The King of Stupid Questions

[Talespin Jim]

I know this has to be a stupid question, but I can't find the answer, so at the risk of being labeled the King of Stupid Questions, I'm just going to ask it...

Some squads have both a leader and a commander and some squads have a leader and an asst. leader. What are each of their functions?

The manuals talk about all the things the leaders do, and so do a thousand threads, but I can't find anything about what a commander does. Maybe it's something everybody knows, except me because I've never been in the military or something. Does it have something to do with commissioned officers verses enlisted men or leaders verses commissars?

Also, I'm wondering about some leadership effects. I start out the first turn of a scenario. Immediately a shot rings out, and as usual, the first person to get shot is one of my platoon leaders. These of course, are Russian troops and the platoon's squads are all split up into fire teams, so now, even though they are all within command range of the dead platoon leader's fireteam, since the platoon leader is dead, all the troops now get a severe morale penalty for the remainder of the game, right? Or does the commander immediately take over? If not the commander, I notice the unit doesn't say anything about an assistant leader, but according to the manual all units have a hierarchy that gives someone an automatic leader status, so does this unidentified leader now control the platoon so that the platoon does not have the morale penalty of not being in command and control--or does his leadership status only apply to his squad? If another person does take over leading the platoon, would that person be from another fireteam in the platoon leader squad, such that the radius of command and control now shifts to another unit and now maybe some of my units are out of command and control? If so, how do I now know which fireteam is in control of the platoon?

I'm sorry if this is a stupid or redundant question, but I can't find where it is discussed in the manuals or the forum.

[cool breeze]

That stuff is all pretty mysterious to me but since I turned on the command lines I've been learning all kinds of things about how c&c works in the game.

[AlexUK]

Not a stupid question at all. I am not clear at all about this area of the game.

[Michael Emrys]

I'll bet Jim's question is in relation to Soviet squads. If that's the case, the answer is simple. Sov. platoons, like platoons in all the armies covered in CM are led, or commanded if you prefer, by officers. The difference is that while in other armies the lieutenant is part of a small command group of two to four men, in the Sov. army the lieutenant also leads one of the rifle squads. So you have two squads led by sergeants and one by the lieutenant. Does this answer your question?

Michael

[womble]

... you have two squads led by sergeants and one by the lieutenant. Does this answer your question?

Does the Lt-led squad also have a sergeant (the "Leader" specialist)? That would explain another aspect...

[Lethaface]

Does the Lt-led squad also have a sergeant (the "Leader" specialist)? That would explain another aspect...

Yes IIRC Soviet (Guards) Motor Rifle squads that have the platoon HQ in them, also have a 'ldr'. But those squads don't have asst leaders, like german/western allies have.

[Holman]

What is the cost of losing one's leader specialists (as casualties or when the squad is split)?

[Erwin]

Don't the leader characteristics/bonuses (in the bottom window UI) change?

[womble]

Don't the leader characteristics/bonuses (in the bottom window UI) change?

They do, usually. If the leadership is very bad, there's a floor it can't go through of course, and if the troops are very good, I think there's a better chance of either a lesser or even no reduction once the leader and asst are dead.

I think that if a Commander dies, you'll lose C2 for subordinate units unless the replacement is an Executive Officer (shown in the bottom left status block rather than the weapon silhouette block). XOs will take over the C2 role, whereas I don't think other "Asst" or (in the case of the Russian command squad, if there's no XO) "Ldr" will.

[Talespin Jim]

Glad to hear I'm not the only one in the dark on this.

Right, Michael, I was talking mostly about a Soviet platoon leader squad, where the commander (it sounds like you are saying) is actually the leader of one of the squads as well as the platoon leader, and there is one soldier designated as a "commander" and another soldier designated as a "leader" in the platoon leader's squad. Sorry, I should have said that.

When I first started thinking about the fact that the platoon leader squads have a leader as well as a commander, I was thinking that maybe the commander was the commissar. However, I got to checking around and realized that some German units have both commanders and leaders as well. At that point I realized this whole leader concept is lot more murky to me than I had thought.

So, Womble, if I understand what you (referring to you knowledgeable chaps) are telling us, the commander and not the leader, is actually the one that imbues the platoon with the leadership bonuses or deficits and it is his ratings we are looking at in the UI and that if he is killed, that is when the platoon suffers the leader loss morale penalty (or gain as it may be) and that someone will in fact step up to replace him if there is an executive officer, but it will actually be from a different fireteam in the platoon's leader squad, because the second in command is running another fireteam. Is that right? And if that is the case, your area of command and control will shift to another fireteam and that shift will probably leave one or more of the platoon's fireteams out of command and control since it is difficult to keep a whole platoon in command and control in most terrain you tend to have your troops taking cover in. Have I got that right? If there is no XO, then does the platoon just no longer have a leader? And if that is the case, I have command lines turned on, and if I remember right, I see command lines going to the original commander's fireteam, so in this case, those command lines are faulty and should not actually exist, because there is no longer a platoon leader right?

(It also begs the question--If I'm quick moving a platoon leader's fireteam and the commander is running slower than the rest and has dropped behind the leader's fireteam by thirty meters, the command lines all go to the main body of the platoon commander's fireteam, but since the commander is way behind, is the actual command effects where he is or is it where the flag on his fireteam's floating icon is?)

So if the commander is the one running the platoon, what is the soldier designated as the "leader" in charge of? Because the platoon leader squad has both a "commander" and a "leader." Is the soldier designated as the "leader" one of the sergeants Michael spoke of? See it confuses me that platoon leader squads, especially Soviet platoon leader squads have a "commander" and a "leader" when we know that the commander is in charge of both the squad and the platoon. So what's the "leader" designated soldier actually in charge of--what is he leading?

[Erwin]

Currently, if you lose the platoon leader the whole platoon is out of command.

Despite reading several long explanations I too am confused about what actually happens then.

Am unsure if a Co CO or XO can take over a platoon if in close proximity. (I don't recall seeing that ever happen in any of my games.)

I think the company XO can replace a KIA company CO, but it doesn't happen immediately so not sure if it take some amount of time, or...

The whole issue is so complex and vague that I find myself mostly ignoring the whole C2 matter - which is a shame, since it must have taken a lot of work to program something like that into the game and have hardly anyone (nobody?) understand it.

[John Kettler]

Avalanche Press has a very good writeup on the successive organizational details of a Russian rifle platoon over the course of the war. Though the author doesn't make it clear at all re platoon leaders vs platoon commanders, by the Op Bagration timeframe, there is only the Platoon CO mit pistol, and he commands 3 x squads, each led by an NCO SL mit pistol, 9 x rifleman/SMG and a DP team (two men). That, of course, is paper strength. 1 or 2 scoped Mosin-Nagants are available for use as DMRs by the best rifle shots in the platoon.

The juicy details are here, with some pruning to keep the Moon from landing on my head!

http://www.avalanchepress.(usual)/BehindCounters3.php

Scouts/Spetsnaz are not platoon assets. Indeed, they operate, starting at regimental level (a squad), and are the best troops in their particular overall formation, for upon them, all else depends. The job of the line infantry is to go where the big boss says to go, and that is based on what Scouts/Spetsnaz turn up under a Command-Push model. There is an entire E-book on WW II Russian recon practice. It's called Red Army Scout, Razvedchik and is available from Quik Maneuver. I've not read it, but very much want to. This approach is explained as being why OPFOR is such a terror at NTC. When OPFOR attacks, it does so already knowing where 85-90% of BLUFOR's important assets are! The Russians stick with what worked before. Russian line infantry grunts are near the bottom of the manpower quality allocation. The sharper tacks will be found in the Air Force, the Navy, artillery, rockets, armor (TCs and driver-mechanics) and such as NCOs. HMG gunners and mortar gunners fall under the same rubric, which applies to any slot requiring some smarts. Likewise, the DP gunner has to be sharper than the guys with rifles and SMGs. It was that way then, and almost certainly still is. Positions requiring real technical knowledge will be occupied by officers.

For a proper Russian combat experience, take a given formation that has smaller formations of at least platoon size. Now, take some predefined pool of soldiers sufficient to fill the platoons and divide them into formations of decreasing quality. The best CO commands No. 1 unit, and his unit has the best men, too. No. 1 is the higher commander's Sunday punch on the attack and his rock in defense. The real combat work is done by the successively lower quality Nos. 2, 3 and what have you, with No. 1 committed to win the engagement or die trying. This is the Russian way of war, one driven by huge manpower needs and few educated bodies to meet them.I didn't think about this before, but it would appear to go a long way toward explaining how Bidermann's unit (In Deadly Combat) was able to wreak such havoc on its opponents. The ones coming in fangs bared on the attack and first to meet attackers when defending are the willing, yet not terribly bright, lower intelligence men in the parent unit. The controversial S.L.A. Marshall, writing in his tremendous account The River and the Gauntlet., talks about how important it is to have sharp people on the pointy end, the fingers, for unless they act and react correctly, the rest of the ascending formations don't work as they should. Therefore, it would appear that the only fingers the Red Army really has, in terms of boots on the ground, are its recon troops. Other than that, it's going to be the CO or SL and one other person. That should be the only Russian scout team available inside a squad. Even during the Cold War, the Russian squad, platoon and company maneuvered and fought as a single unit.

The above issues are tactically significant in CMRT terms and would definitely affect gameplay if implemented. Naturally, any penal troops would precede the fangs bared crowd.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

Am unsure if a Co CO or XO can take over a platoon if in close proximity. (I don't recall seeing that ever happen in any of my games.)

A CO can certainly provide C2 to subordinate units. Only "Voice" and "Visual" though, not "Distant visual".

I think the company XO can replace a KIA company CO, but it doesn't happen immediately so not sure if it take some amount of time, or...

That also happens. I've seen it. My only question on the matter is whether the "Ldr" in a Russian squad which is the platoon HQ squad, with the "Commander" specialist as well, is tagged as "Executive Officer", which would mean he could take over if the LT "Commander" was killed, and maintain C2 for the whole platoon. I suspect he is not.

The whole issue is so complex and vague that I find myself mostly ignoring the whole C2 matter - which is a shame, since it must have taken a lot of work to program something like that into the game and have hardly anyone (nobody?) understand it.

It's not necessary for us to understand it completely for it to have an effect. It is evident to me that keeping squads in C2 range of their platoon leader can have a very significant positive effect on their moral durability and therefore their firepower output (due to not being so badly affected by suppression) and their willingness to continue in the face of casualties. That's worth having, even if we don't fully comprehend the bits we have no control over, like an organic XO taking over a platoon command on the death of the LT.

[AlexUK]

What about the next level up? Do squads get an extra bonus if the Company HQ is in C2 with the Platoon HQ?

Also, if Company HQ takes over from dead Platoon HQ, are the bonuses lower than with the Platoon HQ? What about XO?

[Splinty]

Going from a "grunts" perspective, it might be helpful to think of a Soviet commander as a junior officer who has some training and maybe has survived a battle or two. In the squad he commands directly, think of the "leader" as the private who's survived the longest of the enlisted men in the platoon.

[womble]

What about the next level up? Do squads get an extra bonus if the Company HQ is in C2 with the Platoon HQ?

They don't, I believe get any more bonus if the CoyHQ is "close" than they would if the Plt HQ was "just" in C2. The position of the Patoon's constituent teams/squads doesn't matter, so long as the PltHQ is in C2.

Also, if Company HQ takes over from dead Platoon HQ, are the bonuses lower than with the Platoon HQ? What about XO?

Will depend on the level of leadership in each HQ. The important thing is that the bonuses for a substitute HQ are higher than the bonuses for no HQ.

[Talespin Jim]

They don't, I believe get any more bonus if the CoyHQ is "close" than they would if the Plt HQ was "just" in C2.

I had mistakenly assumed that discipline would be better maintained if all the C2 lights were on.

I think I also understand from the 3.0 manual that spotting stays pretty much within platoon level C2, or at most company level, because it says that spotting information is useless at battalion level and would not be communicated and it seems like it is saying the same for company level.

And the third reason to maintain C2, indirect fire, is kind of out of the picture because Soviets don't usually have radios below battalion level unless it is with a designated spotter such as a forward observer, and for that reason, I think the indirect fire assets are generally attached to battalion, not company or platoon. So indirect fire is not an issue with C2 at lower levels.

Lack of radios makes it rare or nearly impossible to maintain C2 between the Company Commander and more than one platoon commander. And even harder to maintain C2 between Battalion and more than one company command.

It would seem from the above factors, that there is no reason to keep a platoon near to the rest of its company.

Therefore, there is no reason not to run each platoon like its own independent fighting unit, not worrying about C2 upline from platoon, just using upline HQ's to fill in for lost leaders or babysit squads that are otherwise out of C2 with the platoon leader.

This is assuming there are no attached indirect fire assets, because that would give a reason to maintain C2.

It seems like the game would be more realistic if you give units missions with objectives and lines of effort (or whatever they're called) and should they wander out of C2 with battalion or they lose their radio, putting them out of C2, you lose control of them and they just go about autonomously performing their last mission. But I suppose since the AI can't be all that great, we would all scream about how harsh that is on the Soviets and forces with similar C2 challenges. On the other hand, having them act as a cohesive, intelligent fighting unit is hardly realistic either. And before anybody says, "Do you know how hard that would be to program?" Let me point out that last I knew, Hearts of Iron 3 does that on a strategic level, where you can assign groups of units missions and the programming carries them out fairly well (at least with ground units) so perhaps that could serve as a rough model and save a lot of time and effort, should Battlefront actually ever consider such an idea.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It would seem from the above factors, that there is no reason to keep a platoon near to the rest of its company.

Therefore, there is no reason not to run each platoon like its own independent fighting unit, not worrying about C2 upline from platoon, just using upline HQ's to fill in for lost leaders or babysit squads that are otherwise out of C2 with the platoon leader.

True.

This is assuming there are no attached indirect fire assets, because that would give a reason to maintain C2.

Not really. C2 is mostly irrelevant for calling indirect fire.

It seems like the game would be more realistic if you give units missions with objectives and lines of effort (or whatever they're called) and should they wander out of C2 with battalion or they lose their radio, putting them out of C2, you lose control of them and they just go about autonomously performing their last mission. But I suppose since the AI can't be all that great, we would all scream about how harsh that is on the Soviets and forces with similar C2 challenges. On the other hand, having them act as a cohesive, intelligent fighting unit is hardly realistic either. And before anybody says, "Do you know how hard that would be to program?" Let me point out that last I knew, Hearts of Iron 3 does that on a strategic level, where you can assign groups of units missions and the programming carries them out fairly well (at least with ground units) so perhaps that could serve as a rough model and save a lot of time and effort, should Battlefront actually ever consider such an idea.

This has been suggested a few hundred times before The problem with removing control from the player is that in Combat Mission the player isn't playing the roll of some higher level commander; he is assumed to be the leader of every unit at the same time. It also introduces other realism issues, such as the fact that units under AI control would simply sit in place while in reality units out of C2 don't lose their ability to perform their mission or otherwise act independently.

[womble]

I had mistakenly assumed that discipline would be better maintained if all the C2 lights were on.

Why do you think that's a mistaken assumption. It's what I said. If the PltHQ has C2, there will be a benefit. That benefit will not increase because the CoyHQ is in close proximity to the squads/teams of the platoon. If the PltHQ has C2 and the squad is in command, the lights are on.

I think I also understand from the 3.0 manual that spotting stays pretty much within platoon level C2, or at most company level, because it says that spotting information is useless at battalion level and would not be communicated and it seems like it is saying the same for company level.

Unless that's a change in v3, I think your understanding here is also flawed. Spotting percolates throughout a command structure eventually; how else do you get the errant "?" markers in places a given element hasn't ever been able to see?

And the third reason to maintain C2, indirect fire, is kind of out of the picture because Soviets don't usually have radios below battalion level unless it is with a designated spotter such as a forward observer, and for that reason, I think the indirect fire assets are generally attached to battalion, not company or platoon. So indirect fire is not an issue with C2 at lower levels.

Radios do not mediate support fires. Many units have the ability to call for support fires while not being in possession of a radio. Don't know how far down the Soviet structure it goes, but just because there aren't radios doesn't mean they can't call for support fires. Not that it ever has anything to do with C2, from the calling end, anyway.

Lack of radios makes it rare or nearly impossible to maintain C2 between the Company Commander and more than one platoon commander. And even harder to maintain C2 between Battalion and more than one company command.

At some level, that's true for Italians and some German formations. No platoon radios is a bummer. A disadvantage you can either ignore or work to mitigate.

It would seem from the above factors, that there is no reason to keep a platoon near to the rest of its company.

To be fair, there's no real reason any way. The trickle-down bonuses aren't strong enough to change the outcome of anything, 99% of the time. Worth keeping the CoyHQ near the HQ of the platoon you want to do the touch-and-go missions, perhaps, but otherwise, they can be pretty independent. Isn't the platoon described in some field manuals as the smallest unit you should send to do something?

Oh, apart from mutual support. That's a really good reason to keep your platoons in contact.

"Do you know how hard that would be to program?" Let me point out that last I knew, Hearts of Iron 3 does that on a strategic level, where you can assign groups of units missions and the programming carries them out fairly well...

It is to laugh. Comparing the challenges faced by the HOI3 AI to the challenges of a CM environment is frankly ludicrous. No need to ask, it's evident that you don't know how hard that would be to program.

[Vanir Ausf B]

What about the next level up? Do squads get an extra bonus if the Company HQ is in C2 with the Platoon HQ?

No, they do not. However, they will not get any spotting information from units outside the platoon unless in close proximity.

[AlexUK]

Thanks for the answers.

[Talespin Jim]

It is to laugh. Comparing the challenges faced by the HOI3 AI to the challenges of a CM environment is frankly ludicrous. No need to ask, it's evident that you don't know how hard that would be to program.

It would be kinder if you did not besmirch me for stupid questions. Previously your comments have been enlightening and I thank you.

I went to school for systems analysis before there were things like hard drives or color--I'm admittedly out of date with programming. At least I know enough to realize that I was comparing apples and oranges. But the actual programming is not what I was talking about.

You see, Paradox tried all sorts of approaches to making this general idea work and they put up with years of embarrassing failures. Then they finally hit on an approach that shows some promise, though even last I knew they were bungling it--but at least the units were doing more than just sitting there, they would carry out their missions with seeming intelligence. I was simply pointing out that a company could look at the "approach" they are using to avoid trying all the ones that didn't work. And I know it would be hard.

[womble]

You see, Paradox tried all sorts of approaches to making this general idea work and they put up with years of embarrassing failures. Then they finally hit on an approach that shows some promise, though even last I knew they were bungling it--but at least the units were doing more than just sitting there, they would carry out their missions with seeming intelligence. I was simply pointing out that a company could look at the "approach" they are using to avoid trying all the ones that didn't work. And I know it would be hard.

The AI in CM is already orders of magnitude better at carrying out its orders than that in HOI3. It is, at the very least, aware of the terrain. BFC have little if anything to learn from Paradox's "approach": they've been past that point for a long time.

[Talespin Jim]

I believe you, when you say the AI is far more advanced than HOI3--though admittedly, as you say, they are not comparable. I did not mean to insult this game by mentioning a feature of HOI. Sorry. I simply meant that if they did decide to allow players to give missions to commanders, the system HOI came up with where you designate theaters of action for leaders actually works, whereas a bunch of other things they tried did not, and some time and effort could be saved by looking at how they did that one thing and roughly modeling it--should they decide it's worthwhile, not that this would extend to any programming, just the general concept. I apologize for mentioning it and withdraw the thought.

[Pelican Pal]

The AI in CM is already orders of magnitude better at carrying out its orders than that in HOI3. It is, at the very least, aware of the terrain. BFC have little if anything to learn from Paradox's "approach": they've been past that point for a long time.

The CM AI is almost nonexistent except for the local tact-AI which is passable.