RLGaming.com

Do you want standing leadership for RLG? Note these folks do not have to take charge all the time, and can designate others to lead missions. Or would you rather select folks on a night by night or missions by mission basis?

I'm ok with each mission picking a leader. Perhaps even pick the missions ahead of time so that they get screened. Whoever screens, leads.

If nothing get's screened, just flip a coin on "sim" night. Can't be worse than current.

The leader doesn't even need experience, really. As long as it's some form of direction.

I think voting or appointing a leader for each mission is sufficient. If they don't have the experience or need some input on a certain situation, they can ask the rest of us what they think the best solution would be and make their decision from there.

Depending on the number of people who show up for a mission, we could break into fireteams and have individual team leaders, and one overall leader giving directions to the team leaders. If just a few of us show up, we can designate one person to lead the mission and issue orders to each team member based on the current mission.

I voted for the second option. IMHO, it would be best if everyone interested in leading a mission would get a chance to do so and it would also be good to have several different leaders for the evening.

I'd agree with panzer on this.

I assume your talking about ArmA stuff. I think for IL2 nights its better to go with section leads if possible

Buffalo Six wrote:I assume your talking about ArmA stuff.

Correct.

roger that.....carry on

Buffalo Six wrote:roger that.....carry on

By the way, I agree with what you said about IL-2 having section leaders. I've found that works the best from my 7+ years of flying IL-2. Sheesh, this November it will be 8 years since the original IL-2 came out.

I didnt mean anything organized, but rather we pick slots in pairs and try to stick together....kinda like we already do.....

Buffalo Six wrote:I didnt mean anything organized, but rather we pick slots in pairs and try to stick together....kinda like we already do.....

Ie we fly in a sort of wingman formation main guy and wingman idea screw the ai lol. Try to support as best we can. and generally follow one person (Buff) to target. Generlly speaking w do discuss the plan in the game to some degree.

VEGETA wrote:and generally follow one person (Buff) to target. .

Ah you mean use Buff as a bullet shield? Good idea!!

keep it up.....I'll fly bad guy side....lol

Buffalo Six wrote:keep it up.....I'll fly bad guy side....lol

lol

nope not to use as a shield, but he has most experience easily, and goo to have someone to lead the way idea

SimHQ does it the 2nd way and they've had little trouble over the past couple of years. There are issues of not enough people wanting to lead the entire mission and the "regulars" getting tired of leading, but that's about it.

I'm in agreement. I think option 2 is sufficient for missions both in the air and on the ground. However, we should discuss reinstituting the ranking system in general for reasons SB mentioned in the other thread.

my opinion - it will get old trying to select a leader for each mission of an evening gaming. unless things start to go slower as they should.

for il2, there should be sections as mentioned. the overall plan is already done for us - follow the waypoints. we could go further and prepare a plan for getting attacked and attacking (section high, section low, section pincer, etc.) or a flight/squadron lead is selected and gives the orders at contact.

pre-planned actions on contact is how ground combat should work as well. there are a few basic situations that are easy to cover with a few different plans of action.

Well it might. But so far, our Tuesday night IL2 group has been doing well in swapping flight leads. Panzer leads ground attack typically. Either myself or Buff have been leading A2A and it's been a fairly natural swapping back and forth. The result is that occasionally you have the challenge of leading others but you're not overly burdened by it. Either way, I'm good with it.