Chain of command

General questions and discussions on water warfare regarding tactics and strategies.
Post Reply
mutuhaha
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2005 2:14 am
Location: Singapore

Post by mutuhaha » Tue May 01, 2007 6:19 am

Chain of command

Sorry but this article's quite disorganized (the irony...) as I started it a couple months back and only just decided to finish it.

Tactical: Ground zero, actual combat situations, where the water and balloons fly.

Strategic: Encompasses the planning of a battle, setting objectives, identifying and countering strategems.

Especially for large teams (10+, though there are often 20+ in local context)), a chain of command would be a very effective cornerstone for team tactics and strategy. In this article, I’ll detail some ideas about how a team can be run, though remember that this is merely one way, and definitely not the only solution to all large team organization or classification.

Squads: Squads are a good way of organizing large numbers of troops. The typical squad is an infantry squad, the backbone of the war effort. Their function is critical, though it is possible to have strategies with only specialist squads involved.

Specialist squads include:
- Artillery Batteries (WBL loadouts for example)
- Special Ops (Smaller, set to accomplish important objectives which don’t require an exit strategy, maybe with camouflage)
- Reconnaissance (Surveillance)
- Skirmishers (Normally a loosely grouped, maneuverable squad, sometimes slightly suicidal)
- Armoured squads (They have armour)
- Command squad (Optional, depending on whether centralized/semi-centralized command would be advantageous)

These specialist squads normally focus on a certain style, and can provide invaluable support. Some specialist squads may be smaller / larger than the default infantry squad, depending on their role.

A sample squad of 6 may include:
- 1 squad leader
- 1 communications officer
- 1 heavy weapons gunner (HWG)
- 3 infantry
All with light infantry loadout, except the HWG.

Certain squads may need or promote add-on personnel, such as artillery spotters and supply officers.

Different types of squads have different purposes; combination of squad loadouts and roles is advised to make your force more dynamic, and unpredictable. Squads with an armour loadout and a skirmishing role, for example, can work well on keeping pressure on the front in an urban situation, with good mobility as shields would not restrict movement very much in urban, while it could be terrible in jungle.

Commander: The commander is the strategic head of the team. As such, he is in charge of forming and implementing a good strategy as well as identifying and countering enemy strategems. He must have a bird’s eye view of the entire battle and could have a command squad which assists him in relaying orders, collecting intelligence and defending him from attacks.

Captains: When teams are too large to be controlled by a single commander, captains may assist by taking charge of battlegroups (groups of squads)

Sergeants: When the teams are really too big to be controlled by a commander and captains, appointing some capable/potential leaders may be good to keep some semblance of organization at the “lower” (not indicative of importance, as the “lower” ranks are very important as well) ranks.

The main rationale for appointing leaders closer to the tactical level and ground zero is to help dampen the effects of bad or incomplete decisions from the top. The commander and captains direct the overall strategy (e.g. take this point, cut of supply lines), while the sergeants take care of the micromanagement in achieving these directives (e.g. covering fire, formation, etc). If the top makes a mistake, the field leaders can still save the situation with prudent tactics. However, if the bottom makes a mistake, the top can do little to remedy the situation, hence, the bottom is arguably of greater (or at least equal) importance than the top.

This is a form of linear, conventional command system, which may work against certain kinds of opponents, for example a totally and truly disorganized enemy, who doesn’t have the capability to even plan or coordinate moves. However, against an unconventional command system, where there actually is organization (just not in a linear form), then things may be a little different. Or another type would be an opponent with no formal organization, but excellent teamwork. Or another with high skill alone. But I’m too lazy to list down all the different kinds of opponents; not that I’ve encountered them all in the first place.

To end, here’s one that could be useful.




Edited By mutuhaha on 1178018522
118th Urban Corp

Adeptus Exterminatus Extremis, Noobis Exitus Proxima

User avatar
isoaker
Posts: 7115
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 2004 1:51 pm
Location: Elsewhere
Contact:

Post by isoaker » Tue May 01, 2007 6:14 pm

Good article with some interesting ideas and info! Could be useful for those newer to organizing teams and not quite ready to attempt 'fluid'-type teams.

May I repost it on iSoaker.com?

:cool:
:: Leave NO one dry! :: iSoaker.com .:

DX
Posts: 3495
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2004 8:35 am
Contact:

Post by DX » Tue May 01, 2007 9:53 pm

It's very good advice and not actually that conventional.
The main rationale for appointing leaders closer to the tactical level and ground zero is to help dampen the effects of bad or incomplete decisions from the top. The commander and captains direct the overall strategy (e.g. take this point, cut of supply lines), while the sergeants take care of the micromanagement in achieving these directives (e.g. covering fire, formation, etc). If the top makes a mistake, the field leaders can still save the situation with prudent tactics. However, if the bottom makes a mistake, the top can do little to remedy the situation, hence, the bottom is arguably of greater (or at least equal) importance than the top.


^ That is the basic goal shared by all command systems. The only significant difference between more linear and more fluid command is how the ranks interact with each other. Basically, whether decisions can ride back up the chain of command as efficiently as they go down. Most would find it out of place for a captain to give an order to a full commander, but when the command style is laid back to begin with and a mistake is eminent, that may be a necessity. Mistakes at the bottom can be fixed [the Founder Defense covers that role], but it takes a lot of cohesion to pull off the save in time.

A linear command system is probably actually better when the team and/or squad is huge. Fluid command simply breaks down with that many people. Honestly, I suck at leading a large army, because there are simply too many options that people want to pursue and so many potential mistakes.
marauder wrote:You have to explain things in terms that kids will understand, like videogames^ That's how I got Sam to stop using piston pumpers

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests