Are selfish commanders better than selfless ones?

Not in a million years

T. Soldier

>>2937750
But if you're selfless and actually care about the lives of your men, wouldn't you refrain from sacrificing them to get a tactical advantage? There are many commanders that throw away entire units of men to slow the enemy down or to achieve an advantage, and because of that they end up winning the battle.

>>2937796
Morale is terrible under such a leader. The subordinates will find ways to fuck each other over or trying to get captured or desert or what have you. I'd think about a way to kill my commander for sure if that's his attitude.

At least with a selfless one you can expect fair and mutual respect on the battlefield, ensuring that everyone does their job sincerely.

>>2937829
Lack of morale can be counteracted by an abundance of manpower, and cowardice by making it more fearsome to retreat than to advance.

>>2938208

Those are outside the commanders control though, so they shouldn't factor in to his ability.

>>2938208
wikipedia.org/wiki/Fragging

>>2938269
How are they outside the commanders control? Abundance of manpower maybe, but the internal policies of the army are dictated by it's commander

>>2937796
a selfless commander who is willing to sacrifice both themselves and others for victory has an advantage over a ruthless but selfish commander who has an advantage over a "numale beta cuck"

I disagree with the premises of this thread. A selfish commander, as in a commander with the selfish character trait, is more likely to be careful with the lives of his men as he considers them his "property/resource" and will only "spend" them avariciously, preferring other units to take the brunt of damages.

>>2938524
This is a good point. I'm inclined to say that a commander's "selflessness", while immediately gratifying to the soldiers under him, will probably be more detrimental to their overall welfare than "selfishness"

t. armyfag