Platoon HQ injuries and still commanding?

[Splash]

Hi

I was wondering if there is any reduction in quality of command when the HQ is reduced by injuries. I've noticed that even with the HQ reduced to one (and that one not the lead man)

it still retains functionality. Is this basically the case? And how does this (if true) fit in with the reality features of gameplay?

Thanx

[David Aitken]

As CM does not model individual soldiers, it is not possible for an officer to be taken out personally. An HQ unit is either functioning or it isn't, and it ceases functioning when the last man becomes a casualty. The only difference casualties make is the unit's firepower. If you're looking at the weapons, you can't decide that the CO has been hit, because the men of an infantry unit will usually retain the better weapons, even if their original bearer has been hit.

Degradation of command power has been suggested before, and something like this may feature once CM's engine has been revised.

[Splash]

David,

That pretty well sums it up --- well worth the time finishing off the enenmies entire HQ.

Not being of military background I never understood how anyone could show up to a war armed with only a handgun. Seems insane to me but then you just wait for your partner to die and take his rifle!

[David Aitken]

Officers have far too much to do on the battlefield to think about fighting. It is, of course, advantageous to have a handy automatic weapon to get you out of tricky situations. Carbines were developed for cavalrymen and officers who wouldn't be using them too much, and wouldn't want to lug a bulky rifle around. It seems to have been quite common in the Second World War for officers to get themselves a submachinegun for self defence.

[dNorwood]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by David Aitken:

It seems to have been quite common in the Second World War for officers to get themselves a submachinegun for self defence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So THAT's where they went.....

[Paco QNS]

David Aitken writed:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Officers have far too much to do on the battlefield to think about fighting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

As a matter of fact. That was the main reason to under-arm them. All of us must remember that in certain armies was usual the promotion from the ranks.

Not giving the regular weapon to the officers/NCOs was a way to remind them not to get engaged in a personal battle -as they were used to do-, but to command his units.

((A similar practice was done in ungunned-command-tanks -though also to gain internal space-.))

But it was usual for them to pick the rifle of a dead soldier (justified as to not abandon it), and making themselves less conspicuous in the battlefield.

((Off topic, but the dissimilar armament of soldiers/leaders is way old. From roman armies (centurions carry sword and a vine-stick) or renaissance ones (all sergeants carry a halberd)

Regards,

[Andreas]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Splash:

Not being of military background I never understood how anyone could show up to a war armed with only a handgun. Seems insane to me but then you just wait for your partner to die and take his rifle!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have read quite a few references of WW 1 Commonwealth officers just bringing a walking stick and a whistle, not even a hand-gun. Not that it mattered then...