project reality header
Go Back   Project Reality Forums > PR:BF2 Mod Forums > PR:BF2 Tales from the Front > PR In-Game Tactics and Strategies > Commander Tactics
13 Aug 2020, 00:00:00 (PRT)
Register Developer Blogs Project Reality Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 2008-12-29, 22:54   #1

Michael_Denmark's Avatar
Post The Project Reality Commander v.01

Note that this first post will be increasingly updated with related content, maps, music and videos. An index will be deployed after the first version of the text has been fully posted.
The text it self, is based on my own PR experience. I have though military experience from real life and related knowledge from reading about warfare, for around 3 decades now. Thus some of the posted concepts are naturally taken from those dynamics and have been modified into my own style, my own text.

It is furthermore important to emphasize, that the following content is not representative to how every other Public and or Tournament Commander, in the great video game of Project Reality, think or act.

As you maybe already know by now, every CO has his own style.

This text is part of my style.





The Project Reality Battle

Before deploying the chapter about sub-battles, a few overall questions first:

--- Questions and answers start ---

Tactically speaking, what makes a Project Reality battle?

How to define when a battle is in motion?

And why bother about that definition in the first place?

I mean, isnt a battle just a battle?

Replying the last question first (isnt a battle just a battle), the answer in short is;

No, a battle is not just a battle.

Any battle, any military battle and specifically the Project Reality battle, is a highly unique dynamic involving massive amount of levelled decisions and actions, implicit, as well as explicit ones, understandable, as well as non-understandable ones.

In Project Reality, cultural, expectational, demographical and group sociological differences, civilians and military, combined with factors like example the universal (but always) subjective-defined Fun-Factor and technical factors like the Ping-Factor, all contributes in the creation of the overall battle: in the making of the Project Reality Battle.

Thus the PR battle is a fluctuating energy of multiple minor and larger engagements where every single engagement involve X unique fluid factors. As Project Reality Commander, it is your task to simplify this fluctuating energy of X unique fluid factors and that in a way that is both useful on the organisational and tactical and communicational level too.

Essentially as PR Commander it is not only your in-game task to defeat the opposing team in the field, but to win the battle of simplicity in all that complexity as well. When you begin to understand the simplicity of the complexity in the PR battle, then you begin to make fewer mistakes and as a direct result fight your foes more easily too.

Maybe you have tried to play the CO function in a battle where the following squad leader VOIP/TEAM SPEAK message has hit the surface at some point: "They are all over the place!". Such a message is normally an indicator of a squad leader not understanding the simplicity of the complexity in the area he is fighting in, but it is moreover and more importantly too, a sign of a Project Reality Commander not creating simplicity out of the complexity for his team.

Thus again, a battle is not just a battle.

Replying the second last question (why bother about that definition), the answer in short is;

It matters.

Especially to you as CO it matters.

When bothering on how to define when a battle is in motion, you become aware about the influence those different fluids factors embedded in the fluctuated energy, has on the process and the result of the battle and just as important, has on your self too. That way, by bothering about how to define when a battle is in motion - you in the long run become more aware about you as CO.

For the challenging play of the PRT CO function, the time before and after the battle also matters. In many situations even matters more than the battle it self, cause this is also part of the fluctuating dynamic. Experienced Tournament Commanders knows that a battle can start months before the actual round is initiated.

But regardless of playing Public CO or Tournament CO, it really does matter to bother continuously.

The higher level a Project Reality Commander decides to play on, the more unknown factors will appear. Factors that the CO never noticed before, never thought on before, never analysed before and never solved before. Unknown factors will simply keep popping up when entering any new level of CO game play. Thus again, bothering about it really matters: from the very first minute to the very last minute being PR CO.

In that regard one of the most important disciplines the Commander must learn to master, is the ability to ignore the factors not needing focus right now. Maybe later yes but not right now, thus consequently also the opposite as a result of the first: an ability depending on the Commanders own definition of the battle. A definition based on the Commanders style, based on the Commanders self-awareness, hence as many other CO factors, a subjective one.

So not only does it matter to bother about it, but to decide what to bother about too. And that is above all, important in specific moments relating to specific factors in the battle. Moments and factors that as already said is defined by the CO only, thus by you. You only.

Some factors, has the strength + in some situations and ++ in other situations and as the following example portray, it matters to bother about the factors in specific situations, defined/decided by the CO only.

--- Example 1 start ---

+ Ordering a tank to move to that superior concealed and covered dessert position (hull down), instead of ordering it moving into that hostile urban area, is understanding a factor having different strengths in different situations.

++ If that highly planning/situational-wise important urban area is about to be lost, ordering a tank to move into that very same hostile urban area, instead of moving it to that superior concealed and covered dessert position (hull down), is understanding a factor having different strengths in different situations.

--- Example 1 end ---

So to bother about when to define if the battle is in motion now or not, will eventually raise your awareness about X amount of the fluid factors, both individually and combined. In fact your overall skills, your dedication and determination, will in the end establish the Commander level you will be able to reach.

In PR many CO levels can be reached. Some are universal levels, some are individual levels and some are a mix of both. Regardless of the level you will reach, one thing matters; always bother about the definition.

Replying the third last question (how to define when a battle is in motion), answer in short is;

It depends on your own decision-definition of the battle.

Sounds simple? It is. But before describing the simplicity, a few overall words about what create your definition.

Your own definition of the battle will eventually be based on an X angled, flexible and fluctuating selection of factors creating, maintaining and developing your CO style. Levelled factors like example tactical knowledge, intuition, self independence, idea-making, ability to listen to others, ability to listen to your self, your present mode AND if you play the CO function for the CO content of it only, or simply play it because no one else is, on that "We need a Commander!" 'Team'?.

Again lots of factors involved in the dynamic. In fact so many of them that even after a year playing tournament CO, I still dont know all of my own.

The Project Reality Commander function is always about adapting in an ongoing changing environment. Thats where the fluctuating selection of factors being X angled, creating, maintaining and developing your Commander style, comes into the picture. Its a developing process.

Actually, as Commander in Project Reality, the only constant factor you in the end can count on is change. That change-factor is not only related to the battle rounds them self, or new training methods, new planning approaches to encounter tactically instability on a team and so forth, but also to Project Reality as a modification it self.

PR as the game-product it bottom-line is, develops in stages, from pact x to patch x+. Whenever a new patch is introduced X rules have changed. So what might work in the present patch will maybe not work in the next one.

Now, that patch-factor alone, will influence your own adapting definition of the PR battle. Thus accepting and adapting to change as the only constant CO factor is essential. Ignoring or not accepting will sooner than later lead to defeat: your defeat.

Okay, so much about what in overall create your own definition. To describe the simplicity of the answer to the question, which was it depends on your own decision-definition of the battle, following are a few short examples on how to define when a battle is in motion:

-- Example 2 start ---

When you decide - to define - that the battle will be in motion when the round starts, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

When you decide - to define - that the battle will be in motion at the very moment, the first engagement initiate, regardless of the size or the intensity of the engagement, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

When you decide - to define - that the battle will be in motion right at the moment, the very bulk of the involved forces engage, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

When you decide - to define - the battle will be in motion when the most important game mode objective/s has been reached, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

When you decide - to define - that the battle will be in motion at the very moment a by you defined battle-phase has been completed, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

When you decide - to define - that the battle will be in motion when it goes the way as you want it to go, then that's how to define when a battle is in motion.

--- Example 2 end ---

Point is of course, since you as Project Reality Commander are the one defining when the battle is in motion, it not only gives you the possibility of using that as a long termed learning tool but it also shape your style over time too.

Basic rule: Project Reality Commander Style is based on initial CO decision-definition, being moderated over time due to the constant change-factor in the game.

The very definition of the PR battle is therefore as learning tool a structural approach that in content is defined by you, used by you and evaluated by you. In order to analyse and conclude X related to the battle, you as CO can use the learning tool to transfer information and experience from one battle to another.

And yes i know that according to some people no experience and information can be transferred from one unique battle-situation to another, since they are both unique situations. Thus the old argument from the likewise old discussion, about history (war included) not being able to repeat it self due to the fact its bound to different unique points on the time-line, is not being used here.

I believe that experience and information to some extend can be transferred over the time-line, due to the fact those points on the time-line all can be viewed subjectively.

Replying the first question (tactically, what makes a Project Reality battle), answer is;

Everything a PR map loads in

This includes the players them selfs and what they bring to the battle, it includes you as CO and what you bring to the battle and finally it includes the tech weather.

Tech weather is the technical aspect of Project Reality; Ping, Lag, Punk Buster and so forth. Just as well as weather in the real world, can affect the battlefield so can technical weather affect the PR battlefield too.

In-game methods also contribute in the making of the battle and can also cover how all the factors mentioned above is taken into account during the battle. The basic methods are as follows:

  • Movement

  • Deployment

  • Enemy focused activity (attack/defend)

In those three basic methods many sub-methods are embedded. Some of those are as follows: speed, manoeuvre, concentration, position, formation, distance, ambush, deception, distraction, counter-attack, retreat, pursuit and weight.

Methods can be used directly, indirectly, with our without discipline and on a variety of levels too. As Project Reality Commander you can use all or less of the above mentioned methods in three overall advantages: surprise, highly useful terrain and attacks from more than one side.

And in that very unique dynamic the Project Reality battle in fact is, the use of methods requires respect, dedication and honour.

Respecting the tactical methods them selfs and what they can achieve when used correctly.
Respecting all the players in the round including one self too. Respecting the fact that it is a game and not real life warfare. So are you one of those players getting a negative flash back now and then, when playing the game, close the game down, take a deep breath and do something else.

Dedicating one self to the game, the players and the rules and just as important to your self too.

Honouring the game rules and not going down the path of cheat and honouring the fact that some players although maybe not super skilled in the use of methods, are trying to do their very best still.

Warning: Ignoring any of these three core values will only down your ability to become a more insightful CO, a more victorious Project Reality Commander.

Regarding the PR players them selfs, well it would take me a long chapter to describe them satisfying, so in short and still using the CO point of view, they bring expectations, skills, experience and morale to the battle. All four factors are key-elements able to determine the outcome of the battle.

So summing up, the making of a Project Reality battle is everything that is loaded into the map, all the methods in use throughout the round and the players and the rules framing those as well. Finally you your self and what you alone bring to the battle as CO, which in essence is Command, Control, Communication and Care. That last word care is really important for a CO in the PR video game. Normally people would consider care to be embedded in the Command-word but my experience has taught me that it needs a position of it self.

--- Questions and answers end ---

--- No-mans land section start ---

The Project Reality battle is as already mentioned above, a highly unique dynamic. It consists of so many fluctuating factors that in order to attempt trying understanding it in a simple way, a structured approach is needed. My way doing that is to divide the battle into sub-battles.

--- No-mans land section end ---

The Project Reality Sub-Battle


The sub-battle is a necessary part-element of the overall battle-picture. As Project Reality Commander its your task to find and decide the types of sub-battles that relates to the logics closest to you. Its also your task to communicate your type of sub-battles to your team.

The sub-battles them selfs (more than one exists) deploy the advantage of creating individual subjective and or individual objective viewpoints to the overall battle. Therefore angling the combat from different related directions, according to your own and or others viewpoints. In the end though, those other viewpoints are part of your points of views too, since they emerge from logics close to you.

Sub-battles are all individual unique battle-types. Each of them contributes with their own pattern generated from their unique profile being based on tone, rhythm and speed.

In point of fact the sub-battles are much like bits of music.

Just as the PR battle consist of sub-battles, so does music consist of sub-bits; individual sounds made by individual instruments, each contributing with their own tone, rhythm and speed.

  • Tone

    The tone is the battle sound or noise if you will.

    As the CO you must be able to create your own tone, so it can be used as a tool to simplify the complexity for you and your team, but also to increase and maintain the complexity for your opponent. To illustrate the tone in its essence, imagine a PR team performing ongoing fire from the start to the end of a round. From initial spawn to the enemy is punched of the map. No fire pauses at all, only changes in volume when elements on this imagined team reloads its glowing weapons.

    There are naturally many different tones out there. For instance insurgents can have their own unique battle tone; the tone of the well prepared ambush. The conventional armies in PR can also have their own unique battle tone; the tone of combined arms in close collaboration terminating anything in front of the spear.

    However the tone is not necessarily attached to a faction. It can just as easily be attached to a tactical method consisting of example squad-formations, using large spacing between both the individual soldiers and the individual squads AND all only using single shots from a specific span of distance when facing the enemy.

    Basic rule: The better you have created your own tone the more the enemy will fear it.

    When you have created and maintained a solid steady tone, it is incredibly difficult for any opposing PR team to defeat you. Solid and steady tone on the CO level is though almost never seen in Project Reality, cause it requires a great deal of teamwork and coordination. Those two dynamics requires experienced Commanders, which we as community in the beginning of Patch 8.06 still haven't got that many of.

    Special note: this note is written after patch 9.5 has been launched in 2011. And the community still seem to need a larger group of experienced commanders.

    However, with the UAV deployed in the game from Patch 8.07, you as CO can now easily identify the tone. Below is an example of a fairly disorganised tone attempting to win a volume fight.

  • Rhythm

    The rhythm is the momentum of own and opposing elements.

    As the CO you must be able to create and maintain your rhythm. Otherwise your opponent will get a chance to create and maintain his rhythm instead.

    However, sometimes it is wise to allow your opponent creating his rhythm before you do, so he feels safe. When he feels safe then you create your rhythm and maintain it until he is either defeated or you have reached a part objective in your plan.

    The steadier your rhythm is, the simpler your soldiers will experience the battle. Even when you lose and receive soldiers due to factors like example the tech-weather, those newly joining soldiers will soon sense the steady rhythm among their new squad-mates and adapt X trouble-free to it.

    When you don't have a steady rhythm, rest assure, that all on your team will sense that too. If you do not have rhythm at all, your opponent will create one for you. His.

  • Speed

    The speed is regardless of being real or imaginary, the pace of moving elements (fire included).

    Real speed is simple. It is the pace of your units in battle. Regardless of your units are on the offensive, the defensive or the retreat.

    Imaginary pace is also simple. It can be produced, by using the method of noise or smoke where there is in fact only silence and clear sky. As basic example, imagine a battle where you want the enemy to belief that your next assault will hit point A while it actually will hit point B. Thus at point A you create a diversion consisting of plenty of smoke and plenty of noise and keep doing so in a certain depth behind A as well. Note that the noise in this case can be tactical silence as well as tactical noise. See, tactical silence combined with plenty of smoke can be noise inside the mind of the enemy. Tactical noise combined with plenty of smoke will be noise to the enemy.

    As the CO you must be able to create speed in either the entire battle-round or in specific parts of it.

    Basic rule: the faster the pace, the more need for coordination and communication.

    When your opponent has a reputation of using a lower level of communication and coordination than you do, consider increasing the speed of the battle until it reaches your level. If successful pacing up the battle to your level, it will in general, but not always, leave your opponent behind in disorganised attempts to regain the upper hand.

    When it is you your self who is facing an opponent with a higher level of communication and coordination than you have available, consider slowing down the speed until it reaches your level. By doing so, your opponent cannot use his advantage in speed and consequently faces the potential risk of fighting the battle on conditions he did not foresee. Such a situation is always in battle, a potential morale downer. A downed morale means X closer distance to defeat.


The artist

In the context of the music, the Project Reality Commander, throughout the battle-round, sits there in front of his CO-screen (Mixer) and creates his own music; he adjusts the volume here and there, he implement new sounds, new rhythms and changes the speed too. He attempts to make sure his music, compared to the volume coming from his opponents music, is the one being loudest, although not necessarily round through. But except from this volume-fight, where two opposing Commanders attempt to destroy each other, the PR CO creates music just as any other artist do. In fact that is exactly what he is. An artist.

He is a creator in the field of destroying, which essentially is the art of war.

When I commanded tournament teams, I now and then ran pre-battle team-sized exercises, where X of my team would train X of the battle-plan without any enemy activity incorporated at all. Still, nonetheless, my team used all the planned available weapon systems, shooting on imaginary/assumed targets for - in some exercises - 20 to 30 minutes. For the troopers participating, it could be a long time conducting so-called dry training, but when doing so, I as CO was able to listen to my planned music before the battle took place and consequently, in the upcoming battle-round, didn't have to rely purely on incoming round-information only. Cause at that point I already knew my music. I simply knew my own music. I imagined it, I planned it, then I listened to it [dry-training] and finally I executed it. And for the training and execution, so did X of my team.

But regardless of the training style, sub-battles can with X benefit be reflected as bits of music.

Beside of the first two video clips where the same military march is being played with changes in Tone, Rhythm and Speed, following are two additional examples on the use of Tone, Rhythm and Speed.



Sub-battle description

Sub-battles are significant individual parts of the overall Project Reality battle. A team can either win or lose its sub battles, although stalemate results do occur.

In order to know the sub-battles and use them correctly, they must be planned, exercised and evaluated as significant individual parts. Only when all of them have been processed, a full realistic picture of the battle can be attempted to conclude. Often that will not happen due to other factors popping up, but even so, that is the basic rule; all sub-battles must be processed before creating the full realistic picture.

Five basic sub-battles exist. Depending on your situation as CO-player, more can be added and some can be subtracted.

1. The Commander sub-battle
2. The Leader sub-battle
3. The Shooter sub-battle
4. The Assets sub-battle
5. The Communication sub-battle

1. The Commander Sub-battle

The commander sub-battle consists of the following listed basic elements.

  • The present skill level of you as CO (Knowledge, Intuition, Imagination, Feelings, Experience, Discipline, Endurance, Determination, Power, Creativity, Energy and Morale).

  • The overall present skill level of your team (Knowledge, Experience, Morale, Discipline, Dedication, Energy and Available Time).

  • The overall present skill level of your opposing CO and his team (Involving all the above addressed factors).

  • The map, the faction, the assets available, the server (server admin included) and the present PR patch. (When possible, controlling the Ping-Factor on the server should be processed by all on your team, so the weather situation doesn't work against you in the battle.)

  • Creating your battle-plan/s and or idea/s (back-up plan included).

  • Organising your team according to the objectives embedded in the plan.

  • Thinking in tickets according to the assumed challenges embedded in the objectives of the plan. Modifying X if assumed ticket-cost seems too expensive (Cost Benefit analysis).

  • With the plan and the team organisation in mind, deciding for the most optimal team-sized tactical-methods to be used. And if those are to be used by the whole body [team] or X of it.

  • Organising the communication and its procedures in order to simplify the training and or execution of the plan (For pre and post-battle evaluations/discussions involving multiple players, a COM-procedure is needed too).

  • Vision your entire creation now, but with the enemy point of view.

As shown in the list above, the CO sub-battle initiates before the battle-round start and doesn't end until an evaluation has been completed after the battle. In fact for a Tournament Commander, the battle-round it self is the shortest part of the CO sub-battle, although at the same time the most intense.

Know your self

This important area covers your awareness-factor of you and your team.

The more interaction you complete with your team, the more both of you can merge into a single shape or body if you will.
But from start it will normally be head [you] and your initial body [team], attempting to unify both of your common energies, guided by your CO-wants, being based on your logics mainly. Usually this head-body convergence-process, in the multicultural universe of PR, is not easy to accomplish.

When you as CO know your self, you consequently recognize what your limitations are and can from that begin to read the individual Project Reality map, as a list of priced suggestions, converging X degree to the ability of your body (head and body or body only).

On top of that, when conducting several battle rounds with your same body, you can actually begin to shape it just like if you your self in real life were in the fitness-club training your body. In the Fitness-club machines are used to help you out with that training activity, but in PR specific map areas help you out with that same body-training shaping-activity.

I call these areas deceives areas and they are what you as a PR CO want to locate and use in order to initiate and complete the shaping-process, simultaneously defeating your enemy too. Thus in that context the enemy can become a solely positive, helpful opportunity, to train and shape your own body.

From starting out as a new inexperienced Project Reality Commander onto "ending up" as the old experienced one, is as of today a longer journey. However, regardless of the length of the journey there is newer a real end to the evolvement and therefore also not any top of awareness that can be reached. So basically I am saying that although we think it and although say it, there is in fact no such thing as the old experienced PR CO. Cause only levels of the function can be reached. Levels that will at some point present new levels.

Essentially knowing your self is an ongoing process where as already stated, change is the only constant factor.

When know your self is being measured on the awareness-scale consisting of low, medium and high as key-indicators and when that measurement originate from a public PR server, the CO-awareness-factor often deploy it self in the lower end of low. Reason: public server teams can be mixed with anybody out there; new players, old players, skilled and non-skilled players, emotional and non-emotional players, players with round-through available time and the opposite, opportunistic players and the opposite, flexible players and non-flexible players, players with high ping and the opposite, players with the ability to contribute with positive energy in the overall chat/VOIP and of course players who cant contribute...etcetera.

That is also why the public server often provides the chance to experience the full-size complexity of the fluid Project Reality Battle dynamic.

In the following I will list some of the factors creating the awareness-factor of a new Commander-player when logging on a public PR server. In this case the CO-player has a plan ready for the map, although maybe not thoroughly thought through, but nonetheless, a plan. A start.

And the factors listed are deployed X time (minutes/seconds) before the battle-round initiate, thus in the count-down-phase to the battle. A phase where its possible for the public team to organise it self into a body. Please note that I have not played the newest version of PR so X of the factors listed could be out-dated.

Factors creating the initial Commander self-awareness factor:

  1. X of the CO skills as listed in the KNOW YOUR SELF-section, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  2. The lack of available CO-knowledge regarding the skills of the players on the team, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  3. The total amount of players on the team, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  4. The amount of players wanting the same kit, vehicle, objective and so on, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  5. The total amount of players on the enemy team, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  6. The amount of players switching teams in the counting-down phase, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  7. The player names (indicating potential positive or negative group sociological behaviour in the context of contributing to the unifying attempt, shaping the public PR team into an organised and coordinated killing machine [body] and potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  8. The squad names (indicating implicit as well as explicit X round-through intentions and therefore also the same potential behaviour pattern as described in point 7 and potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.)

  9. The amount of squads and if those are full or not, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  10. The amount of players not being in a squad, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  11. VOIP skills of the squad leaders and consequently their language skills as well, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  12. In-game Chat skills of the squad leaders when their VOIP for x reason is down, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  13. Initial chemistry between the CO and the squad leaders when conduction VOIP/Chat checks and designating tasks to the squads (the initial order phase), potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  14. Initial player violations on the team, like example shooting each other in order to get a specific kit, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  15. The amount of squad leaders only being so because nobody else in their unit wants the function, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  16. Squad Leaders disobeying to follow orders, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  17. Initial team kills whether those are on purpose or not, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

  18. Players on the team requesting a kick-vote of the CO, potentially influencing the plan created by the CO.

There are many factors creating the awareness factor for the new public PR CO. As I will try to portray later on in the text, they not only create the awareness factor alone but over time X of the CO-style as well. Essentially, knowing your self is important to recognize your abilities as well as your limitations.

-- Related Off topic questions I start ---
  • Maybe the amount of fluid factors creating the awareness factor is part of the reason why not that many players from the community want to play Commander when compared to other in game functions?

  • Maybe the community as a whole is not skilled up for the content the CO game function offers?

-- Related Off topic questions I end ---

In regard to the separation between you as PR CO [head] and your team [body], there is as already mentioned this convergence-process in motion; the process attempting to unify the assembled energy from you and your team into one whole body. The process it self consist of an array of elements of which some are described in the KNOW YOUR SELF-section.

As you can see, there are many of them and some have common characteristics too, so they are not always easy to separate and identify as unique dynamics in the Commander awareness process. At least not to me they are. Anyhow ill try to deploy a short description of them in order to make them bring light on X of their own shape. Note that the light here is highly subjective to my own logics:
  • Knowledge covers all information you can relate to the CO sub-battle. Knowledge can in PR be divided into factual and non-factual knowledge. Most of it is based on X of either one of these two parts or X of both of them.

  • Intuition covers your sixth sense (in example mostly based on non-factual knowledge).

  • Imagination covers your thoughts (in example based on non-factual knowledge).

  • Feelings cover your subjective opinions (in example based on non-factual knowledge).

  • Experience covers your previous know-how and understandings - logics included. (in example based on factual knowledge).

  • Discipline covers your authority-logic/s and methodical level of approach to things.

  • Endurance covers your survival ability and or patience depending on your present CO situation.

  • Determination covers your will power and or weakness depending on your present situation.

  • Power covers your influence to things, including the other elements listed here.

  • Creativity covers you ability to create and or break patterns.

  • Energy covers your direct and indirect influence to things.

  • Morale covers your self-confidence an your spirit it originates from.

The same approach goes for understanding the elements in the overall present skill level of your team. Thus this part I wont cover more detailed.

Know your enemy

This area is important to your own actions in the battle-round.

It covers your awareness-factor of the enemy, thus also what options you have available to understand your enemy.

Overall speaking, knowing your enemy can in many ways be really difficult to not only accomplish satisfactory but basically just to process. Reason is that your PR enemy tends to do the very same as you do; he evolve as CO-player throughout the round, throughout the patch and throughout the game.

Basic rule: Your knowledge on the enemy from last round is potential obsolete this new round.

The more you know about your enemy, the easier it will be for you to decide how to confront him in battle - and before battle too when playing the tournament. Confronting him include how to defeat him.

However you shouldn't expect to have any real advantage when knowing your enemy completely and totally (which in theory is impossible), unless you in the first place know your self too. Reason is that both knowledge-dynamics are born from the same glue holding them together: the knowledge of you and the knowledge your enemy.

Knowing your enemy in Project Reality depends on a lot of factors. For instance the Public CO has a difficult challenge in front of him when trying to understand his enemy. Cause its difficult for the Public CO to tell for sure, if/when the enemy CO has full control of his team? Or if technical weather problems, influences his [enemy] actions or not? Moreover the Public CO cant run a post-battle-round evaluation with his own team and normally doesn't have the Battle-Recorder file available as well. Or when having it available, actually makes use of it as an evaluation-tool, focusing on understanding the enemy.

One thing is to use the BR file to view the enemy unit when in combat with your own force, another thing is to understand why the enemy unit/s and CO has processed informations making the enemy CO not responding logically (in the classical sense) to a tactical situation, where one of his units is being assaulted heavily.


The Tournament CO also have a difficult challenge in front of him when trying to process the same knowledge-activity, cause he cant always in the round tell if an enemy action is intended to achieve a direct or an indirect result? Even with the use of a battle-recorder file and that in a structured post-battle-evaluation where the entire team analyse the battle, it can still be a difficult challenge to understand the enemy, cause the enemy communication is not available in the file, only his actions.

But essentially you want to know if your enemy is the attacking type or the defensive type. You want to know if he is capable of organising his team into one body or not and you want to know if he understands the methods that can be used in the game. You naturally also want to know what he knows about you too.

Regarding your available options enabling you to understand your enemy and depending on the present circumstances these options come in two sections, in-game options and or off-game options.

In-game options

When playing against an unknown enemy (CO and Team or CO or Team), the in game round-information has the potential to enable you understanding X of your enemy. This basic know-your-enemy, in-game option, consist of the minimum following factors:
  • Incoming information from various leaders on your team (making it possible for you to keep track of enemy activities and thus attempting to create the present tactical picture)

  • The lack of incoming information from various leaders on your team (making it difficult/impossible for you to keep track of enemy activities and thus decreasing your attempt to create the present tactical picture)

  • Changes in tone and voice from various leader on your team (being potential enemy tone and or rhythm and or speed identifier due to influence these factors have on your leaders)

  • The content of in-game chat including the tone in such - and - both in regard to the friendly as well as non-friendly content of it

  • Colour changes in flag markers on the CO screen and the time between those changes as well (potential enemy rhythm and or speed identifier)

  • Confirmed friendly and enemy spawn assets lost and the time between those as well (potential enemy rhythm and or speed identifier)

  • Specific battle sounds (vehicle types, gun-sounds including tone, rhythm and speed plus explosions of various kinds)

  • Your own interpretation of the enemy when youre viewing him in action (can in present patch only be done when the Commander is leaving the CO screen)

As you can see above, a considerable part of the in game options available to understand X of your enemy, are indirect ones, since they come to you from others eyes and ears on the battlefield.

Basic rule: Consider the source when trying to understand what a leader/trooper are reporting to you.

In fact knowing your leaders (and troopers too), how they talk and why they talk like they do (not accent wise), how they view things in PR, how they view them selfs, how they view you as CO and so on, is just as important an aspect when attempting to understand your enemy, as everything else available in the battle-round. Your leaders and your troops are your eyes and your ears. So consider using them as such too.

Off-game options

When about to play against a known enemy (CO and Team or CO or Team) and you have time available before the round starts, searching out information about your enemy, the off-game options in Project Reality of today (patch 8.05) are as follows:
  • Information from the Project Reality forums and or the Project Reality Tournament forums (tactical, organisational and communicational opinions, reactions to the same, published battle-plans/ideas, confirmed battle results and so on)

  • Other players with relevant knowledge (include the same info as above although this option in many cases is more subjectively minded compared to the forum information)

When you know your Project Reality enemy well enough, you can decide how you want to confront him in order to control him. And if lucky controlling him in such a way that he will do as you want him to do on the battlefield. However I must emphasize again, the importance of you knowing your self as well. And at least knowing you self as well as you know your enemy. Otherwise that energy and time you used on understanding your enemy can turn out to be completely useless.

Know you battleground

This area is really important to your own actions and your enemy actions.

Knowing your battleground involves your knowledge about the map (its size, its known bugs, its bleeding flags etcetera), the faction you are to play, the assets available to that faction, the game mode and the server running, (administrator included if in the tournament and likewise). It also involves the knowledge about you and your enemy already gathered in the previous two described CO sub-battle activities.

When you know your battleground you have the potential possibility to pick the battlefield on the map. That is to pick the area/s where to fight the enemy with the overall combat-advantage in your favour.

Picking the area where to fight the enemy with the overall combat-advantage, is among the most difficult PR CO skills at all. It not only requires that you know your self (body included) and that you know your enemy (body included), but also that you know the map in detail with its potential bugs including its potential problems when the map is hosted by a specific server.

Map and server problems can be like when a starting-spawn point doesn't appear for X of your players or all of them or if the out-of-bound time has been modified by the server admin, which can be an important factor to maps with air vehicles available. These potential factors must be included in your considerations when making your music.

So in order to know your battleground you must preferable have played the map at least one time with each faction, or as minimum walked the map through "in detail", either alone or with someone else (for instance a staff-officer in the tourney) providing you with as minimum, a feeling of what initial options both factions has available from round start.

These round-start possibilities include:
  • Timings

  • Terrain-advantages (air and water included) within a specific time from round-start

  • Asset-advantages within a specific time from round-start

  • Potential map/server bug advantages within a specific time from round-start

So basically you already now have some - hopefully - fun preparations in front of you; cause learning the map will take time. If you already now know that the preparation stuff wont be fun for you, it does not mean that your not capable of becoming an experienced PR CO. But it does mean that your journey to evolve into that skilled Commander will take x longer time completing. And besides from the initial round-start possibilities, the round-through possibilities also require your attention. Stuff like faction kits and assets available in the round, including their individual balances like example your factions APC advantages in mobility, armour, gun-power (rate of fire included) vs. the opposing factions APC advantages. And you have to go through the list of assets on the map and compare them to the opposing side in order to get the full picture enabling you to prepare making your music.

Important Note:

Walking/driving a battle-map through, is a luxury. Use it. I can assure you that technology in time, will erase the small and simplified maps PR so far offers to its users. Use these years in the first and second decade of the new millennium, to walk the maps when possible. Do it not only to raise your awareness of the maps themselves, but to build up experience in the understanding of maps as well. An understanding you will need much more in the future of first-person-shooter-games with a 2D overlay for commanding players.
In the tournament I on average used the following template to gather my Intel up to a battle:

(Qinling in this example)

(Without grids like below - Topographical map inserted as well if available)


CATA vehicles available from start
CATA vehicle respawn times

NATO vehicles available from start
NATO vehicle respawn times

2. Useful info about flags and assets (NEED TO BE CHECKED AND UPDATED)

Capping ranges on all flags
Useful Capping positions
Useful rally point positions (RP zones included)
Useful Firebase Positions
Useful Razor Wire and Sandbag positions
Useful Bunker positions

3. Timings

Timings from our initial spawn points to Flag/s X
Timings from our initial spawn points to Area/s X

Enemy timings from our initial spawn points to Flag/s X
Enemy timings from our initial spawn points to Area/s X

4. Map related names

Map/s inserted with names according to a potential plan, thus map names can be changed throughout the planning-process. For instance maps like the following two, taken from Campaign 6 in the tournament where my team, CATA II. Army played the PLA faction on the great map of Qinling.

the highest-ranking officer in CATA has approved this old content for publication-use

So in the context of the two deployed maps I had timings made from example the Chinese FOB to Coal Mine and consequently also from Farm Outpost to Coal Mine as well. These timings involved the FOB road and COAL road, as well as FARM road and other paths on those main axes too. And I had those timings made with vehicles of various kinds and infantry only too.

As second priority you have to pick an decisive area, or several of these, where you want to fight the battle [training your body]. Thus when staying in the above map context, I on Qinling, also picked the parts of the map where I wanted to play my music. I basically designed three overall tasks; Task North, Task Centre and Task South. Each founded on a specific plan being based on specific related timings measured from both factions on the map. And on this map - in that Campaign - with the knowledge of me [own body] I had back then - facing those two potential foes I had (NATO I and NATO II) - all three overall tasks had one main objective, THE TORCH; named after the assumed intensity this area would become to the enemy spawn wave x in the upcoming battle.

Following is deployed a short video presenting the movement-phase of Task Centre.

Task Center in the CATA 2. Army battle plan - Tournament - Campaign 6

The video shows the following design

1 Infantry element moving north to Village
1 AA element moving north-east to Tooth Hill
1 Armored element moving north-east to Coal Road
1 Infantry element moving to Coal Mine
1 Air element moving to Angle Ridge
In order not to bore you with a literally massive amount of tactical arguments for picking The Torch as my main objective on Qinling - as my wanted decisive area back then in Campaign 6 - my point is that when you as PR CO decide for a specific area (Decisive area) to fight the round in, its always wise to attempt making sure you have several designed ideas/plans available to get/stay there in case x of them fails. Failures originating from the in-round tactical dynamic, the unique PR weather dynamic or in battle recognized wrongful battle-plan dynamic.

When a map or game mode makes it too difficult or maybe even impossible to pick a decisive area then it is the decisive method or a procedure of such that you as CO must pick. And again, you still have to do the preparation work in order to create it. For instance when preparing to fight on an insurgent map, regardless of the faction, where weapon cashes will pop up x randomly, it can turn out to be about creating solutions to either maintain or destroy these, by using a decisive method or procedure, involving multiple of such. This specific preparation of a method or a procedure can be a difficult CO activity to both process and complete. Even for experienced Project Reality Commanders

Make music

This first section in the music making might seem a bit confusing at first glance. Rest assure that as PR CO you will from time to time become confused as well. However I am not deploying the section without a reason, although ill leave the point for you to find.

A new PR CO will normally not be able to find it, an old PR CO will probably have trouble finding it. My suggestion to you reading now, is to read the section one or two times and if nothing rational pops up leave it and move to next section.

OK, enough said, here comes the section. It involves among other things, -stones.

The ability to create a specific shape out of a stone, out of such hard material that a stone in fact consists of has always amazed me. To me it seems that only specific personality types is capable of creating that and also for what ever the reason decides to use their time in doing so as well.

I mean it is not everybody who wants to use his or her time positioned more or less static in front of a stone and carve in it. Do you? Common what is that! Only a specific personality-type does that. Probably, most probably, a very boring type too. You know, the too serious type not enjoying him or her self at all.

So here we have a boring and too serious person who through slow boring destruction of a stone, wants to create a shape out of it. What an extremely boring type we got here. But that is not the worst part, cause its not even a fully destruction of the stone, only a partly one, thus even more boring right.

Every time a cut in the carving process is made there is no returning back, cause that cut will destroy a bit of the stone and the tool being used in the process will be worn a bit too.

Why not just blow the stone up? Using a nice solid C4 charge. Now that's fun!

But no, this boring and too serious type still only makes enough destruction to create a shape out of the stone. Essentially just amazingly boringness and amazingly graveness in motion here.

I wonder what it is that makes this boring and too serious type creating a shape out of a stone? Instead of just blowing it up?


Is it a specific type of coffee the person drink, enabling the very same to stand out the boringness? If that is the case, I wonder what coffee-sort it is?

Is it the tools being used to carve? Tools maybe unique-made for the carving process?

Is it using the tools on specific parts of the stone in some sort of structured order, enabling the carving process to continue without the stone breaking completely up?

Is it the use of the influence from the weather? Like if its really hot weather and then the material of the stone somehow get softer and consequently easier to cut in?

Is it the carving-person - this stonecutters own knowledge, intuition, imagination, feelings, experience, discipline, endurance, determination, power, creativity, energy, morale and available time that makes the shape being created?

What is it?

While thinking about an answer to those questions, I respectfully offer you the opportunity to listen to Schuberts Marche Militaire? while a video a statues deploys it self on the screen in front of you.

I most sincerely wish you a nice video-experience.


The plan

As core Commander-Rule a battle-plan is mandatory to simplify the complexity of the battle.

Without a plan, or at least an idea of what to do with your team on the Project Reality map, the PR battle-dynamic it self will control your actions and attach you strongly to things in motion.

For the experienced PR CO, this battle-attached-situation can be quite a sound challenge to confront now and then, but only now and then. However for the inexperienced CO this situation is only downing any skills to evolve since those have to come from an origin based on logics as close to the CO as possible. And the logics being attached to you as non-plan-prepared CO originates from the logics of the battle dynamic and the enemy, thus not from you.

Hence, the purpose of using the plan is to confront the complex battle dynamic with simplification, enabling you and your body to reject X control from the battle it self.

To simplify the plan or idea it self, a phase-arrangement can be deployed. Normally there are three of these; the movement phase, the deployment phase and the combat-phase. However not always in that particularly order, cause for instance it can be movement, combat and deployment, or deployment, combat and movement etcetera.

Basic rule; the plan must - as much as possible - converge with different basic factors in relation to it self.

Factors of which some are universal and some are self-created. One of those related, universal, basic factors is the capacity of your team. So for instance when a Project Reality Commander creates a solely mobile offensive plan, well knowing that his team is not skilled up for such round-through-offensive task, he ignores the rule of convergence between the team capacity and the plan.

The same kind of ignorance goes for the plan spreading out a team too much on the involved part of the map. And does so well knowing that the enemy throughout the entire round, has the superior advantage in the movement-factor, making it really difficult to assemble support (reserves), when one part of this spread-out team comes under pressure from enemy weight and concentration.

Essentially there are a lot of basic factors related to any PR plan. I wont list them all here, - and even if I really wanted to, I probably wouldn't be able to, -cause each plan somehow creates its own unique factors. Reason for that is to find in the already described fluctuating battle dynamic.

Furthermore some plans deliberately tend to ignore the rule of convergence, because it planning-wise, with the enemy factor embedded into the equation, seems reasonable doing so. As basic example the bold plan is the common type tending to ignore the rule of convergence. That is also why bold plans sometimes results in great victories, because they are confronted with safe plans, ignoring the rule of enemy ignorance to the rule of convergence. Hence, every rule has its exceptions.

But nonetheless, the plan always must converge - as much as possible - with the factors it relates it self to.

Below is the list I in general used in the tournament, when creating a plan. Parts of the original list have been removed before upload to this public text.

Team: name
Map: name
Game mode: description
Tickets available: amount

Players available: amount
Assumed team quality: description
Assumed enemy quality: description

Main Plan Name: name
Phases: amount

Vehicles: amount
Air units: amount
Sea units: amount
Artillery and other off-map systems: amount
Important team hardware: description and amount

Number of squads: amount
Preferred Squad Leader skills: description and amount
Preferred Commander skill: description

Doctrine: description of battle-profile/s
Target prioritising: description and amount of objectives

Phase 1: name
Tickets allocated: amount
Trigger orders: description
Scenario a: description
Scenario b: description
Phase Completion: Criteria/s

Phase 2: name
Tickets allocated: amount
Trigger orders: description
Scenario a: description
Scenario b: description
Phase Completion: Criteria/s

Phase 3: name
Tickets allocated: amount
Trigger orders: description
Scenario a: description
Scenario b: description
Phase Completion: Criteria/s

Backup plan: description
Tickets available: amount
Backup plan completion: Criteria/s

Following is deployed some illustrations, portraying some basic factors, ensuring simplification of the complexity and at the same time representing the way of thinking in convergence. The content of it relates to the battle-plan/idea only and partly describe public and tournament rounds.

Creating convergence between the leader capacity on the team and the battle-plan is essential.

When you have created a defensive battle plan but only have offensive leaders available, they will not perform as useful as if they were the opposite, namely defensive leaders. Naturally in such a situation where not only divergence but in fact imbalance exist between the leader capacity and the plan, you could modify your defensive operations into mobile/flanking/sweeping ones, so they taste of offensive and thereby attempt to converge with the offensive leaders need/skill-profile. But of course only if other factors, like example the terrain and communication-level factors allows such a modification.

Another option would be to enforce a harder line of discipline using severe punishments when a leader violates an order. And in PR that could happen: an offensive leader lacking the unique endurance-profile needed in the defensive environment, at some point violating the defensive task by ordering his body (squad/unit), to attack.

In Project Reality there is still of today patch 8.05, a majority of offensive leaders compared to defensive ones. However there are also a growing amount of leaders who match both types of profiles. Thus if your leader capacity consists of a majority of these mixed-types, then you obviously have a more elastic overall profile available, providing your plan more potential flexibility too. I basically call the mixed-type, the flexible leader, and also view that type as the most useful of all the leader categories in Project Reality.

The definition of offensive and defensive terrain, balanced with same definitions of assets embedded in the plan, is in the end for you to make. Cause as already addressed, it is essentially about your logics in the end.

When you have created a defensive plan, but to your own logics recognize that your only having offensive terrain and offensive assets available, then the plan will not perform as useful as if you had only defensive terrain and defensive assets available.

Naturally, in such a situation, where not only divergence but in fact imbalance, exist between the operational capacity, the assets and the plan, you could modify your defensive operations into offensive ones, but of course only if other factors, like example the communication-level factor and the leader factor allows such.

In addition to the operational capacity, the asset capacity and the plan, it is important that you listen to the opinions, thoughts, doubts and suggestions from your leaders, who are the ones having to perform the actual combat tasks embedded in your plan. And have to do so with the assets and terrain you have designated them.

The leaders in Project Reality normally do speak up, if they feel or measure an imbalance within their designated operational capacity and asset capacity. The important task here, for you as CO, is to ensure you communicate your logics as clear as possible to your leaders, so their considerations are downed as much as possible.

As case, should you designate an experienced armour squad, consisting of 3 x 2-man-crewed vehicles, an operational capacity consisting of a 15 meter narrow and 500 meter deep, hostile and dense forest area, without any infantry support, dont be surprised when the leader of the squad severely doubt your order. Thus in such a case, a tactical or strategic argument from you, would be needed in order for that leader to follow your order.


Creating convergence between the overall level of the shooter skills on your team and the level of tasks designated in the plan is vital when ensuring those tasks being realistic to process by the shooters. So unless it is an objective in your plan, to designate unrealistic tasks to your shooters, a convergence has to be formed.

It does not really make any tactical sense to develop a plan, depending on the use of smoke from grenadier kits, when the fact is that nobody on your team knows how to aim with the grenadier kit. Or for that matter to rely on marksmen only - protecting a flank of your body, when no one on your team knows how to use the related kits.

Naturally in such a situation where not only divergence but in fact imbalance, exist between the shooter skills and the related tasks in the plan, you should without any hesitation modify the plan until the imbalance has been removed.

In Project Reality the shooter skills and related shooter tasks convergence, is often deployed in imbalance due to the fact it is simply being ignored. Reason is to find in the present day overall lack of experienced commanders, the lack of any in-game shooter-info system and also the fact that it simply requires a Commander (inexperienced ones as well) to get the overall picture of the shooter skills on a team.

In the tournament however, Commanders have a great opportunity to get that info from team training. When i back in 2007 got command of my first tourney team, the PELA team (Peoples Elite Liberation Army), I initiated a series of shooting sessions. From those i got a picture of the shooting skills on my team and was sadly surprised to see that they from my logics were not that good.

Consequently that knowledge influenced my tactical ambitions for the upcoming battles and as result the PELA team deployed defensively in those battles.

In my experience the average PR shooter normally have better skills in the defensive than the offensive operations. The reason is simple. It is remarkable more easy to take out advancing enemies when you are defensively ready, your proned, your covered and your concealed. The opposite offensive situation, where you advance into a prepared enemy defence is remarkable more difficult, cause here your creating sound from your movement, your not concealed, your not covered and you are not proned.


The Primarily Shooting range on Qwai River.
The map that became THE training map for both PELA and CATA II Army teams

Image from a shooting tests table. We tested all our Boot Camp players, in order to both increase our awareness of the team sized shooter skills, as well as raising the awareness of the individual shooters them selfs. You will be surprised to see how few PR players, who know their own shooter skills, on for instance a moving target.

However, due to lack of time in the tournament pre-battle mode, we generally speaking, conducted these tests with the standard rifle mostly. After Boot Camp, further testing and improvements of the shooter skills, was processed in some of the squads.

This short awareness and test program can be planned and executed within a reasonable time frame. In order to save time, as with so many other activities, you as commander should probably plan it out before joining the campaign your self.

But how does the Public Project Reality Commander overcome the problem of knowing if the shooters are actually up for the designated tasks, offensive or defensive ones or a mix of both.

The public CO has from start of the battle-round no clue about where on the low, medium and high-scale his troops shooter skills are located? Even when the Public CO might know a player here and there or maybe even one or two entire squads, he seldom knows the entire team. Thus he got no clue from round-start.

Only throughout the round will he be able to use the team-screen in order to raise his knowledge.

The Public CO therefore has to make a round-start battle-plan decision based on zero shooter Intel. Depending on how the shooters perform against the enemy, while the first part of the battle evolves, that round-start zero decision, will proof it self to be either too ambitious or the opposite.

So how does the Public PR CO overcome that challenge from round-start?

Well, in public play, when your facing a 1 to 1 situation in quantity, the basic rule is as follows:

the less you know about your own team and your opponent team the simpler your plan must be.

So in order to compensate for that lacking round-start shooter knowledge, the public CO simply need make use of concentration and weight designated as few objectives as possible. In fact when possible on the PR map, actually only a single main objective.

When concentrating your public team in a simple round-start move, the music you planned has a better chance to survive the initial volume battle. Surviving that will normally create confidence in your ranks, which can be used to raise your ambitions wanting to spread out the team more than initially.

Hence in order to identify both his own skill level and the enemy skill level the wise Public Commander initiate with a simple safe move. From thereon in regard to the results coming out of the first part of the battle, ambitions are either raised or lowered for the rest of the round. Kind of like the first video in this text, where a march is played in a slow tempo, only to be played again later in the text but in a faster tempo.

Spreading out your team from round-start when your still lacking knowledge about your shooters skills, is in my experience too complex and therefore in that shooter-knowledge-context, not only too ambitious but also the wrong foundation for gathering realistic knowledge about your shooters skills.


Creating convergence between the tasks-levels in the plan and the communicational skill-levels on your team is important. For some types of battles the most important factor of them all.

When you have created an offensive plan but not created one or more useful, thus related communicational procedure/s, converging with the skill-levels on your team, your plan wont perform as well as if it had the very same implemented: useful COM-procedure/s, converging with both the communicational skill-level on your team and the complexity of the tasks embedded in your plan.

Actually in any battle-situation lacking proper COM procedure for you and your team, you as Project Reality Commander, will often find your self being interrupted on the net [VOIP/TS] when according to you, no interruption should take place. And interruptions will diverge your focus, consume your energy, decrease your morale and as result reduce your opportunity to take advantage of any battle result your team or the enemy produces.

Without going into the depth of it here, basic communication is to be found from low to medium levelled on the low-medium-high scale. And advanced COM, is to be found from medium to high on that same scale.

Point is that the tasks in the plan must converge with the level of communication your team can apply.

Your plan has to focus on an overall main objective. Naturally the most obvious and generally used of all the objectives in the game of Project Reality is to defeat the enemy team. However from a planning-perspective the main objective must be more specifically expressed.

For instance a main objective could be to maintain the ownership of a specific flag by defending it. The part objectives supporting such main objective could then be to make use of directly inside out defense, using a static perimeter set-up and a spawn asset deployed inside the perimeter as well.

Thus in this basic case three part objectives (direct defense, static typed perimeter, spawn asset deployed) supports one main objective (defend the flag).

Measured up we again see that the amount of part-objectives are significant greater than the amount of main objectives.

In the offensive operation, as also seen on the image above, there is usually an elevated potential of creating a greater amount of main objectives. This is because the offensive operation has the potential of creating more opportunities than the defensive operation has.

If you do not know how to define a specific planned objective in PR, one approach is to use questions. In the tournament i used the following questions for my self first and only when i had some of the answers up [objectives], thus not always all of them, i would present those to my planning related key-players [officers] and from thereon initiate the discussion-process.

Note that the questions in this approach must be followed in the very order they are listed:

  1. How can I make sure my enemy cannot defeat me?

  2. Where on the map - with the knowledge I so far gathered, about me, my enemy and the battleground - is it realistically speaking, possible for me, not to be defeated?

  3. How can I make sure I can defeat my enemy?

  4. Where on the map - with the knowledge I so far gathered about me, my enemy and the battleground too - is it realistically speaking, possible for me, to defeat my enemy?

Thus by using this approach you now have divided your plan into two main objectives. The first objective is the solution to where on the map you cannot be defeated by your enemy -and the second objective is the solution to where you can defeat your enemy.

Planning wise, a main objective somehow has to be reached by using part-objectives. The part-objectives must only be deployed in sufficient numbers to support the accomplishment of the main objective Hence no more part objectives must be implemented in the plan, than what is exactly needed to achieve the main objectives.

So what are the part-objectives then?

Well, basically any specific action that is realistic enough to use time, space, energy and tickets on, while at the same time being able to support the accomplishment of the main objective.

So basically a part-objective can be anything; a flag or a group of the same, a bridge, a road, a river, a path, a specific sub-grid, a specific building, a landing zone, a formation, a procedure, a battle-space, a spawn asset, a rhythm, a tone, a speed, the enemy self-confidence, your own team lacking self-confidence and so on. Anything that somehow can support the main objective.

a flag or a group of the same
a bridge
a road
a river
a path
a specific sub-grid
a specific building
a landing zone
a formation
a procedure
a battle-space
a spawn asset
a rhythm
a tone
a speed
the enemy self-confidence
your own team lacking self-confidence

So even the enemy can in-fact, -when being unaware about it, end up being a part-objective in your plan, supporting your main objective.

Just think of the world famous German blitzkrieg-cut-plan, in France 1940, where a part-objective in the German plan, was to allow the allied forces moving up north, so they could be more easily cut off from their supply-depots in the south. In this plan, the allied movement to the north, in it self, was a preplanned part-objective in the German plan, supporting its main-objective; cutting the allied army into two parts.

Some of the most clever PR plans out there, always include the enemy as a part-objective, supporting the main-objective of the plan.

If we take a second look, on the last tone-rhythm-speed related video clip, in order to view it from the objective-perspective, we see that the defensive side has decided to maintain a specific area by demonstrating directly defense, using a static perimeter set-up to stop the enemy advance. And moreover, making use of a fire-solution procedure coordinated by a specific type of communication as well. Thus in total four part-objectives (directly defense, static perimeter, fire-procedure, communication-procedure) supporting one main objective (defend this position).

Furthermore, we see that the defensive team, has organised it self accordingly to the objectives in its (from what we can see in the clip), defensive plan.


Organising your team in Project Reality, can be your key to victory as well as your key to defeat.

Not organising your team at all is pointless in PR. The reason is to find in the essence of the game; teamwork created and maintained to solve different types of tasks in different types of situations.

Useful teamwork per experience requires X organisation. Thus the very need to organize is essential for you as The Project Reality Commander.

Basically there exist two overall types in PR: in-game and off-game teamwork. On the public servers you will normally find only in-game teamwork and in the tournament - as well as similar dynamics - off-game too. The off-game teamwork usually attempts to create and maintain the in-game teamwork.

Although the above is quite simple to understand, it is not always simple to perform in praxis. Especially in PR, where the unique global dynamic, ensure fluidness in almost every aspect of the game. Thus I can only recommend reading or learning about organisation in general, if you as PR CO want to make use of the full capacity of your team.

Back in the tournament I wanted to create a learning-organisation on my team. Reason: I knew we faced numerous challenges that easily could turn into problems and from there on develop into negative factors potentially downing the overall morale. And a downed morale means X closer distance to the defeat.

With the specific culture born in a learning environment, I knew from real life experience, that problems in general would be viewed, approached, solved and evaluated as challenges, thus as positive factors, potentially increasing the overall morale. Even when facing defeat.

During my yearlong attempt trying to create a learning organization on the PELA and the CATA 2nd Army teams, I made plenty of mistakes. However the learning-culture under construction downed the effect those mistakes had on morale and in the end I actually got a shape in the form of a learning environment as well. Not a perfect shape, but useful enough when taking the opponents into the consideration.

When I got the shape formed victories came - one after another. More often than not the victories came to my body and me, thus not the other way around.

My experienced-based conclusion of today is that a learning organisation in battle facing as few unknown factors as possible will be victorious.

It feels strange now, writing so few conclusively words today, after what was such a massive challenge back then.

Organisational types

As already stated in the text, the only constant CO factor is change.

Thus keeping to the same organisation, throughout example an entire tournament campaign can proof to be a fatale decision when confronting opponents who do exactly the opposite; changing the organization according to the upcoming challenges.

This goes not only due to the adjustment factor it self, when fighting a round, but also in regard to the long termed effect coming out of the very same.

In my experience, the adaptive Project Reality team evolves better over time to changes, than does the opposite type of team. And I have used both types, with the victorious adaptive one as the second of two.

Thus by not using the same team-set-up constantly, the adaptive team can not only increase its overall force-capacity up to a specific battle, but can also develop X unique flexible-expertise/s as well.

That last factor [flexible-expertise], can end up moving a team X level/s up the team-comparison-ladder, when it comes to fight victorious under circumstances, deploying potentially decisive battle factors, like the occasionally evil and powerful tech weather.

There are as many ways to organise the Project Reality team, as there are teams and commanders and maps and game modes. Thus many.

Overall they do though share some guiding PR principles. These are:

  • The principle of separated arms
  • The principle of combined arms
  • The principle of dependency level

Separated arms

Is when you organise the weapons in homogeneous units: infantry-weapons for them selfs, amour-weapons for them selfs, and air-weapons for them selfs. Separated arms used in Project Reality have the advantages of the following:

  1. Maximizing the mutual fire-power of the specific arms.

  2. Decrease in overall focus on different needs, different opinions and different logics in the unit.

  3. Relatively fast and easy to train. Even with completely new PR players.

  4. Tend to make battle-plans simpler, since they offer a low in-unit-flexibility factor. *High in-unit-flexibility usually creates more planning options, potentially creating more advanced plans based on those additional options too.

  5. Tend to make leaders on the team increase their focus on separated arms options on a map.

Separated arms used in Project Reality have the disadvantages of the following:

  1. When different units have to cooperate in battle, the low In-Unit-Flexibility usually requires more communication and coordination.

  2. Lower a teams long termed flexibility-factor, since the players knowledge and experience will be homogeneous founded and thus tactical narrow-minded. As example the different arms on a team will not have sufficient knowledge about the needs and logics attached to each other. Personal conflicts on all levels on a team - originating alone - from this lack of cross-arms knowledge, is a realistic possibility.

  3. The use of for instance having infantry and amour cooperating on urban PR maps will be difficult to execute. Unless of course, a specific game-system, taking the separation into consideration, is embedded in the plan and in the training.

Following is deployed a short example of a PR team consisting of separated arms only:

--- Example 3 start ---

INFantry squad 1

INFantry squad 2

INFantry squad 3

INFantry squad 4

ARMour squad 1

AIR squad 1

--- Example 3 end ---

As Tournament CO I made use of separated arms in all battles, although training with combined arms was processed on my first tourney team. Thus my plans in general also reflected the logic coming out of that separated-arms-decision.

Combined arms

Is when you organise the weapons in mixed units: infantry-weapons and armor-weapons, amour and air-weapons, and also infantry and air-weapons, all working closely together using their mixed weapon-powers and the unique logics embedded in those, to overcome the challenges of the battle-dynamic.

Combined arms used in Project Reality have the advantages of the following:

  1. Maximizing the mutual creativity-power of the different arms in a unit, enabling the unit to overcome a higher level of different challenges.

  2. Increases a teams overall flexibility-factor.

  3. Tend to make leaders on a team increase their focus on different needs. Both from their own unit-players, as well as from players from other units too.

  4. Tend to make leaders on a team increase their focus on combined arms options on a map.

  5. Tend to make leaders on a team increase their cost/benefit focus, on communication between units only, when compared to communication between units through the Commander (Team Speak related). *Hence dependency focused communication.

Combined arms used in Project Reality have the disadvantages of the following:

  1. Decrease in mutual fire-power from similar weapon systems.

  2. Tends to make battle-plans more complex and thus also the planning-process it self, longer.

  3. Tends to make combined arms-units more fragile to leaders and or key-players in those units, not being present in the battle for whatever the reason, tech weather included.

  4. Potentially downing the focus of a specific weapon system compared to others in the combined arms unit. Thus if not managed with balance, the best talker among the weapon-leaders, in such unit, will especially in Project Reality win the discussions. Even though if that weapon-leader is lower skilled than the rest in the unit. Native English players normally get the advantage here, when facing non-native players with lower language skills.

I do not have any real battle-experience commanding combined arms units, thus my opinions and experience is based on discussions, testing and trainings - only.


Is used in regard to what you want or don't want to be dependent on. For instance when you organise a unit on your team as self-independent, working behind enemy lines as special operational unit, your using an organisation where you leave that part of your body to it self, not being able to support it in anyway at all. Thus such unit will also train and act from that logic.

It also goes for the situation where you deploy your entire team in a considerable distance to your main base and at the same time using a battle-plan pretty much saying no use of our main base in this round.

On Bi Ming in Campaign 6 of the tournament I blew the bridges at battle start (PLA side) and deployed my entire team (except a small self-independent section) on a specific part of the map I was sure my enemy had to attack. For around 90% of the entire round my body and me relied only on assets available in our deployed area.
We actually lost all those assets at some point and consequently had to respawn back at main base, as from where we moved in a more or less disorganised way, back to the area again, deploying new assets too. After that fluid battle-situation we defended successfully for the rest of the round.


The Battle of Bi Ming in the Project Reality Tournament Campaign 6, where I deployed almost my entire body on a specific island from start of the round to the end of it. Thus except from two minor situations, of which the first was when we lost all our deployed assets, and the second was when we left the island to attack Bi Ming it self, we depended purely on the assets available in the combat area.

The assault on Bi Ming had also been pre-planned to a fairly detailed level, however, due to time pressure between the battles, we never got to train it fully or execute it accordingly. A short training video for the assault was made though, and it portray the desire of me as CO to be just as dependent on a tactical scripted procedure than on the shooters them selfs. Because I feared a non scripted assault on Bi Ming, would cost too many tickets.

So as many other PR CO players, I have used the principle of dependency, when playing both public and tourney Commander. And done so in numerous situations. In overall its difficult to sum up advantages and disadvantages due to the fact the style it self depends much on the individual battle-plan and team-organisation as well. On the whole I for the most used three ways of dependency out of the following:

  • Specific player/s dependency
  • Unit dependency
  • Asset dependency
  • Command dependency
  • Control dependency
  • Communication dependency

In the following is deployed a short description about my attempt to create a learning organisation. As you can see two out of three principles are in use:
  1. The principle of separated arms

  2. The principle of dependency

The PELA team (2007)

PELA Unit-organisation
  • One Staff with few and only regular players in the rooster
  • Four infantry squads with many and only regular players in the rooster
  • One amour squad with few regular players in the rooster and a decent amount of non-regular players available
  • One Air squad with few regular players in the rooster and few non-regular players available
  • One Special squad without regular players in the rooster and few non-regular players available
  • One Boot-Camp with many and only regular players in the rooster, although time-limited until transfer to a real unit

Each unit was initially expected to be self-independent in developing their own training content, only following a general guideline from me. I changed that intention though, when I experienced how passive my units actually was in the self-independent producing role.

From that process I learned how important it is to focus on the squad leaders; their needs, their concerns and their challenges.

Consequently I changed my approach to those very same in the following campaign and by that achieved remarkable better training results in the units. Results that in combination with solid battle planning lead to five battle victories in a row.

Division-organisation (a cross-unit-organizational-system)
  • Intel Division (with few regular players in the rooster)
  • Propaganda Division (with few regular players in the rooster)
  • Training Division (with few regular players in the rooster)
  • Tactical Division (with few regular players in the rooster)

Each Division was to X degree expected to be self-independent in their own activities, thus only using me when required for decision-making above the Divisional level or in situations of personal conflicts. However, only few Divisions managed to create and produce successful results, due to the fact I did not use enough energy on the system my self. The problem was the same as in the initial training strategy: the players simply were too passive and I as CO was needed much more than I initially assumed.

Therefore I focused a great deal more on the divisional system in the following campaign (CATA II - Campaign 6) and consequently the divisional activity increased, although far from satisfactory.

I learned that deploying PR players in creative groups and tasking them to example inventing new tactical methods is difficult. It requires a strategy that embeds explicit group sociology, career-opportunities and medals for the involved, a competent and designated staff officer and most importantly a lot of care, time, energy and a realistic need to implement whatever the individual division produce.

Forum-organisation (barracks)
  • One Commander forum-area
  • One tactical forum-area
  • Eight unit forums
  • One Division forum-area
  • One general forum-area
  • One allied forum-area

Each forum and forum-area had specific threads organized in a system of importance. The system was based on different perceptions like informational-importance, cohesion-importance, discussion-importance, evaluation-importance and so forth.

Not all players had access to all forums. Rank was mostly the key to access, so in this system the friend-way to gain access was attempted being downed as much as possible. An attempt that was quite successful.

Access normally equalled more tasks and responsibility on the shoulders of the accessed player. In some cases, access-gained, automatically triggered that the player in question received written tasks from me. Those had to be solved satisfactory within an agreed deadline.

The shortest solved task I ever received filled less than one A4 page, while the longest filled around ten A4 pages. This task procedure increased my knowledge about the team significantly compared to if it hadn't been deployed. I can recommend any PRT CO to use written tasks.

  • One overall classical top-down hierarchy (line-information-channel)
  • One direct channel between all team players and the Commander
  • One direct channel between all team players and the tournament administration
  • One direct channel between staff players and the allied team
  • X additional communication channels that will not be deployed in this text
  • One specific administrator allocated to provide answers to my questions as CO. I had a lot of those. That specific administrator was very patient and helpful, thus I still today thank him for that. The channel to him was direct.

The line information was classical based on the military ranking system. Thus a private player would talk to his Squad Leader who would talk to a Staff player who would talk to me. In praxis this system was only used 100% like such when deployed in game and around 50% when deployed off-game. The system required procedures in order to minimize misunderstandings. Those will for the most part not be deployed in this text.

  • One regular Commander
  • One regular Staff players
  • Six regular squad leaders
  • As minimum 6 NCOs
  • Four regular Division Leaders

The leaders were responsible for creating and maintaining success in designated areas, using specific guidelines from me in doing so. The staff and me would create and maintain those guidelines.

When a leader could not create success or couldn't maintain an acceptable level of created success, micromanagement from staff and me was deployed, though mostly in battle.

The squad leaders would focus on creating and maintaining squads training, squad cohesion and squad morale. The NCOs would focus on supporting the squad leaders and at the same time be ready to take charge of the squad when necessary.

Throughout the PELA campaign, around half the squad leaders managed to maintain training sessions. A fact that eventually resulted in huge skill and cohesion differences the squads between. A factor that created imbalance on the team and downed the few opportunities we got to focus on example combined arms sessions.

As already stated my approach to the leaders on the PELA team was weak and non-focused. However my approach changed remarkable in the following campaign.

The Division Leaders would focus on creating specific content in relation to the individual division type.

Basically we had a lot of leaders on PELA team, in general around 18 leaders out of a team consisting of 60-70 players. The advantages and disadvantages when using such organisational set-up, will maybe be deployed in the text?

Additional organised activities
  • Various activities with the allied team, normally delegated to staff players or the CO
  • Various activities with the opposing teams, normally delegated to staff players or the CO
  • Various activities with the tournament administration, normally delegated to staff players or the CO
  • Various activities on public servers and main site forums, normally delegated to staff and squad leaders or the CO

The amounts of different types of tasks in the additional-organised activities were huge in both its depth and in its width. The tasks them selfs went from usual discussions with the opposing teams about map-issues up to a battle-round, onto spy-cases involving numerous players and the tourney administration, to creation of campaign-directed disinformation and deception, onto inter-team discussions, trainings and other experiences too.

Although a strategy was outlined for the additional organised activities, it failed miserably when used. Reason was that most of the additional activities became reactions to circumstances popping up out of nowhere. The planned content in the strategy was almost not used. In most cases key was to find the right person in the right time and making sure that this person did the right thing too. Balance and time was always important in those activities.

As Project Reality Commander you have to organise everything: conduct, complaints, the fun-factor, the in-game tactical content, information as well as disinformation, morale, evaluations, discussions, propaganda, control and so forth. All of it!

However, that does not necessarily mean you as CO should organise all of it your self. Allocating organisational tasks to leaders and other situational key-players, will typically help more than if you your self have your own fingers down in every organisational activity.

Remember that in Project Reality you will on most teams have X highly skilled players available. So remember to identify them and use them. Actually for that activity alone you need organisation as well. How to create that will maybe be deployed in the last section of the text.

When being organised in units, the individual PR player can and normally will increase the in-game skills multiple times compared to when playing as lone wolf. And that is not only in relation to how tactical challenges are overcome in-game, but also in relation to how the battle it self, round-result included, is evaluated by the player. As basic example, the more cohesion a player experience in an organised tournament squad, the less negative effect round-defeat/s will have.

From the organisation other factors either emerge and or increase in efficiency too. Factors like discipline, tactical-procedures, communication, control, command, evaluation, determination and time available for the game.

Players organised in units also have the benefit of training together. In relation to the methods and procedures being trained, training normally raise combat-unit efficiency significant when compared to lone wolf training.

Thus as Project Reality Commander you must make sure that the methods your units train, are either coming directly from your logics or at least doesn't diverge from them. Hence when your logics are founded in separated arms you must make sure your team does not train combined arms.

But what about the public PR CO - the type of commander we lack so much still in Project Reality. How does he organise the team?

Organising the Public-Server team

In order to organise a public Project Reality team, the commander must at first take charge of the very squad naming. And when needed, keep doing do so from round-start to round-end.

Reason is that the team is the commanders body. Thus for the commander to know his body, he must make sure what his body consist of. Hence he must name every part of it, so it relates to his logics only and at the same time express his logics to his team as well.

Naming squads is therefore also a team-sized CO communicational tool, which creates overview for everyone on the team.

However, most public commanders are not really using this core decision-making process due to several factors, of which conflict is the most present one.

Thus when some commanders does make use of it, that activity alone, tend to initiate conflicts between the squad leaders and the commander, since they [SLs] want to name their own squads them selfs. The cause is simple. Public squad leaders often have their own round-agendas.

Without going into the depth of the reason, for why this conflict of interest exist in the first place, all to be said for now, is that its created and maintained from the game-construction it self.

But nonetheless the public commander must name his squads so the names reflect his logics only.

And until a solution is found on the PR developer team, the public Project Reality Commander must accept, that conflicts with squad leaders is embedded in the game function it self. Best thing to do is to view the conflicts as challenges instead of problems.

In order to view the conflicts as challenges, i can recommend studying group-sociology, which can produce lessons to be used in real life as well. I used Belbin as my platform in the tourney. Belbins English homepage is here: BELBIN: The home of Belbin Team Roles

Are you a non-native English player as me, you can most probably find home-pages and books about Belbin, in your native language as well. But reading 5 minutes about the theories of Belbin is not enough. In order to benefit from Belbin, you need to dig into the stuff.

Naming the squads

Naming public squads reflects the planning-thoughts of the PR Commander. So naming squads require that a designed battle-plan is ready. Or as minimum require a general idea is ready. And that is an idea involving the logical reasons for naming each squad on the team.

Since most if not all, of the Public PR CO plans, will be based on map-objectives and not for instance, on morale-objectives, a simple name-designation could be created out of those very map objectives. This goes for all types of maps, factions and game modes in PR.

As illustration on a team with 5 full INF squads and 1 main Flag-Objective to attack and secure, you could use a name set-up as follows:

--- Example 4 start ---

Squad 1 is named SCOUT. This squad is designated scouting activity in Front of the Objective.

Squad 2 is named LEFT. This squad is designated X activity on the Left side of the Objective.

Squad 3 is named CENTER. This squad is designated X activity ON the Objective.

Squad 4 is named RIGHT. This squad is designated X activity on the Right side of the Objective.

Squad 5 named REAR. This squad is designated rear activity in the Back of the Objective.
--- Example 4 end ---

Using the objective as foundation for naming the squads on the public team, not only communicate a procedure to the team, but also the plan. Cause regardless of the objective designated throughout the round, the team knows who is responsible for a specific part of the objective area.

Questions like distance between units on the team, like the units armament and like the units dependency all has to be communicated by the CO. And that from the preparation phase at round start, to the very end of the round. Thus continuously throughout the round whenever such a communication from the CO is necessary.

In plans where more arms than purely infantry is used, the name designation could be as follows:

--- Example 5 start ---

Squad 1 is named AIR. This squad is designated air activities where the CO decides those are needed. However, with the primary focus in Front of the Objective. Thus if/when no orders from the commander, it automatically operates in front of the objective.

Squad 2 is named INF L. This squad is designated X activity on the Left side of the Objective. The operational space left of the objective consists of terrain that requires infantry.

Squad 3 is named INF C. This squad is designated X activity ON the Objective. The operational space ON the objective consists of terrain that requires infantry.

Squad 4 is named ARM R. This squad is designated X activity on the Right side of the Objective. The operational space Right of the objective consists of terrain that requires armor.

Squad 5 named ARM RR. This squad is designated X activity in the Rear of the Objective. The operational space in the Rear of the objective consists of terrain that requires armor.

--- Example 5 end ---

A name-designation like one of the above, or anything likewise, will communicate to your team that you have some sort of general idea, or plan outlined. That fact alone will in x cases, decrease the doubt-factor from X of the squad leaders. Now X decrease in doubts, will increase the tolerance to your orders.

Thus the wise Public PR CO makes use of naming the squads, according to the plan or idea.

On your Commander screen, you wont in the present PR patch, be able to see the squad names your self. No, on that screen, the squads will be numbered from 1 to 9.

So what you need, is a paper next to your PC screen, where you have the numbers and names listed. Just like i have listed the squads with numbers and names in the previous two examples.

And yes, I know that it is very simple to know which squad is which, just by viewing the team-sized formation positioned around the objective. Positioned in a classical formation where the team is organised into 5 objective-related positions, with the Scout-element in the front, the Rear-element in the back and 3 Infantry-elements aligned with the objective it self.

But! What if the formation at some point is lost? What if a squad is deleted and another is created? Then you need that paper next to you, so you still know who is who.

When using the classical five-formation position-solution in public play, the problem of leader-convergence pop up sooner than later. Cause as already addressed, X squad leaders have their own agenda, based on their own round-needs.

Who knows, maybe half of all the squad leaders, wants to be the scout-element? Maybe none of the squad leaders wants to be the scout-element?

Regardless of what, the classical set-up will not work in every round. The player-material you have on a public team, determines the borders of the frame you can create your creation within.

Even though, i still recommend, trying to use the example-used set-up, or any likewise. Cause having a plan ready with logical squad-names, will decrease X doubts on the team. And the PR CO, public as well as tourney, will be doubted.

Thus for you as CO, it is about working against the doubt-factor using organization, communication and command. And doing it in that very order.

So please do not ignore the doubt-factor. Accept it. Embrace it with your prepared thoughts and your prepared conclusions.

  • The more you have thought about your plan (names included) the easier it will be to confront doubts from your team.

  • The easier it is to confront doubts from your team, the more trust the team will provide you.

  • The more trust provided to you by your team, the easier it will be for you, to create a body out of it.

  • The easier it is to create a body of the team, the easier it will be for you, to create a killing machine.

  • In Project Reality, killing machines win. They win regardless of creating the kill through hits or through bleed.

Thinking in tickets


Those very basic, aggravating mathematical factors, on your screen, always going down and typical in the end of that downed round, disallowing you - The Commander - to organise that final massing in the open attack, which clearly would have turned the tide for your only 150 tickets-behind, brave and "less" focused team.


Well, on the commander level in Project Reality tickets are the very expression of possibilities, thus tickets represent the potential potentiality of the following five basic factors:

1. You as CO and how you use the tickets situational and long-termed
2. Your team and how it use the tickets situational and long-termed
3. The enemy commander and how he use the tickets situational and long-termed
4. The enemy team and how it use the tickets situational and long-termed
5. The tech weather and how it situational and round-through affect specific types of tickets

It is important to underline that tickets represent potential potentiality and not just potential. Cause the potential potentiality describes a minimum, two-dimensional dynamic, as illustration the following dynamics:

+ (using a specific type of ticket to a logical and useful task)
++ (sacrificing a specific type of ticket for a higher situational cause)

-(using a specific type of ticket to a non-logical and non-useful task)
--(sacrificing a specific type of ticket for a lower situational cause)

Time (the time it takes a specific amount of tickets to complete a specific amount of tasks)
Gravity (the gravity of a magnet can have a strong influence on the ticket balance)

For the completely new PR CO, the above listed factors should initially be more than enough to focus on.

When to expand ones perception on thinking in tickets is subjective. Moving from the basic-five-factor perception to any level above the basic level is not to my knowledge possible to determine. It is only possible to experience subjectively.

Above levelled factors can for instance be the body and the killing machine. These factors also represent potential potentiality measured in tickets. Cause they cost tickets to create, they cost tickets to maintain and they cost tickets to develop.

To me, thinking in tickets has from my very first to my very last PR battle, been a journey in it self. It has involved everything from squad-sized training sessions to the art of improvisation on the public servers and the overall tournament campaign strategies.

Essentially tickets in Project Reality are the very expression of possibilities. And always as minimum a combination of those five factors.

Types of tickets

In PR tickets come in types. The types of tickets are defined X degree from patch to patch. In overall the types are divided into the following three basic categories:
  • Air tickets
  • Armour tickets
  • Infantry tickets

The three basic types are divided into specific types of tickets. These are in general:
  • Fighter tickets
  • Attack helicopter tickets
  • Transport helicopter tickets
  • Anti Air tickets
  • Tank tickets
  • APC tickets
  • Anti Tank tickets
  • Assault rifle tickets
  • Mg tickets
  • Grenadier tickets
  • AT tickets
  • Engineer tickets
  • Medic tickets

The types of tickets represent different possibilities on the PR battlefield, both positive and negative possibilities. The positives are normally the ones that can destroy your opponents tickets and the negatives are normally the ones that can destroy your own tickets.

However negative ticket possibilities can also be used to create a false impression of you in the opposing commanders point of view, thus in that specific regard the negatives become positives. As example you can plan to conduct X non-logical and X non-useful attacks on an enemy objective, taking in account that you will lose a certain amount of tickets doing so. After that amount of tickets has been lost, or reached if you will, you simply fall back to an in-detail, planned defensive position.

Normally such planned negative operations will make you look like a noob in the opposing commanders point of view. So when retreated into your fortress, you simply await the enemy to conduct a hopefully less organised attack on same objective. Less organised due to the fact he hopefully think of you as a noob.

Basic rule: Negative possibilities can when used correctly produce positive possibilities

Every ticket is a specific creation-possibility of destruction, every ticket is a cut and some cuts are more destructive than other cuts. In example the fighter ticket when lost, also cost a decreased possibility to influence the air battle and additionally, as in-game penalty, cost extra tickets from ones tickets pool also. So in this fighter-example, a three dimensional ticket-loss: the pilot ticket it self, the downed possibility to influence the air battle and the penalty hitting the ticket pool.

Below is listed the Ticket Penalties in present 8.06 patch. These data can change with any new patch, so you need to do some updating-Intel here as well:


Thinking in tickets is very much like thinking in competitive stone cutting. Or at least to me it is. See, here you have these two stone cutters, the commanders, who both attempt to destroy the stone of their competitor. They do it using specific tools being the different types of tickets creating different types of cuts in the stones. Thus the entire dynamic is a creation of destruction being as already stated, the art of war.

That is also why commanding warfare, Project Reality warfare included, is the highest art of all art forms out there. Cause not only is the warfare-artist forced to create destruction of his opponent, but he is also forced to shield against destruction coming from his opponent. No other art involve the same type of complex and intense creation-dynamic.

So through the dynamic of different value-possibilities, these positives and negatives that is, tickets in PR represent potential potentiality related primarily to the individual types of tickets.

Tickets and the plan

In terms of the plan and the concept of thinking in tickets i normally used the following two-step-approach in both the tournament as well as in public play.

--- Example 6 start ---

Step I

I would as soon as the round-situation offered it, attempt to conduct a significant operation, involving minimum 2/3 and maximum 3/3 of my team. In that operation the main objective would be to win a ticket-battle. The definition of winning such battle type was counted and levelled in getting an advantage of 50 to 130 tickets.

How and why i decided for those numbers will not be posted in this text.

Step II

With the advantage in the ticket-balance, I would then use that plus balance to train my body in either attacking or defending, mostly defending though.

--- Example 6 end ---

So thinking in tickets related to the plan and its assumed challenges is all about economics.

This kind of thinking involves the objectives in the plan and the maximum amount of own tickets they must cost to process, regardless of the kind of methods involved: attack, defense, retreat. So the economical part involves all types of available tickets in the plan.

There are many ways doing the economics. Some are more complex than others; some are simpler than others.

In the tournament (and partly in public play too) i either used to deploy a price on each objective embedded in the plan or deployed a price on each phase of the plan. Actually i used the phase pricing mostly, which was calculated from the assumed price the objectives in the individual phase of the plan was thought to cost. Normally a span between minimum and maximum ticket cost was deployed in that kind of thinking.

Hence objectives-costs in phase X of the plan, described an estimated total price that could either be acceptable or not. If not acceptable, the phase - or the plan as a whole - had to be modified until the total price of a phase became acceptable.

I normally used three phases, whereof the first and second was the priced ones. The last phase wasnt, cause planning wise, it depended on the outcome of the second phase and its total price in tickets and benefits from captured positions and other operations.

So basically a balance-issue involving the following factors:
  • The ticket balance between the two teams
  • The ticket price of phase two in the plan
  • The benefits my body had from the present positions
  • The overall morale on my team
  • My personal mode
  • The tech weather influence to things in the round until now


Tactical methods 2016

Although this guide is not about tactical methods, they need to be mentioned, since they are highly effective patterns of organised and coordinated battle behavior. Another PR player and ARMA player too, dslyecxi, has made a fantastic guide for this part of the battle dynamic. I highly recommend that you read it from start to end, or use it as a reference tool.

You can find the link for his guide here:

ARMA II Tactics, Techniques and Procedures guide

Another great place for tactics related to Project Reality, is the PR In-Game Tactics and Strategies Sub-forum. As a commander player, my experience with this forum is entirely positive. I once in a while, drop in and read the guides, join the debate and ask questions, or put forward ideas and criticism. The forum is a great place for both getting accurate information and great inspiration.

You can find the link to this sub-forum here:

PR In-Game Tactics and Strategies

Other places are the webpage YouTube, loaded with hundred of project reality firefights, ambushes, formations, communications and so forth, different PR Clan forums too, also contain a lot of good tactical knowledge and experience. War movies often portray the usage or execution of at least one type of tactic. Beside of that, I recommend reading about war, for instance tactical manuals, from whatever the country you can find, same for different eras and military branches also.

Now. What I can say about the use of tactical methods, for you as the PR commander, is that they are found in large numbers and more than often, relate them self to a specific period of weaponry and or technology, often in combination with each other, or other factors like player mood, patience, discipline, morale and experience. But also factors like the current version of PR, the map you battle on, its assets and terrain and the weather too, technical weather included.

So both the team on a whole and each individual player on the team, you as CO included, have an impact on what kind of tactic, technique or procedure you should use. Due to the restrictions of knowing your team in the tournament and even more in public battles, using simple and small unit, basic tactics, like the Line or Column formation, also being the oldest known tactics in the history of written warfare, is often key to success.

Lifted tactics, where the basic tactics of the Line and Column are both included, are also highly recommended to use. In that way you create a pattern of close to similar thinking on your team, being decisively important in prolonged battles, as for instance in a 10-12 battle campaign of the project reality tournament.

Lifted tactics like for instance:
  • Suppressing fire, combined with one or more frontal assaults, in order to create a frontal breakthrough of an enemy position, typically positioned in such a manner, so its wings cannot support its center.

  • Suppressing fire, combined with one or more flanking assaults, in order to roll up a wing of the enemy position, typically positioned in a manner where both its center, its rear and opposite flank, cannot support it.

  • Single envelopment, combined with or without suppressing or distracting fire and other types of noise. Successful infiltration can often be more effective as travel technique, than fighting your way through the enemy flanks. Not only due to the risk of loosing the fight and its tickets, but more so due to the element of surprise, when the opposing commander realize he has been enveloped.

  • Double envelopment, logically being two envelopment's, often depending on each other in term of time, so they envelope simultaneously. Again, this in order to create a chock effect for the opposing commander surprisingly realize the envelopment on both his wings.

  • Static perimeter defense, very simple and easy to train and execute. Can be used in both defensive and offensive operations. I used it a lot, probably too much, thinking back now. But its advantages cannot be underestimated. Compared to many of the other formations, it requires very little time and effort, in both planning, training, communication and coordination. Due to its dependency on close to medium firing distances, in the terrain, it is also a more secure Tech-weather formation.

  • Scattered position defense, where each position is able to support the surrounding positions with either direct or indirect fire. This type of defense is more common in the PR battles of today (2016) than back in 2006 and 2007, the starting years of the tournament, where it both began and scaled up.

During the tournaments Campaign 5 and 6, my most grave mistake, was to use the static and defensive perimeter 'linear' formation, far too much. It ended up reducing both the morale of my team, perhaps also diminished the level of initiative too? The players did not enjoy, to sit tight through several hours of game-play, shooting down incoming enemies, over and over, from more or less the same approaches, as was it all taking place on a turkey shooting gallery.

I should have adjusted my tactical profile more than I eventually did. I can only hope that the around 250 players, of my two teams, the PELA 2 and CATA 2, will accept my apology of not being more creative.

For you as commander, the most important thing, is that the very tactical methods you decide to use, are converging with as many other factors, related to both the team and the battle dynamic, as absolutely possible. Any divergence is a potential path to defeat, - making your CO task of creating simplicity, out of the complexity, a potential, ongoing and ever changing puzzle. A puzzle you can never assemble completely.

Conclusively, the usage of tactical methods in the Project Reality dynamic, requires both simplicity, convergence and discipline on all levels of command. That is for the individual trooper exercising them, and the individual leader, Fire Team Leader, Non Commission Officer, Squad Leader, Platoon Leader and AOR Leader, organising and coordinating them, as well as discipline for the individual Commander, planning, combining and using them.


He who defends everything defends nothing
Frederick The Great quote


I will lose a man but not a moment
Napoleon Bonaparte quote

Short on strategy and tactics

Tactic is related to strategy. In the PR community, there is to a certain degree, some ongoing confusion / disagreement, about what strategy and tactic essentially are. My description of the differences, between the two dynamics is as follows:

--- Example 7 start ---

Private PR is in need of money.

Since playing PR is obstructing his ability to go out and find a job, he simply decides to rob a bank. Thus now Private PR has outlined a strategy to get more money.

How he then decides to rob the bank; disabling the alarms, calculating police-timings, setting the exact time for the robbery and identifying where in the bank, the money safe is located, all belong to the tactical part.

Thus strategy is about what you want to do, while tactic is about how you want to do it.

--- Example 7 end ---

Additionally, in order to describe the full commander picture, tactic is vertically, deployed below the battle-plan, which is deployed below the battle-strategy.

Consequently the three dynamics are vertically deployed as follows:
  • The map strategy (main goal of the team activity on the map)
  • The related battle-plan (main and part objectives making it possible to reach the goal)
  • The related battle-tactics (practical approaches for the units to reach the main and part objectives)

About tactical Project Reality methods and their related frame and logics 2016

From its beginning and until today, the year of 2016, Project Reality has been a flag zone focused meta game, involving full teams, amounting between 64 and 200 players per round. That combination represent the overall framework, from where the tactical methods, techniques and procedures emerge from. The structure is therefore both the boundary and spawn of the tactics involved in the game.

So had project reality instead focused on other objectives than flag zones, and involved between 128 and 320 players per round, some of the tactics, boundaries included, would have been different.

This fact is also part of the reason, why for instance double encirclements, has not emerged from PR as a game structure. Hence tactical methods relate them selfs to the structure they are logical connected too. For instance like when a PR squad assault a 3 store defended building, it will make use of certain tactics, logical connected for that specific battle environment.

Basic rule: Tactical methods will per automatic, converge with the frame they are emerging from.

For you as commander, this rule is important, because it provide you with the insight of the available tactical options and limitations, for the units you designate to obtain the objectives. Squads being ordered to capture that 3 store building, will make use of different tactics, than squads ordered to attack that grassy field.

This knowledge also mean that you as commander, will perceive tactical methods as restricted dynamics, wrapped by logical rules - game rules in this case - of which some will be explicit and some will be implicit. The size of a standard infantry squad is an explicit rule, while an implicit rule cover the possibilities of the usage of that squad.

So in some situations and generally speaking, a 6 player squad, offer less creative options, than a 10 player squad, due to the sheer explicit size of player potential. However, under other circumstances, when a 6 player veteran squad fight a 10 player beginner squad, then the veteran squad mostly offer more implicit based creative solutions, than the beginner squad. Meaning that explicit game rules can be bend by implicit ones, in this case the factor of player experience.

Thus, tactical methods relate them self to both the explicit and implicit framework of the game.

Tactical methodical approaches

Project Reality embeds worldwide tactical methodical approaches to its logics.

Both the so-called western approach and the so-called eastern approach are embedded in PR, and have been so by the use of the Attack And Secure game-system, as well as the team levelled, and squad levelled spawn option-system too.

The western approach is emerging from the logic of OUTSIDE AND IN, while the eastern approach is emerging from the logic of INSIDE AND OUT.

The western approach is as follows:
  1. To deploy outside an objective first and then scout for the weakest spot of its perimeter.
  2. To break in at the weakest point using all available systems to punch through.
  3. To either roll the rest of the perimeter up from the break-in point or capture an objective behind the perimeter.

The eastern approach is as follows:
  1. To deploy outside an objective at first and then scout for the best infiltration point/s in its perimeter.
  2. To sneak through the perimeter and hide behind it, while if possible build up logistics behind it too.
  3. Attack the perimeter from behind and if possible simultaneously from the outside too.

In the tournament as well as in public play I have mainly used the western approach, although a few times also the eastern approach in a western style. The grounds for not using the eastern approach 100%, has been due to time and space-restrictions on the map, as well as assumed enemy battle behaviour in the round.

Both approaches take time to process, but the eastern does it behind enemy lines, which in PR, as well as in real life, can be difficult to complete successfully.

Thus PR covers as minimum Clausewitz, Jomini and Sun Tzu. The first two mentioned was both related to Napoleon Bonaparte, while the last was known for more than a thousand years before the two first.

As the upcoming and or continuously successful Project Reality Commander, you at least want to glance through x text-sections, of these highly skilled three thinkers, or watch videos about them. (Not sure if Jomini can be found video-wise though?)

The team-sized tactical way of thinking 2016

To me, tactical methods in PR is about to execute and preparing them, on a team sized scale, involving most but not the whole team. Setting my team like this, tend to make me less dependent on individual squads, players, assets, technical weather and my own screw ups. The sheer fighting force, embedded in such a concentration, will mostly achieve the first of my designated part objectives, and often the second and third too. Depending on the opposing team, me as commander and the battle plan, this style of initial success, is often enough to win the contest of momentum, in at least the contact battle. However, using team sized tactics, can naturally be completed throughout the entire battle. Only a matter of organization and deception whilst assembling most the team in one sector only.

Formation wise I mostly think in single, double or triple columns, depending on the area I want to deploy it in. But my style is to concentrate it, instead of scatter it, as other commanders tend to do.

For me, team-sized tactical methods involves between 2/3 to 3/3 of the team but usually 2/3. I have faced other PR commanders, who has used other team-sized numbers, for instance 4/5 or 5/6.

However, all team-sized tactical methods in Project Reality, regardless of approach, rely as minimum on the following factors:
  • x degree of logistics
    x degree of formational consideration and or use of the same
    x degree of terrain consideration and or use of the same
    x degree of dependency (arms and or command)
    x degree of skillfulness by the squad leaders
    x degree of discipline by the squads

The team-sized tactical formation NEED IMPROVEMENTS

In my experience, there only exist one type of useful, tactical formation in PR, the team-sized formation, involving anything from 2/3 to 3/3 of the team.

My definition of a team-sized formation is not purely based on sheer numbers, but also on the very fact that the formation it self, has 1 objective as activity-focus, or 1+ objectives on the same axes of advance. Hence concentration and weight is attached to the way I think team sized in Project Reality.

The useful team-sized formation is not necessarily a line, a column, or a square or circle, either defending or attacking an objective; no it can also be individual columns, individual lines, double-columns and or individual double-lines too.

As long as those same converge on an objective, or an array of the same, they are team-sized. The convergence naturally has to be realistic and logical, in order to be defined as such. So although the team-sized formation actually can be created and maintained, by individual elements converging on 1+ objective on the same axes, those elements normally have to depend on the same team-sized assets as well.

Hence team sized formational thinking (for me) covers the following factors:
  • 2/3 to 3/3 of the players
  • 1+ objective on the same axes
  • Dependency of the same team sized assets

However as soon the above mentioned formations are being scattered randomly on the map, having multiple objectives diverging them away from each other, then the team-sized formation is lost.

Of course non-team-sized formations can be useful too - situational that is - and the use of them should not be ignored as well, but in the long run, round-through and round-after-round, they are not useful.


Training the team sized, single column formation with boot-camp players - PELA Team 2007

In the tournament I mostly used the line as the defensive team-sized, successful formation, and a few times also the half-circle and the L-shaped formations as well.

In In the tournament I mostly used the single column as the successful offensive formation, although double/multiple columns have been used successfully too.

Using the team sized formation in the PR battle

Team-sized formations in PR are pretty much always, used in the offensive and the defensive way. Thus retreating in a team-sized formation is a dynamic not really being used in Project Reality.

Following is deployed content related to the offensive and the defensive dynamics. The defensive dynamic can of course be extended to involve a retreat dynamic as well, but I will not cover that part in this text, since it is in my opinion, is too advanced for the PR community as a whole.

Team-sized offensive BEING IMPROVED 2016

When planning to go on the team-sized offensive in PR, there are two ways of doing so. (edited 2016)

The first way is to attack continuously from offensive Start to offensive End. The second is to attack step wise, from Step One to step End. Regardless of approach, the two approaches may be used from round start to round end, or from a particular part of the round to yet another particular part.

First, lets take a look on the continuously offensive. This approach is often used by teams with the focus on taking advantage of whatever the advantageous situation, appearing out of the battle. Teams focusing on concentrating their strength in one or several deceive punches, until victory has been reached. Punches rapidly following each other, so no pauses here, only forward, forward and forward until victory. Forward or defeat.

In Project Reality, this method focus on speed, short width, increased length, advantageous positions and rapid and determined encirclement's. So it also reduce the priority on ammunition, flanks, rear, deployable assets, spawn points included. The assaulting troops must learn to use the enemy weapons after having run out of ammunition. Not that resupply should not be attempted, it should, but only when absolutely necessary. Here speed and moving forward, is more important than ammunition and the rest.

With exceptions, my way of performing it, has been to go on the offensive, from round start to round end. That is with the intention of smacking my opponent as hard as possible, thus very hard, during the contact phase. Smacking, no mercy, only forward until victory.

Best round I ever fought using this approach, was in a public battle on Qwai River, where I fully utilized the helicopters on the US team, speeding up the battle and thereby outmaneuver and outpace my already chocked opponent. I ensured that most of my team, was deployed in narrow "front-lines" only, assaulting the flag-zones from one flying column only. First helicopter down, cargo out, up again, circle the target area, watch out for enemy positions and reinforcements. Second helicopter down just after number one and so forth. So even though I am more a defender than an attacker, I am not unable of using this method. When that is said, my tournament experience with this wonderful method, has only been half successful using it. Mostly because I was not determined enough, even after I had smacked and chocked my opponent. Just never was determined enough - back then.

But lets talk about you.

Depending on how you complete the continuously offensive, your tickets can vanish both from really fast to relatively slow. When you perform it correctly, the method has the potential of using the least amount of tickets and ending the battle most rapidly too. Basically a must try method, for any offensive minded commander. However, in order to reach such a stunning result, most often the indirect attack, attacking the enemy weakness, is the necessary method to make use of, repeatedly that is, throughout the entire offensive phase, often being the rest of the round, from offensive start. This is also why you need to speed things up, so your opponent never get a chance to reorganize.

The opposite approach, than using the indirect attack, is of course the direct attack on the enemy strength, often being the enemy concentration. It too, can in fact be carried out successfully, with the same stunning result. However, in my experience, this has to be done from the contact battle already, thus catching the opponent main body advantageously, while it is on the move between its main base and its initial deployment. Catch them and overwhelm them successfully, before they deploy and you have a good opportunity, to execute a continuously offensive, until you have wiped them of the map.

But regardless of attacking indirectly or directly, when you decide to use the continuously offensive, speed up the battle as much as possible, intervene in the rhythm of your opponent and make sure your troops create a tone of unit shooting, more than individual shooting. Especially in the contact phases, repeatedly, so they learn to fear what is coming next. Attack them, assault them, pressure, smack, push and storm them. Continuously.

Do not hesitate - Do not tire - Do not lose courage
Your Willpower and Determination

The second approach is to attack step-wise, as in stages, where every completed stage leads to a pause, at where you reorganize, reevaluate and perhaps even consolidate, before going on the offensive again. This approach is often used by teams with more focus on both the ticket consumption, command and control, than on potential decisive solutions, emerging out of the different battle situations. Although this approach, in principle is meant to reduce the ticket consumption, it can when executed incorrectly, result in the opposite. Due to in particular, the focus on command and control of the battle, the step wise approach carry the potential of lengthen the battle.

When on the offensive, both the single and double column, has in my experience been the most useful team sized formations. Not because they are the most advanced tactical achievements out there but because they are simple and easy to learn and to train. They are useful when executing both the continuously and step wise offensive. Tactically speaking, my definition of the team sized double column has in every case been when the two desperate columns has been deployed no further away from each other, than hand-grenade distance. Thus in flat terrain, fire-wise they perform as a single column, but technically, command and communicatively speaking, they are not.

The explanation behind the success of the single and double column, has every time been concentration and weight, whereof concentration has been the numeral advantage in the spear of the column, overwhelming the enemy defense, while weight has been the strength advantage, maintaining the amount of tickets in the spear and in the flank of the column as well.

On note, it has to be said that I have not commanded any tournament round where I was successful in round-through offensive, but public-play wise I have. In those public rounds, air assets have pretty much always been my vital factor since they have been the backbone in creating and keeping up the rhythm of the offensive.

Although I have not used the continuously offensive in the tournament, I have experienced to be defeated by it. That was in my first battle commanding the PELA 2 TEAM, where my opponent, BCST TEAM, attacked my defensive position for more than 2 hours, until it finally broke and from there was wiped out - completely and totally. Massive defeat that battle, great learning experience as well. Hence, hereafter I learned how to break the continuously offensive and was never again defeated by the method.

The team sized formation recipe in PR, working successfully against the continuously offensive, is defense in width and in depth. The weight if to focus on width or depth is situational but a 50/50 solution has never, to me at least, been the answer. Picking the correct terrain and ensuring that ones units are bounded by both defensive restrictions (AOR) as well as the opposite, is vital when deploying in width and in depth. Non-balance between the two opposite axis is key.


When planning to go on the team-sized offensive in PR, there are in my experience, two overall approaches, of which the first ensure close to 100% control with the area I want to attack, while the second ensure anything between 0 and 100% control.

So basically, a safer and a bolder plan of attack.

The first approach, attacking step by step

Attacking stepwise, is done as the name implies. That you try to reach out for a specific objective, secure it when you capture it, and consolidate your secured perimeter, enabling you to defend it successfully, until you launch your next attack, reaching out for your next objective, that you also secure when you capture it, and you also consolidate in order to defend it successfully, until you launch your next attack, and so forth.

Attacking stepwise is all about picking the following planning-factors:

The correct terrain for both the attack, the defence, the weapons allocated, the units skill-level and the players energy, morale and discipline
Reachable part-objectives in the initial phase
Precise timings for the preplanned marches
Most useful positions when both attacking, reinforcing and defending
The right units for the planned activities
The best suited leaders to run the organised units (thus dynamic as in my AOR system)
The correct organisation(s) for the different activities / phases
The most simple communication for all preplanned organisations / activities and phases
The accurate logistics and kit-regulations (tactical and fun-factor wise)
The best positions for assets
An acceptable span of own looses
A measurement of enemy looses, morale, battle-profile and available options

The double column formation, has been my most successful infantry-formation, when on the attack in this stepwise way of offensive, although I have had partly success, with the single column infantry-formation as-well. When on the defence the line has been my most successful, although always with variations.

The step wise offensive has more or less, been my only solid offensive approach, in both public play and the PR tournament. The approach has given me the option of controlling the economics of the ticket battle, remarkable more precise, than when using any other bolder approach. However, I have to say that against a well-organised PR-team, you will normally get one step ?for free?-only, before your opponent read your method.

Team-sized defense NEED IMPROVEMENTS

When planning to go on the team-sized defensive in PR, there are three ways of doing so:
  1. Distant defense
  2. Medium-distant defense
  3. Close-distant defense

Formational wise-only any X-opened formation can be used in the two first defensive approaches, while the last only offers the possibility to use the X-closed way. All three ways are flag/objective-oriented but in this specific part of the text I will name them as flags.

The 1st way of team-sized defense - the distanced solution - is to defend a flag on the evil side of the map centre, providing reduced possibilities of being reinforced with assets from ones main base (located on the good side of the map centre), while at the same time providing the exact opposite conditions to the attacking enemy.

Formational wise, both opened as well as closed formations can be used in this situation, although the opened is preferable in a bigger picture when one wants to be on the defensive as much as possible round through. Reason is to lose the distant-flag and although that maybe sounds stupid it is not.

When defending on the evil side of the centre I have successfully used the line formation in both publics as well as in tournament rounds. Sometimes that line-formation has had a single reserve element and a single sweeping element in use too [AOR related zone theory], but not always.

The 2nd way of team-sized defense - the medium-distant one, is to defend a flag located on and or around the centre flag it self. Thus exactly between evil and goodness, providing both one self and the enemy - X similar conditions to be reinforced with assets from the two main bases.

The centre flag can however also be defined, as the first flag on a map that will initiate the bleed on ones own ticket pool. So it doesnt necessarily have to be located as the geographical centre flag.

Again, the opened formation is preferable in the round-through defensive battle, but the closed one can of course be used as well. Especially when the centre-flag in question is a bleeding flag, a magnetic flag if you will.

When defending the centre flag I have successfully used the line formation in both publics as well as in tournament rounds. Sometimes that line-formation has had X reserve element and X single sweeping element in use too, but not always. I have also used square and circle/half circle and L-shaped formations also. For those additional three formations, Ive sometimes used reserve and or sweeping elements and sometimes not. The conditions have every time been situational.

The 3rd way of team-sized defense - the close one - is to defend a flag located as close as possible to the main base flag, thus on some maps also the flag that will initiate a bleed on ones ticket pool, if captured by the enemy. So in huge degree a true magnetic flag - in short a magnet.

I have successfully used the half-circle, the full circle and the square formation in both public and tournament play when defending a magnet. In every case, the closed - or almost closed formation, has been key to success.

The round-through defense being mentioned in the first way of team-sized defense is primarily based on either the very ego or very ignorance of your opponent and secondarily on your own defensive skills, including your knowledge about what type of terrain you as CO have the ability to conduct a successful defense from.

The theory for round-through defense is simple:

You plan to go into the offensive from round start, attempting to capture terrain on the evil side of the centre of the map, geographical and or bleed-wise that is. From thereon you conduct a stepwise loosing defense, until reaching the final flag before the main base flag or the first flag that will initiate a bleed on ones team if captured by the enemy. Thus close-distant-defense.

That is the theory. However, it only holds water when the following criteria?s are met:
  1. The close flag is located in easy defendable terrain, ensuring a low-cost ticket defense and a high-cost ticket attack. Thus ensured positive ticket economy.

  2. The enemy CO is ignorant enough to be tricked into the belief that your defensive flag-defeats, at the distant and the medium-distant flag, have had more to do with his ability to conduct offensive operations than your ability to conduct defensive ones. Thus your ability to loose must look natural.

  3. The morale of your team is not being downed by the fact you are loosing flag after flag. Flags that you captured initially in the round. Thus you have to ensure that your team understand that the close-defense-position is easily to defend.

Essentially the round-through defense is similar to playing chess, in where you somehow have to be at least one move ahead your opponent. In the round-through defense you will theoretical be three moves ahead from start. Moves that your enemy will not understand before its too late and the reality from those "loosing" moves has hit him so hard in his face, that his ability to control the battle has been lost or at least blurred.

Hence chess-moves that will boost his ego every time you loose a flag, until the point where you decide to use his boosted ego against him - in order to destroy him. See, pride being a secondary emotion of its parent emotion, namely joy - comes before a fall.

Playing chess

Essentially the Project Reality Commander sub-battle is an advanced chess battle where Command, Control and Communication are vital to move and deploy the chess-pieces.

In traditional chess the pieces cant open fire on each other, but in PR they can.

When the commander sub-battle is played correctly and with luck as well, one can actually get the opposing chess pieces to open fire on each other, thereby causing potential decline in morale on the enemy team. A positive situation for you and your team, should you in the midst of battle be able to recognise it.

But fundamentally the Commander sub-battle is about moving and deploying chess pieces (elements) on the battlefield. Some of those elements can be independent throughout X time of the round but even so that is still a part of the CO decision-making process, thus indirectly a CO chess-move in it self.

However, apart from using direct or indirect CO chess-moves, the key to victory in the sub-battle is always to play the round on your terms. Your terms only. To achieve this advantage you must make use of successful in-game actions (strategy and tactical methods), to force your enemy into a position where he must fight the following combat on your terms.

Among all the methods I have used with success in PR, the most successful one is the use of those magnets I have mentioned above. Magnets - I define as either tactical or emotional ones, due to the magnetic influence Ive experienced them to have on the enemy CO-decision-making, and in some situations, in fact the entire enemy team.

Hence successful magnets always become part of the enemy decision-making cycle.

--- Example 8 start ---

The tactical magnet

The T-magnet is created when you capture a flag initiating a bleed-flag-event, on the enemy team [B-flag], or when you cut him off from his main supply source, making it a matter of time before he runs outs of necessary assets, or when you hit a specific part of his team so hard it forces him to react actively on a team sized scale; turning around him self or dividing his concentration or assembling his spread-out team into a single concentration in a non-useful area for such deployed concentrations.

Thus the Tactical-magnet forces your enemy to do what you want him to do. He has to react to what you do, or he looses.


One of the most successful Tactical magnets I have used in a Project Reality battle, was located at the Lower City Flag on the Sunset City map, playing the PLA side (CATA II TEAM).


Sunset City map, consisting of three islands, with the PLA (CATA 2) spawning on the southern island and the opposing team on the northern near the crossroad. It was obvious that the center island was to become the center of gravitation. Lower City Flag is located just south of the bridge between the north and centre islands.
The T-magnet was created in a move cutting off the enemy from his main supply line in north, by moving and deploying my force at the bridge connecting the northern and center islands.

I basically attacked Lower City from round-start (phase 1) using more than 2/3 of my team doing so, capturing LC area, not the flag, really fast and thereafter used a squad-sized infantry force supported by a battle-aggressive APC unit, to defend it long enough to eventually force the enemy CO splitting up the main part of his team deployed in the Construction-Offices area, so he could recapture Lower City and regain his main supply line.

That forced split of the enemy team, resulted in my team-capture of the Offices-flag and a deployment of a planned and successful defense of Apartment-Flag-area as well. That defense broke the enemy attack-rhythm and from thereon we pushed him across the river.

Thus Lower City-flag-area became from round-start, the tactical magnet that determined the outcome of the entire battle.

Below are deployed two images from the planning and battle-process related to this specific battle and its tactical magnet (Lower-City-Flag-Area). Note how the use of the AOR system simplifies the operation in both the planning as well as in the battle-phase.





One of the most known tactical magnets in the history of warfare was the Pratzen Heights at Austerlitz. A hilly terrain that Napoleon Bonaparte planned to abandon first and thereafter recapture in force. However, only after the enemy had done what he wanted the enemy to do: attacking in force the right flank of The Great Army. When Napoleon recaptured the hilly terrain the enemy was forced to counterattack, which was done for hours but nonetheless fruitless, resulting in enemy retreat and termination of the remaining enemy left wing as well.


Basic rule: the more important the magnet to force your enemy with the greater his reaction will be.

The emotional magnet

The E-magnet is created when you deploy your team around a position not threatening the enemy CO in any tactical way but only in an egocentric way, making the enemy Commander wanting to capture it no matter what!

Such an emotional magnetic-position can for instance be a friendly bleeding flag, or be the last friendly/neutral flag before the friendly bleeding flag, or be a place that will cut your team off, from your own main supply source -if captured by the enemy, or be an area that relates to a previous battle where you won a decisive and well-known victory. Thus a victory your enemy know about. The emotional magnet can basically be a lot of different things, since it -in its nature, relate to human emotions not being downed by objective tactical measurements.

The most successful emotional magnet I have used in a Project Reality battle was the defense of Temple Flag, Qwai River map, playing the PLA side (PELA TEAM). A battle that from my opponents side was not tactical necessary to process. Temple flag was not a tactical treat to the enemy in that battle, however its location being close to the PLA main base could be used as base for encircling PLA main base. Thus Temple was tempting to capture.

Eventually I deployed more than 2/3 of my team on the Temple hill area and defended it successfully against numerous enemy helicopter/boat and vehicle-attacks, resulting in my ticket victory.

One of the most known emotional magnets in the history of warfare was the city of Stalingrad. A city not from any planning wise measurement being necessary to capture in the German army 1942 attack-plan, but a city with a name mobilizing emotions strong enough to deploy an entire army formation trying to capture it.


Basic rule: the bigger the magnet the bigger the price to tempt the enemy commander with.

--- Example 8 end ---

When you make use of a magnet as key method to play the round on your terms, make sure you handpick the very best terrain matching as minimum the overall average basic skill level of your team and as maximum matching the overall average advanced skill level of your team. Otherwise the possibility of being overrun will increase severely and before you know it, you could find your self be the one playing the round on your opponents terms instead. Including his tone, his rhythm and his speed, thus strong enemy music always bad listening to.

Construct your language

Before moving into how you as the PR CO construct your language, a few words deployed about why you should construct it in the first place. I???m talking about constructing language, I will decide to deploy a question first. Here it comes:

What is information?

In short information is the creation of form in the mind.

Once information is received by any mind on the team or by any mind in the round, it will always create a form. Cause information is form. That is a core rule of nature; its hard coded.

Reason is of course that information is the formed output having been put together from the input our sense organs at first have received and filtered and then transferred to nerve fibres travelling it to the back of our brain, where it is very cleverly - in about a tenth of a second - is put together - in a specific form. A subjective form due to the fact that our sense organs as well as our brains, are X degree different.

This form-creation-process is ongoing. The output from it is called experience, which exactly is what you process this very moment.

On the vertical scale, information is deployed just below the experience level, where you and I and pretty much rest of humanity are being conscious.

To you as Project Reality Commander this core knowledge is important, cause as you can see, it will open up doors in how to command directly as well as indirectly. Before, throughout and after the PR battle. Commanding ones own team while simultaneously controlling the enemy team.

Now since our human mind is a subjective experienced dynamic, it means that all information and communication will be subjectively created and shaped as well. While we are at it, communication consists of series of subjective informations.

Basic rule: Even when objective in its content, information can always be subjective experienced.

--- Example 9 start ---

CO: move to this position

Everybody having played Project Reality knows this movement command, the order deploying a yellow arrow on the map.

The movement command it self seems pretty easy to understand, however years of PR CO experience has taught me exactly the opposite:

First of all, the order does not say anything about the speed required for squad leader 2. There is no indication of how fast he has to move to his new position.

Secondly, the order simultaneously has not got a teamwork related order embedded. There is no indication of which squad, SL 2 can or should cooperate with, while moving to his new position.

Thirdly, the order says nothing about the preferred battle-profile squad leader 2 should use. There is no indication of what types of formations the CO would prefer SL 2 to make use of, while moving to his new position.

So basically we see that the movement order has no indication of Tone, Rhythm and Speed.

Now. With the informational knowledge in mind, we see that even simple objective game content like issuing a movement order, wanting a unit to move from point A. to point B., easily can evolve into a complicated matter.

Reason is of course that everything is subjectively based. The Commander ordering SL 2 to move from A to B has a specific form in his mind about how that movement should be carried out. At the same time SL 2 also has a specific form in his own mind and so has every squad member as well.

Who knows, maybe some of the squad members are PR vets? Maybe the CO is a new PR player?

Point is that even when a core game order has been issued, plenty of different factors will emerge.

So taking a 6-man PR squad with a squad leader and adding a CO to the math, we come up with a potential of seven different forms, creating seven different experiences, creating seven different opinions, about how that simple move should be carried out.

Now, could we have asked all seven involved players before the order was issued (meaning before that specific form had been created in seven different minds), if whether they viewed the movement-order as a simple order or as a complex order, the answer would have been the same from every single one of them:

Simple order

Some would maybe even have added:

What is this, are you joking asking such an easy question? Noob!

Consequently this example shows where the communicational sub-battle is born. Especially as already addressed, in such a multicultural environment as Project Reality in fact is.

That is also why the construction of your language is needed in the PR CO dynamic.

--- Example 9 end ---

A constructed language is the glue holding the different unit-pieces on the PR team together.

Without a constructed language, tactical operations on the team-sized scale can become too difficult exercising efficient.

When used correctly and with discipline, a constructed language creates cohesion and positive morale.

As the Project Reality Commander it is your task and your responsibility making sure the players on your team speaks the same game-related language. Otherwise X languages will be in process, attaching you as well as everybody else on the team, to confusion, disorientation and frustration and potentially time/energy-consuming language-conflicts as well. The result will be a downed team.

As the Project Reality Commander it is your task and your responsibility making sure the players on your team speaks the same game-related language. Otherwise [variable] languages will be in process, attaching you as well as everybody else on the team, to confusion, disorientation and frustration and potentially time/energy-consuming language-conflicts as well. The result will be a [negative statement] team.

As the Project Reality Commander it is your task and your responsibility making sure the players on your team speaks the same game-related language. Otherwise multiple languages will be in process, attaching you as well as everybody else on the team, to confusion, disorientation and frustration and potentially time/energy-consuming language-conflicts as well. The result will be a bad team.

Basic rule: your language must be as simple and logical, as possible, for everyone using it

Thus my use of the letter X and the word Downed in this text is mainly deployed to show, by example, how to construct parts of a language, as well as to show that I as the constructor, attempts to be aware of the words I use. Thus know thy self.

When I got my first tournament command, it didnt take long before i found my self caught in ongoing discussions about names and words. For instance my team had a group of players who called the Line-formation a Column-formation, but also a group calling it a Single file and finally a group calling it a Line-formation.

So a single tactical word creating three player-groups. That was how things were at that point, loaded with plenty of word-discussions. Not a situation I can recommend when your ambition is to create a body or maybe even a killing machine out of a PR team.

Our teamwork training was naturally severely downed by the lack of a common game-related language. Not only did the lack of it, hinder us to make efficiently use of the planned formations in our trainings, but it also created distance between squad leaders belonging to their own language group. Distance resulting in a ridiculous team kill situation (on a training session), making one of the involved squad leaders resign instantly and hereafter leave the team.

It was really sad and frustrating loosing my first SL player like that. A player with military experience, who had enough factual knowledge, enough people-knowledge and enough time available, to run small-unit training-sessions on the team. Sessions, which combined with my AOR system, could have created the body much faster than it eventually did.

Essentially I recognised I had to come up with a language-solution, deciding what we should call things. My first attempt was weak; I used a poll asking my team: what do you think?.

A poll basically maintaining the overall statuesque, cause the majority still defended their own language-logics.

After the following discussions and the extra fluidness my poll so naively added to the already frustrating situation, I finally stepped into character and began telling people what I wanted. Thus my logics did eventually deploy. However not without the price of a skilled squad leader also being a potential instructor, not to mention the loss of efficient training time, meant to create cohesion as well.

But, from that point on where my language-logics did deploy, things slowly began to move in the right direction and the shape of a body was hereafter spotted in the distant CO horizon. It was beautiful.

As Project Reality Commander you must make sure that everybody on the team understands the same set of game-related words and phrases:

Your words - Your phrases - Your logics

These cover as minimum the following five procedure-areas:


1. Plannings

This part covers as minimum the name of the plan it self and the phase-names embedded in it. When seemed useful to you only, you can extend it with the names of the main objectives and the part objectives. Thus all on the team use these names.

An example could be as follows:

Plan name: Flanking Frightened Foes
Phase 1 name: Flanking
Phase 2 name: Frontline Destruction
Phase 3 name: Pursuing

2. Formations

This part covers as minimum the most used tactical formation on the team - per branch. Thus when playing regular armies, having all assets available, at least one infantry-formation, one armour-formation and one air-formation. Thus a single name-reference only, per formation, unless you somehow plan to use multiple names as part of disinformation deployed in the communicational sub-battle.

As example: Line, Column, Double column, Square, Circle, L-shape, Spear

3. Units

This part covers as minimum the organised squads (or other type of units) to have only one name of reference throughout the round, or throughout the individual phase in the round.

Thus when the name is decided to be Squad 2, it is only referred to as Squad 2, thus not the player name of squad leader 2 or the weapons most common in it.

Squad names could example be as listed:
  • Infantry
  • Amour
  • Air
  • Ambush
  • Scout
  • Defense
  • Attack
  • Sweep
  • Left
  • Centre
  • Right
  • Rear

4. Procedures

This part covers as minimum your communicational procedures embedded in the communicational sub-battle and your wants related to your players battle-profile procedure. In example:

  • SPEED - FIRE - SPEED (meaning rapid movement, short intense fight, rapid movement)
  • CONTACT - SMOKE - FLANK (meaning when in contact use smoke and then flank)
  • DEPLOYMENT - ASSETS - DEFENSE (meaning deploy, create assets and defend)

5. COM (communication)

This part covers as minimum the same core words and phrases used on communication channels as VOIP, Team Speak, Mumble and the In-game chat. It is really important that you are aware of the words and phrases you use, cause your team will eventually copy paste your language. Thus if you swear a lot and use impolite words and phrases, rest sure your team will do so as well.

Constructing your language is therefore also about your behaviour. How you talk, how you react, how you use your microphone, how you approach things in general and how you use the power embedded in the function.

Become your enemy

This important area covers your imagination, your feelings and your knowledge about the human mind when deployed in that unique mode facing the emotional greatness of the Project Reality battle.

As PR CO you must not underestimate the influence emotions have in battle. In short the human mind, with its rationality, is in many ways determined by emotions. When playing PR the mind deploys it self in a specific emotional state, that although subjectively experienced, still produce three overall types of reactions:

Fight, deploying to struggle.

Freeze, blocking any action.

Flight, running away.

These reactions are completely normal and they are what the brain produces in the so-called real life also. Actually, while Im at it, Project Reality is in fact real life. We maybe dont think it as real life, or call it real life, or accept it as such, but nonetheless the digital battle is as everything else in life, a part of it. Nothing else.

We naturally recognise the difference between real-life warfare and digital game warfare, which is also why we talk about PR as being different from real life, but its important to understand that our brain has not yet evolved to comply with digital warfare in a unique emotional way. So although the brain knows its not a real fight, it still uses what it already has available - those three overall emotional produced reactions.

Now, with that in mind, you want to view your battle plan, your team, your morale, well basically everything already covered in the commander sub-battle, with the eyes of enemy actions being based on those three specific types of reactions.

In order to view your self and your battle creation with the enemy mindset, questions can be used as tool.

Questions like:
  • Should the enemy in advance know my entire battle plan and know all about me as a CO, and know all about my team as well, what would his first reaction type then be?

  • What reaction type, will my planned, static AOR based defense, create in the enemy ranks?

  • What reaction type, will my planned and trained attack-rhythm, create in the enemy ranks?

There are as many questions to be used, as there are PR commanders, but basically they all establish themselves on reactions produced by emotions. The advantage of starting out with reaction-based questions is that they normally tend to create more tactical specific questions, already founded on a specific enemy reaction. Basically these questions are a methodical, emotional top-down approach.

So asking your self how the enemy will view your chess move from point A to point B and diving into the answer or answers (when that is the case) -is essentially the simplicity of becoming your enemy.

2. The Leader Sub-battle

In this section of the text, I will for the sake of simplicity, primarily mention the squad-leader as the leader in question. However, the leader sub-battle does in fact concern the other leader-types as well:

The platoon-leader
The fireteam-leader
The second in command
The team-CO

In regard to the differences in organisational, tactical and educational responsibility, I will probably write a specific section on that topic. Cause here the different ranks - still in PR - has different focus-areas. I will use my AOR-system as foundation in that section.

All-right, so much about why and how. Lets focus on the Leader Sub-battle.

The PR Squad Leader

The squad leader is a key player on your team and thus a core component in most if not all your plans. Cause the squad leader is the one putting your plan into practical game play, and that performed with either outstanding brilliancy or devastating idiocy or common average skilfulness. Thus three practical outcomes of your logics, evaluated as low, medium and high.

The task for you as CO is to create the frame in your plan where the individual squad leader can perform in an outstanding brilliant or common average way, but also, when planning wise required as such, in a devastating idiotic way as well.

As you can see, your performance as commander depends on the squad leaders performance, just as well as the squad leaders performance depends on your performance. This dynamic can as already described be viewed as a body, of where you are the brain and the squad leader is the nerve system transforming your logics to the muscles, being the private players.

The trick in Project Reality is to get the brain and the nerve system to cooperate as smoothly as possible, so the muscles can punch the enemy in his face as hard as possible.

In order to do that you need to understand the nerve system, your squad leaders.

First of all you must recognise and accept that until now, patch 0.87, the Project Reality squad leader has evolved into a true opportunistic gamer-personality. And although there are exceptions, that is in general the overall battle profile fitting to the PR SL.

Being the commander, this fact provide you with disciplinary challenges, cause when the SL hasnt got the discipline required to follow your battle plan (expressing your logics), you somehow have to overcome that obstacle, located somewhere between the brain and the nerve system, by adapting to the challenge. In other words you need to recompute the situation. If you dont do that, you can rapidly find your self strongly attached to the battle dynamic it self, thus in a reactive situation not evolving your logics, but only to a certain extend testing them.

It can be really difficult to overcome that challenge of recomputing the situation, and to be honest I have not found the waterproof solution yet.

Have you?


Above a screenshot from a public round played in an older version of PR, on the great forest map Assault on Mestia.
SL 4 (moving the other way than ordered by me) represents the incarnation of the opportunistic squad leader: using any egocentric opportunity out there - anytime.

As you can see I am trying to move my entire public team into a single, defensive part objective area, embedded in my stepwise offensive plan already having captured both tower flags in the same manner.

Yet such team sized operation does not suit the opportunistic gamer-personality. No, instead SL 4 advances all alone with his single squad towards another part objective located far away in Foxtrot 18.

This single squad-sized operation eventually consumed a lot of my tickets while achieving no tactical advantage to the team. It made me angry, cause I had a plan ready and so far that plan had capture wise worked out just fine.

On the screenshot you can also see I am trying to move SL 4 back to Echo 52, from where he can be used as a sweeping party in the assumed enemy spawn point perimeter, located in an assumed half circle around Storage Bunker flag zone.

But what you cannot see is my vulgar language on the VOIP, calling SL 4 an idiot and a noob, and even worse stuff too.

Looking back now, my angry reactions did not help me, or squad leader 4, or for that matter my team as well. No, my angry vulgar language and the time and energy I used on it, only helped the enemy. Cause time and energy used on swearing and discussing with SL 4 was time and energy taken from the rest of the team, who did follow orders and absolutely deserved my full attention.

Again, when commanding, dont be as stupid as me back then. Instead simply accept that the only constant CO factor in motion is change. SL 4 represented that change-factor in the plan I had made. Thus even though the squad leader in question posed a ticket problem, I should have accepted it and embraced it and used it.

Now, although I could have accepted it and embraced it, I could not have used in a tactical way, due to two factors: 1.) The ticket-balance 171-252 deployed in enemy favour and 2.) The skill-level of my team, located between low and medium, since it wasnt used to play team sized operations on a public server.

But I could have used it to provide my self with a learning experience in how to down an 81 ticket minus when only controlling around 80% of my team. Accordingly i should essentially have had a back-up plan ready, addressing exactly such a situation. Had that been the case, squad leader 4 would only have helped me becoming a more insightful Project Reality Commander. Nothing else.

Stating that, your instant thought would maybe be something like, "Thats a lot of planning one have to make then!"

My answer is, Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes and YES, thus initially a bit crazy sounding answer.

Yes to evolving your planning skills, yes to evolve your adaptive skills, yes to evolve your leader skills, yes to evolve your organisational skills, yes to evolve your communicational skills and YES to accept as well as embrace change as the only constant factor in life.

In essence you want to view the PR CO experience as an ongoing process, from the very first to the very last battle round. A process where the battle results only end up becoming results when you plan them to be so in the first place.

However for tournament play this approach cannot always be recommended, since a lot of people beside your self will deploy time and energy in the planning preparation too, thus also wanting a positive result from all that work. Best opportunity to use this approach is instead in the training battles throughout a campaign.

Lastly my profiling of SL 4 is titled as the opportunistic attacker, thus one of the worst naive ticket-consumers in the PR community and technical speaking an entire ticket-phase in him self.

Basic rule: for public play, always embed the ticket consumer in your planning.

Leadership when under fire

The squad leaders main task is to lead the squad when being under fire. Not an easy task.

Sometimes the PR SL gets overwhelmed with information comming from the squad members, other friendly squads, the enemy actions and the commander. This unique condition is called info-overflow.

Since information is the creation of form in the mind, this basically means that the squad leader is creating a lot of forms in the mind when facing an info-overflow situation. So many in fact, that the brain creating those forms produce an emotional stop-response leading to the freeze reaction, blocking any action to be processed. The time it takes for the brain to change the freezing state of mind, depends on the tactical and informational situation as well as the squad leaders personality, state of mind and overall game experience.

Normally a respawn time will clear the thoughts for the squad leader having at first been hit by info-overflow and at second hit by a bullet. But in situations where the second action [bullet] does not emerge, the freeze situation can take quite some time. Too long time often being important time also, since info-overflow tend to happen where the most intense fightings take place on the Project Reality battle map.

As the PR CO it is therefore your task to create simplicity for your squad leaders, so they face as few irrelevant informations, as possible, when under fire. In order to achieve that, you could make use of a team set-up, focusing on tactical concentration and weight, combined with the AOR system or anything similar. Especially, when supported by communicational procedures, created from your organisational language.

In order to deploy such solution, you need one fundamental skill. The ability to identify the most common types of squad leaders in the game. This ability is also THE one that can enable you to begin viewing the leaders as different chess pieces, or maybe even as tones in your piece of music. So how does one identify the common squad leader types in Project Reality?

Basically there exist two approaches, the superficial one and the in-depth one. The first is used in public play, where squad leader in-game actions, determines their type while the second is used in the tournament, where both squad leader in-game actions and off game stated motivations and opinions determines the type.

The in-game actions defining the squad leader type, emerge from as minimum the following factors:
  1. The ability to create a strong squad with players having fun while following the SLs orders at the same time. Regardless of the situation that is.

  2. The ability to stay positive when players leave and join the squad throughout a battle round.

  3. The ability to understand the weapon kits needed in all and every situation.

  4. The ability to overcome any lack of limited kits in all and every situation.

  5. The ability to stay calm and positive when under fire.

  6. The ability to read the terrain successfully when under fire. Including where to deploy the rally point, other assets and the squad it self.

  7. The ability to use the terrain successfully when under fire. Including where to deploy the rally point, other assets and the squad it self.

  8. The ability to read the enemy actions when under fire.

  9. The ability to read the enemy opportunities in all and every squad sized situation.

  10. The ability to organise simple squad sized formations in all and every situation.

  11. The ability to cooperate with other squad leaders, including as AOR leader taking command of other squad leaders periodically.

  12. The ability to join team sized formations.

  13. The ability to communicate clear, short and simple when under fire.

  14. The ability to carry out the CO orders.

  15. The ability to prioritise the CO wants and needs first. Regardless of the situation.

  16. The ability to shut down any irrelevant battle-focus when under fire.

  17. The ability to think on minimum two things at the same time.

From these factors you as CO can create the picture describing the common squad leader type and consequently also use that description for purposes embedded in your plan. One way to do that, is using the measurement-scale of low, medium and high. A simple tool that enables you to transfer the squad-leader to a related place in your plan.

The off game actions defining the squad leader type emerge from the squad leaders motivations and opinions, usually based on answers from your questions. In the tournament I used questions as tool, to understand my squad leaders. Questions I formulated in written tasks like this old one from 2007 - quoted below.

The task was provided to the players on my teams, applying to become a squad leader. The primarily purpose of the task was to help me as commander to determine the type of squad leader the player eventually could become and the secondarily purpose was to present the player my focus-areas, thus my logics.

The Squad Leader Task [PELA/CATA II]

Forum activity
  1. In your own words, what is a forum?
  2. In order to create and maintain the activity level in your squad-forum, what kind of ideas do you have?
  3. Can you make some sort of activity plan covering what to do if the squad-forum activity gets too low?
  4. What are your expectations, if any, regarding the use of a squad-forum?
  5. Would you involve NCOs in the forum activities? - Giving them moderator rights?

The units morale
  1. In your own words, what is morale?
  2. If the morale for some reason gets low in your squad, what would you precisely do in order to bring it up again?
  3. How does a structured training program, running over a period of minimum 4 weeks, influence the squads morale?
  4. What are your experiences about players who can bring down the morale?

Training planning

Please write a formational training session lasting 90 minutes. The session must include 6 participants and Column and Line are required to be processed.

If you wont/cant go into details just make use of headlines to describe the session.

The written training plan must not exceed three A4 pages.

Battle planning

1. Make a defensive plan for a 12-man squad at Fishing Village on Qwai River map. The plan must embed a minimum of the following:
- One rally point position
- One sweeping/patrol element
- One counterattack plan should the flag-zone be lost to the enemy

There is no limitation on kits and one Nanjing is available. You have no support available from other units/systems.

Designing your defense directly or indirectly, or with a mix of both, is not important. But it is important that you can show you are aware of what style, or a mix of both, you have used.

2. Make a harassment plan for a 4-man squad operating in the urban area, North of Government Office (GO) on Qwai River map. Your mission is to make sure that enemy vehicles cannot cross the North Bridge and in general not feel safe when using the East-West road between USMC Main Base perimeter and the North Bridge area. Assume that the enemy has a bunker set-up inside GO and 1 RP in the urban area North of GO as well. You have 1 Nanjing available and also an opportunity to receive Helicopter Air support a single time. Besides of the sniper, the support and the HAT, all kits are available. Your success will beside what already mentioned also depend on the enemy being forced to deploy minimum a 6-man-sized infantry force, guarding/sweeping/searching the road from USMC main base to the North Bridge.

Closing words

If any questions, feel free to ask me, either using the PM system or Team Speak in the Officer Lounge. Should you not know how to use the TS, please contact the Technical Division in their sticky thread located in the Division-Forum.

I can recommend using barracks archives to get inspiration if needed. Search on words like plan, battle, morale and evaluation.

Looking forward to read your answers. Please make sure not to exceed the agreed deadline.

All the best

Off game actions also include squad leader training sessions, however, these only apply to the tournament environment, where most leader players are more dedicated, devoted, determined and disciplined, than in the public domain. The training activity is a major part of


On the picture above you see the training ground that minimum 200 tournament players went through in around 14 months of PELA and CATA II tourney play. Most of my squad leaders and a fair amount of the NCOs were trained in minimum one session here. Leader applicants in general were also tested here.

The coloured area at Estate training ground, is due to the relatively flat-opened terrain surrounding Estate flag zone simply perfect, making it difficult for any attacker to use the element of surprise and as consequence forcing the attacker making use of fire and movement plus use of organised smoke (defined here as non-reactive use of smoke). Estate area is though not completely opened, it also provide a sufficient quantity of closed terrain, which can be used to work methodical forward when in the assault, the sweep and the counterattack.

Also, only a few tree lines lead to Estate it self, so depending on the starting point of the attacking force, the defender can session-through get enough time to setup several ambushes along those lines. The area it self is mixed enough to operate with both short and long training times, going from 5 to 30 minutes per session, involving single and multiple objectives.

As CO you follow both the attacker and the defender in the sessions. You start with the instruction of both and when possible, also listen to both, individually, instructing their respective training-squads, normally not being their own squad, and finally, throughout the sessions, you receive status reports from both. The status-report is basically a measurement-tool, providing you with a picture of both their and in some cases also your own individual skills. It all depends on the content of the session.
Remember - they are your eyes and ears, also even though you might have that UAV available, thats exactly what they are. (need a more precisely related explanation)

In general I would structure and process a training session, as follows:

1. In cases with players / leaders already being part of the team, I tried to make sure, they did not get to lead their own unit, or friend(s). With players / leader-applicants, being new to the team (boot-camp-level), I tried to make sure any present amount of team-veteran players, could be balanced out in both units.

2. I started out by instructing both players, in privacy, informing them about the session, and also answering any short questions they might had. This start-meeting was also where eventual personal barriers could either be solved or decreased. For instance I checked the two players microphone-volume-level, their tone of voice, eventual easy spotted anxiety, noticeable lacking social skills and so forth. Basically making sure the two players wouldn't be too interrupted, in the upcoming training, from their own lack of personal preparation.

3. Thereafter I instructed each of them, one by one, still in privacy, with the specific session-details, being the main objective, eventual part-objective(s), session-time available (normally set between 5 and 15 minutes), kits allocated, specific rules, needs and wants, and so on. Like "Besides the several times, I as CO Player, will request status-reports from you, during the session, I also need you as leader to be proactive, doing the very same, as minimum 3 times. Thus when you feel it is necessary for me to receive an important information, you simply contact me on the whisper-channel and request to deliver your status / situation-report".

4. When both leader-applicants had been informed in privacy, I would move them to their session-provided units, from where as they would begin to prepare. How, I then followed their preparations, was done in several ways. In some sessions, I could chose to move between the two units, following parts of the instructions and preparations, and in other sessions, a player from the team (staff-leader-private) could help me out, so I followed one of the applicants, and my helper the other. Sometimes again, when I wanted to follow each applicant in detail, I would listen to them throughout their entire preparation-phase, while the other applicant was asked to conduct a formation-march, with or without an interactive element (A tank, a spawn, a sniper, a truck to spot within a time-frame, a helicopters assumed position after having landed and so on).

5. During the session I would listen to both applicants, when reporting in about the opponents movements, formation, battle-profile and so on.

6. After the session each applicant would be allowed to evaluate their unit and receive and give criticism.


Above a picture of the fixed starting points used in the Estate-training sessions. The session info relate to a basic session having its starting point located in Charlie 44.

As you can see the fixed starting points was divided into three areas (SW/S/W) of which two was located in the yellow (S) area it self, representing the basic two sessions we ran, while the other four fixed points represented more advanced sessions, which will not be posted in this text.

Even though some squad leaders did fail in the basic sessions, that did not mean they couldnt evolve, or that they were poor squad leaders.

I think around 25% of all SLs going through this basic session failed within a few minutes, thus in general before the first assault wave had reached the walls of Estate.

As the commander it is your decision if they get a second chance when failing. Personally i gave most a second try.

In a basic Estate-session I normally focused on the following squad leader factors:
  1. The squad leaders plan

  2. How well the SL communicated the plan to the squad members (as CO you listen to that)

  3. The SLs ability to down planning/operational doubts from the squad members

  4. The amount of times the squad leader asked me the same or a new question, which basically should have been asked when I briefed the SL in private before the training squad was assigned the session

  5. How well the SL created a battle behaviour in the training squad (if created at all)

  6. How the SL made use of one or more NCOs (if using any at all)

  7. How the SL used smoke before, under and after enemy contact/s (if used at all)

  8. How well the SL used formations, including point man/men/scouts (if used at all)

  9. The level the squad members fire solutions was organised (if organised at all)

  10. The position/s of the squad leader during the operation

  11. The squad leaders adaptive skill level when things went wrong

  12. The level of accuracy in the squad leaders status reports to me

  13. The level of SL energy left when I over and over again requested a status report

  14. The squad leaders use of the microphone when under fire, hereunder voice differences, emotional outbreaks, word/phrase-discipline and calculative tactical skills

All in all you as CO can learn a lot from running training sessions.

For instance some PR squad leaders tend to lose their formation instantly after enemy contact, while others only looses it when eventually being outnumbered three or even four to one, thus in general not the type loosing it instantly.

The point of which a squad leader looses the formation (time or odsswise) determines an important part of the battle-skill-level. Thus SLs loosing it instantly, are not the ones you want to make use of in the point of your planned team sized spear.

Also, the very time it generally takes, before a squad leader gets killed after a contact, also determine an important part of the battle-skill-level. Squad leaders getting killed instantly or short after should not be used in important operations at all.

The amount of doubt a squad leader has to the use of a point man, also determines an important part of the battle-skill-level. So SLs not using a point man at all or only does it because you as CO order it, should not be used to take charge of other squads on the team, including filling out the AOR Leader function.

Most of the squad leaders I faced in the tourney had from start-on, useful skills in leading either a fire team or a squad on its own, but none had the same skills in leading a squad as part of a basic and simple team-sized formation. Out of more than 40 SL candidates only two or three had an accurate feeling of how to deploy and move their squad in a team-sized formation.

In the end, to me at least, the main purpose of the tournament-squad-leader training, was to evaluate the leaders ability to down the ticket consumption.

Finding out the type of PR squad leader is not only about tactical related in and off game skills. It is also very much about personality, maturity and willingness to deploy one self in a semi military hierarchy the - chain of command - which for some PR players is experienced as lame and too serious, while for other PR players completely normal and necessary.

These personal factors go for you too, being the one filling out the commander function on the team. So when you do not take the chain of command serious, feel safe that a major amount of the team wont too. In such situation the doubt-factor to your in game orders will increase, rapidly leading to increased attachment to the logics coming from the battle and the enemy, rapidly leading to increased chance of round defeat.

So now you know why the semi military system has been deployed in this unique computer game.

Thus should you be the type of PR player wanting to win rounds, remember to use the chain of command as part of a semi military system.

However that does not mean you should talk down to people in the game, not at all, no in fact it means the exact opposite, but with that only thing in mind - the squad leaders follow your orders.

And as a reminder, when a squad leader do not follow orders, use only short time trying to get him to - hereafter accept, embrace and use the situation as planned before the round.

Project Reality leaders comes in two types: the positive and the negative. Obviously you want to get as many positive ones on your team, while the enemy commander gets as many negative ones. This goes both for public and tournament rounds.

Of the positives, the best squad leader type is the one following your logics while only loosing few or none tickets doing so. The second best is the one following your logics while, according to your planned ticket-span, looses a realistic amount of tickets doing so. The third best is the one following your logics while loosing a higher amount of tickets than planned and the fourth best is the one that somehow just always get things done even though not following your logics all the time.

I have tried all four types; they are a safety to you as commander and when your logics have been sufficiently deployed on your team, a safety to the team as well. However with one exception: the majority of all your squad leaders being the fourth type.

In the tournament as well as in public play some of the best leaders not on your team, usually show up in round-result-pictures, the ones where the best squad is highlighted. Should you want to find the best PR leaders out there, these specific posts can be helpful. In the tourney I organised a group who focused on screening the main PR forums and the public servers for exactly that.

Of the negatives, the worst is the rebellious type wanting your spot, also trying to get it when possible. The second worst is the opportunist, not obeying your orders and generally not following your logics. The third worst is the one partly following your orders as long as they fit into the persons own logics and the fourth worst is the one loosing too many tickets regardless of what; following your logics and orders or not. However the fourth worst is possible to change when you invest enough time and energy to skill up the persons tactical skills.

I have tried all four types; they are a danger to you as commander and when your logics have been sufficiently deployed on your team, a danger to the team as well.

All four types are easy for you to identify - trust your feelings - and when no other option, get rid of them as soon as possible.

In the tournament other teams than my own tried numerous times to change commanders and was as result pounded with new logics every time a new commander stepped up. The battle related outcome was defeat after defeat followed by defeat until the fluid logic-process stopped with a solid CO taking charge.

In regard to both the positive and the negative leaders, you must treat all equal. It is vital that you remember to show respect to all the players, regardless of your personal emotions.

Cause the day you begin treating the worst leader (rebellious type) different than anyone else, you compromise your self and the tolerance deployed on your team, which will be further described in the Commander chapter.

In the squad leader sub battle, one of the most important areas, is that SLs feel equally treated, respected and listened too, thus also the opposite as well, you feeling equally treated, respected and listened too. Its a balance.

When you as PR CO fail here, the brain and the nerve system will not work smoothly together and consequently the muscles will not hit as hard as they otherwise could. In the fluid Project Reality dynamic this failure normally lead to defeat - your defeat.

I do not only define defeat as loosing battle-rounds, no it is also defined as loosing teamwork opportunities. See, Project Reality is very much about identifying, using and benefiting from teamwork opportunities, where all involved gain something positive out of it. Thus not accomplishing this as the Project Reality Commander - to me - equals defeat.

Not an easy dynamic to achieve victory in, but then again, no one has ever said it should be easy.

The Math

Project Reality leaders are very much evaluated on their communicational skills, normally being based on the English language. Cause orders naturally have to be both clear and short in the heat of battle.

But the communicational focus has sadly pushed the mathematical PR leader out of loop. Consequently we dont see that many maths out there, as we otherwise could have had, had the evaluation-factor been embracing wider.

Thing is though, that when plans and team sized formations doesnt rule the Project Reality battlefield, the need of maths (used in creating plans and team formations) decreases, while the need of battle-reaction-ability confronting the enemy actions instantly, increases the need of communication.

That could also be the reason why so many PR players have come up with this..well, almost convention of their own, that no plan survives the first contact, which in my opinion and PR CO experience is wrong. Cause a plan embedding phases including as minimum a single back-up plan, is meant to survive the first contact -and the second contact -and the third contact, etcetera. However the Project Reality plan naturally has to be solid and take all its sub-battles into account before reaching the ready level - able and meant - to survive the contact-factor.

The logical and mathematical strong PR player/leader The Math is vital to you as CO, when deployed in your planning phase. Reason is that almost any plan, require better timings than the enemy has, and when those better timings are not directly available to you, they somehow has to be so, indirectly. Thats where the math not only comes into the picture, but can radical change the picture.

The best math I had on a tournament team (I had several excellent maths), in fact the best math I have ever experienced in PR, portrayed poor English skills which sadly deployed the player in question a bit out of the social loop, but not out of the battle-plan loop. Oh no. More than once I changed an entire battle plan due to timings coming from this superior math. Timings described as round-start ones, phase-ones and asset-ones, etcetera.

The most impressive timing this best PR math has ever presented to me, was how the PLA faction, on Operation Ghost Train from round-start, where in fact able to reach the North Bridge and the Temple too, before the British faction. A vital timer-fact that made the entire map favourable to the PLA faction from battle-start, since it gave the PLA the opportunity to spawn 18 players at Temple within the first 120 seconds of the battle. However, initially I didnt believe this vital information from the Math, cause I was too old school minded on those round-start timings, but the info was correct and even worked out, when I had it tested with round-start British fire against both the South and North-part of the bridge area. The math in question additionally created two driving-training-videos, of how to use parts of the jungle, located between the PLA main base and the Temple - as a faster road than the normal road. So. Consequently I changed an already made defensive plan on Operation Ghost Train into an offensive plan. Sadly though, in the following battle, the tech-weather (lag/ping/connection) caused the very driver, who had used the maths two videos, to disconnect, the very moment he reached the South part of the bridge. Thus the original defensive plan automatically took over and two-three hours later, I lost a static defensive battle, being my first tournament battle too. Point is though, that the math do exist within the PR community, and should be used as such, when you have one (or more) on your team.

However, due to how Project Reality has created an entire generation of first person shooting communicational-leaders, the math is still a rare player around and thus not always easy to find.

As CO you can identify the math from one of the following non-battle activities:
  • Moving repeatedly between point A and B on the battle map, regardless of doing so on foot or in any type of vehicle, counting and/or taking time with a stopwatch.

  • Deploying assets repeatedly in a specific area, trying either to stop or invite enemy access.

  • Doubting your movement phases in your battle plans while at the same time always having his/hers own movement phases outlined in details, although sometimes only in specific parts of those.

  • Always or close to the same, hitting the targets precisely with the mortar, regardless of being the spotter or the shooter (not using mortar-software naturally).

  • Writing insightful guides about how to use the mortar.

However, its important to note that the math normally does not always see him/her self as such, but more as a player not being so participating in talking with the others, or being frustrated about how the teams squads in battle/training, react more to circumstances than them self designing the circumstances.

My personal theory is that some of the best Project Reality maths out there, still today in patch 0.87 are non-native English players. The argument is that the native English players tend to focus more on their core in game strength, being communication -and as result evolve this too, while the non-native players tend to focus more on anything else than language -and as result evolve this instead, hereunder viewing the battle more on timing than communication.

Regardless of my theory being correct or not, my point is that as the PR CO you need to be aware of the strengths and weaknesses hidden in the very same, the strengths and the weaknesses among your leaders.

Tactical Leader Types

From my viewpoint, Project Reality only has two basic types of tactical leaders, -the attacker and the defender. However, out of those two, several variants has evolved, and still evolve over time.

The factors influencing this evolution, are essentially born of out the dynamic of change. Cause when change has deployed to the battlefield, it means that every team before than later, will be forced to approach the battle in a somewhat different way than before the change arrived. Sometimes though, more than one single change is required before a variant evolve.

The minimum amount of factors, causing the two basic types of tactical leaders evolving into variants, are as follows:
  • game patches (like when the Leader receive new kit/communication-upgrades)

  • game modes (like for instance when Insurgent mode on Al Bashra emphasized a need for more decentralised leadership)

  • technical content (like when Mumble made it more easy for the leaders to coordinate with each-other)

  • new game tactics on the servers (like when I introduced my AOR system, creating the AOR-Leader function )

  • increased knowledge in the player-base (like when several Leader-guides has been read and discussed by the PR Leader community)

The tactical leader types are not necessarily related to any weapon-system, or any specific faction in the game. So although the Infantry-leader, the Armor-leader, the Air-leader, the Logistic-leader and the Mortar-leader, all belong to the tactical part, they are still deployed on a basic level so to say, from-where the basic-leader-type originate from, and from-where different variants evolve.

As example you can have an Infantry-Leader on your team, being absolute defensive minded, using his tactical unit in a defensive manner only, however, still being able to evolve into a delayer-variant, due to external changes influencing the battle-dynamic.

In fact, many PR-leaders covers more than one type/variant. Many PR Leaders are both attackers and defenders, although in most cases, when you get to know them in depth, they do in-fact have a core-focus, as either attacker or defender. Maps, terrain, patches, plans, enemies, own forces, situation, state of mind, opinions and so on, -thus all kinds of different factors, often determine whether they have a need to either attack or defend. Therefore a true defender on a classical AAS map, could end up being a cautious attacker on a Insurgent map. And naturally, Vice Versa.

The following description is therefore a guideline, more than a fact-sheet.


Type: Basic

In the history of Project Reality the attacker has always been the most used of all the tactical leader types. The attacker loves to assault enemy positions, running them over until the enemy either loses all his tickets, all his flags, -or both.

Tactical profile:
Point-blank firepower, aggression, a need to move on the map and often in the shortest/fastest way to the last recognised enemy position. Formational and methodical play, including team sized coordination, is often prioritised after the personal need to attack instantly and continually. In overall, the attacker seems to have a desire of being The Leader on the team, receiving reinforcements and supplies, rather than "one of those", reinforcing other leaders with the very same. Not due to egocentric reasons only, but more a narrow-minded situational view of the battle, originating from a local perspective, being a squad-leader, sometimes platoon-leader based perspective.

The type is most useful in rounds where things are on the move and your team is winning the fight, but the attacker can in-fact also be one of your most useful tactical leaders in a loosing fight/battle, where you are trying to gain the upper hand through one or more, shorter offensive operations. For instance like when counter-attacking, sweeping, or harassing the enemy forces.

The possible heat-minded nature of the attacker, can be a huge advantage when used correctly by you as PR CO. Personally though, I have only partly made successful use of the attackers heat-minded nature. Partly due to the fact I back then, wasn't fully aware of the attackers emotional design, and partly because I my self, was more a defender-type, in most of my tournament battles.

A general disadvantage is the adrenalin-rush, that the attacker tends to build up, making the leader-type increased emotional in the heat of battle. This typical disadvantage create the risk of the attacker loosing situational overview, in as minimum one, or all of the following - important - areas:
  • his own ticket-consumption
  • cohesion in his own unit
  • cohesion with other friendly units
  • the communicational discipline when talking to you or others on the team
  • changes in the enemy battle-profile

Thus the normal build-up, of intense emotions, from the sheer fun of attacking, potentially make the attacker somewhat, situational tactical narrow-minded, thus risking a potential decrease in own team-sized operational ability, often resulting in downed team sized methodical discipline too, not to mention the affect this can have on a battle-plan and the trust between own leaders as a whole, potentially affecting the trust between the leaders and the players.
The disadvantage of a narrow-minded attacker, on your team, consuming your tickets -in an alarming pace, should always make you keep an eye on the kill/death-ratio-statistics.

Finally, the attacker is almost always a natural disadvantage, in your only-static defensive-operations.

Operational comments:
When using concentration and or weight in your offensive plan, at least make sure one attacker to participate in its spearhead, regardless of planed offensive pace and planned offensive pauses / halt-lines. Should you have two attacker-types available, at least consider the local and global advantages, of using both of them in your spearhead. When conduction sweeping or harassing operations, the attacker should be considered for such use in the most important part of the operational time, depending on your sweeping-plan of course. Cause you can naturally use a trickster as 1st sweeper, and then an attacker as 2ND sweeper and so on.

Since the attacker often goes under the nick-name "Ticket Consumer", try to determine the assumed/wanted consumption-rate of the individual attacking Leader, before designating any type-related task. Also. As the flexible type of CO-player, it is your responsibility, to ensure that the successful attacker receives as much supply, information and support as possible. Special scout players/units, could be used with or ahead of the attacker, -in the spear, providing important information to the spear it self, either through you/your battle-staff, or indirect communication with the attacking Leader, in the spear (thus decentralised communication).

Be advised than when an attacker is a up in the negative emotional state, the attacker could claim to others on the team, that the reason to the failure of your unsuccessful CO-offensive (related to your plan/idea), was due to you not reinforcing/supporting him [the type], -enough. Also be advised that the attacker-type in PR can come in highly boosted ego versions, frequently trying to make the team belief that it was his local results in the successful battle, that produced the team victory -and thus not your CO plan/organisation/culture and so forth.

Contrast to the defender:
I so far, haven't experienced neither the negative emotional state of mind, or the boosted ego, from the defender-type. Only from the attacker-type? Not sure what the reason is to this though? -could of course be me being blinded somehow, or it could be that attackers in general are just, more heat-minded?


Type: Basic

In the history of Project Reality the defender has always been the next most common type, of all the tactical PR squad leader types out there. However, the sheer numbers of defensive SL players within the community, has always been significant smaller than the attacker type. The defender likes to await the enemy approach towards his own position and prevent him from capturing and securing it.

Tactical profile:
Patient and reflective minded, often attempting to establish a prepared perimeter position and/or, an in-the-depth position, trying to figure out the most lightly approaches the enemy can/will make use of, in order to get into the defensive position. The defender often perceive a defensive task of a flag-area, as routine-procedure and often has a more relaxed natural desire to improve the organised defence in the local area. Thus heat-minded defenders, doesn't really exist in PR. Or at least, I haven't experienced them yet, in any large number.

How well the defensive type then actually make use of the weaponry within the defensive unit (normally a squad-sized unit), is something I sadly haven't been able to identify precisely enough, in order to really feel safe I have a solid picture, however, weapon-leader-focus within a defensive unit, as well as defensive weapon-usage in general, and use of defensive obstacles (i.e. barbed wire), as well as organised fire-lines, alternative positions, fall-back-procedures, counter-attack-procedures, are still today in 2011, not something you as PR CO, should expect as basic skills from the common defender. Sadly that is.

For some weapons though, like the HAT and the Automatic, when deployed in some specific flag-zones/other well-known defensive map-areas, you as CO could actually experience a more well-thought defense, from the tactical defender type.

The defender is most useful in rounds where things are more on the halt and your team is breaking the enemy morale/coordination, by continuouly repelling his attacks.

In your own offensive operations, the defender can still be quite useful, as leader of your follow-up element,securing the ground captured by the attacker. And this in either the attacking direction it self, or on the flank/s of the very same; securing the captured ground, allowing friendly reinforcements, as safe as possible, to move through own lines, -and from there on, towards upcoming tasks. For instance when an attacking unit has been decimated and respawn back at a preplanned rendezvous-point, allocated in a safe or shield-zone (AOR-system), then the defensive leader, can be the one securing the ground in the "rear" of the sword-zone, making it possible for the respawned attacking unit, not to fight two times for the same area. When possible, you can get the attacker and the defender, to cooperate in a limited amount of time, having the attacker to take charge of the defender when he moves his unit into the newly captured area, and also having the defender taking charge of the attacker, when having to guide his unit through a defended area.

Another advantage, is when you have two, or more of the defensive type available. In such a case, when wanted, you should be able to shape a certain part of your perimeter, into a smaller PR-fortress, by placing the defenders units, next to each-other and simultaneouly, supporting them both, with all the necessary supplies, support and informations.

The defender can in-fact be useful in your only-mobile offensive operations, however mostly as flanking or rear security, as well as supportive follow-up element.

My experience with the defender:
The best defensive leaders i have experienced on my tournament teams, was exceptional useful, thus really skilled in preparing and conducting defensive operations. The enemy only rare got control of their defensive areas, having been defended through mostly static, but also mobile defence, or a mix of both. The best defenders out there, always prepare with such a perfection, that the attacking enemy will lose piles of bodies, -in front of, or inside the defensive position.

In some situations the defender tend to slow down your team sized offensive rhythm, when for tactical narrow-minded reasons, simply disobey your new movement order according to your plan/idea. When that situation deploy, the defender will often use arguments alike: "My unit/guys has created a strong position here CO", or, "CO, do you have any idea how much time my unit/guys has used on the minefield, all the carefully placed obstacles and the fire-plans". As the PR CO, try to take the personality of the defensive leader into your consideration, before delegating a defensive task in a otherwise more offensive battle-plan.

Operational comments:
When using concentration and/or weight, in your defensive plan, at least one defensive type should participate in the decisive perimeter-part and/or depth of your body. When available, always consider to deploy the most useful defensive types closely to each other, so your body will become more solid in a single area. Depending on the shape and size of your body, deploy them side by side or behind each-other, so they can receive rapid support when needed. When you have more than two types available, but only operational room for using maximum two, deploy at first the two ones with the best personal chemistry and map-knowledge. Such decision will normally ensure a solid defensive tone. A solid defensive tone, against facing some attackers, actually has the potential to break the morale and coordination of the attacker.


Type: variant of the attacker

The sweeper is useful to clean your own defensive perimeter, while the enemy attempts to break into it from the outside. However, the type can also be used to sweep the rear of the attacking enemy formations, focusing on enemy spawn and supply areas.

See, when enemy units attack your defensive perimeter and suddenly and simultaneously, face your sweeper-element (sweeper-party), they essentially find them self attacked in their flank and/or rear. Consequently, the focus of the enemy attack force, can with luck and/or sweeping-endurance/discipline, be divided from consisting of one cohesive spear-element, into two or more non-cohesive-elements; namely the previous single-focused spear-element and the now newly formed spawn/flank/rear-guard element.

Depending on the shape and size of the operational sweeping area, also called the sweeping-zone (AOR), and of course the overall tactical situation, both hastily and slowly sweeping can be executed.

In sweeping operations I haven't yet tried to use all the different types of tactical PR leaders out there, however, still I would say that depending on the required need in the sweeper area, use the types accordingly. Thus when you need a fast sweep, consider not to use the trickster, but rather the attacker or the blitzer. When needing a slow sweep, use the coordinator.

Regardless of the type being used to perform the sweep, the sweeper need as relevant sweeping-information as possible. Thus clear and precise information about as minimum the following data:
  • sweeping path/area/zone
  • position of own defensive perimeter
  • assumed or confirmed enemy path of advance
  • enemy battle-profile (slow and careful controlled advance/hasty and aggressive advance/something else)
  • assumed or confirmed enemy spawn/supply area/s
  • assumed or confirmed enemy security-elements (anti-sweeping-elements)

You as CO could be the one providing this important information, however, so can X of the defensive squad-leaders in the defensive area. Should a Platoon-leader, or an AOR-Leader have the responsibility of the defended area needing the sweeping-support, the leader in question, could be the one taking charge of the entire sweeping-operation, directing and informing the sweeper-leader in detail, while you as CO, perhaps using the UAV or perhaps gaining information from other battle-deployed sources, provide a more overall information.

As tactical method, the sweeping operation it self, is as much about precise information, as it is about flanking with glowing guns into the enemy attack-force. Thus although the true heat-minded attacker-type, or blitzer for that matter, is useful as the sweeper, at least consider to choose a more coordinative and communicative-minded variant, when needed and of course, available in your leader-pool.

The success of the consistent successful sweeper, regardless of tactical type, depends in general on one persons ability to identify the sweeper as being skilled enough, to win the individual sweeping operation. That person is the PR CO. You.


Type: variant of both the attacker and defender

The trickster is useful to successfully deceive the enemy team, being either a part or the whole enemy team. Making use of everything available, in order to deceive, camouflage, distract, confuse, trap and/or diverge the enemy, a trickster can be used in both defensive and offensive operations, static as well as mobile ones.

When facing the trickster, the enemy never really knows what to expect, or for that matter, what is going on in the fighting area, -due to the lack of repetition in previous tricks. The trickster is the highly creative type, a true zero producer and thus valuable to decisive actions, whether those are related to time and/or space. Zero will be defined in the Commander chapter.

The trickster often make use of noise, smoke, silence, movement, mines, obstacles, terrain and/or emotions, -in order to either trick or trap the enemy. Sometimes the type retreats for a while, before unexpected turning around to strike hard. Other-times, the trickster either awaits patiently for the prey to enter that invisible kill-zone, or simply "lead" the enemy spear into a well prepared kill-zone (minefield/defensive position/fire-sack).

When on the attack, in the spear, the trickster will normally confuse the enemy defence, and when possible even make the defenders begin to shoot on each-other. However, the PR trickster, as far as I have experienced the type, is most often slower on the attack, than any other type, since tricking often requires some preparation.

When your team is on the offensive, the way for you as PR CO, to make successful use of the trickster, is to prepare in advance, what exactly the trickster is supposed to achieve. However, that does not mean you cannot make use of a trickster in a public game, where there has been no pre planning, or preparation. In such case, simply view the trickster as the classical special-force-leader, harassing around behind enemy lines, positioned between your offensive spear and the enemy.

In battle, it is easy to identify a trickster. See, when a tactical leader being outnumbered, or out-gunned, still has ambushed, distracted, trapped, or confused the enemy forces, several times, -in the same battle, you face a trickster. Or at least you face a tactical leader having the capacity of a trickster. To identify the type in the forums is fairly easy. Search for comments, like "always those dirty ambushes", or "suddenly surprised us -again!". Try to make sure several players have commented on the same player.

As tactical leader type, the trickster is sadly still rare in PR, although many of the special-forces-leaders, might at first glimpse seem to have the capacity.

When you know you have a trickster on your team, use the type as such.


Type: variant of the attacker

The blitzer is really useful in conducting fast and/or deep blitzing-operations. The type can be used in both defensive and offensive operations, although offensive operations are the ones mostly related. The blitzer only play mobile warfare, regardless of playing on the ground, in the air or on the water. As primary tools to solve a tactical challenge, a PR Blitzer focus on momentum, weak enemy spots, gabs in the enemy perimeter and the vital areas in the enemy rear; spawns, assets, supplies, abandoned vehicles and bottlenecks.

But above all, the blitzer relies on momentum above fighting, convinced that continually movement, simply makes flanks unnecessary, -thus in general ignoring the very same. The blitzer believe that being on the move is the very same as having flanks deployed. So, when stopping a movement, the blitzer will in general perceive the flanks, as being lost.

As the only tactical leader in PR, the blitzer has the exceptional ability, to change the overall team-sized tactical situation, completely and totally. Deadlock and stalemate included. Changing the situation fast. Very fast. With the bigger PR-games deployed from 2011, the blitzer will become even more important, since the type has the potential to change a big game (often having longer firefights), -close to instantly. Should you not have tried to experience such a situation, the sentence "close to instantly" probably sounds exaggerated. Rest assure, it is not.

The blitzer is a variant of the attacker, so when a blitzer also is defensive minded, the type is useful in your temporary preplanned spear.

Even though the blitzer often work alone, behind / ahead the enemy lines, or with only a few friendly units, that does not mean the type is a lone-wolf. Far from it. In-fact the successful blitzer, depend on information's from the team, transportation, different assets, and sometimes supplies too. However, the type is in PR, not nessacarily behind / ahead, the enemy lines constantly.

The best blitzer I have experienced was a CO-blitzer on the Jabal-map, playing the US Team, using the helicopters in such a rapid and focused way, that the MEC team used most of the round, moving a bit forward, and then just backwards, in order to catch up with enemy air-infantry constantly being deployed at our flags, assets, bottle-necks and spawns. We lost fast. It felt like a short intense loosing battle, almost from round-start when we reached the coast in the north, and to the main-base defense not that long after. Fast battle!

You can often identify the type in the same way as the trickster, thus via forum-postings and game-experience, making you think over and over, that this specific leader just seem too bold when breaking through enemy lines, not focusing on destroying those same, but only passing through them, and still being highly useful in the enemy rear.

To my best knowledge, the blitzer is still quite rare in the PR community, though some of the attackers, probably view themselves as blitzers. However, the blitzer is not really attacking anything, but instead moving through enemy positions, in order to - example - find and destroy enemy assets. Naturally, the type will fight when needed, but the need to move, is greater than the need to fight. Although the blitzer often can be found in a teams armoured units, the type is not absent in infantry or air units. In-fact, the helicopter-blitzer, is time wise, deadly to any team not being ready for constant mobile warfare, -round-through.

As with the other tactical leader types, the blitzer can be found from the NCO-level to the team-CO-level. The CO-blitzer, leading an organised team, can be deadly. When you unprepared face a CO-blitzer, you will often loose before you know what really happened.


Type: variant of both the defender and attacker

This type is useful in slowing down an enemy advance. The delayer is able to do what many PR squad leaders aren't; to take control of a really bad or just plain bad, tactical situation, where the enemy is on the successful offensive, constantly flanking and/or constantly blitzing, and/or constantly breaking-through and overrunning now demoralised and low-coordinated friendly units. When intervening however, in such a situation, the type often make use of the classic fire-and-move principle -while moving backwards.

The delayer focus on the use of smoke, charges, mines and when possible, indirect fire support too. All used to halt down the enemy speed of advance and thereby change his rhythm and tone as well. The delayer-type is still rare. I haven't recognised a single one in the PR-forums yet. Sadly most PR players are not so keen on retreating, thus not perceiving this method as a fun tactic in it self. However, combat-retreat can not only be useful in most PR tactical situations -but fun playing, when the delaying tactics make an enemy advance come to a halt.

The delayer is not the type whom randomly, here and there with his/hers squad, succeed to delay one or more successful enemy squads, but is basically born out of the preplanned combat-retreat, or in some cases disorganised retreat. The reason is simple: the delayer needs to know in what direction the team want to enforce delaying operations.

On insurgent maps, there should be a useful possibility, for you as CO player, to identify squad-leaders with the skills and wants of the delayer-type.

When you have one or more delayer-types on your team, you actually have a tool to destroy the enemy morale. Cause when your delayers have trained and retrained delaying tactics against realistic but difficult offensive odds, then they will in fact be able to hurt the enemy formations on the advance. When the enemy experience his big push being slowed down, the morale will go down.

I kind of see the PR-delayer as a defender, who methodology-speaking, attack backwards in order not to have own lines breached, while at the same time, attacking the enemy morale, instead of the enemy line.

From the year 2011, Project Reality seems to have found a way to create bigger games. The bigger these games become over time, the stronger the offensive will be in the battles. The stronger the offensive will become, the more needed the delayer will be. Cause the delayer can save the day, save the line, save the bulge and so forth. At least for a limited time period he/she can. An important time-period for you as CO, planning to counter the enemy breakthrough, with what you hopefully had foreseen before the battle.

The delayer is out there in the community, and can with training - buy you as CO - time.


Type: variant of both the attacker and the defender

This type is able to read the tactical situation in such a way, that he/she knows when to conduct a successfully counter-attack. Enemy attack formations facing the counter-attacker, often get their momentum downed or completely destroyed. Also, in the related room of operations, in some cases only, the counter-attacker is in-fact able to turn a defensive operation into a potential offensive operation. The counter-attacker mostly rely on distance, situation and timing. Thus when to time the counter-attack, where to initiate it and what to throw against the enemy; weapons/units/players.

To identify this tactical type, simply follow the situation at the area defended by you, where your forces counter-attack successfully.


Type:variant of both the attacker and the defender

The coordinator is quite common in PR, although the type is divided into minimum three skill-levels, ranging from very useful, useful and less useful. So when on the attack, or in the defence, or when retreating, delaying and also when in the pursuit, the type is able to coordinate one or more units, with levelled efficiently. The coordination it self, shines through in its integrated use of weapon-systems, overlapping fields of fire, timings related to player/vehicle-movements, to weapon-fire, to use of smoke and distractions too. For instance as in the following example:

--- Example 10 start ---

Squad-Leader Example and his 10-man-squad, deployed on the great map of Kashan Dessert is used in this example. SL Example is the coordinator-type, who's squad-sized unit has been transported to the bunker area, from-where he has moved his squad into a larger bunker.
We meet Example, named Coordinator from now on, as his squad hastily has been deployed to cover all entrances in the two-floored bunker-room-area.

Coordinator: "Listen up guys. Just had a word with CO. Seems the enemy has a squad moving towards our bunker. Its using single-column formation, without a point-man. So. Grenadier, I need you to smoke any group of enemies entering that big bunker-gate, in front of us, okay"

Grenadier: "You want me to keep popping smoke after the first round? I'm not sure if a single round can cover the entire gate?"

Coordinator: "Yes, please keep smoking. The entire gate must be covered. Your first smoker pops on the enemy him self, second nade on any part of the gate not in smoke. Should the enemy still return fire after the automatic heat up the smoked area, pop a few extra HE-grenades into the smoke"

Grenadier: "Copy, smoke on the enemy, then rest of the gate, then possible HE-grenades into the smoke"

Coordinator: "Exactly. Also, please report to the automatic, where your first smoker pops."

Grenadier: "Copy, smoking and reporting at the same time"

Coordinator: "Roger. Automatic, where are you now?"

Automatic: I'm here, in the toilet-area. You want me to come to you?"

Coordinator: "Yes please do, sorry NCO, but I need him up front. Automatic, Please run to my position and count the seconds it take. Medic, please take over guarding that toilet-entrance, and automatic please stay in position until the medic take your post".

Automatic: "Copy, coming to you, after medic takes my place."

Medic: "Medic moving to toilet-area"

Coordinator: "NCO, can you see any enemy movement from the staircase-position?"

NCO: "Nope, nothing yet squad-leader, you want me to pull in the AT?"

Coordinator: "Yes please do. Cause if you cant see them, then they are moving towards the main entrance. And if they are moving as a blinded squad, they don't know we are here. Could one of the Riflemen below me, please run up to my position, down again and time the seconds"

Rifleman: "Sure, on my way."

Medic: "Medic guarding the toilet-entrance"

Automatic: "Automatic moving to squad-leader"

Coordinator: "Sounds good guys, OK, listen up. As long a we are still alone in the bunker we will name the area with some simple codes.

- Front is Foxtrot
- Rear, that's the roof-staircase, is Romeo
- Toilet is Tango.

So Foxtrot, Romeo and Tango. Okay?"

All: "Copy"

Coordinator: Also. Our front is divided into two levels. Foxtrot Up and Foxtrot Down. So. Foxtrot UP is up here at the window, my position. Foxtrot DOWN are those three rooms below me, leading to the Bunker-hall and the lower-staircase. Romeo is the Rear at the roof-staircase and Tango is the Toilet. Foxtrot Up/Foxtrot Down, Romeo and Tango.

All: "Foxtrot Up/Foxtrot Down, Romeo and Tango"

Automatic: "In position, 8 seconds. Your orders?"

Coordinator: "Copy on the 8 seconds. Thanks. Well, just stay here, behind the wall, until the grenadier pops smoke. Then you stand up and spray the smoke"

Automatic: "Copy, spraying into the first smoker and reported areas"

Coordinator: "Roger. Free-fire after the first sprayer. Report enemy movements please. The riflemen below you, Foxtrot Down, need the overview."

Automatic: "Copy, smoker-spray, free-fire, reporting to FoxDown on enemy movements"

Coordinator: "Precisely."

Rifleman: "Squad-leader, it took 12 seconds"

Coordinator: "Copy. Thanks. Medic did you get those timings, 8 and 12 seconds?"
Meanwhile Squad Leader Example coordinate the preparations of his bunker-defense, we now leave him again.

--- Example 10 end ---

Weapons and players being lead by the coordinator, will normally be able to work closely and methodical together. The type is therefore useful in most operational situations, including of course, combined arms operations.


Type: Variant of the attacker

The PR infiltrator focus on moving undetected into enemy territory. Project Reality infiltration is often processed by moving up to, trough, and or, around -and then behind enemy lines / positions. Patience, observance, a need for situational overview, sound and movement-discipline, focus on accessibility, concentration and a skilled eye for terrain-opportunities, are all abilities describing the PR infiltrator.

Most often, my purpose to use the infiltrator-leader (Infil-leader), was to create activity within the depth of enemy territory. Surprise/s of some sort, was often my wanted activity.

The most common infiltrator I have experienced in the game, is the special-forces squad leader, thus not an infil-leader deployed above the 6-man squad-level. Thereby, I am not saying an infiltrator cannot play on the Platoon-leader level, but I just haven't experienced anyone above, -yet. Bigger games, in the beautiful future of Project Reality, might just move the infiltrator up to the PL level, or above. Who knows?

The majority of experienced leaders in the community, are in-fact able to lead an infiltration. Or at least, lead it for a shorter time period. Reason is that most PR leaders, have a desire to lead a special operation squad. A type of operation I enjoy my self. There's just something cool about sneaking in behind enemy lines, and then do what your supposed to do. Its even cooler, when you are able to move in and reach your objective, and then move out again, without a single unexpected firefight. That's awesome.

However, even though most experienced PR leaders, can in-fact lead an infil-operation, they are not all skilled in all abilities. For instance not all can maintain the required sound and movement-discipline, and some also run out of patience before others.

As the Project Reality Commander, you can use the infiltrator on both the offense and the defense. Often though, it will be during your offensive operations that you will feel the need to make use of an infiltrating unit, either providing your team with additional information, or destroying enemy assets, disturbing enemy movements, or harassing enemy supplies/reinforcements, or whatever the objective may be.

Its a good idea to plan the infiltration in-detail, with the infil-leader, so you as CO get an impression of the leaders ambition and skill-level. Especially because, on your team, more than one leader -most often, want to try out the infil-operation too.

Also, the infil-leader gets an impression of your ambition and skill-level too. That's just as important.

The tactical expert

Situational / periodical speaking, the tactical expert is the most skilled, arms-related, tactical leader-type, available in your present PR leader pool. So, the expert is not -as leader, a variant of either the attacker or the defender, because an expert can be both the attacking and the defending type. For instance, a defensive minded infantry-expert could have evolved into a delayer-type, described as an infantry-delayer-expert.

The expert-measurement in it self, can easily sound like an elitarian approach, however, it is not meant as such, but instead meant to be a useful PR CO focus-tool, for your planning / operational, -available leader-opportunities.

When you have different arms available on your team, one of those, will often - if not always - have your planning / operational focus. That is a game-fact. Regardless of you being conscience about it or not. In fact, even when using combined arms, you will still tend to focus more on a single of the involved arms, than the rest of them, although perhaps not continually but more situationally.

My point is not that you do in-fact think like this, but to make you aware that most of your thoughts come from your own PR CO style. For instance, when your style have originated from playing PR infantry and you at some point begin to organise combined arms-units, mixing both infantry, armoured-personal-carriers and tanks, your INF-style will colour your approach to how the two other arms will be used. Perhaps your infantry-logics, will make you view combined arms operations, as being efficient and slow, due to the two vehicle-types having to follow the pace of the infantry?

When you have a tactical expert on your team, you should at least consider to base your battle-plan on the experts related arms-type. Such type of planning has the opportunity to turn the other available arms, into service and support-elements, only. Whether it should go like that or not, is essentially up to you as CO.

In my experience, Project Reality provides four different, arms-related experts.
  • Infantry-expert
  • Armour-expert
  • Sky-expert
  • Combined Arms-expert

The way I mostly, so far, have determined a tactical PR leader, having the skill-level of an expert, is when the person in question is able to win both defensive and offensive battles. However, I also tend to view experts, as leaders able to win most of their defensive or offensive battles / fights. Lower-level-leadership mostly win fights in battles, thus not whole battles. That win in general, belong to the CO leader-level.

The AOR leader

Type:variant of both the attacker and the defender

Back in 2006, I invented this tactical leader-type, as being a vital part of my AOR Zone System, initially created for defensive operations-only. The type is a temporarily based leader-function embedded as an option within the team-organisation, created for specific purposes either related to a plan, procedure or an unexpected tactical situation. So although I haven't successfully tested out the function fully yet, I firmly believe it should be useful in every of the above listed variants.

My experience with the AOR-Leader has been in infantry-fights mostly. Therefore I can say with confidence, that when trained and accepted among your leaders, and your squad-players (soldiers) just as importantly too, it really does work. I am literately smiling satisfied, when writing these words, cause this tactical / organisational type, does exactly what I created it for, which was:

1. Reducing the overall dependency on the CO-function, since the CO during a battle can get killed, wounded or simply disconnected, while the team can continue fighting organised, with one or more predesignated AOR Leaders.

2. Creating organisational awareness among the leaders on your team, since these are given a new perception on how an otherwise quite centralised organisation, also can decentralise it self and stay organised for a much longer time than otherwise when the function is not in use and the commander for whatever the reason, is out of the decision-making loop. On note to this area, I have over time taken a lot of criticism from those few times I yes, did micromanage squads, however, and respectfully, my critics always seem to forget the very fact, that I also developed, created, implemented, trained and used a decentralised system too, - this organisational-joint-focused AOR Leader system. A system people had not played with before, thus not completely easy for me, to, so to say, sell.

3. Creating collegial awareness among the leaders on your team, now they with this flexible function are forced to work with each-other in a very new way. Thus when faced with this fact, that they during the battle-process, are actually taking charge of each-other, as part of a decentralised system, or as opposite, others taking charge of them, they at least seem to me, to get a more tolerant view on each-others differences. And yes, there will always will be alpha-leaders who dislike the entire concept, to the degree that they will not raise much awareness about any other than their own disapproval. As PR CO, should you want to try out my system, be prepared for some initial confusion among your leaders and troops. I remember once, when I had an armoured unit, taking charge of an infantry-unit, and the two leaders involved did not go along very well (personal relations), it created a tactical mess and the entire advance had to be stopped. The AOR Leader is not a perfect function, but simply an opportunity.

4. Increasing the inter-communicational focus between squads and squad-members, since the need of a more precise and well-trained communication is needed, in order for the system to work. For instance, one of the problems I faced when implementing the AOR function in my otherwise quite centralised organisation, was that not all squad-leaders being designated as AOR Leaders, decided to delegate the decision-making-process within their own squad-structure, as to giving their NCO more to say. However, over time most SLs, if not all of them, finally began seeing the benefits in letting go, so to say, and that simply created more focus on our inter-squad-communication, now decision-makers had less unit-material to focus on.
So how much more focus did it then create? over time too?, well, not sure. I am not sure at all. Cause we never really evaluated that activity. Not enough time or energy, when taking other team-activities into account. Sadly. I do think though, we ended up getting a more precise communicational focus, but I cannot document it.

5. Creating more tactical awareness, since both the terrain and the current tactics them self, provide both your leaders and squads more opportunities. See, general speaking, leaders and troops will always become more aware about battle-related possibilities when they are introduced to new tactical and organisational set-ups. So for instance when I introduced the Sweeper-function as being part of the AOR Zone-system (Sword and Shield zones primarily), someone got the idea of making a double-sweep, coming in from bot sides of an identified assault-concentration. An idea that would never have seen the light on my team, had it not been for the AOR Zone system and of course the AOR Leader function.

Since the AOR-Leader is just as much a kind of flexible organisational joint-function, as a specific tactical content-oriented function too, it really does require at least some basic training among the leaders on your team, in order for it to bring to light its real efficiency.

The purpose of the function is to enable a more flexible oriented leader-organisation, reducing both the dependency a team can have on the CO-function, as well as increasing the leader-awareness, among the very same, the leaders on your team. Cause when they begin to train and play using the function, they suddenly find them self leading larger units as usual, or sometimes other arms as well. For instance I have had an infantry-leader taking charge of a APC unit, something the leader in question had not tried before, and therefore an experience that raised the awareness about the needs and wants an APC leader have.

Other variants are as follows:

Urban-expert (sub-types: building-expert, street-expert, assaulter)
Ambusher (partly trickster)

More to be added about the sub-battles as present section of the Project Reality Commander text.

Tactical PR leader types

..and a lot more

Something about tolerance and more emphasis on care must now be deployed in this text.


Please take into account that no proofreading has been made.

(The PR Leader?)
The PR Squad Leader
Leadership when under fire
The Math
(The Lanker?)
Tactical Leader Types
(Strategical Leader Types? - My experiences from the PR Tournament)
Interactions between leaders
Setting your logics amongst your leaders (Written task/Inter-team-training/gaming/Debating)
Overruling a PR Leader (My own PR experiences)
Other types of leaders (Tourney administration - Alliance - Tournament Opponents)



How to plan: Part Puzzle

Define irony. A bunch of guys playing PR year after year. A game teaching initiative as the prime mover.
However, in regard to EA, these guys never took the initiative.
We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven,Tomorrow...
Michael_Denmark is offline
Last edited by Michael_Denmark; 2020-02-05 at 11:02.. Reason: updating constantly
Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 00:01   #2
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

Ah, who hasn't missed your illustrated posts.

Nice guide
NickO is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 02:53   #3

Khidr's Avatar
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

Tech weather is the technical aspect of Project Reality; Ping, Lag, Punk Buster and so forth. Just like weather in the real world can affect a battlefield, so can technical weather do the same in PR.
Awesome analogy. A few time I have accounted for these factors in PRT strats but I never thought of it as weather.

This just make the "why" of so many of my decisions much easier to explain to the troops.
Khidr is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 13:49   #4

Michael_Denmark's Avatar
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

Originally Posted by NickO View Post
Ah, who hasn't missed your illustrated posts.

Nice guide
Thanks NickO

Define irony. A bunch of guys playing PR year after year. A game teaching initiative as the prime mover.
However, in regard to EA, these guys never took the initiative.
We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven,Tomorrow...
Michael_Denmark is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2008-12-30, 13:52   #5

Michael_Denmark's Avatar
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

Originally Posted by K:h:i:d:r: View Post
Awesome analogy. A few time I have accounted for these factors in PRT strats but I never thought of it as weather.

This just make the "why" of so many of my decisions much easier to explain to the troops.
Thanks K:h:i:d:r:

Define irony. A bunch of guys playing PR year after year. A game teaching initiative as the prime mover.
However, in regard to EA, these guys never took the initiative.
We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven,Tomorrow...
Michael_Denmark is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-15, 13:39   #6

=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup's Avatar
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

My bible.
=(DK)=stoffen_tacticalsup is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-15, 16:05   #7
Send a message via ICQ to .blend
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

i know abstraction is normally the way to go when it comes to teaching, but a little video of an example game or footage of a real game with comments on why the commander did this and that would be great.

.blend is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-01-15, 16:27   #8
Send a message via ICQ to General_J0k3r
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

Originally Posted by .blend View Post
i know abstraction is normally the way to go when it comes to teaching, but a little video of an example game or footage of a real game with comments on why the commander did this and that would be great.
has already been requested by mike at another place. will come with nice illustrations as well, don't worry
General_J0k3r is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-02-10, 21:19   #9

Michael_Denmark's Avatar
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

On note:

Please let me know if part/s of the text is non-understandable or difficult to understand.

The text in the end will be long, maybe between 70-100 A-4 pages in total? So every time you let me know that something doesn’t make sense ill be x better in decreasing the same type of mistake.

Please keep in mind I'm still learning to express my self in English.

Define irony. A bunch of guys playing PR year after year. A game teaching initiative as the prime mover.
However, in regard to EA, these guys never took the initiative.
We who play these kinds of games are the first generation of war robot pilots.Today we pilot a camera in 3D heaven,Tomorrow...
Michael_Denmark is offline Reply With Quote
Old 2009-03-04, 14:16   #10
Supporting Member
Default Re: The Project Reality Commander

The English translation part just adds a little flavor but overall I'm stunned.
I have done some of the things you mentioned as a CO w/o realizing it but now I know how poorly I have done them.
I have only read about a quarter of the guide and already I am in way over my head, but in a pleasant way.
I look forward to finishing this and putting the lessons to use in the game.
Thank You
UntenablePosition is offline Reply With Quote

commander, project, reality
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT. The time now is 20:25.