The History of the PRT

[Michael_Denmark]

Originally Posted by [R-CON]Onil

You're still simplifying it quite a bit.

Well, I am asking for nominal data, so yes, there is simplification involved.

Everything is relative to free time, experience, confidence, game-play changes, etc.

It is, but that is not an argument for not wanting to attempt to create at least an nominal overview.

Fact is that there is lack of CO's in PR, period. And the game has changed quite a bit through out the last couple of years, including the CO features and over-all involvement in howt he team is led.

The game has changed continuously since 2005, including the commander part of it. However, the principles of pr commander gaming, has not changed.

Fact is that there is lack of CO's in PR, period

Yes, but there are reasons for it. Which is why we need at least a nominal overview, now after 1 decade and squad coming up too.

Take my own experience in C5 and partly C6, where I encouraged at least one unit leader to try out the commander function later on. A player who wanted to quit the tournament but whom I convinced to stay. Took me a few months and several encouragements before this player finally decided to apply as CO the next campaign, where he in fact got a command.

Inspiration can be decisively important when we talk about this tiny minority of pr co players. Because the sheer workload can be too overwhelming, so some people not believing in them selfs, has to be encouraged several times.

The nominal overview, simplified as it will be, is still a useful platform, compared to a statement as the one you deployed in your reply:

Fact is that there is lack of CO's in PR, period.

With the nominal overview, we get an opportunity to ask questions based on data. Using your approach we have no data to create questions from.

Thank you again Onil, for taking your time, I know it is time and energy consuming being an administrator.