Strange Uses for Commanders

[Jackson]

I am a little put off by the seemingly odd use of company and battalion commanders in CM. They seem to be no more useful than a platoon leader, with the exceptions being that they can command any unit within range and can spot for mortars. These commanders can also be used as front-line troops or scouts with little or no adverse affect on the units that they are supposed to be leading. In fact, purchasing a company in a quick battle is often less desirable than simply buying the individual platoons with some specific support weapons.

My point here is that company and battalion commanders should exert some beneficial command and control radius over their sub-commanders, much like the platoon leaders do now. The radius would be at least twice as large as that of the standard platoon leader, and effect only the platoon leaders within the company.

The book “Company Commander” by Chas. MacDonald gives a great presentation of how American combat infantry performed in the field. The typical combat formation was built around the company structure, and its attached weapons platoon. Company’s worked individually or in concert with other companies. Platoons seldom, if ever, operated individually. The American company commander was almost always within radio contact of his platoon leaders in WWII, and exerted a significant command influence and moral benefit to those platoons (unlike Vietnam, were platoons, and even squads, were often left to their own devices. See “Platoon Leader” by James McDonough).

While it may be too late to incorporate such a command radius in CMBO, I think it would be a great improvement to CM2 if command radius’ were added for company and battalion commanders. Particularly in light of the Soviet’s lack of radio communications. I would hope that if this feature were incorporated into CM2, that it would be backward compatible with CMBO. I think that one of the Allied strong suits in WWII was their superior communications in comparison to that of the Germans and Japanese.

Do others have similar feelings? Would this be an improvement to the game?

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

"One lesson I have learned in combat is 'there is no fox hole better than the one you are in'." Staff Sergeant H.F. Muschamp, 133rd Inf., Italy 1943

[Guest dirkd1976]

Very nice idea Jackson. As it is right now I find them to be somewhat useful, but not a whole lot. Having them exert command bonuses over platoon leaders would be a great idea. The companies would feel more like a unit, instead of several platoons running around doing their own things. You got my vote to see this in CM2. Everyone who wants to see this implemented, jump in and voice your support!!

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

Never mistake motion for action - Ernest Hemingway

[Alexander]

I agree, capital idea.

Also, command structured vehicle platoons.

[Croda]

I rarely jump in on the "Best Ever Enhancement for CM2!!!" threads, but I really like this idea. As it stands now, the company can easily exist without the company commander, yet the platoon cannot exist as well without the platoon leader. It makes sense to tie the platoons together in this way. Perhaps it could work like this:

The platoons can function on their own as they do now, without penalty if the platoon hq is out of C&C with coy CO. When the Platoon HQ is in C&C of the coy CO, it gets the benefit of the command unit's modifiers, so that the squads get the company commander's modifiers, and the platoon HQ's modifiers, thus making it not essential, but wise to keep companies together. I don't think a command delay improvement would be necessary, since it is the delay from platoon leader to squad leader that is modelled currently.

This also makes it more logical to have your coy HQ up with the troops, instead of how I often use them now, as a spare platoon leader for MG teams, mortar teams, arty FOs, etc. Nice idea, Jackson.

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

"Nuts!"

[Mr. Clark]

I recently won a game because of a Company HQ unit...

However, while I find them useful already, I really like the idea of making them more useful to the Platoon HQ's in the Company.

I agree with the no penalty for "out of Command", but bonus for "in Command" ideas too.

[Guest Offwhite]

It does sound like a good idea, but another thing I recall from MacDonald's book was how often he didn't know or affect what was happening in his platoons once the battle started. (Or was he just out of command radius? ) Perhaps one of our infantry vets can educate me on how much immediate influence a company CO has on his subordinates during a CM-scale battle?

[Hans]

Speaking of Commanders

Lets not forgot those FO's, while the mortars FO were often junior NCO's the LT for the arty battery often took over infantry and support weapons leadership, especially if the original leadership was disabled.

In the Brit and German forces the FO was often the battery commander and it wasn't rare to have a Battalion artillery officer up front looking for targets and coordinating support for units.

Additionally perhaps one should have in the "rules" the possibility of a enlisted man or NCO taking charge (gaining the advantages of the former Platoon leader), the ad hoc leader arise

Amen to armoured vehicle commanders and Platoon leaders

For CM you should also be able to purchase a "situational" leader (yourself) who is in overall charge of this one section of the battle field.

[Guest Germanboy]

Hmm, I am not so sure about this, and would like to hear some evidence from vets first. Remember that Coy Commander was written by one such, and Platoon Commander by someone commanding a platoon (have not read the latter). There is a possibility that both tend to over-emphasise their own importance (not purposefully, but such is the nature of men's memory).

At the moment I don't find the HQs useless at all. I use Coy HQs to follow their company into battle, and pick up leaderless squads if the platoon HQ gets wasted. BN HQs lead to a big morale loss, IIRC (I could be wrong here) if you lose them, so it is not a smart idea to put them in the frontline. So on balance I would like to see a bit more evidence first. It seems a good idea, but is this how it worked in reality? Also, would you only propose that for the US or also for the Germans/Commonwealth, who may have had different doctrines, and in the case of the Germans, less comms equipment.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-31-2000).]

[Jackson]

I like Croda’s idea of having only specific modifiers passed on to the platoon leaders. Perhaps a +1 bump for moral and combat (heart and lighting bolt), up to the maximum +2 increase already allowed in the game, regardless of the company commander’s inherent bonuses. I don’t see command or stealth being passed on to the platoons by a company commander. A battalion commander’s C&C radius could slightly improve artillery FO response time, as well, or allow the company commander to call in artillery if there is already a FO in the battle but out of LOS to the target.

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

"One lesson I have learned in combat is 'there is no fox hole better than the one you are in'." Staff Sergeant H.F. Muschamp, 133rd Inf., Italy 1943

[Keith]

The Company and Battalion HQ units' ability to assume command and control over any given unit is a HUGE bonus. It allows the player to organize units into ad hoc teams. In addition, having a Company HQ in the rear is an excellent tool to rally broken units. These functions mirror what the real life function of the Company HQ and Battalion HQ is once a battle has begun. The fact of the matter is that when the shooting starts, there is little in the way that the higher level HQs can exert control over the battlefield. Once the lead start to fly Company grade officers serve to organize counterattacks, rally troops, and in fact function as a floating HQ unit. Of course prior to the battle the function of these higher level HQs are totally different.

In summary I would have to say that the game is fine the way it is and reflects reality. I think adding further bonuses or penalties is unrealistic. This proposed new functionality is in essence saying that if the Company HQ is within a certain radius of a Platoon HQ then the Platoon HQ has some magical bonuses to better motivate/rally/combat/stealth capabilities. This is ludicrous and just adds unneeded complexity to the game.

[drkuw]

Great thinking, Jackson!

Your idea makes a lot more sense than how these units are modelled at present, at least to an amateur like myself (Grognards?).

Croda's suggestion about modifiers makes a lot of sense as well.

[Croda]

Keith, I'm not sure I entirely agree with you. Are you saying that the presence of a commanding officer does nothing for the morale and/or effort of troops? Are you also saying that the platoon commander is totally uninfluenced by the presence of his direct commander? While I can't speak first hand, I can't imagine that to be true. I'll have to ask my grandfather, who was a coy commander in Korea, and later a battalion commander (though not in combat command). I remember in the book about Chesty Puller, how his presence at the front line increased the morale and therefore fighting efficiency of his men. As it stands now, platoon leaders are beholden to no one. If they panic, they don't have the benefit any leader to 'straighten them out' so to speak. The coy commander should server that purpose. I think while CM is certainly not 'broken' without this feature, that it is certainly a viable and credible option to implement.

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

"Nuts!"

[Kingfish]

One thing to keep in mind is that for the most part, in the majority of battles of CM's scale, the CO and BN commander's job is mostly done.

The combat units are in place, well supplied, recon has been performed and processed, C&C to other assets (arty, reserves) has been established, and a general battle plan has been passed down to the platoon commanders.

That's not to say that the CO and BN commanders should take a cig break once the bell goes off. They should be there to rally shocked and routed troops, or to control reserve formations.

[Jackson]

Both Germanboy and Keith bring up some interesting points. I am much more familiar with American doctrine than German or other Allied forces. Nor am I familiar with the prevalence of radios and walkie-talkies for Brits, Canadians and Commonwealth. I guess I always assumed that the British had field communications nearly equal to the American’s after D-Day.

As for “proving” or quantifying the command effects of company commanders, I’ll leave that up to the true grogs, if they are so inclined. My thought was simply that, in the case of Americans at least, companies operated in a coordinated fashion and I would like to see that aspect emphasized a bit more in the game. Making it beneficial to keep company elements together.

From the battle descriptions in “Company Commander,” it seems as if the CO did, in fact, exert influence over his platoons during combat. He was able to bring his platoon leaders up to speed on what was happening to the other platoons, and could better coordinate immediate counterattacks or withdrawals, and reposition heavy weapons. It was the company commander also who communicated with attached support units like the tank and TD platoons. The platoons generally did not communicate between themselves, although they did monitor their radios.

I hate to keep referencing the same book, but it’s the only one I’ve read so far that’s gotten into such detail. “Closing with the Enemy” just arrived in the mail yesterday, and it’s the next book on my reading list.

[Keith]

Croda,

Your statement

"As it stands now, platoon leaders are beholden to no one. If they panic, they don't have the benefit any leader to 'straighten them out' so to speak." is in fact incorrect. You will notice in the current game that if a platoon leader breaks or panics within the command radius of a Company HQ then it goes to being under command of that HQ and receives any appropriate bonuses. So the game is already modeling what you are talking about.

Leadership is not magically transferrable between commanders. Like I have said the real life function of a Company HQ during battle is that of a floating HQ unit.

[Keith]

Jackson, your statement that the Comapny HQ is "able to bring his platoon leaders up to speed on what was happening to the other platoons, and could better coordinate immediate counterattacks or withdrawals, and reposition heavy weapons. " is absolutely true and is modeled quite accurately in the current game system. In the game Company HQs can assume command of ANY unit within its command radius and is thus able to form teams and quickly position support units. As far as coordinate counter attacks and withdraws, I believe this is abstracted in the sense that units out of command an control have longer reaction times. Thus the game models this feature too.

I found your idea intersting and it is always good to come up with new ways to improve the game but in the end analysis I have to vote against this won.

[Croda]

Hmmm, I guess I never ran into that scenario. I've never witnessed a platoon HQ being 'led' like that, so I appologize for misleading those who follow my lead. I shall leave the false post as it is as punishment. :ashamed:

I do however feel that CM could benefit of this greater C&C structure, as well as the existing role of the coy and bn commanders. Platoons would, after all, keep in touch with their commanders in order to keep abreast of the entire situation in the battle, and to be given orders when necessary.

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

"Nuts!"

[coralsaw]

Can I add my vote to a more deep C&C structure.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In the game Company HQs can assume command of ANY unit within its command radius and is thus able to form teams and quickly position support units. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keith, that's true for support units and leaderless platoons. What I would like to see is maybe an option to override the command of the platoon commander, useful when e.g. the command team is down to 1 man or the COY commander has better qualities.

Jackson, let's I have found that by far the best use of COY commanders is trailing an advance in case a platoon commander dies and to rally panicked troops, even panicked leaders. It could mean the difference between losing a platoon for the battle and keeping it on the roster.

Coralsaw

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[This message has been edited by coralsaw (edited 11-01-2000).]

[Splinty]

From the vets point of view,the influence of the Co Commander in combat depends mostly on his style,I've had CO's who wouldn't leave my Lt.s alone and CO's who stood back and only intervened when things didn't go according to plan. In Desert Storm our CO fell somewhere in the middle,but, and to me this a big point, he was right up front with us grunts so he could stay on top of the situation,but as far as direct command he let the Platoon Leaders do their jobs and he handled things like coordinating fire support and dealing with battalion etc.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Maj. Bosco]

I would like to see a BTS response on the feasibility of extending CO commander bonuses to platton HQs. I'd like to see a more in depth command structure as well. If nothing else I'd like to see CO commanders reduce the pause in executing orders if platoon HQs were in command radius.

[PeterNZer]

I doubt we will see any changes for one, but BTS have mentioned some significant changes for command and control for CM2, don't be surprised to hear stuff about that sooner or later I guess

PeterNZ

[Guest AggroMann]

I certainly agree that the games company HQs should have more influence on platoon HQs and the battalion HQs having more influence on the company HQs etc...

I was playing a QB where one of my platoon HQs had at least one bonus in every field, some having a +2, and the company HQ only gave a +1 to combat!

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

AGGRO-MANN