Chad Harrison Posted July 30, 2001 Share Posted July 30, 2001 my search engine yielded nothing, so heres my question: for the HQ units, is there a d single "leader" in the 4+man unit, or are they all considered "leaders"? does the HQ unit represent one lieutenant (ect) and a few men? or is the HQ collectively "leaders" and it doesnt matter how many men are lost? because i have noticed that the bonus dont disapear when there is only one man left. when a HQ takes loses, does the HQ bonus diminish? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted July 30, 2001 Share Posted July 30, 2001 No. Casualties do not appear to affect the HQ's usefulness or its ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doug Beman Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 Coding the engine to check an HQ unit for "actual leader dude losses" after every casualty would result in excessive turn-crunching times. DjB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted July 31, 2001 Author Share Posted July 31, 2001 so the HQ unit then represent a group of "leaders". so in CM2 will this remain the same, or will there be individual "leaders" in the unit? wouldnt that be more realistic? didnt HQ units back then represent one officer and his aids? or am i mistaken. or is this even worth questioning? hey, im just curious!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PVLLVS MAXIMVS Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 Dont think of it as a group of four "leaders". Rather, think of it as 3 red-shirted security fodderboys, and one Captain Kirk. The important one will ALWAYS be the last one to die. Not the most realistic way to do it, but there has to be a point where the attention to detail stops, or the game would be buried under its own minutiae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted July 31, 2001 Author Share Posted July 31, 2001 i wholeheartily agree. its just like the movies right? the only person who ever survives the combat is the character who they spent time building his personality in the movie. isnt it always the one with the girl/wife at home and has a picture in his pocket of her? that makes perfect sense! so now the HQ unit is one officer and three targets standing in the way! i love this game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slapdragon Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 CM has always been a squad and platoon level game that reaches to battalions. Keeping squads abstract was a means of keeping the game playable. Think of it this way, you could be stuck with no more than 15 units in your unit screen (a la CC). Instead, you get to go as far as the engine goes, just each one is a bit abstract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Aitken Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 As far as BTS was concerned the loss of the leader was not extremely important, as all that happens is that someone else steps up and takes over. An HQ is indeed an officer, a radio man and a couple of aides, but individuals are not tracked, the only effect of losses is on firepower. Likewise a squad will not suffer from the loss of its leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chad Harrison Posted July 31, 2001 Author Share Posted July 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Think of it this way, you could be stuck with no more than 15 units in your unit screen (a la CC).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> god bless CM for giving me a reason to get CC off my computer! what a relief from having to play with under 15 units! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Alkema Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Coding the engine to check an HQ unit for "actual leader dude losses" after every casualty would result in excessive turn-crunching times. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I scoff in your general direction. I expect, however, that once the game had been written to have the leadership bonuses assigned to the group as a whole (unlike the small-arms), it would be a headache to try to change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StellarRat Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Coding the engine to check an HQ unit for "actual leader dude losses" after every casualty would result in excessive turn-crunching times. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olandt Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 Or try thinking of it this way. When your HQ or squad gets the "!", it just lost it's leader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodyBucket Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 Interesting. When I run a multiplayer "team" game later on, I was planning to make platoons with panicked HQs, or maybe that had taken casualties, unable to communicate to the company HQ for a turn. Perhaps a bigger morale "hit" for HQ casualties? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Doug Beman: Coding the engine to check an HQ unit for "actual leader dude losses" after every casualty would result in excessive turn-crunching times. DjB<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Hmm. I've gotta disagree with you on that. Since CM already makes internal checks to determine if, for example, the LMG gunner was hit rather than Joe Rifleman, it doesn't seem like it'd be any more work to figure out if that was the LT or the cook that just got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferdinand Posted July 31, 2001 Share Posted July 31, 2001 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chupacabra: ... or the cook that just got it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's where national characteristics kick in : in the latter case, the french are at lowest moral for the rest of the Operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts