What Makes a Good FF Leader?

[DeletedUser]

Chuck's a good leader himself. He definitely likes to experiment until he gets a strategy right. He's also patient, which is an important quality in a good leader. Cussing people out doesn't do any good, though even good leaders can get frustrated sometimes, they just don't make a habit of it. Oh yeah, one more good quality: less is more. Too many leaders give way too many orders: KISS applies to fort battles. Six orders in a round is too much. There are exceptions there though too, because some are capable of micromanaging effectively, but as a rule it's counterproductive.

 

[DeletedUser]

It's disproved with a thousand bad battles with a leader who thought he had a great plan. You're confusing the map with the territory.

Good leaders use the numbers to their favor. Please tell me how bunching up on one side with 6-7 attackers shooting each exposed defender is quantitatively better than having 50 attackers shoot at 1 defender?

 

[DeletedUser]

Good leaders use the numbers to their favor. Please tell me how bunching up on one side with 6-7 attackers shooting each exposed defender is quantitatively better than having 50 attackers shoot at 1 defender?

Did I say huddling was good? But how is your strat not bunching up where four towers can shoot at them, including that dangerous DT? If everyone's going to have LOS on the attackers, it's obviously better if they're on the ground than on towers, even with a bit of distance.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you didn't notice, even with the failed implementation, many defenders on point were almost ko'd. Had everyone lined up correctly or even better, we started in the SE corner, it would have been very devastating for the defenders. Just manage the points of exposure and you have 10 defenders down in 10 rounds. There's no other way to make it 50 v 30 in a shorter amount of time.

 

[DeletedUser]

If you didn't notice, even with the failed implementation, many defenders on point were almost ko'd. Had everyone lined up correctly or even better, we started in the SE corner, it would have been very devastating for the defenders. Just manage the points of exposure and you have 10 defenders down in 10 rounds. There's no other way to make it 50 v 30 in a shorter amount of time.

When your whole plan is focusing fire on one point, with the sacrifice of giving enemy more LoS, getting the defender there almost ko'd isn't enough. Also you should note that defenders aren't forced to fill that toughest spot, they can leave it open to spread damage. In that battle they filled it because they could. I suppose it was easier to do in a tower that gives best bonus to biggest tanks.

I do acknowledge that there's certain logic in going against the strongest point in defense when you're at your strongest too but at least there it was asking for too much. It might still be worthwhile to try the plan against some other tower but don't think it'll be 50 vs 30 if the defenders know what they're doing.

 

[DeletedUser]

Finally, someone who understands. Thank you, Chuck.
Bailing point would halve the effectiveness, though the attackers would still have four times the los as bunching up and attacking the wall. And after that, how much can the defenders bail before resorting to just holding the blind? The attackers could easily move on to the next tower whilst removing themselves from los of the towers on the opposite side.

 

[Deleted User - 1693871]

I love this topic, so many good laugh out louds in it.

 

[DeletedUser]

What's so funny?

 

[DeletedUser]

Also dont forget that the good leader has to make sure that the battle is set up beforehand. If he doesn't send out enough mail for support or set up a chatroom for ranks and orders during the battle it will be much harder for his side to win.

 

[DeletedUser]

Another good tip: know your tanks and where to place them. Send out mails to see who is coming and issue placement instructions.

 

[DeletedUser]

Another good tip: know your tanks and where to place them. Send out mails to see who is coming and issue placement instructions.

Micromanagement is unnecessary. A good leader trusts his people. The best tanks know where to place. You tell my tank to move off point and I'll tell you to go to hell.

 

[DeletedUser]

Such strong language at the end there.....what did I do?
Anyways, I think micromanagement helps depending on the application, especially if you're concerned with precision and optimization.

 

[DeletedUser]

Such strong language at the end there.....what did I do?
Anyways, I think micromanagement helps depending on the application, especially if you're concerned with precision and optimization.

If micromanagement is a quality of a good leader, then you're saying OAN, kayakpaddler, Victor Kruger, Hellstromm, DethHolst, and every other great leader I've fought for are not good leaders.

 

[DeletedUser]

You can win battles without it, but as I said, it's more for optimization.

 

[DeletedUser16008]

Theres a lot of stuff here that is irrelevant and not the role of a battle leader nor necessarily makes you a good one. Eg sending out mails is pointless if you cannot run a battle lead properly or know how to even move to maximum effect.

I would expect a good battle leader to be in the top 10 damage of their side consistently. if you cant move properly you can't lead properly. Unless your a tank of course.

Micromanagement is not the job, requirement or responsibility as battle leader, this is where the team and individual player responsibility comes in . If you have to do this then your not leading, its mothering people and wastes your time that should and could be spent better, its also makes players worse fort fighters if they don't have to think for themselves and weakens the team when your not available.

I have seen groups completely unable to battle without their leader that do this and I have seen plenty deal with the absence of one confidently and successfully when they are responsible for thinking for themselves and encouraged in this way rather than mothered.

The best leaders I have fought against are all of the same mould, none of them micromanage, are flexible, reliant and confident in their team, not so much leading as guiding at key points and reminding people when required.

I have no idea how others lead but I never have anything worked out other than a starting point and adapt and improvise as the battle goes on. For me flexibility, spotting an opportunity and timing trumps everything else. The team is your weapon and the more at ease and confident you are in them by letting them know it, the better they perform. If they don't perform you let them know it but in such a way as they want to do better and not by demoralising them. That dosn't mean you can't shout when its required because sometimes its needed to focus peoples attention.

At the end of the day there is much a good leader can do but it is dependent on your team. Winning a battle is the objective of course but for me it comes second to having a very good and exciting one, if I can hang it out I will. Everyone talks about a close run battle and if you can time it so its done and won in rd 45 - 55 rather than much earlier people have much more fun on both sides and the win means that much more and invigorates the team better than a walkover or cheap win based on say just hp and use of tanks etc... to me its not leading its just maximising your overwhelming firepower which tbh any idiot can do to win a battle. The very best battles are those that you have no real hope of winning yet somehow still manage to do. Again this is not just about the leader but the relationship with the team as a whole.

There is also a huge difference between a good attacking battle leader and a defending one, they both call for totally different styles of leadership and ability. The best if good at attacking will be naturally good defending anyway, the same cannot be said in reverse.

 

[DeletedUser]

I should note that micromanagement is to be done before the battle, which is basically just drawing up the ideal plan. That said, winning depends crucially on the team. Some teams are better than others and the elites tend to play together anyways.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wouldn't say micromanagement is unnecessary. There certainly are situations where it's useful, blocking for example. Of course it's easier if players organize it themselves but sometimes it's good for the leader to call out who goes where to avoid confusion.

Obviously it shouldn't be done all the time. Battles are more fun when you can decide your own movements and not just mindlessly click where told to. That's part of the reason I don't like exact orders like "Move 3 steps west".

 

[DeletedUser16008]

I should note that micromanagement is to be done before the battle, which is basically just drawing up the ideal plan. That said, winning depends crucially on the team. Some teams are better than others and the elites tend to play together anyways.

That depends on whos calling the battle surely, in an alliance there are many town leaders if one calls id expect them to do the mails and set up etc, advise sure but do it for them no. People only learn if they do these things for themselves. All id expect to do if asked to lead the battle is exactly and only that. Ill work with whatever I have, or don't have, to the best the situation or set up allows.

As to the elites they do tend to group together I know, I would find it a pleasure leading a group such as that if only for the reason of working alongside experienced players would make leading that much easier but it wouldnt really be much of a challenge or make for good battles. My thrill comes from having average players take on these elites and beating them anyway. Of course theres only so much you can do if one side insists on tanking and all clubbing together all the time but that is a different issue and about balance rather than anything else and nothing to do with being a fort leader.

What a good battle leader can do is make an average team as good as any elite team led by an average leader. Your average team may not win very often but they will put the wind up those elites and make them pay for any mistakes given half a chance Get two very good leaders with a balanced team on both sides and then you have the making of an epic battle. They are unfortunately rare these days since every other player is a tank and hp decides 90% of battles and the hit ratio.

One other thing, people constantly talk about fort builds when all they really mean is hp. only one thing is needed to be a good fort fighter, LOS the rest is all secondary apart from choosing dueler class but then that still dosnt mean your a good FF just because you get a few crits, thats down to LOS and the fact that the more shots you get off the more likely youll hit a crit ergo a better overall damage ratio.

Id say chuck that asking certain players to block etc isnt so much micromanaging as tweaking when needed and part of leading any battle im sure we all do that on a regular basis, ill also be exact on occasion like 3 steps down etc if the situation requires it or trying to keep a leash on things where timing is concerned. Overall a good battle leader will do what they do and not even analyse what they are doing or how they are doing it but rather just get on with it automatically.

 

[DeletedUser]

I wouldn't say micromanagement is unnecessary. There certainly are situations where it's useful, blocking for example. Of course it's easier if players organize it themselves but sometimes it's good for the leader to call out who goes where to avoid confusion.

That's not really micromanagement. If you just say "somebody block the moat" or any other sector and you're likely to get nobody or [too] many people doing it. Or if nobody volunteers you've wasted half the round and have to tell a specific person to block anyway.

That's part of the reason I don't like exact orders like "Move 3 steps west".

Plus no one ever moves exactly three steps west. One general or captain moving to a different square causes a domino effect.

 

[DeletedUser]

I guess I just have a different idea of what micromanagement means. I consider things like assigning someone on flag guard duty, or having some individual offliners target somewhere else than the rest, a sort of micromanagement.