c3k Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Gents, I'm in the midst of an operation. I have several German tank platoons and the Russians have Sturmoviks. We all know how this'll end. Yep, with their latest load-out of HARM's, the Il-2's have enerringly ferreted out, located, targeted and destroyed my HQ tanks. Just like it really happened. Okay, great. That battle ends. The next battle begins. In between, reinforcements appear, casualties are evacuated, squads are rearranged if they took too many casualties, ammo is resupplied, units get to relocate. The usual military stuff during a pause in a battle. BUT NO NEW HQ TANK STEPS UP!! Chain of command? Bah. This is what must've happened: "Hey, Hans!" "Ja, Franz?" "Did you see how Luetnent Jurgen's tank was destroyed?" "Ja, Franz. Many flames. Much fire. Bad for Jurgen." "Well, Hans, one of us needs to be in charge." "Ja, Franz. I say YOU be in charge." "No, Hans. It would be best for me if YOU took over." Instead, they agree to run around like a headless mob for the rest of the operation. C'mon. How about the lowest numbered vehicle in a platoon gets the HQ moniker with no command or morale bonus? The military is based on the concept of chain of command with lower ranks stepping up when needed to take command. Would a platoon sergeant NOT take charge of a platoon when the LT goes down? Same thing with tanks, especially given a pause in the fighting. Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 You can command the remaining tanks with infantry HQs. This is nice as it gives access to combat bonuses and possibly stealth bonuses 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joachim Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: You can command the remaining tanks with infantry HQs. This is nice as it gives access to combat bonuses and possibly stealth bonuses Now this is something I have to try! Gruß Joachim 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: You can command the remaining tanks with infantry HQs.You sure about that? I thought that was eliminated in 1.01. :confused: Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eichenbaum Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Originally posted by flamingknives: You can command the remaining tanks with infantry HQs. This is nice as it gives access to combat bonuses and possibly stealth bonuses I thought that the CMBB manual says "Infantry HQ cannot take command over Tanks..." ? Eichenbaum 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzman Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 They come under the HQs command and reduces their command delay but they have no bonus. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted July 16, 2003 Author Share Posted July 16, 2003 Yes, I noticed the infantry HQ can put a vehicle "in command". Having not rigorously tested this (in fact, not testing it at all), it seems as if the vehicle needs to be un-buttoned for this to work. It could be that in the cases I saw, the buttoned up tanks were just too far away. <shrug> Regardless, doesn't it seem bizarre that the next highest ranking individual would not take charge? I.e., the others would defer to his leadership? (An argument can be made that HQ tanks were specialized. Indeed, early war HQ tanks had their main armament removed to make room for the needed radio sets. This is not simulated. Therefore, ANY tank of the platoon should be able to take over.) Just my idea for the next iteration of this game. The same "step up and take charge" philosophy could apply to infantry platoons who lose their HQ in a battle. Take some guys away from the squads or other HQ's and give the leaderless platoon a non-bonused HQ. Or use them to lead the human wave. Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
von Nev Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 To confirm this from a battle last night, I lost my German command HQ recon vehicle. The other vehicles were then linked to the closest infantry platoon commander. von Nev 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 This is definitly an issue that I feel needs to be addressed in CMAK or at least CMX2. Being able to assign units to commanders and to designate commanders would be a worthy addition. A quick note about unarmed command tanks. The "befehlswagen" were battalion and higher assets. They were made to carry really powerful radios as well as have space for maps and other command goodies. Regular command tanks such as those in companies and platoons were just regular tanks with maybe an extra radio and antena. In all other respects they were just normal tanks. That is why they are not modelled in the game, there are no higher level command tanks in CMBB. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Very interesting. So the infantry-commands-tank 'bug' from months ago has turned into the infantry-commands-tank FEATURE! I haven't played an operation in a dog's age. I'm going to have to download a few new operations off the web and give it a try. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukkov Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 wasn't it common for company/platoon commanders that had their tank knocked out to take over one of their subordinate's tanks?(assuming they survived of course)... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Yes it was. While regular crews were expected to either head for the rear or try to help recover their tank (if it was possible) leaders were expected to find some way to keep leading. This is true in nearly every army, at least every good one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schoerner Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): Yes it was. While regular crews were expected to either head for the rear or try to help recover their tank (if it was possible) leaders were expected to find some way to keep leading. This is true in nearly every army, at least every good one. So this wasn't done in the US-army? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General Lee Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 would it not make sense also for the crew members who are not killed, specifically the commander, to take command of an undestroyed tank. :confused: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Tondu Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq): This is definitly an issue that I feel needs to be addressed in CMAK or at least CMX2........ What in the world...? I reported this way back and was told that it was fixed! Why wait for CMAK? BFC should live up to their word and do it now. [ July 16, 2003, 08:38 PM: Message edited by: Le Tondu ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madmatt Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Guys, this is not a bug but rather a limitation of how the code works with regards to HQ's. Basically the game can not "promote" a unit to be a HQ between battles so it must use an existing HQ to take over. Having Infantry HQ's take over for a killed vehicle Platoon HQ in Operations was the easiest way to do this. It was either that or not have ANY HQ assume command of a vehicle platoon. So you may disagree with this design decission but it will not (as far I know) change in CMAK. Madmatt 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.