Cumulative Leadership Benefit

[Great Dane]

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Shouldn't a unit gain the benefit of ALL leaders in that unit's chain of command that are within the command radius (at least up to +2)?. Currently having a company commander forward provides no additional value for units already within their platoon leader's command radius. In reality, don't effective combat leaders weigh the value that their presence will have on the frontline with their ability to direct the entire action from a remoter (and safer) location?

Watching an episode of Band of Brothers, during the attack into Carentan, I saw a company commander help get a platoon of paratroopers out of a ditch and advance into enemy fire. His efforts were IN ADDITION to the platoon leader's hard work.

Directing MG/mortar fire and rounding up stragglers is great, but players should see real benefit in deploying the CO/BN commander at the forefront of the assualt or at a critical defensive strongpoint.

At the risk of a post that is way too long, I will suggest that one of the attributes of Squad Leader that made it a memorable game, was the impact of individual leaders. It personalized the game and demonstrated the real value of capable combat leadership. A 4-6-7 squad with a LMG at the end of the street, went from a minor nuisance to a major roadblock with the addition of a 9-2 leader. Does CMBB's command and leadership modeling allow for the same kind of impact for leaders?

BTS: please fix or do somefink.

[Spook]

Greetings, Great Dane.

Originally posted by Great Dane:

Long time lurker, first time poster.

Shouldn't a unit gain the benefit of ALL leaders in that unit's chain of command that are within the command radius (at least up to +2)?. Currently having a company commander forward provides no additional value for units already within their platoon leader's command radius. In reality, don't effective combat leaders weigh the value that their presence will have on the frontline with their ability to direct the entire action from a remoter (and safer) location?

The trick here, Dane, is that who are the troops going to listen to when orders are given on a one-minute snapshot basis? their immediate CO who they will more readily recognize, or a higher commander?

Higher CO's could, and did, pre-empt their lower platoon CO's and take over in a moment of crisis, but again, in the space of a minute (one turn), it would be unlikely for the lower ranks to absorb commands coming both from platoon and company commands (or even higher) on a "cumulative" basis.

On occasion, if a company CO rates much better than a platoon CO whose platoon must perform a crucial mission, I will just "send back" (or redeploy during setup) the poorer junior officer in reserve, or performing the typical CM company CO task of leading weapons teams.

Watching an episode of Band of Brothers, during the attack into Carentan, I saw a company commander help get a platoon of paratroopers out of a ditch and advance into enemy fire. His efforts were IN ADDITION to the platoon leader's hard work.

I read the book just before watching the series, and indeed, Dick Winters (the company CO in the noted action) was an outstanding field commander. Care must be taken, however, in assessing whether his performance was sufficiently "average" among many other comparable CO's. My impression is that Winters, as a company commander, acted more on an exceptional basis than the rule.

Directing MG/mortar fire and rounding up stragglers is great, but players should see real benefit in deploying the CO/BN commander at the forefront of the assualt or at a critical defensive strongpoint.

There again, as I noted earlier, if a certain job requires the company CO who has excellent CM leader factors, I "push back" the platoon CO until out of command radius range. In fact, there seems no limit as to how many squads or other units within the company can be led by the company CO within a turn's timeframe (probably a bit ahistorical). So, in a crucial assault, it's entirely possible for the company CO to "lead them all in" until his HQ unit gets hit.

At the risk of a post that is way too long,

No risk. Some people have posted comments in the Battlefront forums that read almost like master's theses in length.

I will suggest that one of the attributes of Squad Leader that made it a memorable game, was the impact of individual leaders. It personalized the game and demonstrated the real value of capable combat leadership. A 4-6-7 squad with a LMG at the end of the street, went from a minor nuisance to a major roadblock with the addition of a 9-2 leader. Does CMBB's command and leadership modeling allow for the same kind of impact for leaders?

That's all in there in the CM system already, by the stealth, morale, command, and combat modification factors. Further, each factor has two possible levels of benefit (+1/+2). While the HQ unit doesn't represent a single man (unlike the leader unit in the SL series), the "personal traits" are still sufficiently in effect in CM and can be modified by the scenario designer.

BTS: please fix or do somefink.

Well, you've got the "CM vet" jargon right. But it isn't really so broken. If I went back to CMBO and wanted to create a scenario of Winter's charge against the SS companies on "The Island," I could do so, while also having the latitude to create a leader unit comparable to Winters (elite with +2 on all leader attributes). His squads would follow him quickly, they'll rally more quickly, they'll shoot better, and so forth.

[ January 06, 2003, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Terrapin]

Originally posted by Great Dane:

Watching an episode of Band of Brothers, during the attack into Carentan, I saw a company commander help get a platoon of paratroopers out of a ditch and advance into enemy fire. His efforts were IN ADDITION to the platoon leader's hard work.

Well, with historical scholarship like this, BTS HAS to do somefink!!

[Great Dane]

Spook, thanks for the reply. I would suggest, however that in most cases the higher leader isn't there in the thick of battle to necessarily pre-empt the platoon leader's orders... rather they know that the presence of a respected combat leader can have an inspiring effect on the troops.

In A Bridge Too Far (yes, some more serious historical reseach) the BN commander of the 3rd/504th PIR, Julian Cook (played by Robert Redford) leads a daring river crossing of the Waal. Why? Because he could show his men how to row a boat better?... or because by his encouragement and sharing in the danger of his soldiers, he could inspire them to achieve a great feat. He didn't insist that his platoon leaders sit out the assualt on the river bank... his leadership qualities were an additional benefit(over and above platoon leadership) to those men rowing plywood and canvas boats into enemy fire.

[Slappy]

I will start by saying that I have no clear opinion on the cumulative bonus issue. I can see both sides of this (too many cooks in the kitchen v. increased morale and cohesion).

On a slightly different note, it does occur to me that most players use HQs in a reasonably ahistoric fashion all the time.

The classic CM 'diamond' formation with the HQ in the rear is a generally cowardly way for a platoon HQ to perform, to say nothing about Company COs. I doubt that most infantrymen would take too kindly to fighting the entire war with their sargent 30m to the rear directing traffic. I can imagine responses like 'Why don't you get your own ass within a mile of the point for once and maybe you won't find a grendade in your bedroll tonight jackass' being rather common for this situation.

Perhaps conveying some benefit to using HQs in a more forward role might help this.