Part 4: Philosophy of Doctrine

UNITAF recognises a hierarchy of authority when clear direction is needed:

• Written Doctrine: The Force Manual, which you are reading is the primary source of established doctrine. It contains written policies, procedures, guides, skills and standards that have been formally approved by Central Command (CC) FM/BG-611.
• Verbal or Written Instruction: 
  • When the Force Manual is silent on a specific issue, direction from Officers (whether verbal or written) constitutes de facto doctrine. 
  • While best practice encourages incorporating these instructions into the Force Manual, this is not always feasible or necessary. 
  • Officer instruction should generally not contradict written doctrine, but exceptions can be made by Central Command (CC) FM/BG-611. In such cases, Officers should clarify written doctrine as soon as practical.
• Precedent: If neither written doctrine nor Officer instruction provide clear guidance, precedent may be considered. If a specific action or behaviour has been consistently permitted or prohibited in the past, this may serve as a guideline. The more recent and the more consistently a specific action or behaviour has been treated as precedent, the stronger its indication. However, members should always seek clarification rather than assuming precedent is binding. Precedent is a good starting point but not always a definitive answer.

For more information about Officers within Unit Command, see: Unit Structure FM/G58

Doctrine exists to standardise actions, behaviours, or tasks only when there is a genuine need. We avoid unnecessary or overly complex rules. If doctrine becomes burdensome, pedantic, or detracts from the gameplay experience, it is counterproductive and should be revised or removed.

Real-world military doctrine, tactics, and procedures serve as a valuable source of inspiration for UNITAF. We study real-world examples to understand effective military principles and identify concepts that can enhance our gameplay. However, we explicitly reject the notion of simply imitating real-world practices without critical evaluation or adaptation. We never adopt a procedure or doctrine "just because" that's how it's done in real life. This is not sufficient justification for UNITAF.

The benefits of any given piece of doctrine must clearly outweigh the effort required to write, teach, and enforce it.

This threshold is significantly higher when:

• Replacing Existing Doctrine: Changing established procedures is more burdensome as members must unlearn old habits and adopt new ones, especially when the existing doctrine is deeply ingrained.
• Impacting the Majority: Broad, unit-wide changes receive greater scrutiny than those affecting small, specialised groups due to the interconnected nature of our doctrine and the potential impact on other areas.

Doctrine is evaluated primarily from the perspective of the average, casual member, not from the viewpoint of specialists or subject matter experts. Doctrine must be accessible, understandable, and beneficial to the majority of the unit.

Whenever possible, UNITAF prefers to enforce rules and procedures through system limitations or inherent game mechanics, rather than relying solely on written doctrine. Implementing controls through system design, such as permissions, access restrictions, scripting, or even by agreement of persons with permissions, not only reduces the need for explicit written rules and simplifies enforcement in the present, but it also lays the groundwork for a more scalable future. Therefore, when we design systems, we should always adopt a 10x mindset, ensuring they will remain robust and effective in enforcing rules even with a tenfold increase in membership.

To ensure clarity and consistency, any piece of doctrine should exist in a single, authoritative location and be linked to when referenced elsewhere.