J11 Command Support Unit

RM/971 Idea: Allow SOPs to be altered dependant on campaign/mission conditions as explained in an OPORD/Briefing.

Idea Low

Idea - May 10, 2026

An early-stage concept that might improve UNITAF, but needs discussion and shaping.

Consultation 13d overdue 21d in stage

We're gathering input and feedback from those affected before making a decision. This item has exceeded the expected 0-day target for this stage.

View full timeline

Summary	Allow SOPs to be altered dependant on campaign/mission conditions as explained in an OPORD/Briefing.
Concept	Following Future Warfare Theatre (Present-2040) XXIII, there was some concerns over breach of SOP despite lore based reasons. However, some SOPs were actively blocking the telling of a good story and the gameplay that comes with it. I propose that SOPs may be realistically bent dependant on mission/campaign conditions as explained in an OPORD/briefing.
Potential Benefit	This would essentially mean, for example, on a mission featuring Special Forces who do not have the facilities to take CPERS (something we've already had in past OPORDs, multiple times), It would mean that said Special Forces would have the facilities to dispatch any forces surrendering that they cannot realistically and safely deal with in a manner that wouldn't impact the mission. It would also allow Guerilla Forces to fight more dirty with the limited assets they have, allowing more indepth, realistic and fascinating gameplay on that front. It could also help to further highlight horrors of larger wars, like World War II for example, that we may better show and play within that horror to pay tribute to it.
Problem or Opportunity	The main concern I frequently hear is that SOP is SOP. Rules are Rules and they must never be broken. I do understand this logic, for a large part, I agree. Rules are a form of organisation, something that is needed to run a large community. However, having played within communities three times the size of UNITAF, and having watched those very communities cease to exist, I understand that being stingy over the rules is not always a good thing. It will limit the scope and in course drive the community down a straight rail of doing the same thing over and over, which I do humbly feel is a part of the community losing its numbers. I'm not saying that every mission should abandon some form of SOP, no sir. Nor do I think we need to assume that people, especially recruits, coming to the community and seeing these SOPs being "broken" on certain missions will leave the community thinking it's completely gone off the rails. We need not question their intelligence, I feel any player can understand when certain SOPs are changed to meet a missions/campaign's conditions and should not be phased by it. Though perhaps a slight phase could be a good thing, as it would realistically fit in with their characters moral compass.
Rough Implementation Thoughts	I do not think the implementation needs to be overengineered. Whilst it could be slightly more complicated in having to think about rewriting certain SOPs to meet each mission/campaign, I do feel like that does not really need to be done like that. Essentially, the SOP is the SOP, until it is not or not fully. Simply highlight each specific SOP in the OPORD and give a brief explanation on how it may be changed. For example: FM/BS-1248 - Handle a CPERS (Report, Guard & Transfer) - CHANGE OF SOP FOR MISSION CONDITION Due to the lack of facilities to safely handle CPERS, prisoners are ordered to be unsurrendered and dispatched lethally or non-lethally, dependant on FL's disgretion in order to not compromise the mission. To piggy back off of that, I would further extend that IMS melee could be classed as a non-lethal approach to knock out prisoners. Of course, dealing with a prisoner in a non-lethal manner would be the far better choice, both from an SOP stand point but most likely also for a lore based option as well. I am happy to explain in further detail how this could be achieved, one of the larger 200 player milsim communities I played in back around 2016-2017 had pretty much an exact same policy, in that on a per mission basis, certains rules could be bent in order to better tell a story and to my knowledge, it never went off the rails and became a problem, it just created lasting memories.
Open Questions	As this is something that has been discussed prior, would this change idea be given a new lease of life and looked at from an objective standpoint, rather than a hardline "no"? Would FL's/SGM's need to run this through J6 for each mission/campaign SOP change? (I feel this would make sense)

SP1 Minipily Specialist 1st Class

Updates 3

Only the Pointman, Authority, Contributor, or Originator can post updates.

Cpl Ross Contributor NCOIC, J6 Policy Enlisted Contributor, J5 Loadouts

J6: No comments, requires decision to be made by others. Suggest that it should be limited to campaigns and not used for every operation.

CSM Vyqe

added Low

CSM Vyqe NCOIC, J11 Command Support Unit

Consultation stage, requires input from J6 Policy Staff Training Command (TC) & J7 Training Staff

CSM Vyqe NCOIC, J11 Command Support Unit

Pushing forward, assigned Central Command (CC) as pointman, but need input from J6 Policy Staff Training Command (TC) especially I think.

SP1 Minipily

added Idea

Discussion 2

Sgt Stormaple Contributor NCO, J7 Training Chief Instructor, Remotely Piloted Systems Training Team Staff Instructor, Marksmanship Training Team Staff Instructor, Mission Support Training Team

I agree with this line of thinking. We are a milsim unit and we need to have SOP to maintain standards. However, it cannot apply to every situation and having that sort of flexibility would allow more variety to make different ops which may also drive attendance higher

Sgt MoooCow Contributor NCO, J7 Training Staff Instructor, Anti-vehicle Training Team Staff Instructor, Core Infantry Training Team

In favour, under the condition that J7 and J6 have signed off on op specific changes and that there is website tagging implemented to show that some sop is being disregarded for the mission.

Stage Timeline

Chain of Responsibility

Pointman Leads this item forward. Coordinates effort and keeps things moving.

Central Command (CC)

Authority Has final authority to approve or reject this item. Their sign-off is required before execution.

Central Command (CC)

Contributors Provides input, expertise, and hands-on help. Assists with research, execution, or specialist knowledge.

J6 Policy Staff, Training Command (TC), J7 Training Staff

In the Loop Kept updated on progress and decisions. Can contribute if needed, but doesn't need to be actively involved.

Not assigned

Priority

Authorisation

Central Command (CC) Authority (Team)

Pending

Activity

Include sub-item activity

Viewers & Subscribers