good catering. Err NM I mean I would fight till the end for for some of my closest friends. But simply for the good of the empire? Nah, there's always another day.

[Tobias]

Heres my view, If the commander is one you know is good and who wont give you shit orders, take the order even if it looks stupid, it might be stupid or it might not be, but your not insubordanate to some one who commands you alot. If its a pick up platoon and you think the commander is a Joe blow who does not have a clue what hes doing? Leave, you should not be with him to begin with.

[Zatrais]

I don't care how its done, only matters than it gets done. Lets say i order 3 guys to take a tower, i won't tell them how to do it like mindless chimps because once they're there they'll be in a better position to judge how to take it than me. However, if they say no i don't won't do it i'll kick them out of the squad/platoon.

Do it or die trying basicly.

Course, if they say they need backup they'll get backup, tank support, whatever aslong as i have it.

[zMessiahz]

Loyalty or innovation? Thats a tough question to answer. You want both of course. Here is the problem... With commanders a soldier will follow their orders only if they respect the commander. IF the soldier thinks the commander is jsut some random idiot, then he won't. A commander wants his soldier to do the right thing. Follow orders and take opportunities to further the cause at the same time. With a soldier the commander doesn't know he is going to want complete obedience. With a soldier he respects he will want innovation. Its a two way street. Especially considering this is an online game and any person you hook up with you are 90% garunteed that that person is going to have a huge ego and think they are the smartest/best player in the game.

[MrVulcan]

Here is how i look at it:
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

I will tell a group that I need them on the other side of that hill. I wont tell them how to get to the other side of that hill, they can take the orbital system, a drop ship, run left, land transport right, go over it, under it?, throguh it? etc..., ill let them suprise me with their own skills, thats their job, But i do expect them to get to the other side of the hill.

"An Army is a team; lives, sleeps, eats, fights as a team. This individual heroic stuff is a lot of crap."

I dont see why everyone is worried about their own 2 or 3 pts for 1 battle or another, there will be more battles, you will get beps and ceps, there is no hurry.... You dont have to be the 1 who kills every on the field... Giving 1 for the teem is much more important, and in the long run it will make it so you will be able to get more bep/cep then before, when the next person gives one for the teem....

[Ludio]

Originally posted by MrVulcan
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity."

I like that, a good saying for commanders to keep in mind. I just have a feeling that some commanders will want to tell people how to do stuff as well.

Btw, where did you get that? It was in "" so I assume you are quoting someone.

[OneManArmy]

Originally posted by Incompetent
This, to me, boils down to your basic arguement of, does the guy with the map make the call or the guy in foxhole.

The guy with the map damn well better be in that foxhole with me or I'm going to make my own decisions on how to get the required job done.

[txMaddog]

Tough question...

As a Commander I really wouldn't care how the mission got done as long as it did.

In the example you gave I'd tell the squad leader 'Good Job!! Now go clear the room! '. He (the squad leader) is the 'man in the foxhole' so has access to more real-time data than me.

Now if said squad leader ran off to another base cause he was bored or heard that it was undefended ya I'd kick him.