Squad Leaders Are Dying Too Easy In Battle

[Col Deadmarsh]

It seems that in every battle, my squad leaders seem to be the first one to go.

Since this Command and Control aspect of the game is so paramount to one's success in battle, I feel that leaders should have a different 'die roll' when it comes to deciding whether they take a hit from incoming fire vs. another solider from the squad. As of right now, I think luck plays too important a role in these decisions as the die rolls seem to be even for all units.

But even if you wanted to look at it from a simulation standpoint, shouldn't it also be taken into account that leaders are one if not the most experienced soldiers out on the field and would have the best chance at keeping themselves out of harm's way? They have practical experience in battle and don't commit the same mistakes rookies do and thus should have a different die roll to protect them a little more than the average soldier they are commanding.

In the end though, this is more of a game than it is a simulation and so there should be certain things about the game that need to be preserved, like the favoring of skill over luck. After all, the more luck present, the less of a game of skill Combat Mission becomes.

[womble]

It seems that in every battle, my squad leaders seem to be the first one to go.

There are reasons for that, IMO. Mostly, it's because the TacAI gives them the best observation point, which is unfortunately the most exposed. I also think the leader tends to stay "up" to observe more than his team members, and so sucks up random hits more often. And this is historically correct.

Since this Command and Control aspect of the game is so paramount to one's success in battle, I feel that leaders should have a different 'die roll' when it comes to deciding whether they take a hit from incoming fire vs. another solider from the squad.

Why? Just because something's so important, the element that provides that function should be protected by the game system? You can keep your HQs out of harm's way, and if you keep your squads together, they have some resilience in their C2 capacity (the "Asst" probably has the same leadership rating as the original leader). Experienced leaders (and the leader might be rated higher than the average of his element; what the interface shows is an average) get a better "terrain save", too.

As of right now, I think luck plays too important a role in these decisions as the die rolls seem to be even for all units.

Luck is what you make it. And it should have the role it does. At least the TacAI hasn't got any "geek the leader" routines; your leaders are not preferentially targeted, as they would be IRL.

But even if you wanted to look at it from a simulation standpoint, shouldn't it also be taken into account that leaders are one if not the most experienced soldiers out on the field and would have the best chance at keeping themselves out of harm's way? They have practical experience in battle and don't commit the same mistakes rookies do and thus should have a different die roll to protect them a little more than the average soldier they are commanding.

Not all leaders are the most experienced. "+2 leadership" isn't linked, in-game, to experience level. You can have Conscripts with +2 leadership.

Leaders have (or at least sometimes seem to feel they have) duties that sometimes require them to be more in harm's way.

If a leader is experienced, they do make better use of the cover (via the improved terrain save.

In the end though, this is more of a game than it is a simulation...

And yet BFC have said realism comes before other factors.

...there should be certain things about the game that need to be preserved, like the favoring of skill over luck. After all, the more luck present, the less of a game of skill Combat Mission becomes.

Skill has plenty to say about outcomes. A few leaders dying more or less makes virtually bugger all difference. If all your leaders were all killed first, yes, it'd be an issue. But they aren't.

[Jaeger Jonzo]

Has this aspect got worse since the last update though? I have certainly noticed an increase in my squad leaders or HQ & FO officers being taken down first when any kind of fire comes their way, be it arty or small arms fire.

[MikeyD]

There's the old stereotype of grizzled veteran infantrymen saddled with a wet-behind-the-ears junior officer straight off the boat. There was a reason for that stereotype. Casualties among front line officers was so high that they began 'dressing down' to resemble generic soldiers and limiting their gestures to so not to call attention to themselves. You place a sniper in an advantageous position in the game and he will preferentially target heavy weapons operators and officers over infantry.

[Vark]

In Normandy, some British officers dumped their SMG's and started carrying rifles to blend in better. Often NCO's get hit because they are up exhorting the troops to advance, whilst the 'sensible' soldiers are hugging the ground, so even if they do, dress down they still risk getting hit.

[Canada Guy]

I know the the +2 is good to have but is a conscript +2 the same as a veteran +2 or is the conscript +2 the equivalent of a normal leader +0? I am unsure of the interaction between the bonuses and experience and if they act together or are the +2 providing the exact same bonus irrespective of experience.

[AstroCat]

I previously reported this as a bug in the support forum.

[db_zero]

Wasn't one of the strengths of the German army was the level of initiative afforded to NCO's on down? If the Squad leader was killed or incapacitated the next highest ranking member of a squad was expected to take over and lead.

If you remember the old Squad Leader days your NCO's were just about as valuable as your officers. I sorta do feel it would be a good thing to have senior NCOs somehow be able to take a radio from a dead leader and use it-if it isn't shot up.

I also think that scouts-perhaps dedicated scouts, not ones broken off from squads, should be able to relay spotting information to hidden squad leaders for artillery fire if they are in voice/shouting range, if this isn;t already possible. In general scouts are more intelligent and possess higher initiative.

[John Kettler]

Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I don't know why, but the BB is wreaking havoc on me. It just ate a detailed post when I simply hit Go Advanced to work on it more, but I will simply suggest you read the account of the Hallamshires at Normandy, starting with The First Battle and continuing until the unit is relieved. Pay careful attention to how many times the Battalion's officers cycle because of casualties.

http://www.irdp.co.uk/JohnCrook/normandy.htm

The simple truth is that leaders, whether sergeants for squads or 2nd LTs for platoons, are up and about (when their men are often down), do things which draw attention to themselves, such as shout, signal and talk on radios,and are prime sniper targets. But most of all, they take disproportionate casualties because they lead. "Follow me." is the motto of the U.S. Army, and the statue, called "Follow Me" epitomizes my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Followme.jpg

The British reckoned the life of a subaltern in the trenches during WW I as six weeks, and it was the officers who were first over the top, who led the raids and held the men together when things came unstuck. In one case, a VC winner was one of three officer casualties (2 KIA and 1 WIA) in a force of 100 men, in which half the total force became casualties. In that raid, the few officers were killed at 3-5x the rate of other ranks. This is a direct effect of the longstanding British expectations for junior officers: that they lead from the front and encourage their men by their personal bravery.

I can cite dozens of examples to show that squad and platoon leaders were preferentially targeted; this is also why U.S. rank insignia on the collar is now matte black for combat uniforms.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Emrys]

It was considered really bad form to salute anywhere near the front. Saluting was like a flashing neon signal to snipers to shoot this guy. Even snapping to attention would send the same signal.

Michael

[LukeFF]

It was considered really bad form to salute anywhere near the front. Saluting was like a flashing neon signal to snipers to shoot this guy. Even snapping to attention would send the same signal.

...and hence why even to this day the US military has "no salute zones" in combat areas.

[Desertor]

I can live with the losses of my squad leaders in the game, what I don't like is that the losses of enemy squad leaders are far lower that mine, you can see this playing with the lower level of difficulty on against the AI.

Then you click on a enemy unit and all his stats are visible to you, I have not write down the exact rate of casualties, but almost never the squad leaders are the first ones getting the lead.

Did somebody else get the same impression?

[TheVulture]

I can live with the losses of my squad leaders in the game, what I don't like is that the losses of enemy squad leaders are far lower that mine, you can see this playing with the lower level of difficulty on against the AI.

Then you click on a enemy unit and all his stats are visible to you, I have not write down the exact rate of casualties, but almost never the squad leaders are the first ones getting the lead.

Did somebody else get the same impression?

Impressions aren't worth much without the stats though, due to things like confirmation bias. Back with CMSF I (and many others) felt that our squad leaders were feeing killed to often compared to other troops. So I did some tests keeping track of exact numbers. It turned out in the test cases (south troops sitting in trenches shooting at each other). That there was no difference between death rates of any kinds of troops.

Now it might be that squad leaders are more vulnerable in some circumstances such as when moving, which wouldn't show up in those tests. But it that case having your squad leaders did more often than the AI (did most often the human player is moving to attack a stationary AI) is what would be expected.

Anyway, the important point is that this sort of debate impressions don't count, except as a guide as to what might be useful to test. But only solid statistical evidence counts for anything.

[Desertor]

You're right, I will do a test scenario to prove my point...

[Apocal]

It seems that in every battle, my squad leaders seem to be the first one to go.

Just finished 11 test runs and I'm fairly certain that its simply because its so much more obvious when you've lost a leader than one of the otherwise undifferentiated riflemen.

[HistoryLover]

Colonel D.,

please describe how you move your units under fire.

[Col Deadmarsh]

Colonel_Deadmarsh,

I don't know why, but the BB is wreaking havoc on me. It just ate a detailed post when I simply hit Go Advanced to work on it more, but I will simply suggest you read the account of the Hallamshires at Normandy, starting with The First Battle and continuing until the unit is relieved. Pay careful attention to how many times the Battalion's officers cycle because of casualties.

http://www.irdp.co.uk/JohnCrook/normandy.htm

The simple truth is that leaders, whether sergeants for squads or 2nd LTs for platoons, are up and about (when their men are often down), do things which draw attention to themselves, such as shout, signal and talk on radios,and are prime sniper targets. But most of all, they take disproportionate casualties because they lead. "Follow me." is the motto of the U.S. Army, and the statue, called "Follow Me" epitomizes my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Followme.jpg

The British reckoned the life of a subaltern in the trenches during WW I as six weeks, and it was the officers who were first over the top, who led the raids and held the men together when things came unstuck. In one case, a VC winner was one of three officer casualties (2 KIA and 1 WIA) in a force of 100 men, in which half the total force became casualties. In that raid, the few officers were killed at 3-5x the rate of other ranks. This is a direct effect of the longstanding British expectations for junior officers: that they lead from the front and encourage their men by their personal bravery.

I can cite dozens of examples to show that squad and platoon leaders were preferentially targeted; this is also why U.S. rank insignia on the collar is now matte black for combat uniforms.

Regards,

John Kettler

These scenarios you speak of are believable, but have nothing to do with my in-game experience because I am not going up against snipers, nor are my leaders getting shot out in the open because they could be recognized as leaders.

Most of the time, my squad leaders have been injured when behind bocage or some other obstacle where they cannot be recognized as leaders. They are getting killed before my other men whether it's by a stray bullet that went through the obstacle or by indirect fire nearby (a HE shot to a house.)

[Desertor]

I have tested one scenario with both sides entrenched, Somme style. Casualty rates amongst soldiers and leaders from both sides are similar. Next time I will test both sides in attack...

[JonS]

...and hence why even to this day the US military has "no salute zones" in combat areas.

... unless you don't like the guy

Good morning Sir. Lovely day, Sir. *salute*

Jones, I told you yesterday; there are active enemy snipers in this area. Please don't salute me while we're here in the front lines.

Snipers, you say Sir? No salutes, Sir?

Yes Jones, snipers. Now go away.

Very good, Sir. *salute* *about face* *duck under cover*

[Vet 0369]

The simple truth is that leaders, whether sergeants for squads or 2nd LTs for platoons, are up and about (when their men are often down), do things which draw attention to themselves, such as shout, signal and talk on radios,and are prime sniper targets. But most of all, they take disproportionate casualties because they lead. "Follow me." is the motto of the U.S. Army, and the statue, called "Follow Me" epitomizes my point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Followme.jpg

The British reckoned the life of a subaltern in the trenches during WW I as six weeks, and it was the officers who were first over the top, who led the raids and held the men together when things came unstuck. In one case, a VC winner was one of three officer casualties (2 KIA and 1 WIA) in a force of 100 men, in which half the total force became casualties. In that raid, the few officers were killed at 3-5x the rate of other ranks. This is a direct effect of the longstanding British expectations for junior officers: that they lead from the front and encourage their men by their personal bravery.i[/iQUOTE]

We used to have a saying in the USMC that went "The average life expectancy for a Marine rifleman from the time he hit the beach is 3 1/2 seconds. The average life expectancy for a staff NCO or officer from the time they left the ship until they ALMOST reached the beach ......

JK is correct about the targeting. The TO weapons for SNCO's, officers, and weapon crews were M1911A1 pistols so they wouldn't get involved in shooting (SNCO's and officers), but we always found and carried an M16 because any Marine will first off shoot the guy without a rifle.