James Ling Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 In the game an HQ squad still retains all its leadership abilities even when down to 1 man and the odds against that 1 man being the CO himself is by then 6-1. The casulties within squads are ramdomly determed for weapon loss so I recon CO loss in HQ's should be too. With the loss of a CO the HQ should loose its leadership abilities but still retain a basic command radius (with an asterisk by the ex CO's name to indicate it). The leaderships abilities - stealth/combat/moral/command surly come from the personal qualities of the officer leading his men. I dont know how these qualities can be inherited by say the last surving radio operator. I just think it is an aspect of combat that has been left out and should'nt be too difficult to impliment in a patch. What do all you chaps out there think? PS:To BTS, sorry to sound like an angry headmaster, this is the best game I've ever played! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 I think I understand what you are saying, James, and you may have a point. It also occurs to me, however, that the leader may have inculcated those qualities into his squads so that his personal presence is not the whole issue. Granted the loss of a leader did often have a shock effect on a unit, that might be too subtle to model in the existing game engine. I tend to look at the leadership qualities as being present in all the units of the platoon. They are represented in the HQ unit mostly for convenience. If anyone holds a differing opinion, I'm listening. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 (hmph, so I wasn't first to answer. I'm referring to the original post) A scary thought! But yes, sounds reasonable to me. What kind of people are/were in HQ units anyway? I know about the radio operator, but aside from that... Adjuntant? Cook? Masseur? [This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-12-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Los Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Actually lets not forget the Platoon Sergeant in that HQ mix so cut the odds in half. Anyway, most times the Plt Sgt knows more than the Lt. anyway. There might also be a tad of abstraction where the ranking leader(from the squad NCOs) after these two cads takes over as the PL. (Though it could be a stretch when dealing with mopes that choose to spread out a platoon so it's klicks outside its command radius. Los Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: What kind of people are/were in HQ units anyway? I know about the radio operator, but aside from that... Adjuntant? Cook? Masseur? [This message has been edited by Jarmo (edited 07-12-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> For the Brits, I'm sure a footman or two is included in the mix! Maybe they are for runners? Even to this day, radios aren't used by and large below platoon level. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 I think the whole issue of command is abstracted to some degree in CM. E.g. it is not possible to add another squad to a platoon commander, something that may or may not have happened. Apart from that, as was pointed out elsewhere, the HQ should contain the CO, CSM and XO or 2i/c for Coy level, (and a Batman of course), and the platoon commander and platoon sergeant for platoon HQs. I.e. you should be able to lose 50% and still have command ability. And if you go down to that level of modelling, what if you lose your runner? Loss of communication with the squads? ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Jenkins Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 I have to disagree with the idea that there aren't many radios below platoon level. In my platoon, the PL had one, and so did each squad. The platoon back then had (I think) a PL, PSG, RTO, and runner at HQ. ------------------ "Rinky dinky stinky thinky" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoon44 Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 HQ elements usually consist of the Plt Ldr (Commissioned bulletstopper), PSG (most experienced soldier in the platoon), RTO (who hopefully is picked for his brains, and some runners (poor buggers). At the Company or as we called it the cavalry Troop level the CO has a First Sergeant, Executive Officer, an RTO (who is smart as hell if youre lucky)called the commanders assistant, and again the poor runners. Im throwing in with Chris on this; there are radios everywhere! Especially in mounted units. Again remember that US units get the mission out to as many soldiers as possible, so that when the officers are good looking corpses the job continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IntelWeenie Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 There are lots of radios now (beleive me, I know; I used to do radio intercept/jamming in the army. If you think keeping track of one or two radio nets is hard, try 10-20 at once! ). They weren't anywhere near as pervasive in WWII and nowhere near as good as today. Radois were large, heavy (tubes, not computer chips), and not very powerful. Mounted units were an exception, mainly 'cause they could more easily carry (and power) them and because their mobility tended to spread them out past shouting or running distance. ------------------ "Belly to belly and everything's better" - Russian proverb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Croaker Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 I've often wondered about the issue of attrition to command units as well. Michael, that's a good theory, but what happens when the command squad is completely eliminated? The command attributes go away. Unless by that you also mean the leader inculcates those attributes in the other members of the squad. The abstraction Los mentioned makes sense to me. Still, I think it would be cool to have a chance of the command attributes to disappear as the command squad takes casualties, the chance being lower for the higher hq's, to account for the greater number of officers, perhaps? It would add yet another element of uncertainty that CM already so richly embodies IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Jenkins Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 Here's an idea. When a HQ unit is reduced to one soldier, any command radius bonus is removed. This would be easier from a coding perspective, and would represent a commander being his own RTO. Imperfect, but yet another improvement. ------------------ "Rinky dinky stinky thinky" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:USERNAME: Posted July 12, 2000 Share Posted July 12, 2000 This is similar to the thread with squads that were depleted down to a few men or less having to be absorbed into other units, either other squads in the platoon or the HQ itself. Its interesting that alot of people feel that the menus should be shortened for units/HQs. I feel it is a realistic abstraction and the abilty to set ambushes, command radius, etc all should suffer. What about platoons that have the HQ wiped out? Lewis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Croaker: I've often wondered about the issue of attrition to command units as well. Michael, that's a good theory, but what happens when the command squad is completely eliminated? The command attributes go away. Unless by that you also mean the leader inculcates those attributes in the other members of the squad.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Both in the headquarters squad and the other squads of the platoon. As for the leadership qualities going away if the HQ is reduced or eliminated, I suppose they might but I don't know that for sure. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>The abstraction Los mentioned makes sense to me. Still, I think it would be cool to have a chance of the command attributes to disappear as the command squad takes casualties, the chance being lower for the higher hq's, to account for the greater number of officers, perhaps? It would add yet another element of uncertainty that CM already so richly embodies IMO.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> An interesting suggestion that sounds right on. I don't know how much of a hassle it would be to code though. Another thing: we may be trying to fine-tune to the point where our adjustments get lost in the noise of fuzzy logic. I don't know. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Michael emrys Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 Another thought just occurred to me, but would require serious rewriting of the game engine I fear. How would you folks feel about not being able to give/change orders to units out of C&C? That would entail having to bring all units into the command net including vehicles, which are presently excluded. Units out of C&C would continue to try to fulfill their last order, defend themselves, pick off available targets, and otherwise act in sensible ways depending on their experience level, fatigue, morale, etc. In other words, give over more function to the TACAI. What brings this to mind is that we as players exert a significant degree of control over our units that was not enjoyed by our real life counterparts. If a captain or major wanted to get directly involved with one of his platoons, he had to accept that his response to a situation in some other part of the company/battalion area might be delayed. Also, if he put units where he could not easily keep track of them, he would lose control of them. And so forth. Just a thought. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jarmo Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys: Another thought just occurred to me, but would require serious rewriting of the game engine I fear. How would you folks feel about not being able to give/change orders to units out of C&C? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This would be conflicting with things that came up in recon thread. In real life, you could give an order like " go out there, keep watch, and if enemy advances, run back". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KiwiJoe Posted July 13, 2000 Share Posted July 13, 2000 Yeah too much realism can sometimes be a bad thing in games. You can end up making the whole experience complicated and frustrating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts