I am comfortable putting down an objective and making a short call when the plan changes. I am not comfortable talking continuously for an entire round.

A friend thinks a quiet leader makes the squad feel unorganised. I think a leader who fills every gap makes useful calls harder to hear. We both agree that saying absolutely nothing and ignoring the squad is useless, so that is not the disagreement.

What do you actually want to hear? Destination, reason, regroup point? Do you need the reason every time? Interested in answers from people who usually follow as much as people who usually lead.

Destination and whether we are committing. “Maybe go over there” is how four people end up doing four different things.

I want a reason when the order looks obviously bad from where I am standing. Otherwise it feels like following a marker off a cliff.

Could be a reason you cannot see from where you are standing, though. Not every move needs a debate first.

I did not ask for a debate. “Pulling them away from the other objective” takes a few seconds. That changes how I approach it.

That is the sort of example I was after. A short reason can be part of the call without becoming a speech.

I need to know when the old plan is cancelled. I can miss a new marker while I am busy surviving something.

Same. “Forget that, regroup here” is worth more to me than encouragement every thirty seconds.

Reading Latch again, I was arguing against a different thing. Short context is fair. I just dislike stopping the whole squad to litigate every decision.

No disagreement there. I also reserve the right to follow a clear, well-explained plan directly into a wall.

Useful answers. I will stay quiet between actual calls and make the cancellations clearer. My friend can provide the dramatic soundtrack.