RawRecruit Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I've been reading some of the forum threads about ways to kill tanks with infantry and a lot of posts suggest that the HQs are more effective with explosives etc. Is there a historical reason for this? Who were the four or so guys that made up the HQ and what were their roles? Apart from the probably obvious answer that one was the Platoon CO, were they just ordinary grunts assigned to protect the big cheese? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alfatwosix Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 The HQ, depending of the size of unit would consist of the CO, the EXO (2nd in command), the supply NCO and evt. weapons master. Thus, this little group would normally consist of the most experienced NCO's (platoon level). This is, I presume, reflected in the game in the manner you describe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawRecruit Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 And I suppose as these guys get pasted then they are replaced by the most experienced members of the platoon squads, thus maintaining the higher quality! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 Originally posted by RawRecruit: And I suppose as these guys get pasted then they are replaced by the most experienced members of the platoon squads, thus maintaining the higher quality! The GE plt HQ teams were made up of Plt HQ (Officer or NCO, depicted by the guy with the pistol in CM), some NCO (SMG in CM) and 2 runners (carbines). At least on paper. There were not even enough NCOs in the Wehrmacht to command every squad, so there were not 4 of them in a HQ team! It was important to have the experienced men in the squads, too, as they could teach the others "on job". Remember "All quiet on the Western Front"? The privates herding the fresh recruits? That's the best way to handle recruits, especially when they did not have proper training. Gruß Joachim [ October 30, 2003, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawRecruit Posted October 30, 2003 Author Share Posted October 30, 2003 I'm just trying to rationalize why the game might model HQ's being better tank killers. My original thought was along the lines that the platoon CO would probably be very experienced or well trained (particularly in the early Wermacht) but you would also have a spread of vets in amongst the squads that would have as good an idea of how to go about getting a tank (or anything else for that matter!)! It's a small point, but I'd like to know why I'm sending my CO to possibly get wiped out, thus destroying my command lines, where a squad should theoretically have as much chance of success (...or getting themselves dead... ). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I suspect that this is just an artifact of the command system, rather than a conscious modeling decision. My supposition is that the HQ units are less prone to adverse morale effects like panic, and thus tend to do better when facing armor. I've in the past suggested that HQs should have significantly LONGER command delays than the units under them to get a more realistic tempo to offensive combat operations, and to reduce the perfectly coordinated assaults from all units on a map. It would also make the company and especially battalion HQs more ponderous and not nearly as useful to players as front-line troops. The battalion HQs, with their large size are particularly effective, even though doctrinally you would not want them on the front. Making them harder to move would accomplish that, as well as benefiting longer term planning. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loaf Posted October 30, 2003 Share Posted October 30, 2003 I have not noticed the HQ bonus against armour, but I have noticed that HQ infantry units are much less likely to panic or route. When playing against the AI I sometimes make a bet with myself that a particularly stubborn enemy infanty unit that holds its position against overwhelming odds will turn out to be an HQ unit when I examine the map at the end of the game... I am correct more often than not. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarquon Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 The chance to hit a unit is proportional to its size, so a four-man HQ is much less likely to be hit than a 10-man squad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mailer Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Historicaly, Officers just generally perform better overall than enlisted men. That's not so say in every case, but on average. Mailer 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thin Red Line Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Maybe the better salary of HQs improves their motivation ? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RawRecruit Posted October 31, 2003 Author Share Posted October 31, 2003 I actually quite like the idea of the gutsy CO leading from the front and showing 'his boys' how it's done. However, about suppression and the 10 man squad versus the 4 man squad, is it easier to suppress 4 men than 10, say with a single MG mounted on a tank? Smaller target I agree, but I would assume that 10 men would be a little too spread out to cover with a single gun and would have more available bodies to lob grenades, demo charges, stones, insults...! Plus, surely ten men would be able to come at an AFV from too many angles for it to cope with. Being an 'armchair general' I can't really say how it would work in real life, so the above is just some thoughts. If there is any good reference material around about how infantry worked on the smallest scale then I'd really like to enlighten myself somewhat...! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 Originally posted by RawRecruit: I actually quite like the idea of the gutsy CO leading from the front and showing 'his boys' how it's done. However, about suppression and the 10 man squad versus the 4 man squad, is it easier to suppress 4 men than 10, say with a single MG mounted on a tank? Smaller target I agree, but I would assume that 10 men would be a little too spread out to cover with a single gun and would have more available bodies to lob grenades, demo charges, stones, insults...! Plus, surely ten men would be able to come at an AFV from too many angles for it to cope with. Being an 'armchair general' I can't really say how it would work in real life, so the above is just some thoughts. If there is any good reference material around about how infantry worked on the smallest scale then I'd really like to enlighten myself somewhat...! If a tank approaches a squad or team in cover, the squad can't come from every angle - they come from one direction. If one of the 10 gets spotted, an MG blasts away, suppressing others. In a 10-man squad, it is much easier to say "hey, let the others do the job, I'll keep my head down for a while". As an NCO or officer, everybody is looking at you. If you cower, everybody else will take cover, too. Besides, if you want to be brave, it is much better if your superiors see it. The leader has to write a report, so if he did the bravery, he will write that in his report anyway so his superiors will notice. Green soldiers tend to bunch up. If the vet in the squad found perfect cover and concelament for one man, you bet that the two conscripts will run there to reveal the position. Oh, I am an armchair general, too. But some of these reasons apply outside the military, too Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soddball Posted October 31, 2003 Share Posted October 31, 2003 There were some tests done a couple of months back (by me and by some other posters) that showed pretty convincingly that HQ units are tougher than they ought to be - they die less frequently, rout less frequently, and fight harder than squads. It's a pain, but there we are. Maybe it'll change in CM:AK but I doubt it. It's more likely that CM:X2 will handle these changes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tar Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Speculating without either experience or data: I would imagine that a larger unit could be more prone to suppression (pun intended). Mainly because I don't think it would be that much harder to suppress, and because it would take a bit longer to rally. As for being just as easy to suppress: Imagine, if you will, that you are out on the battlefield and a machine gun opens up in your general direction. Do you (a) try to figure out just how close it is shooting to you -- that is, within 2 meters or 10 meters? or ( Dive for the ground and worry about it later? Rallying is probably a lot like most other group activities: The more people involved, the longer it takes to get anything done. Just notice how long it takes a group to manage to get out the door to go to dinner. The bigger the group, the longer it takes. Now military organizations with their hierarchical order systems are often a bit better about reducing some of the delay of disorganized civilian groups of friends, but it still takes longer to pass the word and get information to everyone and get everyone to follow along. BTW the last bit reminds me that it would be nice to have stragglers in the next engine rewrite. Perhaps giving move orders to "Pinned" units could result in a chance of additional "casualties" to represent those guys who "got lost" during the battle. [ November 03, 2003, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: tar ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted November 1, 2003 Share Posted November 1, 2003 Originally posted by tar: Rallying is probably a lot like most other group activities: The more people involved, the longer it takes to get anything done. Just notice how long it takes a group to manage to get out the door to go to dinner. The bigger the group, the longer it takes. Now military organizations with their hierarchical order systems are often a bit better about reducing some of the delay of disorganized civilian groups of friends, but it still takes longer to pass the word and get information to everyone and get everyone to follow along.Heh, that reminds me. Thirty years ago I was living on a commune, and sometimes of an evening a couple of us would decide on impulse to go to a movie or dinner or something. The call would go out for anyone who wanted to come along. I noted on thise excursions that the amount of time it took to actually get into the car and under way was roughly proportional to the square of the number of people involved. Perhaps in CM this is one of the things that causes the command delays, and longer delays for greener troops. BTW the last bit reminds me that it would be nice to have stragglers in the next engine rewrite. Perhaps giving move orders to "Pinned" units could result in a chance of additional "casualties" to represent those guys who "got lost" during the battle. This is a great idea that I support enthusiastically. I've often thought that green and conscript troops would be particularly vulnerable to this so that in the course of the battle much of their strength should just melt away without necessarily being counted as casualties in the final accounting. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted November 2, 2003 Share Posted November 2, 2003 Hmm... broods for a moment... I AM SPARTACUS! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jev.Dk Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 NO, I AM SPARTACUS!! Jev 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.