Is there enough leadership differentiation for HQs?

[Ace Pilot]

I’ve been thinking about the different combinations of leadership abilities of HQs that are represented in CMBO. With four bonus areas that can range from 0 to 2, I figure there are 81 different bonus combinations (did I do that math right?). Couple that with 6 different experience levels, and you have 486 different HQ possibilities. That seems like an awful lot to choose from, but I have started to wonder if additional bonus levels would enhance the game. I admit that my point of comparison is Squad Leader, a game where leaders had a single modifier (unlike the 4 in CM) but that single modifier could range over 5 levels. I thought this was especially relevant in terms of rallying broken/routed troops. In Squad Leader, a leader was necessary to rally broken troops, so even a bad leader was better than none. In CM, it’s my impression that a broken unit will rally by itself just as quickly as if it is in command & control of an HQ with no morale bonus (can anyone confirm this?). This effectively means only 2 different types of HQs when it comes to rallying troops – either a +1 or a +2 since a 0 morale bonus is the same as no HQ at all. This is also true for the combat bonus. It’s either a +1 or +2, since no combat bonus has the same impact as having no HQ at all.

I find that with this system, it is especially hard to depict an outstanding officer/HQ. When one is present in a scenario, it is given a +2 bonus in one or more categories. Using a +2 combat bonus as an example, other HQ units, in order to provide differentiation, are given combat bonuses of +1 or 0. An HQ with a 0 bonus is almost like having no HQ at all (with the exception of reduced command delays), so many of the other HQs get a +1 combat bonus, making them all the same for combat. Introducing just one more bonus level would add some much needed differentiation ability. I think the CM leadership system far surpasses what Squad Leader had, but it would be nice to have additional levels of leadership abilities.

Anybody agree or disagree with this?

Ace

[Redwolf]

As with many other corners of the game, I don't think there is any hope for CM to simulate truely outstanding soldiers. Bumping some abilities already in CM doesn't do it, it is a very weak replacement for the more clever behaviour that being elite is based on.

I am quite happy with the HQ bonus system as it is in CMBO, and I think it is truely realistic that some officiers just don't do any good in ralleying units. In fact, I would even change the game to give a hidden negative bonus. The asshole approches and the squads run off the map. Ups...

Remember that a two-bonus HQ bumps regular soldiers to crack, and veteran to elite in this particular regard. Used right, especially for the combat bonus, this can make all the difference in the world.

[Gpig]

Redwold wrote:

Remember that a two-bonus HQ bumps regular soldiers to crack, and veteran to elite in this particular regard. Used right, especially for the combat bonus, this can make all the difference in the world.

Huh???

That's the first I've heard of THAT. Is it true?

I thought that the bonus just applies a benefit to each squad in C&C in regards to what the leadership attribute is.

MORALE bonus = Squads more resistent to break.

COMBAT bonus = Squads get more firepower

STEALTH bonus = Squads more difficult to spot.

COMMAND bonus = shorter reaction times, and farther range of movement while still in C&C.

I have not heard anything about bumping up a squads experience level . . .

Please explain.

Gpig

[Silvio Manuel]

I've never heard anything substantive to that effect, but it seems to be true in practice. In a recent game, I had a Veteran PaK40 commanded by a +1 morale Company HQ (effectively Crack status) take heavy fire from a Churchill VI and about a Platoon of extremely close infantry before routing from some 4.2" fire.

HQ's with a Combat bonus certainly enhance the firepower of their subordinate units...when you use the LOS tool pointed at a target, you'll see the Firepower rating be higher than the squads max. listed firepower due to the bonus. I don't recall, but I think that is the same as when you have a Regular vs. a Veteran squad, they Vets have a higher-than-normal max.firepower.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by redwolf:

As with many other corners of the game, I don't think there is any hope for CM to simulate truely outstanding soldiers. Bumping some abilities already in CM doesn't do it, it is a very weak replacement for the more clever behaviour that being elite is based on.

I am quite happy with the HQ bonus system as it is in CMBO, and I think it is truely realistic that some officiers just don't do any good in ralleying units. In fact, I would even change the game to give a hidden negative bonus. The asshole approches and the squads run off the map. Ups...

Remember that a two-bonus HQ bumps regular soldiers to crack, and veteran to elite in this particular regard. Used right, especially for the combat bonus, this can make all the difference in the world.

OK now I'm curious..

what is a "two-bonus HQ" ?

do you mean +2 on all the bonuses or any 2 bonus modifiers?

I have never heard of this and am curious.

thanks for bringing it up Ace Pilot

-tom w

[Mattias]

[ May 03, 2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Mattias ]

[Redwolf]

What I meant is simply that the precision and firepower of a regular squad under command of a combat-1-bonus HQ fires like a veteran squad. The same squad under command of a combat-2-bonus HQ fires like a crack squad. This applies seperately for each of the bonuses.

[Sarge Saunders]

Just to add my observations to the mix:

My experience shows that a moral bonus HQ will make troops not only more resistant to breaking and panic, but also will rally troops faster.

Somehow I get the "feeling" that command bonuses also help rally troops faster...but no evidence to back that one up. (It would make sense though.)

One of the BIGGEST HQ influences on the battle that I have found is pairing Zook/Schrek/PIAT teams with a +1 or +2 combat HQ. The difference is night and day between them and non bonus HQs or out of C and C teams. This does not relate to a firepower boost as such. But it means these AT teams will be much more likely to hit what the shoot at even at longer ranges.

With repect to bonus variance, my experience has been that HQs with no bonuses at all are extremely rare regardless of green/reg/vet etc. This includes stock soldiers (un-edited) in scenarios and also QBs. These guys are worthless in battle and their troops should be given to the next available higher HQ period. But I feel these type of platoon HQs should be more common on the CM battlefield especially for regular and green troops and maybe for June 1944 Americans too. I mean where exactly did all these LTs get their bravery and command under fire abilities that early anyway? Not all from training I suspect.

Given the rarity of plain "vanilla" HQs it detracts from the special nature of bonus officers. If more HQs where ordinary then guys with +1 and especially +2 anything will make a larger and perhaps more realistic impact on the battle.

-Sarge

[gredeker]

I have the impression that another thing that changes when a unit is under the C&C of a +1 or +2 combat modifier HQ is that the frequency of firing increases. I haven't run any tests, but my impression is that they fire earlier and more often than squads without any leadership bonus.

This is a double-edged sword, however, as I just had some squads in a small scenario run out of ammo on on turn 9 of a 15-turn scenario. The platoon HQ had +2 morale and +2 combat bonuses.

[aka_tom_w]

" One of the BIGGEST HQ influences on the battle that I have found is pairing Zook/Schrek/PIAT teams

with a +1 or +2 combat HQ. The difference is night and day between them and non bonus HQs or out

of C and C teams. This does not relate to a firepower boost as such. But it means these AT teams will

be much more likely to hit what the shoot at even at longer ranges."

I would say this info is such a big deal (Like it was my secret weapon) it should immediately be classified Top Secret-Eyes Only and censored from this board.

AT assets under command of a +2 combat bonus HQ are truely inspired and their accuracy goes up noticably, and when it comes to KILLING tanks this is a BIG deal.

HUSH! it should be kept quiet!

-tom w

(all in good fun)

[ May 03, 2002, 03:46 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Sargon]

Guys,

The enhanced firepower is like in Cross of Iron (AH) with any MG you could make a call, during your turn to declare sustained fire with and incease to the breakdown number on the die roll.

or the chance of running out.....,,

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Sargon:

Guys,

The enhanced firepower is like in Cross of Iron (AH) with any MG you could make a call, during your turn to declare sustained fire with and incease to the breakdown number on the die roll.

or the chance of running out.....,,

I have to say that I wish CM would have sustained fire options for MGs. We will all get to see what the MG improvements will be for CM:BB will be. This is one of my pet peeves about MGs currently.....and I know I am not alone.

Now back to the original topic.... :cool:

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

[QB]" One of the BIGGEST HQ influences on the battle that I have found is pairing Zook/Schrek/PIAT teams

with a +1 or +2 combat HQ. The difference is night and day between them and non bonus HQs or out

of C and C teams. This does not relate to a firepower boost as such. But it means these AT teams will

be much more likely to hit what the shoot at even at longer ranges."

I would say this info is such a big deal (Like it was my secret weapon) it should immediately be classified Top Secret-Eyes Only and censored from this board.

If you think this is something, you have never seen a veteran 3" mortar under a 2+ command HQ shooting a row of tanks.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by redwolf:

I am quite happy with the HQ bonus system as it is in CMBO, and I think it is truely realistic that some officiers just don't do any good in ralleying units. In fact, I would even change the game to give a hidden negative bonus. The asshole approches and the squads run off the map.

I like the idea of an unknown negative bonus. It would add another bonus level, providing that element of differentiation I am looking for. Additionally, even if players could tell which HQs were performing poorly, they'd need to weigh the disadvantage of the negative bonus against the advantage of having the units in command & control. And it makes sense - even a lousy, demoralizing or bumbling officer can act as a conduit to speed up orders.

Ace

[Pak40]

In CM, it’s my impression that a broken unit will rally by itself just as quickly as if it is in command & control of an HQ with no morale bonus (can anyone confirm this?).

In my experience, the opposite is true. I think a vanilla leader is better than no leader at all. The same goes for command and control. A squad in C & C of a leader with no bonus will obey orders more quickly than no leader at all. However, I'm not sure about the stealth and fighting ability.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Pak40:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> In CM, it’s my impression that a broken unit will rally by itself just as quickly as if it is in command & control of an HQ with no morale bonus (can anyone confirm this?).

In my experience, the opposite is true. I think a vanilla leader is better than no leader at all. The same goes for command and control. A squad in C & C of a leader with no bonus will obey orders more quickly than no leader at all. However, I'm not sure about the stealth and fighting ability.</font>

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Sarge Saunders:

With repect to bonus variance, my experience has been that HQs with no bonuses at all are extremely rare regardless of green/reg/vet etc. This includes stock soldiers (un-edited) in scenarios and also QBs. These guys are worthless in battle and their troops should be given to the next available higher HQ period. But I feel these type of platoon HQs should be more common on the CM battlefield especially for regular and green troops and maybe for June 1944 Americans too. I mean where exactly did all these LTs get their bravery and command under fire abilities that early anyway? Not all from training I suspect.

Given the rarity of plain "vanilla" HQs it detracts from the special nature of bonus officers. If more HQs where ordinary then guys with +1 and especially +2 anything will make a larger and perhaps more realistic impact on the battle.

-Sarge

Excellent point, sarge. I know when I design a scenario, I'm reluctant to include a leader with zero bonuses, despite the fact that it is probably realistic to do so. Part of my reluctance is because when playing, I enjoy trying to decide which platoon to assign to specific tasks, and it often comes down to what the leadership qualities of the HQ are. If Lt. Smith and Lt. Johnson are identical, it removes that aspect of the decision making. I also agree that the +1 and +2 bonus HQs should be the stand outs. As such, I wouldn't want to see an added bonus level above +2. I'd rather see a +0.5 bonus to allow some difference between the HQs that aren't supposed to be the outstanding +1s or +2s. Alternatively, a hidden negative bonus, as suggested by Redwolf, would also provide some differentiation.

Ace

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

... I'm reluctant to include a leader with zero bonuses, despite the fact that it is probably realistic to do so. Part of my reluctance is because when playing, I enjoy trying to decide which platoon to assign to specific tasks, ...

I guess it would be in place to have one "attribute" boosted with +1 or so, keeping the others at 0.

Most persons (including officers and NCOs) have something they're good at.

Officers with boosts on many/all "attributes" should be rare, and more common with battalion HQs than platoon HQs. (Good officers get promoted or KIA...)

Cheers

Olle

[Pak40]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

[QBI agree on the C&C issue - any HQ causes a unit to respond to orders faster. But for morale, it sounds like you are saying there are really 3 leadership levels - +0 bonus (which is still better than no leader), +1 and +2. Correct?[/QB]

Yes. It will still take a long time for a HQ with +0 morale to rally broken or panicked units but it's better than no leader at all.