David Stone Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 Okay, Haven't asked this Q in a while, and don't recall any posts or FAQs addressing it... What is going to be modeled for unit leaders? Initially, BTS talked about various ratings for morale, rally, directing infantry or artillery fire, etc. etc. I know this has the original Squad Leader ideas at heart, and was curious to see if they have endured through Combat Mission's evolution. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 9, 1999 Share Posted June 9, 1999 No offense to ASL, but we didn't look at what they did. Instead we looked at real life historical sources to learn what should, and should not, be modeled and how to do it. I can't even begin to describe how detailed this system is. It is the heart of the game and is nothing that can be summed up easily. All I have to say is that CM has the most comprehensive, flexible, and realistic treatment of unit behavior of any wargame out there. Just to give you an example... I just used Conscripts for the first time; a platoon of piss poor latewar Volksgrenadiers. They came to me as reinforcements, and were initially in an area that was being pushed through by 2 platoons of Crack SS Panzergrenadiers. Never having used these guys before, I knew that I would have to treat them differently. Oh boy would I... First of all they take FOREVER to get moving. What takes the Crack SS guys 6 seconds to start doing takes these guys nearly 40 seconds. And this is WITH their HQ unit in control and barking out orders. OUCH! Worse, they tire much more easily. I marched them down a road and had to stop them twice so they could catch their breath. Mind you, they were MARCHING, not running!!! The SS guys moved faster in the woods with less dificulty. When they finally got to the front I feared putting them into harms way until the SS had done the hard work. These guys have already wiped out an entire reinforced platoon for the loss of about 5 men. They are still in tip top condition and continue to kick ass (though their ammo is getting low). I am really scared to use the Volksgrenadiers in mobile combat. Even my Regular Wehrmacht troops have had trouble, with two squads pretty much write offs due to panic mostly. And they are two grades BETTER than the VG troops. Not a good omen. They aren't going to last more than 30 seconds in concentrated enemy fire before bolting to the rear. And I have a bridge to cross under fire... The VG Conscripts also shoot less accurately and with less concentration of firepower. Ugh, they really need to be stuck in a static defensive position, but I am on the attack so not an option. Anyhoo... this should give you some idea about some of Combat Mission's dymanics. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Oh, forgot to mention about leaders specifically... Without them your units are in big trouble. They improve reaction time and help steady their men under fire. They also act as a rally point for men that are panicked or broken (well, if they stop long enough ). Leaders have to be in contact with their troops. Poorer the quality, shorter the distance. Nationalities are also modeled differently. Leaders are the lifeblood of the game. Without them you are toast. Some leaders are really good, and help your units by spotting better, having greater command radius, or lower response time. Others are poor and actually hinder your troops by poorer spotting, smaller command radius, longer response time, and even greater chance of unit panic. All this stuff has been in the game for months. Works REALLY well too! Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 BTS, On a number of occasions when leaders have been discussed I believe you have actually referred to them as headquarters. In fact the FAQ states: "Leaders are represented by an HQ unit, which has various units attached to it. For leaders to do their jobs you must keep HQs safe..." Why are you using this term? What is the reasoning, motivation, and/or advantage to having an HQ instead of just a plain individual leader? What other "various units" are going to be attached to the HQ? Will tank commanders/leaders have command tanks? What about NCO's, will they provide any benefit and will they actually be down in the thick of the fighting acting as the real squad leaders, instead of hiding behind the lines w/ the rest of the HQ like the commisioned officers apparently will be doing ? I thought German tactical doctrine typically put the leaders (commisioned officers) right at the front w/ the troops (at least the lower ranking ones)? Or have I been living under a misconception for low these many years? Also, will we be able to move the leaders themselves independent of the actual HQ? Or, are we stuck w/ having the entire HQ to parade around when we need to get a leader over to an area to rally some troops, help support a new axis of attack/defense, etc.??? I also find it odd that in a couple of the discussions here on the board there has even been mention of such a thing as a platoon HQ / leader (correct me if I'm wrong here). I realize there were and are platoon leaders, but was there really such an entity as a platoon HQ in the armed forces of Ger, GB, or the US in WWII? To me, HQ's don't start until you at least reach the company level, or higher. What does a platoon HQ / leader really consist of? Finally, how are leaders / HQ's going to be depicted on the screen? A single officer looking figure? A staff car? Mobile headquarters looking thingy on wheels?? Regards, Mike D. aka Mikester [This message has been edited by Mike D (edited 06-10-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 You are correct Mike, I shouldn't be using the word "Leaders". They are, in fact, part of a "HQ unit". From your post I think you misunderstand what an HQ is in CM terms, and perhaps what it is in a real Order of Battle... Formations in real life have HQ units, starting with the Platoon and going up. A Platoon HQ varies in size and in effectiveness, some being almost the size of a squad, others are just 3 men. Many of the German Platoon HQs have LMGs assigned to them as well. They usually also had attached field kitchens and something to haul gear, food, and ammo with (we aren't simulating this stuff). Point here is that there isn't just one man running around on his own yelling orders to his troops. This isn't how it worked. The thing about HQs is that you have to keep them in the front for them to be effective, but you also have to try and protect them. This does not mean leaving them behind the lines. However, it isn't a good idea to put your Platoon HQ in the lead Halftrack, for example. If you get ambushed, and the HT burns up with your HQ, then you have 3 leader-less squads. Trust me, you won't be happy if this happens Put the HQ in the 2nd or even 3rd HT, but not the 4th (too far away from the 1st). Very much in the front lines and in harm's way, but with a slightly minimized risk. Each squad has its own squad leader, but this is somewhat abstracted. The unit itself has the experience ratings and so forth, not a single man within it. At CM's scale, with max around 1500 men or so, individual men can't be singled out like in an RPG. We could, but I assure you that it would harm game play and wouldn't be worth our coding time. It is the unit that matters, so we keep the attention focused on the unit. Trust me, there are a million other things in need of your attention on the battlefield other than if one of your 40 or so Sergeants has a rating of Great or of Good, seperate from the unit under his command More senior HQs, like Company or Battalion, are also very useful in the front lines. But again, not in high risk situations. I almost always have a Company HQ with a small reserve marching behind a main point of advance, or positioned behind an important emplacement. It is his responsibility to act as a second rallying point and to help keep slower moving units, like HMGs, directed. Works great. Stick him under a rock at the edge of the map and you get no such bonus. HQs are made up of men, so they are on foot. They are depecited as a single figure with a pistol (Sr. HQs look the same as Platoon ones now, but we hope to change that). If you want to stick them in a vehicle, go right ahead. The scenario's designer decides what vehicles are given to the player. So if you have no Jeep or Kübelwagen for your HQs, tough Probably got shot up or ran out of gas on the way to the front! Steve [This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 06-10-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike D Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Steve, Thanks for the reply. You have gotten rid of some of my misconceptions and explained how the leaders / HQ's will work in CM. Appreciate the info. Mike D aka Mikester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 So, individual squads don't actually have one leader, right? They are considered to "be being led" (wow what English!) and, if withing the radius of a senior commander, they get a bonus? Izzat how it works? Otherwise, if individual squads had ONE leader guy, you'd have to code in the chance that any squad casualty would be that leader, ja? As an aside, what the he11 is up with the pre-battle foce dispositions created by CC3? The manual states something like "the placement of your forces by the AI should be effective; you may want to make slight adjustments to suit your style of play." I can't count how many times the game decides that my leader unit should be either at the farthest possible map edge, or as far forward as possible. Ugh! DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold Jones Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>HQs are made up of men, so they are on foot. They are depecited as a single figure with a pistol (Sr. HQs look the same as Platoon ones now, but we hope to change that). If you want to stick them in a vehicle, go right ahead. The scenario's designer decides what vehicles are given to the player. So if you have no Jeep or Kübelwagen for your HQs, tough Probably got shot up or ran out of gas on the way to the front! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Will armor platoon and company Hqs be tank mounted or are all HQs treated as infantry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 10, 1999 Share Posted June 10, 1999 Yes Doug, in spite of your butchering of the English Language, you have got it right We decided a LONG time ago that simulating individual "leaders" in the RPG sense (like Close Combat) was NOT a good idea at CM's scale. There are just too many men to pay attention to. If your leaders were never killed or wounded this wouldn't be such a problem. But considering that you can have something like 60-100 units, each with their own leader, the turn over rate after only a few turns in combat would be too much for any sane individual to care about. MAYBE you might get to know your guys a little bit during setup, but by the time you finally identify with an individual man, he is gone for good and a new face takes his place. So take that 60 unit game and you will probably have seen 300 leaders by the time the scenario is over. Ugh I say again! What we do is have all the emphasis on the units. Your units will take casualties, but they won't suddenly renamed and have different stats. For example, if we did individual leaders Sgt. Jablonski's Squad might change three times and wind up at the end with 4 men under the command of PFC Jones. This is going to be utterly confusing, to the point where you won't care about your units any more because it makes your head hurt. The way CM does it is that Sgt. Jablonski's Squad is still called that all the way until the game ends or the unit is snuffed out with 100% casualties. But the nature of the unit's effectiveness, weapons/ammo, and willingness to continue fighting *will* change during the course of the scenario. THIS is where your focus should be, and that is why we have done what we have done. You will notice your units as uniquely individual and plan accordingly. There is also a high level of "attachment" to units this way to. Trust me, you won't want your only decent platoon to be hacked to pieces... In regards to lame setup by the computer, you will be happy to know that CM doesn't do unit setup for you (except for on the fly, random scenarios). This is something that the scenario designer does for you. You can reposition your troops as much as you like during setup, of course, so long as they remain in their designated starting areas. These starting areas are also set up by the scenario designer and can be VERY broad and open, or highly restrictive. That is up to the designer. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Davis Posted June 11, 1999 Share Posted June 11, 1999 BTS sez... ...units as uniquely individual and plan accordingly. There is also a high level of "attachment" to units this way to. Trust me, you won't want your only decent platoon to be hacked to pieces... My comment & suggestion: I've read about BTS' decision not to have the "core group" concept popularized by Panzer General that the player can use throughout a campaign for the reason that it is ahistorical. Likewise is their rational to not to have a leader/HQ that can "grow" from one battle to the next (in Squad Leader, among others). I agree with these decisions from a historical standpoint, but from a gameplay standpoint (CM is a game, after all), I respectfully disagree. As Steve (Charles?) said in the above, gamers will get attached to some of their units. And the natural tendency is to see their "charges" improve from mission to mission. I believe that the "core unit" concept was the primary, if not only, reason behind PG's popularity. I'm a wargaming buff, but not a grognard. I want historical authenticity, but also "fictional" battles/campaigns (which BTS have said CM will have). I don't care much for PG's "core unit" implementation, as it gets really out of whack toward the later stage of a campaign (where you can have an all-Tiger force, say). I also really don't care for the leader RPG concept from SL, as single individuals can get KIA or WIA. But I'd like to see a gamer-designated force (I'm thinking platoon sized) that I can take from mission to mission in a fictional campaign. The force size is constant, only the make-up (experience, morale, may be weaponry) will change. What I'm after isn't the traditional RPG goal of growing the force from peons to superdudes, but simply have a bunch of guys that I can identify with as "my guys." Indeed, they can be worse at the end of the campaign than when they started. The platoon size is suggested so that the varying makeup of the force won't unduly impact the game balance. What is needed to have this happened is for the game to be able to save the end-state of the particular unit (platoon, as per my suggestion) and be able to automatically insert the unit into the next mission in the campaign, with any additional enhancement/replacement the campaign designer may have for the unit. If possible, I'd like to see the "core platoon" concept be modularized, so that the gamer can insert the platoon into any other campaign (possibly replacing one the existing platoons) if he desires. Again, I realize that this is totally ahistorical, but don't think that have this as an option would lessen the game's appeal to hardcore authenticity-uber-alles fans, and would widen its appeal to more casual wargaming fans. Is this an unreasonable request? Or am I making an ass of myself by asking for something that will already be implemented? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted June 11, 1999 Share Posted June 11, 1999 J Davis, you aren't making an "ass" out of yourself, but we do have what you are asking for I really need to put this into a FAQ because many people misunderstand about our campaign system... Check out a new thread on this matter. It will be easier for people to find this info. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts