Are HQ units over powered superman or not

[Eric Alkema]

Another thing that the last holdout can do is spot for the remainder of the collective. If you need to be unobserved in order to pull a sneaky move, that last holdout can be very frustrating.

[lcm1947]

Ok now we are getting somewhere. I was hoping for this type of interest or at least ideas before performing the tests. I just know I've seen it far far too many times for it to be just my bad luck. God, at least I hope I'm not that unlucky. I'll finish up my test map

( that's what I call it ) and try to take down some good findings to report as soon as I get some time. Damn work. Thanks for the replies. I had just about given up on you guys as either being too busy or just not interested so glad I was wrong.

[lcm1947]

I just had a thought. Maybe the reason I see this phenomenal more then others is that I have always played my games with partial fog rather than full fog like 99.99 % of you guys do. Therefore I may be in a better position to notice what is happening with the enemy and thereby seeing it. This may very what be the case. Any thoughts on this discovery of mine?

[xerxes]

I would hope that "eliminating" the last 3 men out of a 10 man squad is much easier than wiping out a 3 man HQ. A squad that has already lost 70% of it's force is going to be very brittle in most cases. An HQ should be much stronger.

A fair number of "casualties" are just soldiers quiting the fight. This should occur more easily in a battered unit.

[Michael Emrys]

Xerxes has just made a very important point or two here. I hope everyone noticed.

Michael

[lcm1947]

OK, Xerxes I get your meaning and agree with you to an extent but then again I don't. I mean it shouldn't make any difference if you are the one man left out of a three man squad or 10 man squad if a bullet hits you you are down. Well, one way or the other. This is the fact that I am trying to come to grips with. In the game why would a General for that matter be less likely to get shot just because he's a General then a private or whatever? Now true that General may have some leadership abilities that help like Stealth or combat but this should be a very tiny benefit if he is under fire from a full squad or such. This is where I think BFC has got it wrong - to a degree. I just think they should act like any other human being when being fired on and that's what I am setting out to prove with my tests. So I guess I will bow out of this discussion until I can come up with some hard data. If I'm wrong well, it won't be the first time and if I'm right then -well, I can tell you, I told you so. I'll start another post on this subject when I have finished said tests. I do thank everybody that took the time to reply to this post whether you agreed or disagreed. I'll be back.

[JonS]

1) Not all 'casualties' in CM are due to "Ballistically Induced Appertures".

2) Some of them are simply down to guys saying'sod this for a game of soldiers - I'm off'.

3) 2) above is more likely to occur to the last few guys in a large quad than the first few guys in a small HQ.

4) Good luck with the tests!

[Michael Emrys]

To add to what Jon just said, although cowardly or incompetent leaders were not unkown, that wasn't the usual way they became leaders. If the last man standing in an HQ is the leader, which I think is the presumption based on the HQ's retention of its bonuses, it isn't too surprising that he would be the fightin'est hombre in the outfit.

Michael

[lcm1947]

There I have to disagree with you Michael. I don't think officers just because they were officers and while they no doubt recieved better

and more military training for sure were necessarily better or tougher fighters. If one had to point out the best figthers I would think it would be the sergeants if anyone. I know this is the feelings that BFC used for HQ units and while there is no doubt that they could be the one responsible for making an exceptional platoon or company, etc. they by themselves would be at a disadvandage if anything. They in my opinion would not be the toughest or meanest by any means in a unit. And this is my whole point I guess. They by themselves weren't all that bullet proof like the game makes them out to be. Anyway the test is coming along. I have 25 lanes set up at a lenght of 325 yards and have placed one HQ platoon against a regular infanty squad. Terrain is open. So my next step will be the most fun. Watching those HQ units stand up to a full rifle squad like they weren't even there. This should be interesting. Any bets on what happens? A dollar? Just kidding of course. I don't have a dollar. Saving up for CMAK.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by lcm1947:

There I have to disagree with you Michael. I don't think officers just because they were officers and while they no doubt recieved better

and more military training for sure were necessarily better or tougher fighters. If one had to point out the best figthers I would think it would be the sergeants if anyone.

Okay. You win that one. On the other hand, how do you know it isn't actually the platoon sergeant who is the last man standing.

They by themselves weren't all that bullet proof like the game makes them out to be.

Why do you keep obsessing on this point? Didn't you read what JonS posted yesterday? A casualty is not necessarily a wound. Some may represent a loss of nerve, or alternatively an exercise of good sense.

Michael

[xerxes]

Most of the casualties in CM are not bleeders and they don't want to become one.

(check an AAR screen and notice the low number of KIAs.)

HQs may be more resistant to firepower than they should be but I really don't know how one could determine such a thing.

[lcm1947]

OK Michael please excuse my repeated referring of actually being shot. I do realize it could mean wounded, shell shock or a number of other things. It's just easier to use one word like shot rather then list all the various conditions that it could be. I will start using the term casualty.

--------------------------------------------------

Quote by Xerxes

HQs may be more resistant to firepower than they should be but I really don't know how one could determine such a thing.

--------------------------------------------------

That is what I hope to show Xerxes. I am betting we will see that say a two man tank hunter team is modelled more realistically. To prove my point about HQ units I realize I will have to compare them againt another set of tests using some unit other than a HQ one so am thinking about a 2 man tank hunter team. I can't remember without looking if there are any other 3 man teams I could use, but I'll check.

[xerxes]

Ok, I tried a little test.

3 4-man axis HQs and one 6 man CO against 4 4-man Romanian lmgs at 60m (romanians in command, [one of the romanian commanders was a double lightning bolt and remained hidden], they have a firepower advantage at 60m). If either side lost sight they used move to contact to close the range.

All the units were in brush terrain.

Result:

HQs: 11 casualties out of 18 men, 3 KIA

LMGs: 2 casualties out of 16 men, 1 KIA

No unit on either side was eliminated. 2 of the HQs were down to 1 man. Both sides were low on ammo for the last 5-6 turns.

Conclusion: HQs lose to LMG teams. LMG teams have very little killing power and they still inflicted high casualties on the HQs.

[ September 20, 2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: xerxes ]

[Michael Emrys]

Okay, that's a data point, but I wouldn't draw any conclusions from it yet. It's a pretty small sample. Let's see what Lee comes up with.

Michael

[lcm1947]

Well it seems that I was incorrect after all. According to my tests Platoon HQ units have a few more casualties after 20 turns then a 2 man Tank Hunter Team and the Hunter Team has a few more then a 1 man sharpshooter. This all seems quite realistic to me. The larger the number of men involved the more casulties. One point of interest and JasonC will be happy to hear this. The German infantry squad never lost a man in any of the 3 different tests. All tests were comprised using 25 units per side. See below.

Turn 20 casualty count:

HQ units = 21

Hunter Team = 17

Sharpshooter = 12

Well, it was interesting and I have to admit I am very pleased with the results. Yes, pleased. I would rather be wrong then have something in the game wrong. I, like all of you love this game and am glad to see it is accurate. Please forgive me BFC for doubting. Good job guys!

Hope I didn't waste anybody's time too bad but thanks for everybody's patience especially yours Michael Emerys and your courtesy.

[mrcobbler]

OK Lee,

come on into those dark woods with your pixel men now and try to route my HQ's! They have capes and a big 'S' on their chest, not sure what that's supposed to mean...

Shoeman

[Michael Emrys]

Don't forget to issue the Kryptonite bullets to your men, Lee!

Michael

[xerxes]

It was a good question Lee. The problem you've faced with eliminated the last man or two in a HQ is solved by closing with the HQ. The HQ lacks the firepower to prevent this, you really can just overrun it.

[lcm1947]

Very funny Mrcobbler. I'll deal with you in a few minutes and you will believe my Kingtigers are supertanks when I get through with your bunch. Try to ambush me would you. :mad: Oh did you notice how unbullet proof those guns of your were?

Ok Michael that hurt.

Yes Xerxes I have slowly figured that out especially after this test because I actually continued it beyond what I reported. I gave the HQ units a 2 in combat experience but the results weren't very different at all from them not having this extra leadership ability. I was surprised and pleased with that result since it means that the extra abilities given to HQ units only effects them a very small or tiny amount which is what I feel is realistic. The actual result was after turn 20 the casualty count was 20 compared to the count of 21 without the 2 combat ability. Anyway, getting back to your comment Xerxes I did notice that the closer the infantry squad gets the more damage it does. This certainly makes sense also. I haven't thought of the other part of your comment though that the HQ unit wouldn't be able to stop or hurt the attacking squad very much so this is useful info. I'll have to remember so thank you. All this work was very interesting and I am glad I did it and it did teach me to test before spouting off.

[JasonC]

On the LMG team test, I'd avoid having the shooters get +2 combat bonus because it could easily give special case, misleading results. Especially when the fp is low so the chance of an actual hit on a given shot is low (because I suspect +combat may impact a raw percentage chance, aka act like a "die roll modifier).

On lcm's data, it confirms my sense of how it works. Here is the little fact I noticed in the reported data.

25 3 man HQ teams means 75 men. 21 hit means 28%.

25 2 man THs means 50 men. 17 hit means 34%.

25 snipers means 25 men. 12 hits means 48%.

Now, watch grasshopper -

.28 times 21 = 5.88

.34 times 17 = 5.78

.48 times 12 = 5.76

Specific lethality of the fire faced, around 5.8

A higher percentage of the fewer men are hit, when all the firepower is directed only at them. But fewer men are hit overall when shooting at the smaller targets. The product of the expected hits and the expected percentage hit is a constant, set by the amount of fp delivered.

Now the question is does this only apply to small units, or does it scale all the way up to squad size? A test with half squads vs. squads as the targets would seem to be in order.

Or -

21/12 = 1.75, 3 men vs. 1, 3^.5 = 1.73

17/12 = 1.42, 2 men vs. 1, 2^.5 = 1.41

21/17 = 1.24, 3 men vs. 2, 1.5^.5 = 1.22

So the same fire hitting a 12 man squad instead of a 3 man HQ should put down twice the number of men. That's a testable prediction. Do zero out the ammo of the target, though, so it doesn't suppress the shooter back and introduce a different incoming fp complication.

[ September 21, 2003, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[Joachim]

[Deleted after I read the full thread ]

[ September 24, 2003, 04:18 AM: Message edited by: Scarhead ]