Gyrene Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 Remember the negative ranked Leaders in SL & ASL? Those would interesting to have in CM, although I'd hate to get one or more in a random QB... Negative leaders would be a good way to model the "Capt. Sobels" of the world. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 I would agree -- rather like the infamous "Col. Rosenberg" from SL days. I would suspect this would be easy to do as far as coding. The objections will be that nobody uses them, etc., etc. However, if you are playing with very few HQ units (for whatever reason), you may need him to help your squads move or for indirect fire with your mortars. Now, what would be VERY interesting are Armor leaders (like Cpt. Bolton in the old SL game -- gee I miss that game). Since armor movement, at least for the Russians, is probably going to be based on vollective troop movement, this would be a logical step. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CMplayer Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 A related point, what about gifted NCOs? What I mean is individual squads which are dedicated for patrolling, recon or such, and which don't suffer an order penalty when out in the bush, far from HQ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leta Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 Ummm ... interesting. I remember the evil Col. Rosenberg turning my squads to "broken" status due to failed morale checks, but ... it's better than haven't no officers to turn a "panic" squad to a "ok!" one. If CM:BB emulate the low number of russian officers in the battlefield, a negative rank leader will have a decisive role in the course of the battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 Excellent idea Gyrene. It would make the game a lot more realistic but what a bummer if you got one. If they do model this in the game I think they should also model in the ability to shoot him. You know the troopers shooting him for getting a bunch of guys killed or walking into an ambush, etc. Just kidding on the last part but something to think about. I guess I could just have him attack a tank all by himself. Yeah, and watch him take the tank out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Commissar Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 A deserved *BUMP* for a good idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew H. Posted September 29, 2001 Share Posted September 29, 2001 Actually, if CM wanted to do this realistically, they would have bad leaders, but not tell the players. That is, in the game the leader would appear like a regular leader (+1 Morale, whatever), but in reality, he would be -1 combat, -1 stealth, or whatever. I'm not sure that CM should actually model bad leaders though; you're probably better off just having inexperienced leaders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikael Posted September 30, 2001 Share Posted September 30, 2001 Excellent idea that weirdly hasn't been thought of before, to my knowledge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
argie Posted October 1, 2001 Share Posted October 1, 2001 Bah! We don't need the AI to model that! I bet this Forum is plenty of leaders bad enough Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 1, 2001 Share Posted October 1, 2001 Question for the forum. What would be the negative impact of a Colonel Klink? Minus 2 to morale or minus 3? On a more serious note, I wondered about this as well a while ago but came to the conclusion that a player simply wouldn't use them and certainly wouldn't have them near any of their squads due to the negative impact he would have. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tero Posted October 1, 2001 Share Posted October 1, 2001 Interesting ideas. I just wonder how the AI model is built. If there were negative modifiers could it mean that the squads would start out and remain panicked throughout the game ? Or would squads in fanatic state become panicked at a flick of an eye when they come into contact with such leaders ? I would hesitate to induce negative values on such things as combat but to make only HQ units diddybob around with negative stealth values would be realistic as any sensible squad would dig in deep when a notoriously loud or careless officer was in the neighbourhood. Also negative values on command would be realistic to depict unpopular commanders and their effect on the performance of a unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Posted October 1, 2001 Share Posted October 1, 2001 Le Bump pour moi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fangorn Posted October 1, 2001 Share Posted October 1, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bad Monkey!: One thing that I think that should be thrown in here (though I don't know whether it's ever been mentioned or not) is that tanks should have modifiers just like HQ's do. You could have a driver's bonus (faster to get moving, less likely to get bogged), a gunner's bonus (accuracy), a loader's bonus (rate of fire), and a commander's bonus (spotting, other intangibles)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This was post in the tank gun test, and it is a good idea IMHO, in the same lines of bad leaders suggestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gyrene Posted October 1, 2001 Author Share Posted October 1, 2001 The idea of making a "bad" leader not obvious is an interesting one. On the set up phase he would like like a regular leader, but here the fog of war would also affect your side as maybe after the first turn the leaders thru stats would be displayed. This could simulate the "paper tigers" that look great to the brass at the rear, but the men in the field know better. Breaking easier and reduced reaction times (Even lower than a unit's solo reaction time) could be some of the penalties. An even funnier/distressing leader flaw would be if the leader ignored your orders and pursued a slightly different course of action than the one you planned. This could keep the player from sending this inneficient leader to his doom on purpose. Gyrene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 Whether they are obvious or not, I think including sub-par leaders is an excellent idea. If good leaders are modeled, than bad ones should be also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka PanzerLeader: Excellent idea that weirdly hasn't been thought of before, to my knowledge.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I thought of it, but thought it better not to bring it up. Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Rock Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 Not having played Squad Leader for about - oh - 25 years, can someone remind me why players use bad leaders? Are they intrinsically necessary for specific actions? In CM terms I think Jim R is right, that people simply wouldn't use them. The idea of not knowing the quality of the leader is interesting, but I'm not sure if that's quite right either. I'd expect the CO to have some idea of his subordinate's leadership abilities. Perhaps this could be handled with a "fuzz" factor, indicating abilities with a range (eg -1:+1)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Farnz Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 In SL "bad leaders" could still rally troops that would otherwise be unable to rally themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Runyan99 Posted October 3, 2001 Share Posted October 3, 2001 Players would use them, because they would have to. If a platoon leader was a bad leader (gives minuses instead of plusses) you would still have to use the guy, or the entire platoon would be out of command the whole time, and would be even more ineffective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 Yeh, but what's to stop you from detaching the piss poor leader and putting him way in the rear while re-attaching either a Battalion or Company leader to the group of out of command infantry instead? That's why I would imagine that having negative leaders could be a waste of time and probably all they would be used for would be to hold victory locations, once captured. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Yeh, but what's to stop you from detaching the piss poor leader and putting him way in the rear while re-attaching either a Battalion or Company leader to the group of out of command infantry instead? That's why I would imagine that having negative leaders could be a waste of time and probably all they would be used for would be to hold victory locations, once captured.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> This is why I like the idea of the leader's attributes being fuzzy or completely fogged. Add in the fact that leaders are supposed to be more important in CMBB, and a player simply may not have many choices. Besides, even if the player DOES keep the bad leader towards the rear areas, that leader is still useful rallying troops and such. Plus, you never can tell when or where the enemy might show up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 4, 2001 Share Posted October 4, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kanonier Reichmann: Yeh, but what's to stop you from detaching the piss poor leader and putting him way in the rear while re-attaching either a Battalion or Company leader to the group of out of command infantry instead? Jim R.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> What could be more realistic? You know your 2nd platoon leader is a klutz, - so YOU have to go in and assume personal command. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kanonier Reichmann Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 Just to clarify, I'm not dead against having negative modifiers on leaders if BTS are prepared to spend the time coding it but my personal preference would be for priority to be given to coding in tank leaders. With tank leaders you could really have some fun with your opponent not realy sure which tank to prioritise in terms of targetting but he suspects you probably have a good tank leader judging by the mayhem being caused. Who wouldn't want a Barkmann type leader on their side? Also, imagine the quandry for the player of whether to expose him early to maximise the carnage but then risk his early demise. Regards Jim R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newlife Posted October 5, 2001 Share Posted October 5, 2001 Bad leaders? Already modeled in CMBO. just had a plt HQ run headlong into a strong Ami position. Suicide charge really. Really brave though, ran right past his squards, took heavy fire, lost two men and was pinned, but he continued to crawl towards that enemy! Eventually was shot. The rest of the plt was smart enough to stop... (seems I missed deleting his movement orders) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts