You know, your breakdown is what most military people would do, and would follow a leader using such with even more detail than others. However, trying to get most civilians to maintain the discipline to try and test different maneuvers with comrades before going up against enemies is a huge feat.

The majority would rather just follow a leader in direct un-tested combat against real enemies, regardless of the peril; instead of testing theories on a mass scale first then implementing the devised plans for real later on.

That leads me to another observation: Most Civilian leaders in games, even if they possess the expert knowledge/power of how the game is run, don't have the military leadership experience or the military patience to explain to their people WHY they're about to test X simulation, WHAT they're about to do, or HOW they're going to do it. Some may get part of it right, but there's always one or two parts missing. Then they grow impatient with the followers, and think that approaching their people like some actor in an over-exaggerated war-movie, yelling at the top of their lungs and arbitrarily destroying morale, will somehow help get everyone in line.

Which leads to yet another observation: Most civilian leaders in online gaming, if there's ample time, won't ask for or assess the advice of the people in their immediate group before making a decision. Very often, one or two people in your group will have a better idea than the leader, regardless of how great a leader he/she is. A good leader will thank the person for the great idea and implement it using their leadership to organize the team appropriately and explaining the plan - or letting the person with the epiphany do it. A secure leader will do the right thing - an insecure one or micromanager won't.

There are always exceptions to the negative points I've mentioned above. However, in the 12 years I've spent in online gaming, those great moments have been few and far between.

[Linked Image]

[Linked Image from nodiatis.com]