The Dictator
Posted: Sun Aug 05, 2012 4:08 am
I thought long and surprisingly hard about what the title of this thread should be. I was initially tempted by 'The General', but that is of course a rank here and this thread is not about rank. I considered 'The Team Leader' and while this is a term that is actually used on CC to denote what I am writing about, it has disturbing connotations of the terrible grind of lower management, and that horrendous occupation has nothing to do with my topic at all. But as my mind wandered around my theme and I considered some of its key elements, I became increasingly convinced that 'The Dictator' was the most fitting. For I want to write about the kind of player here (of which I am one) who truly leads his team. The kind of player who, if he or she wants to, can dictate every single deploy, attack, advance and fort. The kind of player who has a team which will implicitly accept this level of direction. I suspect these kinds of players are actually very rare here. My aim in this thread is to demonstrate why this kind of player is such a rare character within this virtual existence I have always called CC Land.
Surely the first order of business for our budding Mao is to actually form their team. This might seem easy enough, but actually it is rather a challenging thing. Let me give you an example: an ambitious new player decides they want to join the ranks of the CC dictators. He invites two other players to join him, selects a suitable map and waits for the opposition to join. Over night they do and as our hero switches on CC and checks his games he finds to his horror that two moves have already been made. Things have already gone terribly, terribly wrong. Why? Because if the team wins our wannabe leader cannot claim the credit, he didn't set the opening. If the team loses, then the leader's record - and this is absolutely key - has taken a hit. Nonetheless, through the first game our man demonstrates a certain amount of domination of chat, he has proven himself at least an important voice in the team. So for the second he makes sure he is there for the opening. He writes his orders. And one of his teammates disagrees. Now what? I simply cannot doubt that CC is littered with the doomed aspirations of failed dictators. Why should anyone listen to you when you write a determinedly exact order? What do you know?
The dictator must demonstrate his ability through his record. The dictator must win, and win consistently. From the very beginning he must win his games at a rate far superior to the average AND he must make his team points. For the explicit bargain between the dictator and his followers is that he must provide profit for them. The dictator actually cares far more about his win percentages, but the followers wants points. Therefore a dictator may win 75% of 30 games and feel rather pleased with himself. But if his team make sod all points from the experience they will consider the dictator to have failed. This is one of the key reasons why it is so difficult to be a dictator. First you must actually consistently win. Always win. In my own case, how many games can I lose in a row before there is some kind of revolt (and remember I have led my team for four years)? Five? Have I built up even that much credit? Five losses will cost my team at least 100 points each. That's 100 points lost due entirely to me. I would predict that by the fifth game one of my 'seconds' would be questioning not just an order (which while incredibly rare happens occasionally) but actually the overall strategy. At that point, my role as the dictator is effectively over. I think few reading this are continuously in that position when they play team games. Only dictators must suffer it. But then dictators get to see every move played out exactly as they desire. That is, believe me, an intoxicating experience. But with that joy comes the downside of never being more than a few games from having it all disappear.
Dictators must teach. There is absolutely no way around this. None. For how can your followers play out your moves exactly if they dont know what you want? The dictator must teach his team how he or she wants them to play. When to attack 4 on 3. When to push harder than the orthodox. When to leave a 2. The team must understand what the dictator would want them to do once the dice start rolling. Orders can only be so convoluted - and the writing of orders is a key element of being a dictator - the team must be able to read the order and as the move develops adapt it in a way the dictator would approve of. The true dictator actually allows the team the freedom to make their decisions as the move develops, but the team is actually thinking in a certain way. That is due to teaching. This is incredibly tricky. And remember the record. Mistakes cost games. Lose a few in a row and you may not be a dictator anymore. Your team's mistakes may have cost the game. But more than likely those mistakes were caused by a kind of intellectual paralysis. One of the dangers of the dictator model is that the follower finds himself in some kind of horrendous mental loop. 'What would I do here? But what would the dictator do? What would the dictator want me to do?' Followers sometimes make mistakes and the cause is trying to interpret what the dictator would want. This is why teaching is so important.
The dictator must set the opening. It is probably his most important role. The advantage of the dictator model is in the consistency of the opening. The good dictator should have worked out rounds 1 and 2 after the first two moves. To be a dictator you must have this capacity. And you must get it right and near enough always. Losses will always come in close mid.games, there is often nothing the dictator can do about that. But losses due to an incorrect opening? That is terminal. All dictators get the opening wrong occasionally. Get it wrong consistently and you won't be a dictator for long. Frankly, that is how you actually lose 5 in a row.
The dictator must of course follow every move. I find this to be incredibly tiring. I am quite incapable of leading more than 4 games at a time and am most comfortable with 2. The dictator must make sure that his orders are on time. The dictator must make sure there are no mistakes. The dictator might well have to be online when a tricky move is played to actually direct it roll by roll. The dictator must do so without demeaning his teammate. The dictator must be omnipresent. Consider how often you have effectively gone missing in a game. You play your turn and that's it. The dictator can never be so lax. The dictator must be there when the game is going horribly wrong. He must motivate his troops. He must be there to make the decision to 'go banzai'. He must commiserate his teammates when things go wrong and when they make mistakes. And he must ruthelessly cut them if they make too many.
Which neatly leads us on to another key aspect of being a dictator. Team management. What is the right combination of individuals for a game? Personally I have grown to prefer a system involving 'seconds' and 'thirds'. My current seconds are manwiththeplan and spazzattack. My thirds? potager1 and spoongod. The second has the role of the advisor. He is often active in chat, making suggestions and trying to spot things the dictator may have missed. Interestingly revolt, when it finally comes, will be from one of the seconds. The seconds actually have the strategic ability to lead a team. Their role is massively important if only because they provide just enough pressure to keep the dictator on his toes. The third should be in general quiet on strategic matters and concentrate on playing their move perfectly. I am a firm believer that 3 active players simply doesn't work within the dictator model. Frankly, it makes the team seem like far too much of a democracy.
Finally, the dictator must care about being a dictator more than rank. How can I lead my team to enduring profit if I am some bloated 3000 plus player? I suspect a better player than I could. Sadly I am not that talented. I keep myself under 2500 and from that score I can make my team points. It is far more important to me to get that buzz of watching my ideas get played out, than to sit on the first page. For as time has passed, my team's ranks have improved. They are now majors and captains, rather than sergeants and lieutenants. As their scores have improved mine have had to fall, to keep our ventures profitable.
Surely the first order of business for our budding Mao is to actually form their team. This might seem easy enough, but actually it is rather a challenging thing. Let me give you an example: an ambitious new player decides they want to join the ranks of the CC dictators. He invites two other players to join him, selects a suitable map and waits for the opposition to join. Over night they do and as our hero switches on CC and checks his games he finds to his horror that two moves have already been made. Things have already gone terribly, terribly wrong. Why? Because if the team wins our wannabe leader cannot claim the credit, he didn't set the opening. If the team loses, then the leader's record - and this is absolutely key - has taken a hit. Nonetheless, through the first game our man demonstrates a certain amount of domination of chat, he has proven himself at least an important voice in the team. So for the second he makes sure he is there for the opening. He writes his orders. And one of his teammates disagrees. Now what? I simply cannot doubt that CC is littered with the doomed aspirations of failed dictators. Why should anyone listen to you when you write a determinedly exact order? What do you know?
The dictator must demonstrate his ability through his record. The dictator must win, and win consistently. From the very beginning he must win his games at a rate far superior to the average AND he must make his team points. For the explicit bargain between the dictator and his followers is that he must provide profit for them. The dictator actually cares far more about his win percentages, but the followers wants points. Therefore a dictator may win 75% of 30 games and feel rather pleased with himself. But if his team make sod all points from the experience they will consider the dictator to have failed. This is one of the key reasons why it is so difficult to be a dictator. First you must actually consistently win. Always win. In my own case, how many games can I lose in a row before there is some kind of revolt (and remember I have led my team for four years)? Five? Have I built up even that much credit? Five losses will cost my team at least 100 points each. That's 100 points lost due entirely to me. I would predict that by the fifth game one of my 'seconds' would be questioning not just an order (which while incredibly rare happens occasionally) but actually the overall strategy. At that point, my role as the dictator is effectively over. I think few reading this are continuously in that position when they play team games. Only dictators must suffer it. But then dictators get to see every move played out exactly as they desire. That is, believe me, an intoxicating experience. But with that joy comes the downside of never being more than a few games from having it all disappear.
Dictators must teach. There is absolutely no way around this. None. For how can your followers play out your moves exactly if they dont know what you want? The dictator must teach his team how he or she wants them to play. When to attack 4 on 3. When to push harder than the orthodox. When to leave a 2. The team must understand what the dictator would want them to do once the dice start rolling. Orders can only be so convoluted - and the writing of orders is a key element of being a dictator - the team must be able to read the order and as the move develops adapt it in a way the dictator would approve of. The true dictator actually allows the team the freedom to make their decisions as the move develops, but the team is actually thinking in a certain way. That is due to teaching. This is incredibly tricky. And remember the record. Mistakes cost games. Lose a few in a row and you may not be a dictator anymore. Your team's mistakes may have cost the game. But more than likely those mistakes were caused by a kind of intellectual paralysis. One of the dangers of the dictator model is that the follower finds himself in some kind of horrendous mental loop. 'What would I do here? But what would the dictator do? What would the dictator want me to do?' Followers sometimes make mistakes and the cause is trying to interpret what the dictator would want. This is why teaching is so important.
The dictator must set the opening. It is probably his most important role. The advantage of the dictator model is in the consistency of the opening. The good dictator should have worked out rounds 1 and 2 after the first two moves. To be a dictator you must have this capacity. And you must get it right and near enough always. Losses will always come in close mid.games, there is often nothing the dictator can do about that. But losses due to an incorrect opening? That is terminal. All dictators get the opening wrong occasionally. Get it wrong consistently and you won't be a dictator for long. Frankly, that is how you actually lose 5 in a row.
The dictator must of course follow every move. I find this to be incredibly tiring. I am quite incapable of leading more than 4 games at a time and am most comfortable with 2. The dictator must make sure that his orders are on time. The dictator must make sure there are no mistakes. The dictator might well have to be online when a tricky move is played to actually direct it roll by roll. The dictator must do so without demeaning his teammate. The dictator must be omnipresent. Consider how often you have effectively gone missing in a game. You play your turn and that's it. The dictator can never be so lax. The dictator must be there when the game is going horribly wrong. He must motivate his troops. He must be there to make the decision to 'go banzai'. He must commiserate his teammates when things go wrong and when they make mistakes. And he must ruthelessly cut them if they make too many.
Which neatly leads us on to another key aspect of being a dictator. Team management. What is the right combination of individuals for a game? Personally I have grown to prefer a system involving 'seconds' and 'thirds'. My current seconds are manwiththeplan and spazzattack. My thirds? potager1 and spoongod. The second has the role of the advisor. He is often active in chat, making suggestions and trying to spot things the dictator may have missed. Interestingly revolt, when it finally comes, will be from one of the seconds. The seconds actually have the strategic ability to lead a team. Their role is massively important if only because they provide just enough pressure to keep the dictator on his toes. The third should be in general quiet on strategic matters and concentrate on playing their move perfectly. I am a firm believer that 3 active players simply doesn't work within the dictator model. Frankly, it makes the team seem like far too much of a democracy.
Finally, the dictator must care about being a dictator more than rank. How can I lead my team to enduring profit if I am some bloated 3000 plus player? I suspect a better player than I could. Sadly I am not that talented. I keep myself under 2500 and from that score I can make my team points. It is far more important to me to get that buzz of watching my ideas get played out, than to sit on the first page. For as time has passed, my team's ranks have improved. They are now majors and captains, rather than sergeants and lieutenants. As their scores have improved mine have had to fall, to keep our ventures profitable.