Chain of Command

[Michael Emrys]

I know that people have been howling for unit rosters ever since CM came out. I don't know what the current status is of BTS' promises in that regard, but I would like to raise the subject again and add a few notions to it.

For one thing, I would like for its graphic representation to look like the kind of organisational charts I am used to seeing depict military units. This would be good because such charts would be intuitive and it would be quick to find the unit you are looking for. A hot key would bring the chart to the screen and clicking on a unit on the chart would take you to the unit on the map.

But to really make this work right, the naming system for units should be changed. I find the present system entirely unintuitive and a total PITA to use. Again, I would like to see the adoption of the authentic naming systems used by the historic armies.

For instance, in the American infantry, the first battalion would possess companies A,B,C, and the heavy weapons company D. Each company would have three rifle platoons numbered 1st., 2nd., 3rd., together with a weapons platoon, the 4th. I'm not sure what convention was used to designate squads, but I think they were numbered. If so, then the third squad of the first platoon of Company A would be called A/1/3 and it would be easy to find on the organisation chart.

The next thing I'd like to gripe about as long as I have the soap box is the lack of unit cohesion in the game. Now, squads are quite properly subordinated to their platoon HQs and are penalized if outside the command radius of their HQs. But it is still possible to mix and match platoons all over the map with no penalty. I would like to see platoons strictly subordinated to their company HQs and company HQs to their battalion HQs (when present in the game). If outside the command radius of their parent HQ, they and their subordinate units would suffer command delays too.

There. I suppose I am done kvetching for now. I will throw the discussion open to the forum.

Michael

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]</p>

[Vanir Ausf B]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

I know that people have been howling for unit rosters ever since CM came out. I don't know what the current status is of BTS' promises in that regard, but I would like to raise the subject again and add a few notions to it.<hr></blockquote>

Last I heard, rosters were in, but they are limiting the functionality.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The next thing I'd like to gripe about as long as I have the soap box is the lack of unit cohesion in the game. Now, squads are quite properly subordinated to their platoon HQs and are penalized if outside the command radius of their HQs. But it is still possible to mix and match platoons all over the map with no penalty. I would like to see platoons strictly subordinated to their company HQs and company HQs to their battalion HQs (when present in the game). If outside the command radius of their parent HQ, they and their subordinate units would suffer command delays too.<hr></blockquote>

I'm not so sure about this. Let's say you are playing a QB and purchase an infantry battalion. In order to avoid excess delays, you would have to keep the battalion HQ unit near all the company HQ units while keeping the company HQs near their platoon HQs, and so on. In practice, this would lead to you operating with a rather small frontage, with your units densely packed. That or your battalion HQ is running all over the map to various hot spots. I'm not sure this is particularly realistic, and it sounds like the proverbial PITA to me. Maybe if the way C&C is modeled in CM were to be fundamentally changed this would work.

[Hensworth]

I for one do not find the absence of a unit roster a major problem. It might be easier to locate your FO's hiding in a big forest but I find that by turning off trees and working my way along the line methodically I rarely lose track of a unit. An exception is when reinforcements turn up in groups far apart. I might find one group and think that's it.

I'd agree that it would be nice to have lettered companies and numbered platoons. Throw in a couple of specified WAV files ("2nd platoon, move out !") and the units would come that much more to life.

I'm hardly an expert in these matters, but I think unit cohesion is pretty realistic in CM. There is a need to keep your platoons together, but everything above that is fairly fluid. I suspect that would have been about how it was, with units getting lost, losing touch with their HQ's, wandering into a different sector, and so on.

My main gripe with the CoC is that if a platoon becomes separated from their HQ, both parts of the unit become pretty much useless. The HQ can't take control of another platoon and the orphaned platoon will buckle under the least bit of pressure without their commander. This is particularly annoying in Operations.

Here the roster might come in handy again. It could be used to consolidate troops the way you want.

[James Crowley]

This is an area in which I fully agree with Michael and have, in the past, postulated something similar myself.

Leadership and the chain-of-command are not just important principles in an infantry battle (especially) but are absolutely fundamental.

It is far too easy, within the current CM system, to conduct operations with troops strung-out all over the place, often leaderless and in situations where, in reality, they would be completely out of effective control.

Anyone who reads much about infantry actions in, for instance, Normandy, will realise that the majority of attacks failed not so much because of over-all casualties but because of the high rate of loss of line-officers and NCO's.

The ordinary soldier does not charge the enemy without "encouragement" but will more than likely simply go to ground. Leaderless troops are usually useless.

And, Vanir, keeping everything fairly tightly together is entirely realistic, for the most part at least.

I have always advocated more emphasis on C&C, with greater penalties for units out of it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Some great ideas here. I especially like the 1/A/3 idea, and the specialized .wavs per subunit. Good work.

[Michael Emrys]

The "packing" problem could be alleviated by giving company and battalion HQs longer command radii than platoon HQs. I think this is realistic inasmuch as they had much more comm resources available.

Michael

[Rifle1860]

My $2.00 on this issue (Cdn currency, you know). I love the ideas except for the last. I think it is entirely realistic that platoons do not need to always have the command influence of their company commander.

As long as you are only suggesting an additional command delay on the platoons, I think that is fine. If you are thinking of a more rigid enforcement system then I think that the game will not reflect the inherent flexibility of the Battle Procedure and Grouping Systems of the time.

Lets take the example of a platoon that is tasked away from their parent companys within the context of an operation. This would happen if the platoon was to secure the start line for an operation, provide local protection for something or be detached to the command of a diferent company for a specific phase of an operation. The platoon commander would have specific orders and would not need the added support of being colocated with his OC.

Another thing to think about is that the game does not currently model the 2nd in Command of any unit size. Lets look at a situation where a Battalion was going into an attack with one company in a fire base and two or three in the assult force. Usually, the CO would travel with and directly command the assult group. The fire base company would be commanded by the company commander but would also have either the RSM or the Battalion 2ic with him to coord indirect fire etc.

Currently this situation (which is the common one) is not modeled in the game. One way to replicate this additional command influence is to run the game exactly as it is now where platoons do not need to be near company HQs. This system "infers" that the detached platoon is properly commanded and controlled from above.

Over

[Conscript Bagger]

I like the idea of requiring each HQ to be in command of the next higher HQ, and I agree that for this to be workable, company and battalion command ranges must be longer. The only problem would be making sure that in a smaller game where there was no battalion HQ present, the company(s) in your force didn't suffer the penalty for being out of command.

[Michael Emrys]

Rifle1860: Point taken. Worth reflecting on. Thank you.

Offwhite: Agreed. That's been on my mind as well.

Michael

[Vanir Ausf B]

Old Discussion

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>CRourke:

I may be wrong, but my sense of things is that units probably spent long period of time out of control of their superiors. Without radios and beyond shouting range, you are, at best relying on runners. This would result in quite a delay, not to mention some reduced squads due to lost runners (lost to fire that is). Obviously this wasn't how any side fought the war. What really happened is that the attack (or defense) was planned out in detail before hand.. a platoon knew what its role was going to be for the whole battle, and what it wasn't explicitly told, it figure out. This is where AI has problems. It doesn't have the brain to figure out just what CPT Miller meant by "Take Hill 452, then advance by bounding overwatch to the forest along with 2nd platoon." Having out of communication units just "sit there, fire, and retreat" isn't realistic. So, given the choice between two unrealistic solutions, I'll choose the one the lets me give orders and play the game.

Chris<hr></blockquote>

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software:

Chris,

We reached exactly the same conclusion.

Charles<hr></blockquote>

Another

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software:

Totally realistic C&C at the Company and Battalion level would NOT be fun to play. Even extending turns to 5 minutes won't be realistic either. What you need is painfully limited intelligence levels and serious restrictions on your ability to command troops. Even then it really isn't going to be even close to realistic, since individual units would need to display their own unique initiative rather than following your overall instructions to the letter whenever they may come (no platoon I know would sit quietly and wait for 5 minutes while some opportunity is in front of them just to see what Big Daddy wants to do about it ) Real life battles are decided at the lowest level once the battle has been engaged. The best orders from above mean jack squat if the troops trying to carry them out lack the skills and initiative to carry out those orders. So unless you want to practically blindly issue a few orders ever 10 or 20 turns and have zero control over what your sub units do, you won't even get close to a "100% realistic" C&C system.

In short, 100% realism is NOT an option for any game, since it would cease to be a game.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

The Search Engine Is Way Faster Since the Last Update

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Big Time Software:

Slight clarification. Company HQs only affect the units within their command radius. There is no benefit given to units other than this. The reason is that platoons were intended to be largely autonomous formations when engaged in combat. The lack of a Co HQ would therefore have no direct affect on the platoon, at least in terms of delay times.

Steve<hr></blockquote>

[ 10-25-2001: Message edited by: Vanir Ausf B ]</p>