The HQ bonus concept

[Scipio]

Inspired by another threat, have I thought about the HQ-bonus concept - and to be true, I can't imagine the thoughts behind it, and what should be abstracted with it.

a) stealth - is a question of training. But the unit is trained before the battle, so how can a HQ influence it in the short period of a CM battle?

combat - same, training

c) moral - well, not training, but I guess it falls in a similar category. The moral depends on the 'spirit' of the men before the battle. The unit may trust his leader, or they know that they will get food, supply, medics etc when they are in command of their HQ, but that are all questions of a long time, maybe important if we had a campaign, but not in the (maximum) one hour of a CM battle.

d) command - okay, this makes sense. The better a HQ unit can forward orders, the faster the subunits can execute them.

So, I think it would be a good idea if each unit has it's own bonuses, independent from any HQ. The only bonus that makes a benefit for subunits is the command delay.

BTW, how about a 'negative bonus' (don't know the correct English term). I guess especially conscript and green troops can be below the avarage (if we assume that no bonus = average).

[CMplayer]

I disagree about morale anyway. I think the idea is that a really good officer is charismatic and bucks up the troops.

[Mud]

I could see stealth bonuses from the HQ, if the HQ officers are directing them as to what cover is appropriate or stopping the soldiers from firing too early and spoiling an ambush. Firepower is stranger, 'tho; better marksmanship doesn't make that much sense, so it'd have to deal with how the fire is coordinated, say.

[Mattias]

I disagree on all counts.

I never was much of a platoon commander but I am absolutely certain that a more able, mature or well trained (gotta to think positive) leader in my position could influence all these factors. And yes, within the scope of a single CM battle.

Beside my real life impression, hell, make that experience for once, I see the HQ as an abstraction of the leader ability of the whole platoon. A good platoon commander inspires the squad leaders and make them look out for badly packed or clumsy soldiers, makes them lead the fire instead of firing themselves, makes them trust the judgment of the commander and project this to the soldiers and fosters good command and signals procedure within the platoon.

The fact is that the training in never over and it is only in very well trained and led units that the edge is maintained. And, again, this is very, very, very much up to the individual leader.

A "bad" squad can most definitely be fired up by a good commander, in all the aspects portrayed in CM. Quite! Stay down! Run now! Wait for it! Get over here! MG on the right! Use hand signals! If the squad leader doesn't cut it the Platoon leader or his second in command must intervene.

Hmm.. Like I said, I never was that good, too much shouting...

--

Woha, my 1000th post, do I get some kind of bonus or gift now? An invitation to the Beta forum perhaps

--

M.

[ May 06, 2002, 12:49 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Moon]

Just a few counter-points -

Stealth - means fire discipline (guys keeping their fingers off their triggers when they see a juicy target), coordination of movement (it takes experience to coordinate a platoon move so that it remains unseen from the enemy) and also picking good hiding spots and covered approaches

Combat - better, more effective, coordination of fires, bringing a higher volume of fire in shorter time on the juicier target; as well as better positioning of "firers" with visibility to the target, so more men in a squad can fire at the same time (this increases firepower)

Morale - leading by example (being the first one who gets up and charges), getting people to overcome their fear to get up and fight, give short precise orders that make the soldiers feel that things are under control and so on...

Command - this is more than just forwarding orders. It includes giving clear short orders by sign, sound or signals over distance for example. It also includes the ability to preplan on the small tactical level, coordinating moves and generally having soldiers a good idea of what they're actually trying to do.

[Cameroon]

I won't even try to give reasons for how HQs give their bonuses (other than moral -- see CMPlayer's post). I've always read the bonuses as "For whatever reason, this commander inspires those under his command to perform above and beyond their normal abilities."

Maybe because he keeps them more disciplined, so their fire control is better, their movement is stealthier and so on. Maybe the respect him so much they try harder. Whatever the reasons, the effect is exceptional performance from otherwise "normal" troops. So I don't have a problem with the HQ bonuses as they are.

[Redwolf]

Read David Hackworth if you doubt the leader makes short-term differences in any of these.

[Sarge Saunders]

HQ bonuses are modelled fine IMHO. But there are 2 caveats to this I think. 1) There seem to be far too many platoon HQs that have bonuses when chosen in a QB or the scenario default. It seems that there should be more plain "vanilla" officers. I have read many more accounts of WWII veterans complaining about officers than I have praising them. Given this I feel that commanders with bonuses at all should be 'slightly' rarer and thus their effect on the battle would be greater and perhaps more realistic. 2) If the HQ represents bonuses for the entire unit, then all that bonus should not be lost when the platoon HQ is KIA (expect morale perhaps). I guess what I mean is that there where many more Sargeants and other non-coms that possesed excellent tactical ability and could impart that onto soldiers within a CM scale battle.

-Sarge

[Mattias]

Sarge S,

Agree completely with you on number 1, the CM playing field is usually filled with excellent and superlative leaders, something that only serves to dilute feeling of there being anything special with them. Instead of treasuring a bonus I find myself begrudge the lack of one...

Nr. 2 sounds like it would be a little more "into the details". I mean, the "longevity" of the HQ's could, if you like, be interpreted as the good leadership stemming from more than one individual. Below that there is the squad experience to fall back on. A more detailed version could, in it's extreme, form model the bonuses for every new ad hock leader that takes command as the squad is decimated. I think I see what you mean though..

M.

[xerxes]

I'd agree that good bonus leaders seem to be too common. I also really think that the bonuses should be added to the knockout value of an HQ. Losting a +2+2+2+2 HQ is a HUGE loss to a battalion, losing a +0+0+0+0 HQ might be to the units benefit.

-marc s

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Mattias:

Nr. 2 sounds like it would be a little more "into the details". I mean, the "longevity" of the HQ's could, if you like, be interpreted as the good leadership stemming from more than one individual. Below that there is the squad experience to fall back on. A more detailed version could, in it's extreme, form model the bonuses for every new ad hock leader that takes command as the squad is decimated. I think I see what you mean though..

Yeah I guess Number 2 above may actually be two seperate issues within the one. OK, fine. A platoon LT goes KIA and the whole platoon suffers. Platoon sargeants (as opposed to squad sargeants) would be part of the platoon HQ anyway.

The other bit about quality squad sargeants making a big impact on the battle....tough to model without giving individual squads bonus attributes. Scenario designers can model this with veteran or crack status. What happens when the LT dies? Does a quality non-com take command? Sure. It happened all the time. I am not talking about battlefield commisions (outside the scope of CM), but rank did not much determine who the real leaders of a platoon or company were all the time. Platoons and companies with poor (not just dead) leaders where often held together with non-com leadership, especially when it mattered most in the middle of a fight.

How could that translate to CM? Not sure...obviously programming is at issue. More important to the playability of the game is playtesting. We all want some new feature that makes our troops better but it works both ways too.

-Sarge

[ May 06, 2002, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[zukkov]

well i won't argue any of these points. they all make sense. but command control must be abstracted in the game. there's just too many variables in real life for the game to account for it. obviously, the experience level of the squad/platoon as a whole makes a big difference in how well command control works. but even within a veteran or higher unit, there are newbies, and a good command structure can minimize the negative effect that the new replacements will have. of course i am referring mostly about western forces. the russian army was another story all together. and it sounds like cmbb is going to take that into account. anyway, i like the way the game handles c&c within the units. yes, it's not 100% reallistic, but for a game, it works well...

[Wreck]

Read David Hackworth if you doubt the leader makes short-term differences in any of these.

I second this, strongly. The stories in About Face will make you think about leadership differently, if you have not read about it much.

Of the CM bonuses, the only one I am not completely sure of is the stealth bonus, and that I am happy to leave to the discretion of BTS. The other bonuses are fine with me. If anything, I would prefer the fire bonus to be a lot bigger. As it is, it is pretty unimportant, and that's a pity.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Mattias:

I disagree on all counts.

I never was much of a platoon commander but I am absolutely certain that a more able, mature or well trained (gotta to think positive) leader in my position could influence all these factors. And yes, within the scope of a single CM battle.

Beside my real life impression, hell, make that experience for once, I see the HQ as an abstraction of the leader ability of the whole platoon. A good platoon commander inspires the squad leaders and make them look out for badly packed or clumsy soldiers, makes them lead the fire instead of firing themselves, makes them trust the judgment of the commander and project this to the soldiers and fosters good command and signals procedure within the platoon.

The fact is that the training in never over and it is only in very well trained and led units that the edge is maintained. And, again, this is very, very, very much up to the individual leader.

A "bad" squad can most definitely be fired up by a good commander, in all the aspects portrayed in CM. Quite! Stay down! Run now! Wait for it! Get over here! MG on the right! Use hand signals! If the squad leader doesn't cut it the Platoon leader or his second in command must intervene.

Well, I look at my own experience during my military service (I was a 120mm mortar gunner) - my Lieutenant was a real good man, excellent soldier, and he trained us very well. When we were on shooting range with our mortars, we were for sure all the time in command range. But fact is just - at this moment the Leutnant wasn't on my side or at the side of any other gunner. There was me, the two other gunners, the driver and the Unteroffizier as troop leader. At this moment everything we had was we had trained. Our only leader was the Unteroffizier.

Mattias, I absolutly agree with you, a good leader will produce an excellent trained unit. But when the action starts, then is the training over. Every men must know his place and his job. Does the lieutenant run around and proofs the actions of each single soldier during the whole battle? Of course I never was in battle - I can only speak of my experience during military service. Without doubt has the lieutenant lead the troop to achieve the goal, and maybe he has made a round once or twice, but the the troop were lead by the corporal during the action. And every troop had his individual 'combat bonus', depending how well they have learned during training.

Moon, I haven't written it down so detailed like you, but I didn't meant that something of this is wrong. But I still think that all of this must be trained before the battle - once the battle has started, the leader must reach the goal - he leads the corporals, the corporals lead the soldiers. The Lieutenant does usually not lead every single soldier. What if the Leutnant is dead? In a German platoon HQ this would mean that there are only some messengers, mostly not even a NCO. Does this mean that the messengers lead the squads as well as the Lieutenant, does it mean that the squads loose all there training in this moment, or does it mean that the squads can continue to fight as well as before, because they are still trained?

[Mattias]

Scipio,

I'm sure we are not really very far from each other with regards to this question, a matter of degrees and weights

--

When the leader dies the squad still have their training, isn't that exactly what CM is portrays right now?

A Veteran squad remains a veteran squad in most respects. It gets an order delay due to the lack of higher command functions and they do no longer benefit from any leadership bonuses deriving from exceptional ability in their leader.

For me one of the central functions of the leader is to remain alert and sharp when everybody else are tired, hungry, exhausted, bored, scared, shocked, drunk or just generally loosing it in one way or another. He must always be at least one step ahead in the schedule, ready to meet any unexpected occurrences and handle all sorts of problems, smallish as well as full blown life threatening crises. He holds the responsibility and will be called to answer for any and all actions of the platoon.

These and many other demands placed on the leader is handled differently by different people, some have "it", some doesn't. You can learn a lot and improve a lot but in the end there will be great variations in ability (Moon giving a nice list of examples of affected areas).

I claim that the presence of an extraordinary leader will make the men behave more intelligently and more decisively than if he is not there. One thing that might have skewed perceptions of this in CM is, as has been mentioned, that there are too many leaders that have too much bonuses in the game, which makes the "best" the norm.

A Veteran squad will still behave a whole lot better than a Conscript one but if their "above and beyond" Lt. is around they will be even better.

Granted, I can imagine that real Elite (think SAS) units are capable of functioning independently in a different way, but then again, every man in the unit is at least a +1 leader in every CM bonus aspect (and that's with a realistic distribution of bonuses in mind, not the current wild spread).

M.

[ May 06, 2002, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Scipio]

Mattias I must meditate about this . I'm not really convinced.

Regarding the many bonuses, as I proposed, why not a 'negative bonus'. As I said, my Lieutenant was very good, but my Captain was nothing but an arrogant asshole - we all hated him. I would give him a -3 moral bonus...

[ May 06, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Renaud]

[Note: I just moved this post from another related topic by scipio...it really belongs here.]

On the subject of leader bonuses...

I suppose leader's bonuses may be conferred on his platoon or company prior to battle. In other words, it's the accumulated effect of good leadership over time that molds the unit and helps determine its fighting capability. So over time an exceptional leader may elevate some aspects of his platoon's performance (stealth, accuracy, esprit-de-corp, etc). In light of this one can argue that such benefits would continue when the leader is not around or even after the leader's demise.

Alternately, it is possible that the death of a beloved and respected leader can disable (break) the entire platoon or company once they become aware of the loss. I read a story of the death of a much-loved company commander in Russian who had led his men through numerous campaigns. While leading his company clearing a village he was shot by a sniper. The attack immediately halted when his men broke down and were pretty much combat ineffective for a while after hearing of his death. (might have been Enemy at the Gates, can't recall)

Clearly CMBO models only the immediate effect of leaders in close proximity to their units. It's assumed that he provides knowledge and capabilities to his men that they simply don't have otherwise. For example, they will get lazy and not maintain proper concealment, light discipline, smoke cigarettes, run out to take a whiz, and other things which can give their position away, unless the gifted leader [?] is exerting his influence at every moment. This is at best a makeshift, but as no one has come up with anything better in a product of this caliber, i'm not complaining.

Ren

[Michael Dorosh]

One can look at leadership modifiers as an inverse of how crappy they are....

A truly horrid platoon leader would affect stealth by not taking cover, not knowing the difference between cover and concealment, walking around, waving his arms, yelling, blowing his whistle, etc.

Well trained troops, as Scipio suggests, would know not to do these things. A +2 leader can be assumed not to be one of these jackasses, while a "regular" or unmodified leader perhaps does not know some of these finer points?

[CMplayer]

Originally posted by Scipio:

Mattias

Regarding the many bonuses, as I proposed, why not a 'negative bonus'. As I said, my Lieutenant was very good, but my Captain was nothing but an arrogant asshole - we all hated him. I would give him a -3 moral bonus...

Not to contradict you, since I never met the man, but acc to the WWII movies I've seen, sometimes those asshole, arrogant captains turn out to really know how to save their men's asses when they get into a difficult spot. Until the company has been in action, it's really hard to tell how good everyone is.

[Scipio]

Michael, you mean like Colonel Kilgore in 'Apocalypse Now'?

CMPlayer, you should have met my Captain. It was back in 1990 - the time of second Gulf War - when my Captain proposed seriously that we - our company - should go down there to fight. He was really hot to get into action. That kind of person doesn't get better. If I shall compare him with someone in a movie, then Hauptmann Stransky (Steiner - The Iron Cross) would fit best.

Mattias You are right, our points are not that far away from each other. But I do not fully agree regarding the combat bonus. I agree to the argument regarding the influence of the leader, but I think the bonus sould be a combination of both - the leader, and the training. If the leader has special abilities, he may have trained his men in this things more, or maybe the squad has this special abilities 'natural'. So the squad has a basic bonus (maybe up +2), and the leader could give an additional bonus of (maybe) +1. So if the leader is gone or dead, the squad stays with his basic bonus.

[ May 07, 2002, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[CombinedArms]

Originally posted by Wreck:

Of the CM bonuses, the only one I am not completely sure of is the stealth bonus, and that I am happy to leave to the discretion of BTS. The other bonuses are fine with me. If anything, I would prefer the fire bonus to be a lot bigger. As it is, it is pretty unimportant, and that's a pity.

I can't really comment how much effect the fire bonus usually has (are there any studies?) but I do have a story that suggest sometimes its impact can be great. Here it is:

I recently had a US squad (badly mauled & down to three guys) kill a Stug at 35m with a rifle grenade. It was termed a flank kill but the angle was almost frontal (about 3/4). I was a bit flabbergasted by my success with this tricky long range kill until I checked the HQ and realized it had a double fire bonus. Seemed to work really well in that case, anyway.

And the stealth bonus is OK with me, too. That might come from a leader who really stresses silent movement, fire discipline, keeping one's head down, etc. And where's the problem if that's partly the result of training? I don't see why that would present a difficulty with any of the bonuses since what we have on the CM battlefield represents an abstraction of training and experience as well as in-the-moment leadership.

I do, agree, though, that leaders with bonuses are perhaps too much the norm.

[ May 07, 2002, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[Renaud]

Combined arms,

"And where's the problem if that's partly the result of training?"

I think the problem people have is that when the leader unit is eliminated the leadership bonuses disappear entirely. As we know in CMBO, leadership bonus benefits conferred on a unit are entirely the result of the immediate and direct influence of a particular gifted leader and none of these bonuses are retained after the elimination of the leader unit. Several people, including myself, seem to be in agreement that some of this bonus could be retained after the demise of the leader due to prior training provided by the leader. In other words, good leaders create units which reflect the leader's exceptional abilities even when he's not around.

One way to rationalize the current system is to say that the blow to morale and fighting spirit due to losing your exceptional leader counteracts any bonuses conferred by the leader having trained the unit prior to battle. That's stretching it a bit of course.

Ren

[Tero]

The only real flaw or drawback in the CM command system is IMO the lack of memory of the sub units.

You can give orders to them and they act under the influence of the bonuses but if they happen to fall out of CC while they are executing the orders the units are basically SOL without any recollection about how fine, outstanding, inspiring and overall swell guy their CO is. Their attention is at the level of small children (based on their basic experience level of course). The minute they do not see the parent they become roudy and stupid.

Since this is a simulation I for one would like to pretend the men in the squads are 20+ and not 2+ even when they are not under CC. (From experience with 1½ and 4 year old sons of my own out of CC even for a minute I think they would make excellent CMBO squad member materiel. )

Having the command delay increase almost instantly is reasonable. Losing stealth and combat bonuses, especially for troops who are not moving or have not moved is ... iffy.

Losing moral bonuses is really a tough one. Is the CO inspiring them even when the unit is no longer in CC ? I think he would be.

With this in mind: I wonder if the partisan units (and other specialized unit types) in CMBB are modelled as cohesive, organized units or are they representative of the semi-organized ad-hoc bands (or highly independent regular troops in case of non-partisan units). In the Northern sector there was no real partisan activity based on the support of the local populace run from inside the Finnish held territory. Instead the partisan activity was run from across the front lines seprate from the Red Army organization by NKVD. That means the partisans were (in theory) all ardent Communists with above average moral rating. How were they organized in other sectors ?

The thing is they attacked mostly civilian targets far inside Finnish territory and when ever they came involved in combat with regular troops they did not fare very well militarily. Several partisan chase operations were conducted and often the partisan units were either destroyed or they driven back across the front lines. They were able to slip from the chasers and usually they did not make a stand unless cornered. And even then they were often able to make good their escape. They took heavy casualties and endured severe hardships.

IMO this would translate in CMBB into a above average moral and stealth rating but below average combat (and perhaps command rating) for partisan units (at least in the Northern sector as a whole).

[ May 08, 2002, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: tero ]

[Scipio]

Tero I think this would be - at least partly - solved by the suggestion I made!?

[Splinty]

I think all of the points I have heard here are excellent. But I think you guys have left out one factor;the effect of a senior leader of a unit (from platoon on up)on his subordinate leaders. I think in CM this is where the bonuses have their real effect. The leadership bonus doesn't really mean the inspiration/discipline/training effect on the whole unit but on the squad leaders and the platoon sergeant. BTW someone posted that in the German Army if the platoon lieutenant was killed there were nothing but messengers left. Does that mean the German Army didn't have platoon sergeants? In the American Army the platoon sergeant usually is the real leader in the platoon. He generally has far more experience and savvy than any fresh faced,straight out of school 2nd lieutenant.