Armored HQs

[Moon]

Looking intensly at the screenshots I noticed that while infantry units have little HQ icons besides the units name (they look like radios), tanks and AFVs seem to miss them. Is this something just missing in the current alpha stage or are you treating HQ units differently for infantry and AFVs? If so, I would be interested to know how and why?

[Guest Big Time Software]

My, what sharp eyes you have there Moon

Well, we decided to NOT put in HQ units for armored units a long time ago. The reason is that all the negatives of armor C&C are not simulated in Combat Mission (or any other wargame for that matter). This is what an armored HQ did in real war once engaged in combat:

1. Passed down information from higher sources.

2. Made local decisions based on above information.

3. Coordinated movement.

4. Coordinated target acquisition.

All of these things were effectively done instantly at this point in the war as all nations in CM had radios in their vehicles.

In game terms, every single last one of these things is in the control of the player and/or the TacAI (which is an every vehicle for himself thing). In other words, if we put in an HQ unit for armored formations it would have no purpose in terms of game play.

The other problem is that vehicles are not "purchased" as formations, but rather individual vehicles. When you buy a platoon of infantry you get 1xHQ, 3xSquad, so putting in an HQ is easy (and also meaningful). But if I put in 4 PzIVs and a Panther, who is to say they are all part of a platoon? And if they are, which one should be the HQ? And even then, what difference is it going to make in terms of gameplay?

The last bit is still the main kicker here. Armored HQs don't really have much, if anything, to offer in terms of gameplay, yet they would be a REAL problem for our editor to handle. So they aren't planned.

I'm sure some of you will disagree with this stance. We interested to hear from such folks why you think we *should* include them. But keep in mind what I said above and put forth suggestions based on how armored HQ units can work for CM both in terms of gameplay and historical accuracy. Also keep in mind that we have a LOT of work to do already, so the benefit to the game will have to be substantial for us to even consider adding this feature.

Thanks

[Mike D]

Steve,

This is not necessarily a push on my part to see armoured HQ's included, more so a question. Don't armoured units suffer the same type of demoralizing factors that the infantry do, even though they are inside their almighty powerful tanks? Can't they panic, break, "run", just like infantry? If so, how are they rallied if they totally break and run and their is no armour HQ? This somehow doesn't seem to make much sense. In addition to providing the things that you stated above, didn't the HQ/Leader of a tank platoon also serve to rally / stabilize his troops? The type of situation I'm thinking of here is say we are playing a Bulge scenario (or perhaps more appropriately a campaign, where the next day/battle the US player would get some decent reinforcements and or be able to move them up from the rear at a later turn on day 1) and it is some very heavy German armour w/ seasoned vets and supporting infantry going up against a mixed US infantry force w/ some armour support only from a sherman 75 and a couple of stuarts. The germans outnumber the the US tankers by 3 or 4 to 1. The sherman is clocked by the first round from one of several of the King Tigers in the german force on turn 1. In addition, they have a couple of panthers, 2 PZ IV's and some other lighter stuff as well and they are not doing much to hide any of it from the Americans. They and their support infantry then proceed to run rough shod over the rest of the US force most of the rest of which are green troops. You mean to tell me that those remaining Stuarts are not going to turn tail and run? Or if they do, that there is not going to be an armour HQ back there somewhere (assuming this wasn't the lone sherman) to help rally them if they do panic and take flight? I guess I can live w/o the armour HQ units, just wondering if it is really realistic to do so from a morale/rallying perspective.

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

I'm not for or against the HQ's. Without HQs though, won't a side that has lots and lots of shermans be at a great advantage?

It seems that I have greater mobility without HQ limitations. I won't complain. What about those poor panzers.

Without HQ's, shermans can make wild manouvers fast and come to focus on slow panzers quickly. It's almost as though no HQ's unchain the fast units and magnify thier mobility.

Thoughts

John

[Fionn]

Well, since tank HQs basically spoke to subordinates etc by radio their abstraction (apart from the loss of command model tanks) doesn't in any way (to me) seem to damage the game.

I would like to see them in so that the loss of a HQ tank would mean that friendly tanks were leaderless for a turn or two until command and control could be re-established BUT there would be no command radius for tanks and no rallying benefit to having tank HQs modelled.

I think about the only benefit would be to simulate disorganization etc which occured when the platoon or company CO died.

All in all they're not necessary if we're talking about a game which models only tank sub-units and not entire companies as a matter of course. IMO

[Guest Big Time Software]

Mike,

Yes, vehicles of all types can get stressed out But no vehicle (tank, TD, SP, HT, armored car, or truck) has its own HQ. In fact, teams don't have their own HQs either. The difference between a team and a vehicle is that a team CAN receive a benefit from being under the control of an infantry HQ, while a vehicle can not (well, a knocked out crew can I think). This makes perfect sense as an infantry HQ isn't going to be able to make much of an impression on a vehicle driving by them at 20mph to the rear!

ALL UNITS have the ability to self rally. Infantry is mostly internal with a modification from the HQ, while vehicle rally is Vehicle is purely an internal one. So no unit is without the ability to pull itself together. This includes squads with no HQ (i.e. it is wiped out already). How successful it is depends on all sorts of internal factors (casualties, experience, etc.).

The rallying back towards an HQ is something we wouldn't put in even if we did have vehicle HQs. It is silly to have a tank panic and drive around the battlefield looking for its HQ. They would, instead do what the do right now. They pop some smoke and pull back to cover, then wait further instructions or keep on going if totally routed. This makes sense to us. I've never seen or heard of a Stuart driving back at full speed to its HQ tank so the leader can hop on and calm the men down

Also remember that vehicles, even with radios, were largely independent. Their limited visibility, speed, spacing coupled with the noise of the vehicle and battlefield made voice communications difficult when under fire. So if you have three Stuarts spaced out, and one flees, the other two might not have a clue about this in real life. But the thing is that since we have only 60 second turns, this is the longest reaction time there can be for something like a pullback (i.e. you will order them back your next turn). This is actually TOO quick and flexible, but there is no way around it without making your units totally out of your control 90% of the time.

Up shot is that having no HQ, or having an HQ, will not make Combat Mission any more/less realistic because the player and the Tactical AI are already simulating what an HQ does. You, the player, coordinate the movements and orders of the units, while the Tactical AI handles the independent action during a turn.

John, not to worry. Everything you are talking about is based on the vehicles inherent qualities, not C&C. Shermans DID use their superior mobility to take the slower German tanks from multiple sides at once. Not having an HQ doesn't make this any more or less pronounced. In real life a tank HQ would bark out an order "Smith, go around that house and take that Tiger in the rear". In Combat Mission you do that by clicking on the Sherman and plotting a course around the house to take the Tiger in the rear. Same exact thing.

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

Seems cool to me. Start your engines, we're going to have some fluid tank warfare. Fast moving tank tacktics, blitzes, overunning infantry, who can argue with that.

This will also show how the introduction of fast tanks in WW2, (compared to WW1), changed the nature of ground warfare. Something the French learned the hard way.

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 06-15-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Fionn has hit upon something here. If Combat Mission were designed to simulate organic vehicle units of company size or larger (which it isn't), then HQs would be come much more important. Of course, the whole scale of the game would be shifted so that would mean lots of other changes too...

The confusion thing would involve a lot more than simply having an HQ to lose. We would have to restrict user orders to affected vehicles for a few turns. This is VERY dangerous to do because there is no Strategic AI going on for a human player. So your vehicles would just sit around doing nothing, or blindly following their existing orders, with no logic. This has a very strong risk of resulting in unrealistic death.

So, I still have not heard any good reasons to put them in. "Good" being defined as beneficial to the simulation and gameplay.

Steve

[Guest John Maragoudakis]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>:Fionn has hit upon something here. If Combat Mission were designed to simulate organic vehicle units of company size or larger (which it isn't), then HQs would be come much more important.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this mean we should not create scenarios with tank units of company size or larger? Perhaps some panzer commanders out there might feel limited?

[This message has been edited by John Maragoudakis (edited 06-15-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

A designer can, at this point, put in a complete Battalion of tanks. But I can tell you, the game wouldn't do more than about 1 FPS on a P550 with a 3rd gen 3D card when you factor in the map, friendly support units (which should be roughly battalion or greater strength), and enemy units. And let us not even get into the UI problems of having all those units either. So Panzer Commanders are jut going to have to get used to limitations

Combat Mission is designed to do about 1.5 battalions of mixed troops per side TOPS. Yes, this means you could squeak in a full, organic company of tanks, but this isn't going to be the norm. For the Allies that is roughly 30 AFVs, which is a whole lot at CM's scale. Even if you have that many AFVs, you will most likly have a mix, like 5 TDs, 5 Med tanks, 10 HTs, etc.

Steve

[Mike D]

Steve,

Thanks for the explanation. What you are doing makes much more sense now in terms of not having the armoured HQ/Leader units.

Mike

[CRourke]

BTS raised the very good point of just who would be the command tank of the sort of mixed forces typical in wargames... which makes me wonder, just how typical was such a setup in real life? Does anyone have a good sense of how likely it would be to see sections or single vehicles operating without the rest of their plt in a battle.. I could maybe imagine assault guns being employed like this but I imagine guderian would be rolling in his grave if he could see the brave panzer corps being parcelled out in ones and twos. Not that I don't think its fun to have the variety in a battle.

Does anyone have a good sense about exactly how a tank would "break" under fire.. it seems like the crew is kept pretty much out of the loop locked up in their steel coffin.. and given a nice mechanical task to perform, they hardly seem the weak leak in the chain. It seems like the most common morale failure would be the "Oh heck, thats an 88, BACK UP!!" sort of thing. Would crews actually "mutiny" and abandon tank?

-Chris R, who is secretly preparing his company of Crocodiles, AVREs, Tiger II's, Goliaths, SchwimmPanzers, and Pattons.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Chris,

Mixed groups of small numbers of vehicles were very common. However, it wasn't always because they were SUPPOSED to be so mixed and small Germans used individual tanks and SPs all the time because they had little choice due to shortages, breakdowns, lack of fuel, etc. I have read many stories about West Wall battles where the US went up against a tank or two only. Then there is the epic struggle of Heavy Detachment Bäke during the pocket battles of winter 43/44 on the Eastern Front. Out of a whole battalion of Tigers they had between 0 and 12 operational at any one time.

But this kind of thing happened with the US Army too, even though the supply and equipment problems were far less pronounced. One example was the battle for Kommerscheidt in the Hürtgenwald. The US sent one company of Shermans and another of TDs down to reinforce the town. Due to mines, mechnical failure, driver error (over the edge, another "bellied"...), etc. they only managed to get in one or two at a time. So while there was SUPPOSED to be two whole companies in the town at one time, there was in fact much less (IIRC something like 5 vehicles total at first). This is the difference with CM's scale. Little screw ups, like a driver getting his tank bogged down, matters. At a higher scale it wouldn't be. Guderian was at the highest level of panzer formations.

And in terms of AFVs breaking, we think they behave largley the way you described. AFVs basically just try to back up, go forward fast, or some other method of getting out of harm's way. It seems that once they ARE out of harms way (or so they think) they "rally" easily. The main reason, IMHO, is that the crew is stuck with each other, so there are less options and peer pressure to run. When you are in the woods with 8 out of 12 guys (i.e. 4 guys already taken out), and two say "We're outta here!", you can bet your ass the other 6 are thinking that they should go as well. Of course they might not, but the tempation and means are there. In something like a tank, I think it would be RARE for a crew member to try bolting from an undamaged vehicle.

Steve

[Rod]

Hi,

Just wondering what kind of influence if any will armor units have on nearby infantry. Can they be used as a sort of Command and Control outlet to increase the efficiency of surrounding infantry. What led me to this was the scene from SPR where the Tiger Commander is obviously giving orders to the supporting infantry.

Along these same lines were there major differences in doctrine between the different countries about the use of armor late in the war. It seems that the Americans for instance used armor to support the infantry. Under control of the local infantry commanders once they moved up to the lines. While the Germans used infantry to support and protect their tanks.

If this is indeed the case. As it seems to be in Kellys Heroes Would german tank commanders at CMs level have a positive influence on directing supporting infantry units while American Infantry leaders would have a positive effect on supporting Armor units.

Just curious.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi Rod,

Who gives who orders depends on rank and on the chain of command set up for the given task force. I don't think there were "I am infantry so you armor must follow my orders" or the reverse. However, I have read about armored commanders, under the control of infantry ones, refusing to obey direct orders because the infantry commander was asking for something that wasn't good for armor.

Steve

[Doug Beman]

I agree with BTS on that last one. Just finished reading a person-by-person account of the Bulge. In Bastogne, McAuliffe (101st Airborne) was the senior on-the-spot guy, but the armor commander (from 7th or 10th? I forget already) flat out refused to put his tanks under the direct control of the airborne infantry. They took the matter to their commander, Hodges (?) who told them to work together, but did not specify that armor HAD to obey every order from McAuliffe. Turns out that was the best solution--the two worked very well together.

DjB

------------------

A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing personal opinion.

remove the caps letters in my address to email me