Armored Vehicle Company HQs

[Shmavis]

I'm just curious as to why there aren't any. Was it too complicated to implement? :confused:

[Sergei]

There weren't tank platoons in CMBO, just independent tanks. That was implemented in CMBB because it was necessary for modelling the differences between tanks with and without radios. You still can't buy AFV companies, so you don't get tank company commanders either.

[Shmavis]

I appreciate your response, but it really doesn't answer my question. If there are infantry company and battalion HQs, what about the armored vehicles? Would a company just be too large of a formation for a tactical scenario? It seems like having a company command vehicle present might help maintain command influence, say, if a platoon leader's vehicle was knocked out or abandoned.

[eichenbaum]

Most armoured cars like the German PSW had been made swift enough for reconnaissance tasks. They were used to find holes in de lines and penetrate deep into enemy territory. If you would try this with companies in a CM size environment then there's no 'low profile' left to be unspotted. Späh- and Aufklärung had often independed HQ for recon patrols; Mostly Lieutenants.

I think that BigTime left the companies out because it would be not realistic enough to place them on a regular CM map.

Nils

[ July 02, 2004, 03:57 AM: Message edited by: eichenbaum ]

[Sergei]

I think he meant AFV's in general, Nils...

You'd have to ask from Steve and Charles themselves, but I suspect that it simply has to do with that platoons were implemented afterwards and there never were intentions to introduce any more complicated C&C for tanks. I mean, even the AFV platoons are optional, you can buy them independently if you wish and get no command penalties. Another reason for not including companies could be that then you'd have to find out the tank company TO&E's for each and every army at all times, which would be difficult - mixed companies were used at times, etc.

Definately tank companies are not too large for the game (just 10 T-34's), I've even played a scenario with two tank battalions. But command and control is not where the focus of the game is.

[Joachim]

Guess the designers never thought we would really play btn sized armor battles.

I'd question the current model for infantry formations. Why can any Co HQ take over any squad, but a "lone" plt HQ can't? Why doesn't the senior squad leader take over a plt once the HQ team is gone?

Why doesn't the 2nd in command take over if the HQ tank is gone? Why doesn't the Plt commander just board another tank? Why can a killed/wounded TC still command a plt if his tank is still alive?

You solve one question and lots of other problems arise.

Gruß

Joachim

[YankeeDog]

Only Charles and/or Steve could answer this question for sure, but my thoughts on this issue:

-- While there are certainly larger scenarios that feature company formations of an individual AFV type, most scenarios are somewhat smaller than this. They may not have felt it was really worth the additional effort.

-- For some AFVs, the company commander was in a different type of vehicle than the rest of the company. For example, ISU-152 & -122 Company commanders often rode in a KV-1. I don't think CM's C&C modeling can presently handle vehicle formations of mixed type. For example, German 251 Halftracks should technically be purchasable as a platoon of 3x251/1 and a plt HQ of a 251/10, since that's the way they were usually organized. Not being able to represent tank formations of mixed type may have been one factor in not representing Company-sized armored elements.

-- Also, I think you can make the argument that CMBB & CMAK do abstractly model the presence of Company armored HQs. If you compare the command delay of an out-of-command, radioless AFV and that of a out-of-command, radio-equipped AFV, you'll see that the radio-equipped vehicle still has a shorter command delay. In an abstract manner, I think this could represent that fact that the radio-equipped vehicle can still receive orders from the Company HQ by radio, even though it has lost contact with its platoon HQ. It makes sense to me that there would be *some* additional command delay penalty for receiving orders directly from the Company HQ, since the Company HQ is presumably further away, and also has lots of other things to worry about (see below). It also makes since that the morale penalty for losing the platoon or troop commander remains; it would be a pretty jarring experience for an AFV crew to lose their immediate superior commander. Unlike an infantry Coy commander, an armored Coy commander can't usually physically show himself to the troops and speak directly to them to rally them; he is usually limited to an (often poor quality) radio connection.

-- IRL, I think it would be fairly difficult for an Armored Company commander to take direct command of a subordinate platoon and still command the rest of the company -- he's only one officer with one radio (actually, usually 2, but the second is for communicating with battalion and other higher elements), and he can't abandon the rest of the Company entirely. Infantry Coy commanders have a bit of an advantage here in that they have both a Company XO and a Company NCO they can assign to run forward to take over a stricken platoon or command the rest of the Company while they jump into the fray. Armored commanders do not generally have this option.

Overall, though, I would eventually like to see Armored Company HQs in CM. In fact, as the next engine is likely to model radio nets and other C&C issues in more detail, it will probably be pretty important to represent them in some way. When and if they are represented, I also think it's important that armored company HQs should be expensive to lose both in terms of victory points, and also in terms of the cohesion of the remainder of the Armored Company. Armored Company HQs could and did rush forward into the fray when the situation required, but losing such a valuable command unit should cost the player dearly.

Cheers,

YD

[YankeeDog]

To Joachim's questions:

Losing an entire Infantry Company HQ represents the loss of not only the actual commander, but also the XO and the Company NCO. A Company without all three of these figures would certainly be in dire straits, and I think not allowing individual platoon commanders to take over other "headless" squads/platoons helps represent this. After all, you don't *completely* lose control of squads that lose their HQ -- you just have to pay a command and morale penalty. To me, these penalties represent the loss in efficiency and cohesion resulting when the senior squad NCO, or the XO or plt NCO from an adjacent platoon takes over. Again, CM is pretty generous in that you have to lose the *entire* command unit before you start incurring command penalties. IRL, this means the platoon HQ, XO, and NCO are all dead or incapacitated (or simply too far away to do any good). Honestly, I think it's pretty generous that such a platoon can simply be taken over by a Company HQ without incurring further command and morale penalty.

With this said, Company commanders could and did sometimes shift individual squads or teams from one platoon to another when the situation dictated, and entire platoons were sometimes temporarily reassigned to another Company commander when the tactical situation dictated. This would be tricky to model correctly. There's a big difference between a temporary reassignment that's part of a tactical plan, and an ad hoc takeover of a squad or platoon on the fly. At present, CM doesn't differentiate between these two situations. Perhaps BFC will surprise us and come up with an elegant way of modeling this in the future.

As far as Armored command structure, again I think that you can abstractly assume the 2nd in command has taken over the platoon when the HQ is lost. A completely leaderless platoon would be totally out of command and presumably controlled by the TacAI only (i.e. "Panicked" or worse in morale state). You pay a command delay and morale penalty because the platoon is under less experienced/unfamiliar leadership and has just gone through the trauma of losing their CO, but you do not lose control of them entirely.

As far as Plt commanders acquiring a new vehicle (usually by displacing the TC of one of their subordinate tanks), this certainly could and did happen. I suspect here it was simply that this would be a very tricky thing to model. Presumably. you'd have to get the HQ crew next to another tank, and then there would have to be some kind of "switch crew" command. Once the crews were switched, presumably the Plt HQ would take over the Platoon again. Sounds very tricky to model. If they are going to take this challenge on at all, I'm not at all surprised that BFC decided to wait for the new engine.

As far as a wounded/killed Plt HQ still commanding his platoon, CM doesn't model who in the AFV crew has been killed or wounded at all right now, so it's impossible to say whether it's the TC, or some other crew member who becomes a casualty. In some situations, such as when a sharpshooter causes a casualty to an unbuttoned AFV crew, it more than likely it the TC who gets injured/killed. Loaders and Drivers also often unbutton to lend extra pair of eyes, though, and with partial penetrations and the like, it could be any of the crew that gets wounded.

Right now, CM is generous and assumes that the Plt HQ is not the first member of the tank crew to get hit. It will take a more detailed casualty model for crews to do otherwise.

Cheers,

YD

[Denwad]

I like to guess on penetrations , such as when the front turret of a Pz-IIIL gets punched through with a 122mm round only 2 bail out I assume it's the driver and bow gunner.

[eichenbaum]

I think he meant AFV's in general, Nils...

Oh... I didn't read the topic title properly, sorry

[Shmavis]

Wow! I didn't expect such a response. Thanks for the help, everyone!

[Splinty]

I don't know how relevant this is to CMBB, but in an American tank company both the Co. XO and the Co. 1SG, (Der Spiess to the Germans, and the Co. Senior Sergeant to the Russians)rode with the company trains. The 1SG handled "beans and bullets" and the XO took care of the company's organic maintainance units along with acting as liason with higher level maintainance and recovery units.

If the CO was put out of action, then the XO would take charge of the fight. The 1SG wouldn't get directly involved the fighting unless all the officers in the Co. were out of action.

At the platoon level the Platoon Leader and the Platoon Sergeant always rode in separate vehicles so that the Plt. Sgt. could take command of the platoon as needed.