marcusm Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 This is probably somethig that could be digged up in the dephts of old BTS records but I'll see if it's worth mentioning again. How come leaders aren't one man units? Snipers for instance doesn't seem as useful if you don't know who the actual lt, sarge etc. is in the 5 man leader group. ASL handled this better imo. Any reason behind this decision? Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 5 men is a "command group" you have your lt., 2-3 radio men and the platoon sergeant or XO ------------------ The names Ash, Housewares [This message has been edited by Ash (edited 09-10-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 marcusm wrote: > How come leaders aren't one man units? Because what you get in the game isn't a leader, it's an HQ unit. You don't just get one man running a Platoon, or a Company, or a Battalion - he has subordinates to help out, and that's what you see in the game. Also, if you look at the detailed information screen (hit Return) you'll see that the men in the unit have different weapons - the leader only has a pistol, whereas the other guys provide the unit's firepower. This illustrates the different purposes of the men in the unit. Effectively you're asking for 1:1 representation. Why isn't the leader a single man? Because Combat Mission doesn't represent single men. But why not a one-man unit? Because HQ units were bigger than that, and it would be silly to have an HQ unit plus a leader on his own. From a practical point of view, in CM it's very important to have your HQs up with their men - but if they were only one man, you'd be very edgy about sending them up front. They're pretty vulnerable as it is, so it's challenge enough protecting them without them being even more vulnerable. The AI (and any smart human player) will single out HQs for special treatment. On the issue of snipers, even if the leader were on his own, how would the sniper know he's the leader? There are plenty of battlefield practices to avoid attracting snipers' attention, such as not saluting an officer, and not displaying your insignia to the enemy. If CM or its successors ever model every single man on the battlefield, that's when you'll get individual leaders. At the moment, what you get is what makes most sense within the design of the game. David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 10, 2000 Author Share Posted September 10, 2000 Points taken but ASL didn't really model one man units either, only the leaders were one man units. Now you never know if the leader of a squad is still alive or not. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted September 10, 2000 Share Posted September 10, 2000 marcusm wrote: > Now you never know if the leader of a squad is still alive or not. This is abstracted in CM - I think the leader in an HQ unit will be the last one to go no matter what. This is similar to how a squad will lose its LMG less often than it loses the LMG gunner (although this is actually realistic, rather than an abstraction, but it works in the same way). David ------------------ They lost all of their equipment and had to swim in under machine gun fire. As they struggled in the water, Gardner heard somebody say, "Perhaps we're intruding, this seems to be a private beach." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maastrictian Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 Don't knock the power of snipers. By killing a member of a (moving) HQ unit they often (for regular and below troops) cause that HQ unit to go to ground as the squads continue on. You have then seperated a platoon and it may take them another turn to regroup. THey are also damned hard to spot. I have taken out and 88 with two snipers, about 4 minutes of fire and most of their ammo (from 500m). Not a quick solution, but I took *0* casualties from that 88, not so bad! --Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 David is correct. Two important reasons: 1. HQs are, in real life, more than just one man. 2. If a HQ was just a single man, a whole range of gamey tactics would soon follow. Why do we not simulate the leader within an HQ? Because we would have to do that for EVERY unit since EVERY unit had a leader in real life. In other words, why is it more important to simulate the individual commanding a platoon than the individual man commanding a HMG team? We decided from the get go that adding roll playing elements (and that is what it boils down to) was more likely to be a distraction than a desirable feature. First, it would distract us during development If we in fact did it, most people wouldn't pay it much attention since there generally are too many units on the map to care about an individual leader in an individual unit. And when the leader gets greased, we would have had to program CM to create a new leader for that unit, which most players wouldn't care about and/or notice because there is too many other thigns that are going on to worry about. So, leaders are abstracted to a certain degree. We feel this was necessary for both development reasons as well as playability. Thanks, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 11, 2000 Author Share Posted September 11, 2000 Sounds fair enough BTS . A compromise solution for future versions could be possible leadership value reduction if a sniper hits a HQ or something. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Galanti Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 I like that suggestion. A 1 in 4 chance (or whatever) that when a HQ unit got hit, it would loose some of it's bonuses (the command, morale, stealth, and combat ones). I don't know how hard that would be to code, and I admit it would make only a small difference, but it'd be interesting none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted September 11, 2000 Share Posted September 11, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by marcusm: Sounds fair enough BTS . A compromise solution for future versions could be possible leadership value reduction if a sniper hits a HQ or something. Marcus<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Why only snipers? I think any casualties taken would/should reduce the effectiveness of a HQ unit, since the 'extra' troops are supposed to be runners, aides, RTOs, etc. that provide the HQ with the means (communications) to command. ------------------ Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses. -Dudley Do-right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 Yes of course. Maybe the rally % could be reduced with a random number for each HQ unit that falls. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teamski Posted September 12, 2000 Share Posted September 12, 2000 Marcusm, Squad Leader's concept of leadership was even more abstract than CM! Look at page 32 of the original Squad Leader game manual, in the designer's notes. It states: "It is important to understand that not every non-com or officer present in the game is represented by a leader counter. Indeed, every squad has an inherent "squad Leader". If that man is lost, another steps up to take his place. Rather, SQUAD LEADER leaders represent outstanding individuals who do more than fill a TO&E slot. These are the individuals who have the respect of their men gained by continuous leadership and performance "above and beyond the call"." That's pretty abstract! The idea of having a HQ unit in CM in comparison to the individual in SL is more realistic, since it can simulate that other individual stepping up if the commander in the unit is hit and does a better job keeping a realistic chain of command...... -Ski ------------------ "The Lieutenant brought his map out and the old woman pointed to the coastal town of Ravenoville........" [This message has been edited by Teamski (edited 09-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcusm Posted September 12, 2000 Author Share Posted September 12, 2000 You are probably right ski, it was a long time since I checked the SL manual . But the reduction of efficiency is a nice idea that I think should be looked into. Marcus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts