The Two Command Styles
It has come to my attention that there are Two styles of Command, Hard-ass, and Defensive. Hard-Ass: The Style of Command I tend to use. This one is fast and involves eliminatng people and getting eliminated. The Commander acts as a co-ordinator of the attacks. He gives minimal orders that are more the teams objectives then any specifics. Pros Shear number of kills: This style gets you right into the fight. You will eliminate more people using this style then any other command Style. Guts and Glory: With this Command style victory goes to the one with guts and sometimes a heap of luck. If you don't mind the chaos of battle, this Style will insure you get a lot of it. Betters the Team: Because this style leaves a lot to the members of the team. Each member calls upon there own skills. And in the unfortunate event of the commander being hit the other members can pick up the ball and run with it because they already know the game plan and are capable players themselves. Cons Getting Eliminated: Just as it comes with the most kills it also means you will get shot more often. While you still may win, you will almost always lose people in the process. Until your team members are pro at keeping themselves alive you will have to deal with acceptable loses. (And no lose should be so) Hit or Miss: With this style you will win or fail miserably. Moving fast means you are most likely to be surprized or flanked. Your guts will be rewarded or punished and there is no way to know until you've commited. Player skill: Because the Commander does not micro-manage the members of the team, the outcome relys heavily on the individual members to make the right decisions. Otherwise the Commander may have to do it all and leave his "noob" team with no one experience at the helm. Defensive: The style galleon tends to employ. This Style is slow and safe. Every move is planned ahead of time and executed when the commander says so. His orders are detailed and precise. He truely is in Command of his team. Pros Survibility: You will more then likely live throgh entire games using this style because it is slow it ensures amost all angles are covered before proceeding. And because it's members are generally more spread out it is harder to flank the team. "Noob" friendly: Because everything is calculated by the commander the players merely have to do what they are told when they are told to. Very little will the members be forced to think on the fly because of a surprize that wasn't seen. Better command giving: On the battlefeild one quickly learns that long winded orders are only going to eat up time and get people hit. Using this style the commander quickly comes up with simple yet detailed orders for his men. Cons It's slow: The grea-*test*-('") enemy of this style is the clock. While the Commander is thinking what to do next the clock is running out. Under heavy fire the entire game clock can run down before your team has fired a single shot or moved anywhere. Commander incompetence: Just as Hard-Ass style relys on it's members this style relys on it's commander. When the shit hits the fan only one person is to blame. Also if the commander is eliminated the team members may have no idea what to do next as the objectives of the plan may never have been shared completely. Acceptable loses: There a part of te game. Especially when laying seige to an enemy position. While thinkning of a way to get everyone inside the commander may lose because he will not force entry if it involves losing people. Sometime you just got to go for it. Something this style finds hard to do. So what ya think I feel I have given a fair and objective view of the command types. Any comments?

I'd say hard-ass is more noob friendly because you have to act on your own. Also for both command styles if the commander is eliminated the 2nd in command can take charge, there is no point in continuing a plan if you don't know what it is. I'd say you'd know what I'm planning in advance, I did tell you every time before I moved. I'll add more latter. Update the faq as we go along. If anyone can come up with a different command style we can disscuss that as well I think my style might fit attack/defend, and yours might be more full field elimination.

I think Attackand Defend is better if your fast and just go for it. You can't sit at the bottom of the stares thinking what to do and you take so long gettting anywhere when we do get there the game is almost done.

I think there are more varied versions of fighting, besides offesive and defensive. The most level headed and quickest thinking usually tend to do a combination of both in a gunfight.

I came to that realization while I was coming up with the pros and cons of each. The bad of each style can be overcome with the other style.

That's what I tried to say you sat a the bottom trying to figure out what to do and as for your clairity in orders, you would end up leading like I do with everyone knowing what to do. You can't make your record for one day as anything.

You better not be trying to insult me. With all the games you've played you still haven't learned anything, doing the same thing all the time, and always, ALWAYS ending up with heavy losses. At least for that one time when I was commanding, our survival rate was at least 80%, we almost made it to each objective and would have completed it if I had knew how much time was left and most importantaly I did you you couldn't with half as many men and even more restrictions than any of your games ever had. I guess I don't give you any credit for some of your games, but at least I don't toss all of your accomplishments down the tube.

I never tossed your accomplishments down the tubes I just see you spouting all these statistics even though they are based on one game. And you can't really do that and as for me doing the same things over and over and recieving heavy losses. We still win and get stuff done don't I why would I change it?

I have to say well done on the styles post though a little of both would go a long way I think.