GreenAsJade Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 So... I'm finding that it's a real hassle to deploy semi-static assets such as HMG and ATG in defensive positions in C2. It seems unrealistic to me to think that every HMG/gun that a commander placed in a defensive formation would be visible to him. Shouldn't it be the case that a static asset at the beginning of the game is "effectively" in C2, because the commander positioned it there and gave it it's orders? Sure, if it moves, then all bets are off. But it just seems such a massive limitation that every defensive asset has to be clustered in LOS of a commander in order to be effective... GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I see your point, but my perspective is different. If a defensive position is set up in isolation (no C2), then that position will be less reactive. The game portrays that very well. They get no intel, their morale is a bit more brittle (all else being the same), etc. Isolated men don't fight as well as men in solid command. My .02. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis1973 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Can't agree with c3k For example: let we have a rifle Co in defense. CoHQ ordered to 4th (weapons) Plt attach one HMG team to 1st Plt. So in battle the HMG commander must coordinate his actions (and receive target designation) with 1 PltHQ, not 4th PltHQ. But because of C2 chain is invariable, HMG still get info through 4 PltHQ, which can be out of contact. This problem can somehow be solved by scenario designer, but in QB - not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 I see your point, but my perspective is different. If a defensive position is set up in isolation (no C2), then that position will be less reactive. The game portrays that very well. They get no intel, their morale is a bit more brittle (all else being the same), etc. Isolated men don't fight as well as men in solid command. My .02. Ken I agree that isolated men won't fight as well in combat. My "complaint" is that these assets aren't isolated. They know that they are part of a solid defense. The commander and the other defensive assets are just nearby in known hidden locations, everyone knows their role. The commander only just positioned them, hyped them up, gave them their orders. They aren't "out of C2", they just don't happen to be able to see the commander for a moment... GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xian Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I think that there is more to it than that - it also means that your HMG team are not able to receive information about spotted targets from higher up the command chain. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I agree that isolated men won't fight as well in combat. My "complaint" is that these assets aren't isolated. They know that they are part of a solid defense. The commander and the other defensive assets are just nearby in known hidden locations, everyone knows their role. The commander only just positioned them, hyped them up, gave them their orders. They aren't "out of C2", they just don't happen to be able to see the commander for a moment... GaJ They do not have communications with their HQ, so they are out of C2. How exactly would they be sharing information back and forth without communications? Regardless, I think the unit will perform exactly as expected in this circumstance. Lack of information sharing is a perfectly reasonable trade-off for setting up an extended or scattered defense line. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 What change exactly are you looking for? Units out of C2 aren't worthless, they just don't share spotting information with allied units very quickly (they do share it eventually, abstractly representing messengers, etc., but spotting info spreads this way only very slowly), and they are somewhat more brittle in terms of morale. But the latter effect is modest and units out of C2 shoot at what they can spot in their own just fine. You can certainly put an HMG in an out-of-C2 position on the defense and have it make a good accounting of itself; I do so all the time. Just make sure it doesn't have to take heavy incoming fire without support. Obviously, out-of-C2 units shouldn't be able to share spotting info regardless of whether they're in a prepared defensive position or not, and to me it make perfect sense to me that, even in a prepared defense, an isolated, out-of-C2 unit would be somewhat more brittle and likely to break under fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Can't agree with c3k For example: let we have a rifle Co in defense. CoHQ ordered to 4th (weapons) Plt attach one HMG team to 1st Plt. So in battle the HMG commander must coordinate his actions (and receive target designation) with 1 PltHQ, not 4th PltHQ. But because of C2 chain is invariable, HMG still get info through 4 PltHQ, which can be out of contact. This problem can somehow be solved by scenario designer, but in QB - not. What you present is a situation where a sub-unit has been subordinated to another unit, but the sub-unit's C2 chain has not been adjusted to reflect the new C2. That's a very different situation. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fry30 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Saving Private Ryan... all of those men were in secure defensive positions... that poor bastard whos just along for the ride can be our "abstract messengers" (was not aware they were modeled... in any capactity, awesome!). They all fought along side each other, but as individual positions were over ran, they began to act as ______________ ... IE our Combat Mission soldiers. Vaguely aware of each other, but only linked by "messengers" or repositioning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 I agree that isolated men won't fight as well in combat. My "complaint" is that these assets aren't isolated. They know that they are part of a solid defense. The commander and the other defensive assets are just nearby in known hidden locations, everyone knows their role. The commander only just positioned them, hyped them up, gave them their orders. They aren't "out of C2", they just don't happen to be able to see the commander for a moment... GaJ That last part, "They aren't "out of C2", they just don't happen to be able to see the commander for a moment...": how do they know the commander didn't skedaddle? "You know, Sgt. Johnson's been on our case ever since the landing. It'd be just like him to put us out here to die while everyone else pulls out. Where the hell did that SOB go?" If they are out of C2 - radio, LOS, voice - they are out of C2. I understand what you're saying. The distant visual or voice c2 link would be something to look for as you're setting up the defensive position. The ability to stay and fight would be more, to me, based on morale. I don't know if a unit is affected by friendlies, in their unit or not, firing near them. (Meaning that they would KNOW that a friendly is there, based on their firing. Otherwise, simply LOS to a friendly.) A simple test suggests itself: setup a unit, out of C2, and have friendlies around it. Do the same without friendlies. How well does it stand up to the enemy? (The tricky part would be trying to make the enemy actions equivalent.) Will a unit fight better (keep their morale) in the presence of friendlies? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis1973 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 A simple test suggests itself: setup a unit, out of C2, and have friendlies around it. Do the same without friendlies. How well does it stand up to the enemy? (The tricky part would be trying to make the enemy actions equivalent.) Will a unit fight better (keep their morale) in the presence of friendlies? Already made this test. Here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=102411 Disappointing results. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Denis1973 Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 What you present is a situation where a sub-unit has been subordinated to another unit, but the sub-unit's C2 chain has not been adjusted to reflect the new C2. That's a very different situation. What is exactly different? I suppose that GaJ mean exactly this, not lone HMG deep in the forest without anybody around. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Wasn't wire (land line) commo used pretty regularly in this time frame? Especially in a prepared defense I think it was used all the way down to PLT level for exactly the reasons stated by GAJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Wasn't wire (land line) commo used pretty regularly in this time frame? Especially in a prepared defense I think it was used all the way down to PLT level for exactly the reasons stated by GAJ Sure. Of course, wire comms have some pretty serious drawbacks. For one thing, it tends to get cut very easily by artillery fire. Steve made some hints a while back that we may see wire comms modeling added in the Battle of the Bulge game. Be interesting to see how this will work.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjkerner Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 Steve made some hints a while back that we may see wire comms modeling added in the Battle of the Bulge game. Be interesting to see how this will work.... That would be a nifty feature. Running wire teams to forward positions, and having to retrace to check out broken links. I love that kind of minutae! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreenAsJade Posted February 8, 2012 Author Share Posted February 8, 2012 I can see that one confusion surrounds what does it even mean to be "in C2". Clearly, one literal meaning is "receiving and sending communication up the line". In no way am I arguing that an HMG or an ATG positioned on defense can do this if they can't see/hear their commander. It's fine that their potting/intelligence is reduced. However, in CMBN, being "in C2" has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of the unit. It is this aspect that I find frustrating on defense. A series of HMG or ATG placed in a defensive setup _know_ that their other companions are there, they know what the plan is etc. It seems to me that they shouldn't be suffering the same brittleness as some unit that lost sight of his friendlies in the heat of battle. GaJ 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted February 8, 2012 Share Posted February 8, 2012 However, in CMBN, being "in C2" has a dramatic effect on the effectiveness of the unit. Other than information ceasing to flow both ways, I don't think the effect is that dramatic. The unit can carry out most tasks just as effectively as when in C2, including spotting their own targets and engaging them. Its not until they start receiving enemy fire that a difference becomes significant, and even then I'd argue it is more subtle than dramatic. If anything, the effects of lack of C2 in CMBN are extremely lenient already. It is this aspect that I find frustrating on defense. A series of HMG or ATG placed in a defensive setup _know_ that their other companions are there, they know what the plan is etc. It seems to me that they shouldn't be suffering the same brittleness as some unit that lost sight of his friendlies in the heat of battle. GaJ How do they know they are still there? Presumably you are concerned with how they react to intense fire from the enemy, and it is precisely at that moment they would start questioning whether their unit is still intact or if they are in fact isolated and on their own. The orders and assurance received beforehand would not matter much. Isolated fighting positions are a bad idea, born out in both doctrine and battlefield experience. Instead of trying to cover a broad frontage by spreading out a unit, concentrate the unit into a strongpoint that can cover key approaches and accept that you cannot defend all objectives all the time unless your force is very large. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.