Static victims in CM - will this be changed?

[Scipio]

1a) Why is the tank commander always the first casuality in a tank?

1b) Why is the whole crew always 'Shocked' when the TC dies? Especially in critical situations this is a problem - but will the gunner really always notice it, or care for it, when he is in combat with an enemy tank?

2a) Why is the leader always the last person that dies in a HQ unit? I assume that the leader bonus counts only for the leader himself, not for the rest of the HQ unit.

[Slapdragon]

This has all been discussed before, so I can tell you what was said:

Originally posted by Scipio:

1a) Why is the tank commander always the first casuality in a tank?

He is not, although he is the most exposed and IRL was killed/wounded most often. For the purposes of the game, taking out any crew position is the same as taking out the tank commander, since the commander must take on additional duties that reduce his effectiveness as a tank commander. Thus there is a certian amount of abstraction built into the game engine over how the work is divided up inside the tank.

Originally posted by Scipio:

1b) Why is the whole crew always 'Shocked' when the TC dies? Especially in critical situations this is a problem - but will the gunner really always notice it, or care for it, when he is in combat with an enemy tank?

This has also been discussed before also. but I also know the answer in real life. When someone becomes a casualty right next to you it tends to cause you to notice. Inside a tank it must be 10 times worse as you now likely have to deal with a screaming struggling WIA or a sudden loss of command voice over intercom. Now, the endgine does not have a shocked tank withdraw, except for occasional reverse commands when moral faills Shocked though does not really reprrsent panic (although it could) but a minute or two of time needed to reorder the crew and get the body out of the way.

One issue though pointed out in previous discussions is making withdrawals more likely when the TC gets hit.

Originally posted by Scipio:

2a) Why is the leader always the last person that dies in a HQ unit? I assume that the leader bonus counts only for the leader himself, not for the rest of the HQ unit.

There have been two answers to this: limitations in the engine, and the realities of how a command post works, where it is still capable of being a command post with the death of a leader.

[illo]

Why tanks which get their gun damaged dont reverse for cover? Same applies to crew casualty at some extend. I hate to see tank sitting there just as target for 50secs.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by Slapdragon:

He is not, although he is the most exposed and IRL was killed/wounded most often. For the purposes of the game, taking out any crew position is the same as taking out the tank commander, since the commander must take on additional duties that reduce his effectiveness as a tank commander. Thus there is a certian amount of abstraction built into the game engine over how the work is divided up inside the tank.

Okay, this makes sense. At least in some cases. The TC can replace the gunner, the loader, or the radio operator, but it is difficult for the driver. All this depends of course how the turret and tank compartment is build. The turret of French tanks for example was a closed compartment, even if this not relevant for CM:BO or CM:BB, but wasn't there something with the early T-34, too?

This has also been discussed before also. but I also know the answer in real life. When someone becomes a casualty right next to you it tends to cause you to notice. Inside a tank it must be 10 times worse as you now likely have to deal with a screaming struggling WIA or a sudden loss of command voice over intercom. Now, the endgine does not have a shocked tank withdraw, except for occasional reverse commands when moral faills Shocked though does not really reprrsent panic (although it could) but a minute or two of time needed to reorder the crew and get the body out of the way. One issue though pointed out in previous discussions is making withdrawals more likely when the TC gets hit..

I do not fully agree. Of course it is important what has happened to the TC. A quick and silent head shot can be missed for some time, the rest of the crew is maybe a bunch of cool bastards... Well, I didn't mean that 'Shocked' doesn't make sense - but I think it should be a random incident, also influenced by the experience of the crew.

There have been two answers to this: limitations in the engine, and the realities of how a command post works, where it is still capable of being a command post with the death of a leader.

I agree to engine limitations, but not to the second argument. The leadership bonuses, as I understand them, reflect the special leadership abilitys of the commander, not of the whole HQ. If he dies, the HQ should loos the bonuses. Beside that, I don't think that a CM HQ will be still operable.

A German Jaeger platoon HQ for example has 5 men: Leader, 2 messengers, 1 strecher bearer, 1 horse leader. There is no one who can take the command - and we have only 4 men CM platoon HQs anyway. Maybe a squad leader would replace him, but this isn't possible in CM because of engine limitations, and BTW maybe a bit unrealistic in a combat situation.

A HQ unit has also the ability to rally troops (restore the moral). But who should do this, if not the leader?

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

[flamingknives]

With HQ casualties, what you are seeing is the loss of a weapon (the pistol) rather than the loss of the man carrying it. The CM engine allows troops to pick up more effective weapons if the man carrying it is hit. The Lt is probably just picking up a rifle/SMG from one of the runners who have been hit. In addition, in some armies, the HQ section also contains a platoon sgt, who acts as a backup to the officer.

[Scipio]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

With HQ casualties, what you are seeing is the loss of a weapon (the pistol) rather than the loss of the man carrying it. The CM engine allows troops to pick up more effective weapons if the man carrying it is hit. The Lt is probably just picking up a rifle/SMG from one of the runners who have been hit. In addition, in some armies, the HQ section also contains a platoon sgt, who acts as a backup to the officer.

I know about weapon-pick-up, but this confirms only what I said in my inital post: the leader is always the last men standing.

It is true, a US (mountain) rifle platoon HQ for example had 1 Lieutenant, 1 Technical Sergeant, 1 Staff sergeant, 3 privates. An NCO can take over the command here. But in this case, the leadership bonus should at least change.

HQ units were assembeled very different in size and organizaton, depending on the nation, branch, unit size, special weapons etcetera. But nohing of it is reflected in CM. Maybe here is something to work on? Generally, most HQs were larger then in CM, even if we exclute the - usually not 'combat relevant' - field train.

[Mattias]

Scipio,

It is all subjective of course but in my book your issues are listed as nit picking

There are tons of abstractions in the game and these are just a few of them. You seem to agree on the basic idea behind BTS decision, but you would like it done some other way?

Personally I think BTS solution works well but I am sure there are other, perhaps better, ways to approach the "problem", what do you propose?

M.

[Ace Pilot]

The other thing to think about is that a large part of an officer's responsibilities is the training of his unit - and that includes a suitable replacement should he buy the farm. If he has done his job well, his replacement will have the same skills the officer has. So, in an abstract sense, the bonuses that many of us associate with a single officer, could be thought of as being reflective of the entire command structure (platoon leader, platoon sargeant, assistant platoon leader, etc.) - any of whom could be in charge, depending on the circumstances.

[Scipio]

Ace, Devising of abilitys on someone else doesn't sound like a realistic concept.

Mattias, I don't think it is nit picking when a tank loose the TC and get's inactive in a critical moment.

Or when a platoon looses the leader. Someone once proposed to make Flamethrower teams to a part of the squad to give them a higher chance to survive. Steve of BTS called this absolutly unrealistic (and I agree), because this would mean that the other boys in the squad would draw away the fire from the FT on themselves. But it seems it works that way for leaders.

[ May 04, 2002, 11:08 AM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Slapdragon]

I agree with you to a certian extent Scipio, in that the loss of a leader may change something after a few minutes time (when it comes time for everyone to get more direction) in the units he is directing, but the CM engine cannot handle this now. And there is also the issue of the leader's assistant, a new leader emerging from one of the squads and moving to the HQ, or a leader from higher echelon being able to take over, and the inertia of the attack. Also, a KIA does not represent a person who is dead, but one who has ceased being able to fire for the rest of the game (dead or WIA) but a WIA may still effectively lead a unit, give it last orders which are obeyed, etc.

The problem is that the CM engine does not really track the individuals of a team, only weapons and ammo. I doubt any serious changes will come to CM:BB, and when they do, they may take on some of your suggestions, but they could also be much more complicated than you propose, and in fact a unit could well loose many men, even leaders, and still not loose for various reasons the ability of the HQ to function as an HQ.

[Michael Dorosh]

Frederick Tilston of the Essex Scottish retained command of his company during the fighting in the Rhineland despite several wounds which eventually claimed one of his eyes and a leg. He was awarded the Victoria Cross.

I don't know if I buy the several posts that talk about second in commands being part of an HQ unit. In British and Canadian practice, the platoon sergeant was usually LOB (left out of battle) during full scale attacks, or if he took the platoon in, his officer was LOB. This usually meant being in B Echelon a mile or so away - not a distance easily covered in the space of a 30 minute scenario, but then again, even if a platoon commander was hit, they would not likely send for the 2 i/c right away anyway.

That being the case, I would argue that assuming the second in command picks up where the CO leaves off is not possible, at least as far as Commonwealth units are concerned.

As far as German units go - I get the impression the did not have seconds in command in the manner the western allies did. Of course, I also get the impression each squad leader was a de facto second in command waiting in the wings - this was not always the case in western allied units either.

[flamingknives]

I know about weapon-pick-up, but this confirms only what I said in my inital post: the leader is always the last men standing.

Oops, my mistake, I must have misread your first post.

[Scipio]

Slapdragon, I agree that it is to late to be changed in CM:BB - at least I assume and hope that they are already in the final stadium.

A CM-KIA is, as I understand the concept, a person who is not longer able to continue his job. No matter if he is dead, mad, wounded, deserted or whatever else. This includes of course all leaders. A replacement for the leader depends on the HQs TO&E. The problem is, a replacment during a battle of the CM-timeframe is problematic. If an NCO is there, okay. But where does he come from? The German platoon TO&E doesn't have a NCO (see above). Replacement from another unit would need time.

A first step could be to give the HQs there historic TO&E. And well, maybe (for the big engine rewrite) it would be something to think about: the single soldiers are simulated. Not each with an own graphic, but in the unit stats?

[ May 04, 2002, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Slapdragon]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Frederick Tilston of the Essex Scottish retained command of his company during the fighting in the Rhineland despite several wounds which eventually claimed one of his eyes and a leg. He was awarded the Victoria Cross.

I don't know if I buy the several posts that talk about second in commands being part of an HQ unit. In British and Canadian practice, the platoon sergeant was usually LOB (left out of battle) during full scale attacks, or if he took the platoon in, his officer was LOB. This usually meant being in B Echelon a mile or so away - not a distance easily covered in the space of a 30 minute scenario, but then again, even if a platoon commander was hit, they would not likely send for the 2 i/c right away anyway.

That being the case, I would argue that assuming the second in command picks up where the CO leaves off is not possible, at least as far as Commonwealth units are concerned.

As far as German units go - I get the impression the did not have seconds in command in the manner the western allies did. Of course, I also get the impression each squad leader was a de facto second in command waiting in the wings - this was not always the case in western allied units either.

It is possible that different nationalities would need to be modelled differently in this aspect. In the US military a great deal of planning was put into who succeeds in combat -- and it woirked fairly well. Not that a unit could not be decaptitated and become leaderless from enough losses, but US units normally had the CO, sometimes an XO, the NCOIC, and often a couple of sergeants who could take over command with equal facility. I suspect that this may be why I am thinking that loosing the co is not such a big deal, because the US units so often lost their leaders and still functioned pretty much as they did before.

Perhaps the best issue would be to have a "shocked" for command posts, but in some ways a routed status could represent this. Then the unit would come out of shocked status without leadership bonus.

[Michael Dorosh]

Not to bash the Yanks, but I have read that some US units seem to have actually performed better once their officers were killed....but I am sure every army has stories like that(?)

I do think this would depend very much on nationality and unit training, etc. Unit experience, too, of course - a unit in the line for 6 months would have many squad leaders who have observed their platoon leaders in action for several weeks and have more of a grasp on what to do in their place - regardless of whether or not they were actually trained to do so behind the lines.

[ASL Veteran]

Why just focus on the platoon leader? I mean, if we are going to discuss the fact that the platoon leader is the last man standing, then how about extending the discussion to include the squad leaders? Sure, squads don't have the same types of bonuses as platoon leaders give, but would that squad's veteran status turn to green status if the squad leader was picked off? How many green grunts are in each squad compared to how many veteran or elite grunts are in each squad? Should the experience level of the squad vary with casualties? Should a squad go into 'shock' if a squad leader is killed?

Personally, I wouldn't mind it if BTS chose to go to this level of detail, but once you start talking in terms of individuals such as platoon leaders or specific positions in a tank then I think you have to change the scale of the game from a squad level game to an individual level game. The next step would be to simulate every single individual like CC did (CC was great for it's time). I doubt if BTS will go that route quite frankly.

[Olle Petersson]

Originally posted by illo:

Why tanks which get their gun damaged dont reverse for cover? ... I hate to see tank sitting there just as target for 50secs.

For me it depends on what AFV it is.

I'd hate it if my bullet magnet King- or Jagdtiger reversed into combat instead of staying in plain view and attract (for them) harmless bullets that otherwise would hit my lesser armoure vehicles...

Cheers

Olle

[Scipio]

Originally posted by ASL Veteran:

Why just focus on the platoon leader? I mean, if we are going to discuss the fact that the platoon leader is the last man standing, then how about extending the discussion to include the squad leaders? Sure, squads don't have the same types of bonuses as platoon leaders give, but would that squad's veteran status turn to green status if the squad leader was picked off? How many green grunts are in each squad compared to how many veteran or elite grunts are in each squad? Should the experience level of the squad vary with casualties? Should a squad go into 'shock' if a squad leader is killed?

Personally, I wouldn't mind it if BTS chose to go to this level of detail, but once you start talking in terms of individuals such as platoon leaders or specific positions in a tank then I think you have to change the scale of the game from a squad level game to an individual level game. The next step would be to simulate every single individual like CC did (CC was great for it's time). I doubt if BTS will go that route quite frankly.

Veteran, I don't think we need to go that far. The experience of a squad is the average of all men in the squad. A squad leader in CM terms is not represented with special abilities. He has no bonuses and can not rally his men - maybe this could be changed, but then every single squad would need own combat bonuses. And maybe that is not the worst idea. This could be explained as the abilities of a team, I guess that's what Ace had in mind. So, loosing some members or even the squad leader woudn't influence the combat bonuses.

The question in this case would be - for what do we need HQ units? Guide artillery fire for example...well, I'm sure there would be some things.

[Scipio]

-moved to own thread-

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

[Doug Beman]

Couple of anecdotal references from George Forty's "German Tanks of WW2"

First concerns a PzIII in action in Russia, commanded by a certain Justus-Wilhem von Oechelhauser. In it, his tank (921) is commandeered by a new-in-theatre Leutnant, so Justus sits in the loader's seat. 921 and a second PzIII set out to find a staff car which has gone missing. Shortly after starting out, Russian infantry swarm out of the trees and managed to badly wound the new Lt., and the disruption caused makes the tank combat-ineffective for some time (no definite amount given) until Justus can get the Lt out of the TC's hatch and re-establish command of the tank.

The loss of any crewmember is going to cause some amount of "dead time" while remaining crew re-arrange themselve. I'm not a tanker (and will defer to one who chooses to join this thread), but I doubt it's possible for the TC to be rendered combat-ineffective WITHOUT the rest of the crew knowing almost immediately and taking appropriate action; the TC's command presence is vital to the functioning of the tank, whether he's guiding the driver or giving the gunner bearing to next target.

The second anecdote concerns a PzIV command tank in Warsaw. In it, the tank is hit several times by artillery and/or DF guns. One heavy hit literally lifts the tank off the pavement and drops it again, the engine quits out, and sparks/fumes enter the fighting compartment. All the crewmembers immediately assume the tank has been knocked out; however, after some few seconds of frantic work, the driver is able to restart the engine and keep the tank going.

As can be seen, even non-penetrating hits could cause a tank to become temporarily combat-ineffective as engines are restarted, fires extinguished, other equipment checked, etc.

In both cases, a tank will not simply go merrily on its way without pause.

DjB

[Slapdragon]

You can also have a tank, being hit by weapons which in the comfort of our own homes, we know are nonlethal and never will, causing crew bailouts in real life. Some losses of German heavies were caused by getting pounded by a large number of smaller tanks. The tank technically survives the pounding, but the crew "breaks" amd flews the pounding.

[Renaud]

[deleted and moved to scipio's leader bonus topic, where it really belongs]

Ren

[ May 06, 2002, 07:05 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[Scipio]

Doug Okay, I agree to all, and especially this : ...or giving the gunner bearing to next target. Do you think the gunner will always drop a potential threatening target? I didn't meant that the tank will always stay full functional, but, well sometimes when it is eye to eye with an enemy target... I think there should be at least a random factor.

And BTW, a tank that has lost a crew member is always buttoned - wouldn't for example the gunner play double role as TC and gunner? I really don't know if this was a common practice, but it would make very much sense - it is known how 'blind' a buttoned tank is.

Slapdragon Yes, I remember something that I have read about two KV-1 tanks. The Germans immobilzed them, but they wasn't able to destroy them. But after some time the crew surrendered, morally wrecked and nearly deaf by the bouncing shells.

[Doug Beman]

Scipio, I understand your point as to "would a gunner quit firing at a current target if the TC were hit?" and have no good answer from any source. Also have no info on the re-arrange that would happen in the wake of a TC's becoming combat ineffective. It would depend, I think, on whether the TC's position was fitted with any sort of aiming gear; if there was no provision, the gunner would probably be more inclined to spend more time at his own station than being interim TC.

Any tanker out there?

DjB

[Panzerfaust]

I agree with the shock condition, sure if it was random for wether or not the vehicle can move while shocked would be nice( though no firing;loader would be close to commander and would prolly be busy patching him up or freakin out as he's covered in his comrades blood). In 'Tiger Ace - the life story of panzer commander michael wittman' it describes when he gets wounded in his stug III by shrapnel; it describes how his crew immediately attends to his wounds and goes on to say that a few minutes passed while they tried to stop the bleeding then goes on to say how his driver moved to a patch of trees and stopped there. Another thing to consider is these men more than likely became close friends considering the amount of time they spent with each other(even if their not close friends someone getting wounded or killed that you have been in close contact with would still shock a person) and finding out your bud was hurt and possibly dead would shake you which would make driving, aiming your gun etc harder to do which could account for a delay in them reacting to threats. Not to mention distracting them from the immediate fight around them and considering the commander has the best view they would have lost their eyes and ears.