Squad Leader Archive

1. A squad is a military unit consisting of several soldiers, larger than a fire team but smaller than a platoon. In most armies a squad consists of between eight (8) and twelve (12) soldiers, sometimes as many as fourteen (14).


2. In the United States Army, a squad is composed of two fireteams, or 8-10 infantry soldiers. A section is roughly equivalent.


3. In the United States Marine Corps, a squad is typically three fire teams and a squad leader who is a junior noncommissioned officer.

Another definition is:

A small group of people organized in a common endeavor or activity.

Now, from these definitions, we see that a Squad is a small group (generally between 8 and 12 men) that are together for a common goal. I think we can all agree that Squad in this defenition is the same as Group in SWG.

Leader:

a person who rules or guides or inspires others

The traits of a military leader can be found in the link contained in my sig. Many of you have seen them already...if you have not, you shoud check them out at some point. As a Leader, no matter what your temp, you will have much more luck if you adhere to those principles.

Now, from this information, we see that a Leader is a person that controls and/or motivates those under him

Combining these 2 together, will will find that a Squad Leader is:

Squad Leader: a person that controls and/or motivates those under him in a small group (generally between 8 and 12 men) that are together for a common goal.

Now, I do hope that we can all agree to that definition. It is not too narrow, yet is specific enough for what we need.

Okay, now that we have the defintion all figured out, what does that do for our profession. Can't anyone technically be our definition and not be a Squad Leader?

Yes, it is true that anyone could technically be a Squad Leader and not have our profession. However, I believe that our profession should be a group of tools that allow someone that has decided to be a leader amonst his peers the tools he needs to acheive those goals.

A Carbineer can lead a group. I believe that the tools we have should allow us to lead better than a Carbineer because they are tools that allow the one with the tools when against anotherequally capable leader (see the definition) to leadhis squad better because of those tools. The tools should have a noticable impact on a squad lead by a Squad Leader that knows how to use the tools. A master Squad Leader should see a noticable difference in how he leads over a novice because he has tools that allow him to do his job better. Think of it this way.

3 Equally capable leaders

# 1 has no Squad Leader. Takes his shoe and hits a nail into a board. It takes some doing, but eventualy it gets done. He was more than capable to do the job, but his tools where lacking.

#2 has Novice SL and perhaps a tree or 2. Takes a hammer from his belt and hit the nail a few times and securly knocks the nail into the wall. He was more than capable to do the job, his tools were able todo the job well, but they were not the best..nor the worst available.

#3 has Master SL. Takes a nail gun and in one pull of the trigger, shoots the nail into the wall. He even has time to insure that the nail is in with no edges to catch someone moving their hand across it. He was more than capable to do his job, his tools were more than enough to do the job and they allowed him to do everyhitng as best he could and more.

#4 calls in hired hands to do the job...but I only said we would look at 3 so #4 will have to take a seat.

As can be seen, all 3 were able leaders. Each one getting the job done. But each one had a bit better tools available to do his job better and faster with more precision.

That is the scale of improvement we should see in the profession. The skills should not be what makes us leaders. It should be how we use those skills that make us leaders. If #3 had been a bad nail guy, could he have used the Nail gun? probably. Would he have done as good a job? No...and he might have injured someone else as well. See, if a Squad Leader doens't have the leadership to use the skills, they will find out when they fail their teams one too many times and no one will group with them..or they will become frustrated with the inability to know how the tools work and move on.

So, we have seen that the abilities of the Squad Leader..as we defined it should have tools available to him to do his jobcontroling and/or motivating those under him in his small group (generally between 8 and 12 men) that are together for a common goal.

Now that we know what a SL is and what the profession should do for him, let's look at how this new Squad Leader should fit in. How does a person in command of a small group of men with an equal goal successfully control and/or motivate those under him with the tools that have been given to him?

Now we get to the parts that we have all been duking it out over. I will split these 2 issues and address each one and how they fit into the question I have underlined.

Multiple Squad Leaders. Many Squad leader currently desire to see only one leader in the group. Now, in general, a squad should have one leader. This leader is not the guide that knows all about the DWB or how to PVP. Its the one that is actually using the tools to control or motivate the squad. If someone is really good with leading in PVP, then they should be picking up SL if they wish to lead at peak effeciancy anyway. Now this one leader is needed to prevent confusion in commands. No where did we see in either definition that 2or more people lead a squad, nor did that even work with the definition of leader. Now, this doesn't mean that a chain of command is not there. I think having a chain of command in a Squad would be a valuable tool to a good Squad Leader. As such, I feel it should be a tool for the Squad Leader in their profession. That being said, I think that at Novice Squad Leader, they shoud be able to lead a squad as they already do now....BUT, at Master Squad Leader, a tool that allows one extra member (9 man group) be added that is designated as a 2nd in command. This #9 player would have the ability to function most SL skills as a 2nd SL. Some skills would be reserved for the Primary Squad Leader. Now with this, a Squad leader that is a GL or is in a group lead by a Novice SL, would still be able to function at a severlly lower level. Such as giving hindered individual buffs. Those skills available would be watered dow to make it clear tha the SL is not in the cahin of command, and would mimick more of a member helping a fellow member out. Any command given by a SL not in the chain of command would be removed should the leader or secondary give a command that would be in conflict with it. The primary would have have all commands available, the secondary would have all but the most vital like retreat or 2nd chance available and the misc SLs that are not in the command would only have commands that have no negaitve impact on the Squad to use...such as individual buffs..and furthermore, the Primary leaders skills would funtion at 100% where as the secondary would funtion at 60% and the nonleaders would function at 33% Example...a skill that adds +100 accuracy by the primary would give +60% y the secondary and +33% by a nonleader. By that same token, should a nonleader apply a 33% buff and the secondary applies the same buff, the buff owuld be removed and replaced by the 60% or 100% buff. The Master Squad Leader remains a desired skill, the secondary is a vital edge in combat still, and the nonleaders are nice to have, but not uber and not controling in any fashion over the 2 in the command...and the same goes with the secondary being under the primary.

This allows the one squad leader to have no conflict in command within his group. It allows the Master Squad Leader to gain the benefit of extra help because of "rank" (master) and gain a powerful tool that a master box should have...and gain the ability to expand their group by one so that the team benefits from the extra guidance of a secendary leader, and gains a benefot from having a Master Squad Leader and lose no offensive power over a group of 8. All very beneficial to the entire group. I beleive this would be a good compromise. Many of those in favor of multiple SLs have said that 2 would be what they had in mind and that more than that would be bad. Many in favor of one have indicated that 2 would be acceptable but no more than that. This idea meets in the middle and makes it a reward for the profession as well. Anyone can lead, but the Masters that have put all the SP into it get the biggest benefits. Other SLs in the squad are clearly able to help, but in a very redduced role to show that they are not in the chain of command. Their skills would be something like 50% of the secondary SL.

SL=GL. I am sure after reading the compromise in multiple SLs you have an idea of where I will go here. I believe that there is a compromise here as well. The Squad Leader leads, the tools available at GL areneededby the squad leader in controling and motivating his squad. I don't think that SLs should be forced to be leader, but that they should be the group leader to be most effective. If a novice squad leader wishes to use his skills in a group that is not run by a Master Squad Leader, he will need to take the GL position, or run the commands at a severe reduction. If a Master SL wishes to run at full effeciancy, he will need to be GL or run at a server reduction as well. The GL allows the Master SL to add a 2nd leader to the group and designate them as such so that they can help the group in the fashion set out above. The group leader position is needed to handle the delegation of powers and determine who is primary lead and who is secondary. The only way to have 2 in the group is for the master SL to be GL.

This allows a compromise as GL will remain vital if a SL wishes to funtion at 100% and allows the members to know who is in charge, but not needed to function in small ways.

The end result is a group that is structured. GL being the Master Squad Leader who designates his secondary while allowing others to give commands that would benefit the group while not being apart of the Chain of command. This would seem to me to be a fair compromise on these issues.

What would this system look like?

MSL/GL = 100%> MSL or NSL/2nd =60%> all other SLs in the group = 33%

NSL/GL = 100% > all other SLs in the group = 33%

No SL/GL > all other SLs in the group = 33%

There, now we have multiple SLs, a clear chain of command, balance issues fixed, and no one is forced to be GL unless they want to actually lead the group with all their tools at peak 100% effeciancy.

Finally, I don't know if the devs can take any part of this and factor it in..if that is even possible in the programming to do. Perhaps many will see it and tear it right down. Give feed back if you care. Reality is, the current system lacks a defining chain of command. I believe this compromise will achieve just that.

I have stepped forward to givea compromise to all SLs and the devs. Will anyone else stop forward with a compromise or add to /modify what I have here? I admit it is rough as I am typing it late at night, but surely there is something within that all can agree on since it caters to all sides and addresses all opinions in what I hope is blanaced why still keeping with the primary question of....How does a person in command of a small group of men with an equal goal successfully control and/or motivate those under him with the tools that have been given to him?

If you read this far, I salute you for giving me a chance to put forward my thoughts and I hope that an agreement can be made between all as we need to act more like leaders in the Squad Leader forum and less like Bounty Hunters and Jedi.

---

Short_Timer wrote:

Actually the phrase "Attn Squad Leader: You are needed in the Officer's Club" sounds similar to the sort of radio messages I get when doing my part-time doormans job...............

OMG - A squad leader relaying an order to another squad leader. Is that possible? Could it work? Should it be allowed?

*sarcasm off*

---