![]() |
![]() |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have not analyzed this in the level you guys have but just throwing this out there. You may have addressed it and I am blind, please don't point and laugh.
I would think there would be a period where large numbers of potential team members participate in a shared exercise. They would be regularly rotated between potential team match ups until it becomes obvious who works well with who. Since the objective is a mix of skills and specializations the temporary teams would be made up of complementary individuals so no total random mix would be done. Nor would a, let the members build their own groups, approach be suitable either. I assume the potential mixes would be determined by analysis of interviews, aptitude tests and observations but would it not make sense to have a period (as long as any other IMHO) to see or allow organic teams to potentially gel for themselves? Of course while this is being done there is valid training being done, ideally of a joint "learn your place/duties" sort. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There has been no hijacking, this is all on topic!
As to forming the teams, individuals interact with each other in different combinations all through the individual sections of the training (my Phases 1-5), and these interactions are observed by the training staff. By the time Teams are actually being assembled, the cadre has a pretty good idea who works and who doesn't. If there are still mismatches, the goal is to catch them early in the process so that the final team still has significant time together. This is how the military does it for special operators and they have an excellent success rate. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Also, there is one other Phase I forgot to mention. Phase 5B, the TMP command course that gives team leaders and their assistants all the knowledge they need to, you know, lead teams. There should only be one such course needed, as the higher level leaders are already bringing extensive leadership experience with them.
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Quote:
Quote:
Picking up these references, for me, would be a part of finalizing the write-up. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
From my standpoint, I am more concerned with making something functional and reasonable than I am with adhering strictly to canon. I'm 3rd edition, anyway - I have yet to see anything about 4th edition that would make me want to pull the trigger.
I figure 2 years of training total would be about right, given the importance, the inability to replace or retrain in the field, and what I believe to be the lush state of Project finances. I also expect Project training to be relatively standardized, not too many special courses - it would be easier and safer for the Project to recruit people with special skills than it would be to establish their own courses. So, for example, MARS would have a demo course (since all MARS teams need that capability) but it would recruit EOD trained elsewhere. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
After reading through the 4e rules, especially the skills/specialties, I have to agree with you regarding using the 3e. In 4e, they had the opportunity to standardize the MP training and instead chose to say only that characters should dedicate "at least 50" of their training points to that portion of their lives. Not a single required training topic (hence my note on Thrown Grenade training).
Now I'll have to sit down and rework the training topics/classes with 3e in mind. |
![]() |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|