MisterMark Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I understand an that an HQ with a +2 leadership bonus might have a very positive influence over subordinate units, but what does effect do you think an individual subordinate unit with a +2 bonus do? -Mark 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 A squad leaders leadership rating effects the men in their squad for example. As I understand it the leadership will effect whoever is subrodinate to them, even if they are in their squad/team (probably more so if they are in their team). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 The individual unit leadership ratings have a much greater effect on the behavior of that unit than does the leadership rating of HQs above it, particularly with respect to moral. I'm not sure if HQ leadership has any effect at all on subordinate units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSj Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 This topic again? As shown by the thread linked to above, it has been an issue for a long time. And still just silence from the BF people, who could resolve this extremely annoying lack of information with just a short post explaining how this works. One of the most annoying things about this otherwise great game/simulation is the total lack of information on many of the important mechanics. It makes you feel like you are more often guessing than making informed decisions when playing. And the forum gets filled with post of people spending hours testing various features, to try to figure these things out. Time that could have been spent playing and enjoying the game instead. You have all this information displayed, like leadership and experience, but there is no way to make use of this information, as there is no explanation of what these things really mean. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 You have all this information displayed, like leadership and experience, but there is no way to make use of this information, as there is no explanation of what these things really mean. I understand why everyone would like to know how this works but to be honest, what would you do with that information? How would knowing exactly how leadership works change how you play the game? The way the game assigns leadership ratings appears to be totally random and a good leader can be alive one moment and dead the next so knowing exactly how it effects things to me really doesn't matter. What, are you going to fire a bad leader in the middle of a battle and pick a new one? No, you have a mission to accomplish and at any one point in time you choose the best unit (this means strength, ammo, morale, experience, fitness, leadership all matter) to accomplish that mission. All things being equal, I know + means good leader - means bad leader and that's enough for me to make my decision. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 I understand why everyone would like to know how this works but to be honest, what would you do with that information? How would knowing exactly how leadership works change how you play the game? The way the game assigns leadership ratings appears to be totally random and a good leader can be alive one moment and dead the next so knowing exactly how it effects things to me really doesn't matter. What, are you going to fire a bad leader in the middle of a battle and pick a new one? No, you have a mission to accomplish and at any one point in time you choose the best unit (this means strength, ammo, experience, fitness, leadership all matter) to accomplish that mission. All things being equal, I know + means good leader - means bad leader and that's enough for me to make my decision. Honestly I do look at this in a general way much like you said. However it might change my behavior to know that +2 means I should move that leader over closer to that rifle team that is currently wavering and threatening to break. On the other hand in my current AAR my leaders are mostly -2. Does that mean I should just toss them into the front line as additional fodder? I tend to role play as I play, I am not about to change my behavior to fit game mechanics. I play as if these are real guys and my pltn leader coming over is gonna help the team feel like they aren't alone. Does it really...nah probably not, but hey it's my $65 and I am gonna play it the way that I enjoy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSj Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 All things being equal, I know + means good leader - means bad leader and that's enough for me to make my decision. In many situations this may be enough. If you have two equally secure positions, A and B, that you can choose to move your platoon HQ to, and A means he is close enough to establish C2 to his subordinate squads, and B is too far away, of course you should order him to go to position A. In this case, it is enough to know that it's a good thing to have C2 established. But what if position A is more exposed to the enemy? There is a greater risk that the Platoon leader gets killed if you move him there. Should you still move him to A to establish C2, or keep him safe at B, and lose C2 to the squads? This will depend on weighing the risk against the benefits. And you can't do that if you don't know what the leadership/C2 benefits are. If they have a big positive influence, it will be worth a greater risk to get them. But there is no way to make such decisions today, you just have to choose without knowing the extent of the risks and benefits of choosing position A or B. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 In many situations this may be enough. If you have two equally secure positions, A and B, that you can choose to move your platoon HQ to, and A means he is close enough to establish C2 to his subordinate squads, and B is too far away, of course you should order him to go to position A. In this case, it is enough to know that it's a good thing to have C2 established. But what if position A is more exposed to the enemy? There is a greater risk that the Platoon leader gets killed if you move him there. Should you still move him to A to establish C2, or keep him safe at B, and lose C2 to the squads? This will depend on weighing the risk against the benefits. And you can't do that if you don't know what the leadership/C2 benefits are. If they have a big positive influence, it will be worth a greater risk to get them. But there is no way to make such decisions today, you just have to choose without knowing the extent of the risks and benefits of choosing position A or B. Well now your talking about C2 and how that all works is as much a mystery as the leadership rating. We can assume that leadership plays some factor into keeping C2 or establishing it but there are I'm sure, many other factors as well such as sighting. Most of the time you don't have to move a HQ closer to establish C2 but just move where your HQ can see the unit that is out of C2. I'm guessing the variables involved with how the C2 algorithms work in this game are very complex and would require another complete manual to thoroughly explain how it all works. And then we Grogs ... being well ... very Groggie, would pick it to pieces forthwith. I'm also guessing this is why BF is very reluctant to reveal how it all works. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 FWIW: One thing I'm finding in my current Hamel Vallee monster battle with sburke is the vast difference I get in troop behavior from having mostly +2 unit leaders across the board (while he has -2 leaders). I can't quantify it in laboratory terms or stats, but I can definitely say I've never seen Green infantry fight so well or so persistently (and all my infantry is Green). This must be due to the integral NCO team and squad leaders, who are somehow getting even "broken" units to fight or at least shoot back, and to rally a bit better and faster too. In previous battles I always had -1 leaders. And in those cases I found that once a unit broke or even got "rattled," it would go to ground/cower at the drop of a hat I (or even the sound of a nearby artillery round), panic quickly under fire, and rarely remain an effective fighting force -- even with Veteran experience. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSj Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Well now your talking about C2 and how that all works is as much a mystery as the leadership rating. C2/leadership/any of the many other unexplained things. It doesn't matter, without knowing how they work, you can't make informed decisions. Most of the time you don't have to move a HQ closer to establish C2 but just move where your HQ can see the unit that is out of C2. Distance doesn't matter, you have two choices for where to position your HQ, A with C2 (+leadership modifer for your subordinate units), B without, but A is more exposed to potential enemy fire. Is it worth running the risk of establishing C2/leadership at A, or should you choose to send your HQ to B and get by without C2/leadership modifier? That depends on how big the benefits are compared to the risks. If moving your HQ to position A will mean the difference between your units breaking and running or staying in the fight, it is worth taking a much greater risk with your HQ than if the benefits are relatively minor, and you think that the units can get by without them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 One thing I'm finding in my current Hamel Vallee monster battle with sburke is the vast difference I get in troop behavior from having mostly +2 unit leaders across the board (while he has -2 leaders). Yes, the effect of leadership on the leader's own unit's moral can be dramatic and has been documented previously. What I don't know is if there is any effect other than moral. In CMx1 leaders were rated in several different categories. IIRC, the categories were command radius, stealth (units under his command were harder to spot), combat (more accurate fire), and moral. The only effect we know of in CMx2 is moral. Are there other effects? Then there is the issue of HQs' effect on units under their command. We know that for HQs a higher rating make them pass on spotting information faster to and from units under their command. Is that the only effect? As far as I know it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Sometimes I think its better learning to play a game well by using your own personal experience and not by knowing or trying to learn every detail in the rule book. This is in my opinion what sets a good leader apart from a bad or inexperienced one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 Yes, the effect of leadership on the leader's own unit's moral can be dramatic and has been documented previously. What I don't know is if there is any effect other than moral. In CMx1 leaders were rated in several different categories. IIRC, the categories were command radius, stealth (units under his command were harder to spot), combat (more accurate fire), and moral. The only effect we know of in CMx2 is moral. Are there other effects? Then there is the issue of HQs' effect on units under their command. We know that for HQs a higher rating make them pass on spotting information faster to and from units under their command. Is that the only effect? As far as I know it is. Yep. A good way of thinking of it is that a leader unit with a leadership bonus is a faster network switch -- it passes information up and down the C2 chain more efficiently. I believe another affect of higher Leadership rating is that the unit is better at establishing and maintaining C2 links in general, and especially at longer ranges for the "lesser" C2 types like Distant Visual. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinOrLose Posted April 27, 2012 Share Posted April 27, 2012 If you know the absolute of every game mechanic it just becomes a game of chess. There needs to be some "unknowns" to keep it real. In RL you know a good from a bad leader but is he a 0, +1 or a +2? As said earlier a leader will help in any situation and a better leader will help more. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I was thinking. (Yeah I know bad idea) A lot of noobs wander in here asking for advice on how to play this game and a lot of us (myself included) offer tons of what we hope is useful advice. Odds are they take that advice and try to apply it, end up still getting their asses handed to them and then wonder "what am I still doing wrong?" or "are those guys just friggin idiots?" or maybe both as you'd definitely be doing something wrong listening to a friggin idiot. The thing is all of us giving the advice are still getting our asses handed to us rather more often than we'd probably like to admit. That doesn't invalidate the advice. It just means we may know what we are supposed to be doing, but still don't apply it well. Most of us learned war gaming off the good ole CRT. What my young friend is a CRT? A Combat Results Table. It is the magical chart that tells us how good a commander we are. Works kind of like this. Hmm, I want to take that town. I have an infantry unit that is pretty strong. Okay let me add this tank unit to the attack, that will give me a combined arms modifier shift of 1 column on the CRT. Okay now I will use my prep fire turn to hit em with artillery until they are disrupted, that'll reduce their defensive strength by half. Okay now I'll add another infantry unit to attack from the opposite side hex, that'll give me another colomn shift. Okay I also have an air unit, Aha! another column shift. Now I'll roll the die (while biting my tongue or lip, or both) aaannnndddd God forasaken piece of S**t dice!!!!! I lose a step and attack is over. JSj asked a question In many situations this may be enough. If you have two equally secure positions, A and B, that you can choose to move your platoon HQ to, and A means he is close enough to establish C2 to his subordinate squads, and B is too far away, of course you should order him to go to position A. In this case, it is enough to know that it's a good thing to have C2 established. But what if position A is more exposed to the enemy? There is a greater risk that the Platoon leader gets killed if you move him there. Should you still move him to A to establish C2, or keep him safe at B, and lose C2 to the squads? This will depend on weighing the risk against the benefits. And you can't do that if you don't know what the leadership/C2 benefits are. If they have a big positive influence, it will be worth a greater risk to get them. But there is no way to make such decisions today, you just have to choose without knowing the extent of the risks and benefits of choosing position A or B. I thought it was a good question for two reasons. First is I don't really know the answer. I do not know what the ratings of my commanders influence nor how much. I should probably read the manual just in case it is in there otherwise I'll look like an illiterate friggin idiot. The second reason I thought it was a good question was combined with the discussion in a few other threads it got me thinking about how I play this game and that good ole CRT. My conclusion? I have a lot of godawful baggage I need to dump from those days. The problem with the CRT is it doesn't teach tactics, it teaches odds. They aren't the same by a long shot. Wargames got better. They got into command and control, attempted to simulate the theory of airland battle and trying to get inside your opponents decision making cycle. Taught us the impact of supply on operational tempo etc etc, but at heart all they taught us about combined arms tactics was how to influence that good ole piece of s**t CRT. CM is different and CMx2 even more so than CMx1. I don't think I would get much push back from BFC if I were to say, they want CM to be a game where you don't think about odds and percentages, you think about tactics. Get rid of that stupid CRT. Adding a tank to your offense does not create a combined arms unit. It simply means you now have a tank. It's how you use it that decides if you can master combined arms. Calling an artillery strike isn't going to give you that column shift disruption that automatically helps your offense. If you can't hit them while they are suppressed, you may simply have wasted good ammo. I remember first seeing the dash option in ASL. I thought isn't that cool. Well you can do that in CM. But it isn't quite so static. An errant artillery round can cause that dashing unit to drop to it's knees in the roadway in plain sight of the MG crew or tank that now has LOTS of time to kill you. There is far more flow to the battle now than any human could have kept track of in the old board game days. I do a lot of things wrong. I don't exercise enough patience, I don't use smoke near as well as I should. I haven't gotten down learning how to accelerate the tempo of an attack to keep my opponent off balance. Hell I pretty much think I suck at attacking in general. Let's face it, it is harder. So my answer JSj, I too would like to know what the ratings affect and some idea what the value of being a +2 is. After all what is the point of sending them over to help on something it turns out they can't help. It is no different than not sending over an ammo bearer unit from another platoon to your AT gun. They may have plenty of ammo, but they won't share it. They'll just stand there like a bunch of friggin idiots. You kind of need to know what they CAN influence to know how to use them. On the other hand I would advise not looking too closely and trying to figure out is that a 1 column shift or a two column shift? Odds are they are just gonna get drilled by a stray round on the way over and you'll have spent 15 minutes trying to decide and now look like a friggin idiot with a noob standing over your shoulder saying " you don't really know how to play this do you?" 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I have to say I do miss the different leadership rating categories from the CMx1 games. I would often use platoon or company HQs ratings to decide what role each formation would play in my plans. I thought it was cool that leaders weren't necessarily good or bad, they just had different strengths and weaknesses. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSj Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I too would like to know what the ratings affect and some idea what the value of being a +2 is. After all what is the point of sending them over to help on something it turns out they can't help. It is no different than not sending over an ammo bearer unit from another platoon to your AT gun. They may have plenty of ammo, but they won't share it. They'll just stand there like a bunch of friggin idiots. You kind of need to know what they CAN influence to know how to use them. Very good and insightful post, thanks! I guess it's a great advice to start thinking more about tactics instead of rules and odds, I'll definitely try to do that, but there are still things like the one you described above about the ammo bearers that you absoluetly DO need to know. Without knowing anything about the effect of leadership and C2, maybe we are all doing equally wasteful things with our leaders, without even knowing it. We need to know what the HQ units CAN influence, in order to use them effectively. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Sburke's insightful post about the CRT mindset vs. tactical thinking also made me realize how both have shaped our operational-tactical campaign using a board game with CMBN. Because, when you think about it, the division staff planning an attack from way in the rear HAS to look at things more the way a war gamer does -- assets, firepower, odds, etc., while the CMBN tactical level forces us to take those missions a higher HQ dreamed up and actually try to make them work in the messy, chaotic world of tactics. So we get situations that look one way on paper or map and turn out very differently in 3D. And we get an ever greater level of realism, I think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Perhaps the +2 system is as simple as CMx1 and that basically the troops fight two levels up and respond more quickly to orders. So nothing too sophisticated and perhaps a useful rule of thumb. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 In the interests of making sure we are all on the same page (and have actually read the manual) I am going to quote extensively from it on Leadership and C2 issues. HEADQUARTER UNITS AND LEADERSHIP By now you have probably begun to wonder just what the HQ units with flag icons are good for. These units contain your leaders. Usually, every section, platoon, company, and battalion possesses an HQ unit. Leaders fulfill two very important functions: they exert a leadership modifier on their subordinate units, and link units to the Command and Control (C2) network. If you select your platoon leader, you will notice a “+1” next to his name in the unit information panel. This means that he exerts a positive leadership bonus on all units under his command. The details of what this bonus entails are intentionally somewhat murky, but the basic gist is that units under his command will simply perform their jobs better than units under the command of a leader without a bonus. Leaders may have a -2, -1, 0, +1, or +2 leadership bonus; yes, that means that you can even get bad leaders! It seems my Bn in the Hamel AAR is full of Lt Dykes. In order for a leader to exert his influence over his subordinate units, he must have command of them. In the World War 2 setting, radios were relatively rare below the platoon level. In the game, this usually means that a leader must be within visual signaling or shouting distance of the unit he is seeking to influence. This is usually about 50 meters but will vary dramatically with the terrain; the more dense the terrain, the closer your HQ unit must be to have command of his troops. Note that tank platoons usually use radios to stay in command and don’t need to stay within a short distance of each other. What does this mean for you in the current scenario? Keep your HQ unit near your squads as they assault the hill. The leader will confer his leadership bonus to them, and they will most likely need his bonus more than the base of fire units. The Command and Control (C2) network is a complicated topic that will be left for the manual. You can find more information on C2 later in the manual. You experienced some of it in the previous mission when your mortars were linked to the FO through radios. COMMAND & CONTROL (C2) The concept of moving and acting on information is called Command and Control, or “C2” for short. Arguably, C2 is the single most important aspect of a combined arms force operating in the field. Its ability to pass information up and down the Chain of Command largely determines that force’s opportunities and the options available to it. Note: the C2 rules applied in CM:BN vary slightly depending on which Skill level you’re playing. This chapter assumes the Elite, skill, with all the rules in full effect. At Veteran level, some of the restrictions imposed by the C2 rules are lifted or at least are not as strict, while playing at Basic Training level essentially means C2 is not active at all. There are two primary components of C2: communication methods and control procedures. In practical terms, this means a break in communications reduces the ability for the force to function properly, but good communications don’t matter if the commanders can’t leverage the information to achieve an advantage. COMMUNICATION METHODS C2 methods are divided up into different groups and displayed in the Unit Info Panel: The methods, from left to right, are: Visual Contact (units within LOS of each other) Eye Contact - close proximity Eye Contact - distant Audio Contact (units able to hear each other) Voice Contact Radio Contact Like any sort of chain, the Chain of Command is only as strong as its weakest C2 link. Having all three methods available to a unit at the same time allows for the best possible results, while having none at all means a break in the Chain of Command. A break means the higher and lower parts of the chain are no longer connected and therefore unable to communicate with each other. This can have disastrous game results. MAINTAINING C2 LINKS The more types of C2 links units have, the better chance they have of maintaining connections. Just remember that not all C2 methods are of equal quality. Range is quite important because the farther away units are from each other the greater the chance they will experience breaks in communications. The inherent fragility of the method is also important since some are inherently more robust. All units have the opportunity to establish Eye and Voice Contact, but to do so means keeping units fairly close and in plain sight (LOS) of each other. These are the most reliable, robust forms of C2 possible. Unfortunately, from a tactical standpoint, having units bunched up is generally not a good idea, nor is it even necessarily physically possible. Radio Contact is the most basic technological means of overcoming these problems, however, radios are tricky things to operate effectively as distances increase, and good radios are quite expensive. CM:BN includes two major types of radios: small handheld radios (e.g. for the US side this is the SRC- 536 AM Frequency "Handie-Talkie"), and large backpack radios (e.g., for the US side, the SRC-300 FM "Walkie-Talkie"). CONTROL PROCEDURES CM:BN goes beyond just simulating the hardware to maintain contact on the battlefield, but also attempts to realistically track what happens with the information passed up and down the chain. A rifle squad reporting an enemy contact to its platoon HQ will trigger an entirely different response than if it is broadcasting the information through the battalion radio net! That’s because the platoon HQ is set up and has procedures in place guiding it what to do in this situation. For the Battalion HQ, this piece of information is largely useless. What this means in game terms is that units can effectively only trace command- and-control to their immediately-superior HQs. Higher HQs may fulfill this role only to a limited extent. If a squad or team is out of contact with its immediate superior (usually a platoon HQ) then its company or battalion HQ may provide voice and close visual contact, but not radio or distant-visual contact. This simulates that a higher HQ can't babysit a large number of units more than one level lower in the organization, and it means that higher HQs can't be used in a gamey way to make platoon HQs unnecessary, but they can step in and provide command-and-control in a limited radius in emergency situations. INFORMATION SHARING The better organized and connected a force is, the better able it is to communicate critical pieces of information between units. Though it is not obvious to the player that the information itself is moved around, the results of it are. There are three primary benefits of good organization and communication: spotting of enemy units, calling for support, and maintaining discipline. One of the most important aspects of Combat Mission is its system of revealing information about enemy units, such as position, type, and actions. Unlike most other games, CM:BN uses what we call Relative Spotting instead of Absolute Spotting. In an Absolute Spotting system, when an individual friendly unit “senses” something, that information is instantly, and perfectly, available to all units on its side. It doesn’t matter where the other units are or what sorts of communications capabilities they have. Relative Spotting, on the other hand, keeps the unit’s “sensed” information from moving to other units unless there is some way of communicating it to them. In other words, when you click on a unit in CM:BN you get to see what it sees relative to what it knows. If the unit is isolated from the Chain of Command it wouldn’t be able to target something it didn’t spot itself, for example. Good quality C2 between the right units becomes of paramount importance when Air or Artillery Support are required. Not all units are equally capable, or even able, to direct such fire missions. Picture that critical unit, with the ability to possibly change the course of the battle, cut off from the Chain of Command. How can it call in Support if it can’t communicate with anybody? Well, it can’t! Note: On-map mortars can fire indirect even if they are out of command & control and lack a radio, provided that the spotter is within 50m. Lastly, maintaining C2 is important for keeping unit cohesion intact. Units tend to get jumpy when they don’t know what the friendly units around them are up to, or where their superiors are, or what the enemy might be trying to do at that moment. Without C2, the imagination can run a bit wild, so to speak, and the unit may be imagining the worst scenario. Perhaps all its buddies withdrew and forgot to tell it to pull back? Maybe the HQ was wiped out and nobody higher up knows about those tanks coming down the road, and therefore no help is on the way? Well-disciplined units hold up better under these circumstances, of course, but every unit has its breaking point. If it has contact with its fellow forces and feels supported, things are less stressful. LEADERS Every unit has someone in charge of its soldiers, though not necessarily the same type of Leader. Leaders provide units with, what else... leadership. They help maintain internal discipline, direct fire to be more effective, and keep contact with other Leaders. The more Leaders you lose, the harder maintaining C2 becomes. Leadership influence takes the form of a Leadership Modifier represented in the Unit Info Panel. The better the modifier, the more effective the Leader is in keeping things on the straight and narrow. Note that the modifier values are +2, +1, 0, -1, and -2. This means that a Leader can have no special effect on Leadership (0 rating) or even a negative influence (-1 or -2). Anybody that has ever served in the military, or studied it in historical texts, knows that some people should never have been put in charge of anything except washing dishes (and you don’t necessarily want to be the one eating from those dishes). CM dutifully simulates these poor Leaders. There are two types of dedicated Leaders; Unit Leader and Assistant Leader. A Unit Leader is a soldier who has the training and rank to command the unit he is assigned to. The Assistant Leader has similar training and capabilities as the Unit Leader, but is of a junior rank and may not have all the skills necessary to command a unit over the long term. However, an Assistant Leader generally has the same chance of being a good Leader in a tactical fight, which is good because that is exactly what he’ll have to do if the Unit Leader becomes a casualty. Squad-type units usually have a Squad Leader (Unit Leader) in charge of Team A, and an Assistant Squad Leader (Assistant Leader) in charge of Team B. When Squads are split up, like Weapons Squads normally are, this effectively means that the command responsibilities are split up. If one Leader falls to fire, the other one will not take over his responsibilities, because they are assumed to be physically separate units when split off as Teams. When a battle starts, the name and rank displayed are that of the unit’s current senior Leader. Should that Leader fall in battle, the name and rank will change as the replacement assumes command. RADIOS World War Two commanders did not enjoy the luxury of a whole array of powerful communications tools that are available on a modern 21st Century battlefield (when satellite based tracking systems and communications are often available even to small units and formations). Instead, the primary means to communicate over distance (outside of visual and audio ranges) was the radio. But radios were expensive and (compared to today) rare. While the US forces made a deliberate effort to try to provide radios usually at least down to the platoon level, many German formations only possess a radio for the main Company HQ, or have one reserved for specialized Forward Observers. Players will probably learn quickly that paying attention to where the radios are on the Normandy battlefield is going to provide a crucial element on the road to victory. Without a radio nearby, that group of on-map mortars is pretty much limited to only firing at targets within sight. Without a radio, that platoon commander who loses sight of his Company CO is effectively out of the loop with higher ups. Below the company level communications were mostly by voice and sight. Because the effective range is so much less than a radio, Platoon HQs have to remain quite close to their assigned units in order to control them. A Rifle Platoon, for example, would usually advance in a way that most, if not all, of the attached squads and weapons teams could see or hear the Platoon Leader’s commands. Weapons type platoons were often asked to operate over larger distances than infantry type platoons. Since radios were not usually available, the solution was to add intermediate Section HQs between the Platoon HQ and the weapons under its command. Their job was to extend the range of the Platoon HQ by acting as a relay point for communications. A good example of Section HQs can be found in most Medium Mortar Platoons. Often there are two Section HQs, each with two mortars, assigned to a single Platoon. By positioning the Section HQs, and their assigned mortar teams, to the left and right of the Platoon HQ, the Platoon Leader can communicate with each of his Section Leaders, which in turn communicate with each of their Mortar Team Leaders. This allows voice and visual commands to be quickly and efficiently relayed from top to bottom over a much greater area than platoons without Section HQs. The importance of positioning Section HQs becomes apparent when attempting to call for indirect fire support. For defensive reasons, you don’t want your mortars bunched together, yet if you spread out too much you’ll loose contact with them. If that happens, then they usually will be unavailable for indirect fire missions. Section HQs, therefore, are vitally important despite their lack of radios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I don't have any answers, but I do propose an experiment. Leader A with +2, commanding squad "a" which has a -2 rating. Leader B with -2, commanding squad "b" which has a +2 rating. Somehow put them through identical incoming fire and facing identical enemies. If group B performs better than group A, we'll know that inherent leadership is more important than external leadership as applied by the chain of command. Any takers? (Once we determine which leadership origin has more influence, we can then adjust that leadership level and watch the change in performanc.) Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 I don't have any answers, but I do propose an experiment. Leader A with +2, commanding squad "a" which has a -2 rating. Leader B with -2, commanding squad "b" which has a +2 rating. Somehow put them through identical incoming fire and facing identical enemies. If group B performs better than group A, we'll know that inherent leadership is more important than external leadership as applied by the chain of command. Any takers? (Once we determine which leadership origin has more influence, we can then adjust that leadership level and watch the change in performanc.) Ken LOL not me. I like the ambiguity and honestly I am really trying to break from the ASL mode of "get my best +3 commander over to that AT gun to increase my die roll". However I can definitely see where in tournament games folks might want exactly that sort of thing. Though from what I understand from the manual, the effect of a commander is pretty much tied to the command structure. You can't just move any leader near a squad and expect they will be able to improve things. Your troops seem much more likely to ask "who the hell is that guy?" For now I am content with my platoon commanders trying to stay in contact with my squads to tell them to get up and fight and knowing I have to watch to see that the platoon stays in contact with the Company, the Company with Bn and so on. Considering my current commanders are all -2 though maybe I should just stick em in the front line. Perhaps watching em get shot would improve the men's morale. Where's Lt Spear when you need him? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Considering my current commanders are all -2 though maybe I should just stick em in the front line. Perhaps watching em get shot would improve the men's morale. Where's Lt Spear when you need him? I have distinct recollections of Steve saying that having your absolute worst HQ in C2 of a squad was better than having the squad out of C2. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted April 28, 2012 Share Posted April 28, 2012 Yeah I think the way it applies for my guys is, they hear the panicked tone of the pltn leader and know they better send help. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duckEfuzz Posted April 29, 2012 Share Posted April 29, 2012 The way i figured it, probably incorrectly, was by looking at the points values of greater leadership values whilst picking troops for QB's If you bump up the L value of a squad leader, where he controls 11 men the cost is considerable. Whereas if you apply the same bonus to a company commander the cost is small So i feel that the Leadership bonus affects the moral/abilities of units DIRECTLY under that leader, BUT ANY EFFECT GIVEN by the speed of infomation exchange up and down the C2 chain must be small due to the small cost of making your 3 man company commander team +2L So for my games i try to select +1L for all my squads and dont worry too much about higher up the chain, i just make sure i keep C2 which is about posistioning not about bonuses, and that setup makes for a very tough force indeed. 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.