Morale Question

[Lt Belenko]

Does casualties on one squad had effect another squad in the same platoon even if the 2nd group is being shot at? Squads 1 and 2 are laying down suppressing fire and the assault team from squad 3 all die in a grenade blast are 1 and 2 affected? In real life if they saw 4 men go down at once they probably would be.

Sgt Smith just got sniped in his tank, would the other TC button up. They would in real life. Even for a few minutes.

Is any of this factored into the game?

[womble]

Does casualties on one squad had effect another squad in the same platoon even if the 2nd group is being shot at? Squads 1 and 2 are laying down suppressing fire and the assault team from squad 3 all die in a grenade blast are 1 and 2 affected? In real life if they saw 4 men go down at once they probably would be.

I'm pretty sure casualties in the same leg of the TO can affect other elements in that leg. I've had situations where a team or squad from one platoon has gotten badly shot up, and the other elements "base" morale has dropped from "OK" to "Cautious" or "Nervous". I believe Leadership reduces this effect, as does "distance". C-Coy's base morale won't drop much due to casualties in A-1-1, apart from C elements that are near and observe the damage A-1-1 takes.

Sgt Smith just got sniped in his tank, would the other TC button up. They would in real life. Even for a few minutes.

I don't think I've seen this happen. Not even when the other tanks in the platoon are in sight of the corpse of ex-Sergeant Smith flopping about in the hatch opening. Their morale might be impacted, and that might mean they button after less incoming (real difficult to measure) but they won't take their cue from shots on another vehicle. Not even Green crews.

[Erwin]

This is a good example of where one would expect the HQ/leadership effects to stand out. Unfortunately, the HQ effects are so much more subtle (too subtle imo) compared to CM1. Can't really tell the difference in effect between a poor leader or a good one.

Before the latest patch when KIA HQ's were not replaced in subsequent battles of a campaign, I had to play many times with no HQ at all, and couldn't discern any difference.

[womble]

This is a good example of where one would expect the HQ/leadership effects to stand out. Unfortunately, the HQ effects are so much more subtle (too subtle imo) compared to CM1. Can't really tell the difference in effect between a poor leader or a good one.

'Tis true. An excellently-led HQ unit is little more expensive than a poorly led one, but its leadership effects do seem largely to affect its own performance rather than that of its subordinate units. A +2 leadership HQ can be Shaken or in Panic mode on numerous occasions and still revert to "OK" morale status. I'm not sure that's true of squads or teams with similar leadership, though that's certainly just an impression and not backed up with any testing. I wonder if it's because the average leadership of the team is so much higher.

Before the latest patch when KIA HQ's were not replaced in subsequent battles of a campaign...

I spent most of Courage and Fortitude missing several HQs after the bloodbath of School of Hard Knocks. That was before 1.10, and they were never replaced. Missing Leaders were sometimes replaced in HQ teams if there were any survivors, but that was dependent on whether the force as a whole was slated to receive replacements or not in the campaign script. I don't think that changed in 1.10; it's always been like that.

[Childress]

This is a good example of where one would expect the HQ/leadership effects to stand out. Unfortunately, the HQ effects are so much more subtle (too subtle imo) compared to CM1. Can't really tell the difference in effect between a poor leader or a good one.

I think you may be on to something. Sometimes during play I wonder if HQ units have *any* influence on fire, ambushing or morale. Spotting, yes- I think. I ran some desultory, non-scientific tests a while back and found zero effect on those three states. This subject is worthy of investigation by an energetic poster.

[Mord]

During a test in CMSF I saw a vehicle panic after the one in front of it was blown up. The panicked vehicle was not hit in any way. I did a double take 'cause I thought that was pretty cool.

Mord.

[Childress]

I re-ran my old test but changing the parameter to Allied vs Allied. One side had an HQ, with a short cover arc, the other side no HQ, or rather a HQ hidden behind a building. The 3 squads faced off against 3 squads over a low stone wall at 500m. Equal morale.

Ran it five times. The non-HQ side got creamed each time; more casualties, more broken squads.

Never mind!

[womble]

I re-ran my old test but changing the parameter to Allied vs Allied. One side had an HQ, with a short cover arc, the other side no HQ, or rather a HQ hidden behind a building. The 3 squads faced off against 3 squads over a low stone wall at 500m. Equal morale.

Ran it five times. The non-HQ side got creamed each time; more casualties, more broken squads.

Never mind!

What that proves is that being in command is important. Run the same test with a +2 HQ and a -2 HQ both in command range and you'll be able to tell something of how HQ leadership affects the platoons' performance. Have to make sure your squads are all identical too, wrt motivation, experience and leadership.

[Childress]

The squads were identical, Regulars. Although the one with the functioning HQ no doubt benefited from that unit being Veteran.

[duckEfuzz]

Its been a while since i was testing this.

But roughly speaking i found it was the units direct leadership that effected its ability to withstand fire and being in command just enhances that direct leadership.

The give away for me was the fact its very very cheap to make your company commander +2 L which means it must not have a major impact.

If you reason that a company commanders leadership only affects those in his small team, then it makes sense.

What i've found is that if you expect squads to go out of C2 then its imperative to have high leadership squad leaders.

On the other hand if you expect your platoons to stay more or less in C2 then dropping the leadership of all leaders wont impact a great deal.

[womble]

The squads were identical, Regulars. Although the one with the functioning HQ no doubt benefited from that unit being Veteran.

Yeah, was really just being definite. Still, as you describe it, that test addresses in-command vs out-of-command, and we've had Steve say that even the worstest HQ is better than no HQ. What's in question is the effectiveness of a really competent HQ.

[Erwin]

Also, what is the perceived difference between a squad with a good leadership rating vs being in command of an HQ with a similar rating? If you cannot perceive a diference, then it probably doesn't matter in most game situations.

The example of having two squads just battling it out head to head I find extremely rare (in my games at least)... in fact to be avoided if at all possible in favor of fire and maneuver.

As some of us noted when we lost HQ's in campaigns, there was no noticeable difference in the squads' performance in subsequent battles. Perhaps there is a statistical difference, but for a GAME, if you don't NOTICE a difference the feature is too subtle. HQ effects in CM1 was less subtle and hence the importance of HQ's was much more noticeable and therefore fun to manipulate in play.

[Childress]

The HQ effect in my little test was NOT subtle.

Remember a player is often obligated on defense to deploy widely separated teams, well out of command. Isolated units need some ability to withstand pressure.from the attacker. If the HQ effect is too extreme this strategy would be useless.

[Erwin]

I see your point re that. I was thinking more that in CM1 it was fun to KNOW that one had an outstanding platoon cos of its HQ that could be used for the most perilous missions. In CM2 generally, (I have found that in the game) all the units have become a lot more similar regardless of leadership. I liked the "diversity" of CM1 (including the fact that CM1 offered so many inf units that were armed in significantly different ways).

[akd]

Perhaps there is a statistical difference, but for a GAME, if you don't NOTICE a difference the feature is too subtle.

I notice a big difference in units that are out of command, particularly in their tendency to break and run under stress.

[Erwin]

Maybe it's just I had to learn how to handle squads with no HQ due to the no HQ replacements bug after the massacres in the School of Hard Knocks scenario etc. But, vs the AI at least, I had little or no problems. So, I guess tactics that mitigate the loss of an HQ can be improvised.

[womble]

Maybe it's just I had to learn how to handle squads with no HQ due to the no HQ replacements bug after the massacres in the School of Hard Knocks scenario etc. But, vs the AI at least, I had little or no problems. So, I guess tactics that mitigate the loss of an HQ can be improvised.

To be fair, you can't know whether your troops would have performed better if they'd had HQs. It might be that you didn't see any difference between HQed and un-HQed troops because you weren't being particularly careful/successful in keeping your HQed troops in command, or because you subconsciously used the HQed troops for the pressure situations and the de-HQed troops for fire support.

While two squads head-to-head isn't an ideal tactical situation, as you say, it's a good test, since it provides information on general effectiveness: which puts out more fire while under fire.

[Baneman]

The one thing that bugs me is that in CM1, if you had to deploy a squad or two out of contact with their HQ, you could get them into command via placement of the Company Commander. This made him useful and enabled you to stretch your defensive line.

In CMBN, the Company Commander doesn't seem to be useful for C2 purposes ( beyond connecting to higher command ) which is a pity. If you need to hold a line wider than a platoon leader's C2 range, you're just out of luck.

Or is this incorrect ? Does the Company Commanders presence help at all ? I find the stricter C2 limitations in CMBN make wide formations much more difficult. It's not that you lack the leadership, you just can't apply it.

[Vanir Ausf B]

You can use the company HQ as a substitute platoon HQ as long as it's the units' own company HQ and not from a different company. I've read somewhere, maybe in the manual, that the higher HQs don't work as well as platoon HQs when used that way but I don't know what the difference is.

[duckEfuzz]

In CMBN, the Company Commander doesn't seem to be useful for C2 purposes ( beyond connecting to higher command ) which is a pity. If you need to hold a line wider than a platoon leader's C2 range, you're just out of luck.

In this case i would make sure my out of C2 SQUADS leaders has +1/+2 leadership which will make up the shortfall. (and if you happen to remain in C2 then your in an even better situation!)

A good thing to do is to make 1 platoon full of good squad leaders for those risky out of C2 missions, whilst the other platoons that remain in C2 can have all the average leaders.

I remember a game i played with low leadership squads and the moment they went out of C2 and came under fire they ran for the hills! i spent the entire game trying to order them back into action!?! My company commander became a long distance runner as he sprinted up and down the line lol!

[womble]

You can use the company HQ as a substitute platoon HQ as long as it's the units' own company HQ and not from a different company. I've read somewhere, maybe in the manual, that the higher HQs don't work as well as platoon HQs when used that way but I don't know what the difference is.

IIRC, the difference is that they aren't eligible for "Distant Vision" or "Radio" means of C2. So they have to be within about 30-50m to get "Voice" and/or "Sight" icons in the platoon elements' command status boxes.

[Erwin]

The above may be true as I notice how ever since CMSF all HQ's tend to have the same attributes. In CM1, you have a much wider mix. You'd have HQ's who gave +2 morale (great for assaults; +2 Command (great for recon); +2 for fighting etc... It really made a difference that was easy to see. Even the squads could be armed with different weapons that could be more or less effective.

I was hoping that designers would do the same for CM2. Instead, nrearly all scenarios tend to feature cookie counter units and HQ's which results in a lot less variety (or no variety at all) and that is less fun.

Is it harder in CM2 to create squads or HQ's with different ledership values or weaponry (even simply ammo load-out)?