Are HQ units over powered superman or not

[lcm1947]

I am going to be conducting some tests to proof once and for all if the title is true or in my own imagination. I have been frustrated time after time with what I feel is way overmodelling of these units all the way back to CMBO and while there have been discussions and debates on the subject no one has proven one way or the other if it's true. Now we or at least I will put this nagging question to rest one way or the other. Now the reason I am posting here is to get input on how the setup should be conducted. My main point being I don't want to run all these tests to have someone point out that they were flawed for one reason or another so am asking for your help here. Anyone have any criterion that I should use in these tests. First I will be using Russian HQ units verus a German squad. Terrain will be flat and weather clear and bright. Distance will be set at 350 meters or does the game go by yards. Well, which ever is used. I think that's about it. I will hold off for awhile to see if anyone cares to chime in and if not I'll run as is. Course no one else may be interested and that's fine but it's driving me crazy and I just have to stop all this cursing in front of my computer. My wife is threating to wash my mouth out with soap if I don't.

[Dave H]

Sounds to me like a Russian HQ versus a German infantry squad at 350 meters will be a serious mismatch. The HQ will have rifles, but most German squads will include a LMG. At 350 meters, the HQ should be totally outgunned.

I'm not sure what you're trying to prove here. Could you be a little more specific than just calling the HQs "over powered supermen"? Are you testing their firepower, their morale, or what? :confused:

[Michael Emrys]

Yeah, Dave is right. You need to better define just what it is you want to find out. Based on earlier posts, I think you feel that duels between HQs and squads are being won by the HQs too often. And from the description of your test set-up it sounds like that's the line you are pursuing.

But I don't think your test as described is sufficiently rigorous. For one thing, what you should really be asking is whether a Red HQ is better in battle than a Red squad, given the same bonuses, etc. Thus, you should run two (at a minimum) sets of tests, one pitting the German squad against just the HQ and another against a Red squad with the HQ located so that it provides its bonuses to the Red squad but can take no direct part in the combat. Then you should do the same thing for the other side: a German HQ, etc. Then you should run each set at least a hundred times (you can make a set-up that will allow you to do several at a time) so as to provide a statistically meaningful result.

Michael

[Jim Boggs]

I have encountered die hard HQ's when advancing and have had them hold out for an inordinate amount of time against infantry squads.

I attributed it to higher morale.

"Lieutenant, we must retreat or we will be shot!"

"If you retreat, I will shoot you"

You know "higher morale".

[zukkov]

i'll be the first to say that whatever your result, you were just unlucky. lol...

[Porajkl]

I think Icm wants to prove unbelievable surviability of HQ units. Even if BFC says they are not, we all know how long does it take to exterminate a HQ unit. Yesterday my Pz-IV poured some 15 76mm HE shells (plus machinegun fire) into one enemy unit and it stayed alive!!! From 15-20 meters distance. I immediately knew it was a HQ unit. No other infantry unit survives so long! And after the unit finally started running away, it has been identified: yes, 3-persons HQ unit. And guess what - only one person was dead!!! 2 were still alive after close shelling with 15 HE's. They are supermans, definitely! No other unit survises as long as HQ. I don't know why BFC did this. Any ideas? The bonuses they have can't help that much against bunch of HE shells, you know.

[Monty]

Well,i guess i'm the only CMBB user who's HQ units die like flies......

Monty

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Monty:

Well,i guess i'm the only CMBB user who's HQ units die like flies......

Monty

Monty

You misunderstand. It's the other guy's HQ's that are overpowering.

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Monty:

Well,i guess i'm the only CMBB user who's HQ units die like flies......

Monty

I wish! My experience has been that my HQ can be totally engulfed within an entire friendly platoon, but enemy infantry will always target the HQ first. My HQ must be as glaringly obvious as an FO in the back of a truck two kilometers away.

Sorry, couldn't resist using Soddball's pet peeve.

[Soddball]

:mad: If I was still taking on opponents on CM:BB, you'd be first against the wall, boaaayyy. :mad:

Wait till Afrika Korps comes out, then you're going to get punished, and your Sig will read: "I was soundly thrashed by Soddball whilst sitting in a truck at 2km range." :mad:

[Jim Boggs]

Originally posted by Dave H:

My HQ must be as glaringly obvious as an FO in the back of a truck two kilometers away.

Sorry, couldn't resist using Soddball's pet peeve.

Careful Dave. You know how sensitive the good Brit can be.

He's liable to get his yarbles in a wad.

[edit]-Oops! Too late with the warning.

[ September 15, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Jim Boggs ]

[Dave H]

Originally posted by Jim Boggs:

Careful Dave. You know how sensitive the good Brit can be.

He's liable to get his yarbles in a wad.

Who's the good Brit?? :confused:

Oh, you mean Soddball? Did you notice it only took him 9 minutes to find that little comment, blow his top, and then to post? Very impressive, I must say. It must the result of years of practice.

This whole issue of superman-like HQs sounds like people are using them to try taking out armor, and the tanks aren't killing the HQs fast enough. Or is there something I've missed that makes HQs so indestructible?

[lcm1947]

Thanks for the comments Dave H and Michael Emrys (ignoring the hordes.) Dave H that's true that pitting these two units agaist each other will be a mismatch but that's my whole point. A HQ unit be it a platoon level or higher of 3 or 5 guys shouldn't be able to stand up to a squad of 9 to 12 soldiers and not get killed or broken. At least not in the time period I've seen. I had one case very recenly where I had 48 soldiers firing at a Company HQ unit for something like 5 turns and then the HQ unit finally sneaks off. True a couple of the men got hit but they didn't panic or anything just ducked down for all this time and then decides they had enough and sneaks off. They were in wooded trees but only around 100 yards away. I couldn't believe it.

Michael Emrys what do you think I am a robot or jobless? That would surely be great and proof beyond a doubt but man I don't have that kind of time or patience. I am just trying to see for myself what is going on. If nothing else it will satisfy me and maybe a few others that have seen it happen. Who knows maybe others will start some tests of their own just to see. Now I don't expect BFC will redo their work based on my primitive tests but maybe it'll satisfy me because to me it is bothersome. Anyway I was off today and thought I'd do it but damn look at the time. Anyway, for sure your way would prove something but my way will satisfy me or maybe not. So thanks for the reply but I'll have to pass on the months of testing.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

Michael Emrys what do you think I am a robot or jobless? That would surely be great and proof beyond a doubt but man I don't have that kind of time or patience. I am just trying to see for myself what is going on. If nothing else it will satisfy me and maybe a few others that have seen it happen. Who knows maybe others will start some tests of their own just to see. Now I don't expect BFC will redo their work based on my primitive tests but maybe it'll satisfy me because to me it is bothersome. Anyway I was off today and thought I'd do it but damn look at the time. Anyway, for sure your way would prove something but my way will satisfy me or maybe not. So thanks for the reply but I'll have to pass on the months of testing.

Okay, first off the test I suggested would not be proof beyond doubt, but it would be rather stronger than a few random anecdotes or half a dozen controlled tests. Proof beyond doubt (if such a thing can be said to exist, and that is not a phrase you would catch me using) would require at least a thousand runs, given CM's propensity not only for "anything can happen" but "furthermore, it can happen many times despite what you may think the odds are". It's sort of a variation on the 50-50-90 rule: If there's a 50/50 chance you'll get it right, 90% of the time you'll get it wrong.

Secondly, running a hundred tests really won't take much longer than running ten if you set it up right. Just create a map that has ten lanes separated from each other by impermeable barriers and surround your units with water so they can't move off the square you've placed them on. After that, you just keep hitting Go and keep notes on who dies and how long it takes. Once you get your map made, you can run 10X10 tests in a couple of hours. Heck, you can do that while your boss isn't watching.

Michael

[JasonC]

lcm - my prediction is that all you are noticing is a greater difficulty hurter small units, and in particular the last men in units, than large units and the first men in units. In some small portion of cases, you may also be seeing random fanaticism resulting in no-panic units.

There is an HQ problem only if (1) the supposed invunerability leaves the unit being shot at *effective*, not *alive*; (2) it is different for the last 2 men in an HQ than the last 2 men in an HMG team; (3) it happens regularly or more often for HQs than for random units (if random fanaticism is sometimes involved); (4) the unit not only lives but remains in good order morale states (because CM basically treats broken as effectively dead, and so should CM players).

You don't have to exterminate units to render them ineffective, and HQs are so poorly armed you can generally do whatever you please around them as though they weren't even there, if they have no other units to lead - especially if you have anything firing at them. Ignore them instead of dumping every round you have at the smallest possible target.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JasonC:

lcm - my prediction is that all you are noticing is a greater difficulty hurter small units, and in particular the last men in units, than large units and the first men in units. In some small portion of cases, you may also be seeing random fanaticism resulting in no-panic units.

There is an HQ problem only if (1) the supposed invunerability leaves the unit being shot at *effective*, not *alive*; (2) it is different for the last 2 men in an HQ than the last 2 men in an HMG team; (3) it happens regularly or more often for HQs than for random units (if random fanaticism is sometimes involved); (4) the unit not only lives but remains in good order morale states (because CM basically treats broken as effectively dead, and so should CM players).

You don't have to exterminate units to render them ineffective, and HQs are so poorly armed you can generally do whatever you please around them as though they weren't even there, if they have no other units to lead - especially if you have anything firing at them. Ignore them instead of dumping every round you have at the smallest possible target.

On an unrelated note, I had responded to your post in this thread: It is in danger of slipping off the page so I thought I would mention it.

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=008576;p=1

[lcm1947]

I understand your point JasonC and sure wouldn't argue with you about it anyway as I can't see myself coming in 1st place when it comes to infor on this game. So that is probably right or I should say is right and should be the end of it but since I got it all set up anyway I'll run it 100 times or so or until I get bored just for grins. I appreciate your reply as always though. At least I can console myself with why it happens now anyway. Also I agree with you that they aren't much of a danger so why not ignore them. Well, actually I can answer that. They piss me off so bad I even take the time to go hunt them down and kill them, that's how mad I get. Kind of silly but it feels good.

Oh and Michael Emrys that is exactly how I set up my testing map, as I call it. If what you say is true and I don't doubt it then my test seems - well kind of simple. But hey I'm a simple kind of guy so I'll just run them to see what actually happens. So if what you are saying is true then if my test shows that the infantry units always win then it's probably incorrect and the HQ units actually should have won. Right?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

So if what you are saying is true then if my test shows that the infantry units always win then it's probably incorrect and the HQ units actually should have won. Right?

Er, you're pulling my leg, right?

I seriously doubt that the squads are gonna "always win" simply because of the freaky things that can happen in CM. But with a hundred trials you should start to see a trend in that direction...I would think.

Michael

[Halberdier]

Speaking of super HQ's, in the Op that I'm currently playing I have a couple of German Platoon HQ's that each have one man left in them with a rifle that I decided to "dispose of" by having them charge a known enemy position. I had better Company HQ's and didn't want have to think about them. Oh, realism...uh..they went berserk after losing their HQ-mates. Yah, that's it.

Anyways, I expected them to be wiped out pretty quick (even the Crack one) but noooooo. The Crack one charged through the open and cleared out a lightly wooded area. Actually the Soviet units had been bombarded, there was a nearly defunct squad that preceded the HQ unit, and I'm sure that the Soviet units were already Broken/Panicked and down to the last. The other 1-man super HQ Regular unit went into the open but only found shy Broken units who ran before it. But it sure looked impressive.

I know that these units have to be Fanatic, which goes to show what Fanaticism can do (I haven't yet checked to see what the setting is in this Op).

In your test you will need to set HQ's w/no bonus, same experience level, edit so that enemy squad and HQ have same number of men and all have PPSh, and set Fanaticism to None -- if possible. (IIRC the minimum Fanaticism is 25%, but IUDNRC or make them all Green).

Having said all that, it has been my qualitative observation that HQ units are not broken in that way. It is just more memorable when they, in game terms, perform superbly. (Though I wish I could remember the last time a Tank Hunter team performed "superbly".)

Cheers!

-gabe-

[ September 16, 2003, 05:32 PM: Message edited by: Halberdier ]

[lcm1947]

Yeah Michael I was just pulling your leg. Made you think for a minute though didn't it?

Say Halberdier I had already intended to do what you suggested but how do you get the numbers down in a squad to equal a HQ unit. Just asking.

That's funny about your two lone HQ units pulling a John Wayne on those troopers. I bet it was somewhat of a shock to see them pull it off but that's just about what happens to me when I encounter enemy HQ units and is the reason for the testing. Oh and I couldn't agree with you more about the Tank Hunter teams. At least when they're mine. Now the enemies seem quite capable and have done a lot of damage to my surprise. Mine on the other hand are cowards and sissies.

[The Green Rascal]

I think some may have missed the obvious point about potential uber HQ units being effective or not. To be really effective all they have do is to continue to exist without breaking, and they will be giving their bonuses to every unit within radius. A HQ giving morale and combat bonuses can enable it's subordinates to hold an entire section of the battlefield together and will be decisive in the outcome of a game.

FWIW I have seen HQ units take an unrealstic amount of punishment many times, and in a current PBEm I have had almost an entire company of PzG plus 2 HMGs plus 2 Stugs fire at a Russian HQ for 6 turns and it still is sitting there in some woods holding the troops aound it together. I suspect the Stugs will be out of HE before it breaks at this rate.

ISTM that HQs may very frequently go fanatic which proctects their morale, and are very difficult to kill perhaps due to small size or some other factor/bug which will make them 'uber' in many games.

[lcm1947]

A very good point Green Rascal and one I knew about but failed to bring up. Now that you got me thinking another problem is that they could distract a tank from firing on an enemy tank or one that was approching them. So yeah it does effect the realism of the game in more ways than one. So it's still a problem and I think it should be addressed but so few people seem concerned with it I'm afraid we'll just have to live with it.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by The Green Rascal:

I think some may have missed the obvious point about potential uber HQ units being effective or not. To be really effective all they have do is to continue to exist without breaking, and they will be giving their bonuses to every unit within radius.

That depends. That's more or less true of company and above HQs, but platoon leaders can only control members of their own platoons and any teams. And even company HQs won't control any units that have either their organic HQs or some other higher HQ closer at hand.

But your point is understood.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

So it's still a problem and I think it should be addressed but so few people seem concerned with it I'm afraid we'll just have to live with it.

Not necessarily. If you can come up with convincing data and present it in a coherent format, I'm confident that BFC would be interested for the engine rewrite.

For my part, I remain sceptical that the people complaining about this are seeing anything more than bad luck, but they could have a point and it would be useful to see this matter settled.

Michael

[JasonC]

I understand the stubbornness in chucking ammo after that last guy. And I see nothing wrong with testing it to see how hard it actually is - both with last HQ men and with last HMG men. And I understand HQs continue to command if in order, just as HMGs can continue to fire with a man left. In either case, if you break them they aren't a threat (rally may be a bit more likely for the HQ I suppose).

The point is the game may be rewarding firing at good order enemy squads and penalizing stubborn scalpel fire direction at last holdouts. And I don't think that is all bad. The size of the difference could still be too large.

The comment about tankhunters also fits my experience. So maybe it is not absolute number of men in a unit, but related to the full size as well. That is, something is going as 1/n, n the original number of men in the unit. Making the last man in an HQ, the last pair in an HMG team, and potentially the last 2-3 in a squad, particularly hard to hit.

If so it would be worth knowing. That is what I would look for if I were running such tests.