Jump to content

Leadership on individual units?


Recommended Posts

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D 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?

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...