ghostrider
12/18/15 01:22 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Another thread brought up the concept of how people think commanding a unit is supposed to be done.
I figured to start this thread to see how people think a commander should run his unit.
Anywhere from being the first assault mech on the field in the middle of the firestorm, to sitting on a drop ship or command van in the safest location known on the planet.
It would be interesting to see what people think is the way to go.
I know there are situations that all ways are proper, but I think there is some conversation here that might help newer players and even older ones with ideas.
|
ghostrider
12/20/15 01:32 PM
98.150.102.177
|
Ok. Guess I will put some opinions in here, as no one else seems to be wanting to so far.
Colonel Jamie Wolf.
Normal mech is an archer. He uses the fire support unit to hold back from the front line combat. Not sure if there is someone that actually runs or ran the character if fights, so it might just be fluff the developers made.
I was going to ask why he would choose that mech, but when I started thinking about it, I realized the clans do not like the close in combats like the innersphere does. They prefer the longer ranges to show skills in their gunnery off, not the slop and physicals alot of innersphere units seem to enjoy.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/21/15 05:20 PM
71.100.132.249
|
Command styles are as different as there are snowflakes during a winter night.
One thing that is often overlooked is the difference between a Tactical Commander and a Strategic Commander.
Dictionary.com states that Tactics is the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle. Where Strategy is the science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations. It is important to understand that these two are different skill sets.
Knowing that these two skill sets are different we can look at individual Mechwarrior Commanders and understand why they fought the battles in the manner that they did.
In the first example, Colonel Jamie Wolf. There is no doubt that Jamie Wolf was a sound tactical commander, but when it game to running a long game that required a deep understanding of his enemy, Colonel Wolf failed. While Colonel Wolf could defeat the enemy of a single battlefield, he lacked the expertise to defeat an enemy state on a much larger field.
Take Ulric Kerensky on the other hand. A man proven on the battlefield as an able warrior. I am sure he could lead troops on the battlefield, he was best suited commanding the battlefield from a headquarters. He had mastered the ability to sense the flow of a battle and act accordingly. His actions were normally best seen through the scope of time.
When you ask where a Commander should command his unit. You have to first tell, is this commander a tactical commander or a strategic commander.
Akirapryde
|
ghostrider
12/23/15 09:12 PM
98.150.102.177
|
I was looking to see if people think a support unit could be an effective command unit, or if they have to lead from the front, or sit in a command unit behind the lines.
Even on another world, though the comms lag would be to great for that to be realistic.
I understand that some people think only a mech commander could run a unit properly, since the game seems to imply that. I do think a ground commander would be more effective then say an aero pilot could be. Well atleast for ground combat. Maybe full invasion strategies a aero pilot might be better.
I can understand a vehicle commander having issues with being in combat as the tanks die to quickly to make it even remotely safe.
|
Karagin
12/25/15 02:04 AM
72.176.187.91
|
It comes down to what you want your commander to do, is he going to be the actual guy who keeps the troops fighting and moving? Or is he the one who sits in rear watching it all via the holo display?
To me the commander needs to be mobile, not standing back in the rear of the fight, playing artillery or fire support, he should be moving around making sure that the other lances are doing their jobs. That would go along way to keep morale at a higher level since Joe Snuffy knows his CO is going to be there with him or even the Lance Commander is going to be in the fight too.
The game for the most part is tactical, which means small scale units, not brigade or bigger slugging it out, but more like company on company. So the idea that the commander is in the rear with the support units doesn't quit make the cut in my opinion.
Karagin
Given time and plenty of paper, a philosopher can prove anything.
|
Akirapryde2006
12/25/15 11:06 AM
71.100.132.249
|
Quote:
Karagin writes:
It comes down to what you want your commander to do, is he going to be the actual guy who keeps the troops fighting and moving? Or is he the one who sits in rear watching it all via the holo display?
I agree, the role of the commander would greatly determine where that Commander would be located.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
To me the commander needs to be mobile, not standing back in the rear of the fight, playing artillery or fire support, he should be moving around making sure that the other lances are doing their jobs. That would go along way to keep morale at a higher level since Joe Snuffy knows his CO is going to be there with him or even the Lance Commander is going to be in the fight too.
Yes, at the battalion level and below, you are correct. The Commander should be leading from the front. This can't be illustrated better by the Pop Culture War Film, "We Were Soldiers" based on the actual events of the Battle of la Drang. This is why we have a structure to our command elements. Officers (Captains and below) are the ones you find with the troops. Field Officers (Majors through Colonels) can transition between a static headquarters and a local command situation. Then you have General Staff who normally leads from a static headquarters.
Even my three favorite Commanders throughout history (Alexander the Great, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, Lieutenant General Tadamichi Kuribayashi) understood that while leading from the front could benefit the soldiers' moral during critical moments of the battle. Having a strong and clear understanding of the battlefield and of what your enemy is doing, benefits the entire battle and can shape the outcome of that battle if not the over all war.
Quote:
Karagin writes:
The game for the most part is tactical, which means small scale units, not brigade or bigger slugging it out, but more like company on company. So the idea that the commander is in the rear with the support units doesn't quit make the cut in my opinion.
I agree with you Karagin, Battletech is about company size units and smaller. Lance on Lance can really be a blast. Even the battle between two lone mechs can tip the tides of entire battles.
There are some great campaigns where you are can battle Battalion and larger units against each other. These battles can often take a large amount of time but during these battles, you can really see how some Battletech designs succeed and where others fail completely. Plus taking part in these battles really gives a person a much better insight in to how strategy plays a part in even the smaller battles.
Akirapryde
Cited Source: Battle of la Drang
Cited Source: Alexander the Great
Cited Source: Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
Cited Source: Lt General Tadamichi Kuribayashi
|
|
|
Extra information
|
0 registered and 177 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: Nic Jansma, Cray, Frabby, BobTheZombie
Print Topic
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is enabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Topic views: 4888
|
|
|
|
|
|
|