Company and Battalion HQ

[Enoch]

Currently in CMBO, Coy and Bn HQ units serve a couple of functions that seem secondary to what they really did on the battlefield. A player can use them to rally broken units or to take control of squads that have lost, or become seperated from, their Plt HQ. A player can also use Bn and coy HQs to command teams that otherwise don't have a platoon leader (MGs, AT teams, AT guns, FOs). While these are useful tasks, they aren't the type of duties I'd normally expect one of these units to fill.

Spook has brought this idea up in another thread and I think it is a topic worthy of further discussion. As I see it Battalion and Company commanders are units that have yet to fulfill their potential within Combat Mission. The question is how do you model what these units do?

I have a few ideas, but I'd be interested in other ideas and what others think of my ideas.

1) Company and Bn HQ's could have a command radius of their own (bigger than what plt HQs currently have). Plt HQs within this command radius might have command bonuses for stealth, moral, etc. added to them. Sort of an additive effect. Squads get bonuses from the plt leader and company leader. The bonuses a unit gets from its company hq need not be as big as the bonuses from the plt hq.

2) Plts within the command radius of a company or Bn HQ might have shorter command delays than they would otherwise.

These seem like the most straight forward ways of trying to implement an influence for coy and bn hq units. There might be more innovative methods for doing this once the engine re-write occurs. I think that some sort of an attempt to intergrate the battalion or company command structure into CM would add another interesting layer to the game.

[Michael Dorosh]

It's an interesting idea. Squad Leader actually did this better with its "leader" counters (SMCs for the SL grogs...)

I can see the wisdom of portraying a charismatic company or battalion commander; sometimes these guys led charges or defensive actions personally, and could really make a difference to morale.

But what of the others in company HQ? Mostly they are runners, clerks, signallers, medics, stretcher bearers, drivers, etc. I am not sure they would have any influence on morale, etc. HQ units seem to be a weird amalgam of these support troops, while the 4 man unit also identifies the 1 man leading the platoon or company - whose bonus is imparted no matter how many people are killed (he is assumed to be the last one to be eliminated - or am I wrong about that?)

REally, if the platoon leader gets killed, it wouldn't be his batman (one of the other guys in the platoon HQ) that takes over, but one of the squad leaders, and one of the fire team leaders would take over from him.

You would need to add that kind of layer in as well, IMO, to really make the system anything like realistic.

Not that it would be any more playable - or codeable!

[hellfish]

Maybe there should be a unit "panic" mode when a company or battalion HQ is killed? X number +/- 50% panic when the company CO is killed, Y +/-50% when the battalion CO buys it?

I dunno.. what else can be represented in an actual battle with these HQ units that isn't already accounted for?

[BloodyBucket]

The double bonus command radius is an interesting concept.

Why is it assumed that leaders always give bonuses? I think it would be historical as well as interesting to have leaders that have a negative effect. The current CM model is that any 90 Day Wonder is an asset, and that the biggest problem facing the commander (player) is to choose from a stable of strong horses. One of the big problems facing a real commander is trying to minimize the damage that incompetent underlings create.

[apex]

One of the big problems facing a real commander is trying to minimize the damage that incompetent underlings create.

Taking a platoon HQ with bad or no bonusses to sit on the sideline while the company or battallion CO takes over is SOP for me. Dunno about others.

apex

[Enoch]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The double bonus command radius is an interesting concept.

Why is it assumed that leaders always give bonuses? I think it would be historical as well as interesting to have leaders that have a negative effect. The current CM model is that any 90 Day Wonder is an asset, and that the biggest problem facing the commander (player) is to choose from a stable of strong horses. One of the big problems facing a real commander is trying to minimize the damage that incompetent underlings create.

I agree that negative modifiers would be great. I know I've seen it mentioned before but I don't know if it is being implemented or not.

[Keith]

Enoch, your proposal has been proposed before on this forum. I will give some reasons why I don't like the idea of giving subordinate HQs bonuses from higher echelon HQs within a command radius. First, I believe what the CM designers intended to simulate when they provide HQ quality bonuses to subordinate units is the ability of HQs to provide leadership by example, on the spot, directing fires personally, etc. I find it hard to believe that somehow a company commander on the horn with a platoon commander is going to somehow magically transfer his knowledge of field craft (Stealth) to a squad several hundred meters away. In real combat, a company CO would not micromange his subordinate officers but would defer to these subordinate officers to execute their mission using the best of their abilites. Think about it. How does it help to have Capt. Clark yelling orders on a radio to Lt. Peterson who yells at Sgt. Watkins who yells at Private Johnson to shoot that german behind the tree stump in such a such manner. If you pardon my expression, the whole idea seems "gamey" to me and artificial.

Once the shooting start, the role of the Company CO was to do exactly what you described - rallying men, acting as an extra platoon commander when needed, etc. I think this is well simulated in CM as is.

[Iron Chef Sakai]

Originally posted by BloodyBucket:

The double bonus command radius is an interesting concept.

Why is it assumed that leaders always give bonuses? I think it would be historical as well as interesting to have leaders that have a negative effect.

There are, some leaders give no bonus's to the squad, i'd say thats a negative effect.

[Enoch]

Certainly a company or battalion hq would not directly effect a squad directly on the battlefied by increasing or decreasing their stealth or such. But through training a good company CO might better enable his men to set-up an ambush or have better fire control. I guess one could argue that a lot of this is either somehow already taken into account or outside the scope of the game. I just strikes me that Coy and Bn HQ untis are less valuable then they really were in planning and execution.

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Enoch:

1) Company and Bn HQ's could have a command radius of their own (bigger than what plt HQs currently have). Plt HQs within this command radius might have command bonuses for stealth, moral, etc. added to them. Sort of an additive effect. Squads get bonuses from the plt leader and company leader. The bonuses a unit gets from its company hq need not be as big as the bonuses from the plt hq.

I completely disagree. A company HQ or battalion HQ would use the exact same method of commanding an individual unit as a platoon HQ. There is no justification for increased command radius.

2) Plts within the command radius of a company or Bn HQ might have shorter command delays than they would otherwise.

Again I disagree. Either the Platoon HQ is issuing the orders or the Company HQ is issuing the orders. Having the other in the area is not going to change the delay... actually if you assume both HQ are issuing orders, the delay should be increased because of the confusion that kind of situation would cause

[Keith]

Originally posted by Enoch:

...through training a good company CO might better enable his men to set-up an ambush or have better fire control.

This statement I agree with; however, the command bonuses are not a reflection of the training of the troops, which is intrinsic to the squads themselves (ie. the squad is either "Veteran", "Green",etc.). The command bonuses are modeling the ability of the commander to influence the performance of the troops through exemplary leadership, on the spot, where the action is happening. I like to think of the HQ units as an abstraction, with the actual officers themselves or runners moving from squad to squad within command radius to provide leadership.

[ January 31, 2002, 02:56 PM: Message edited by: Keith ]

[ryddle]

Can anyone remember the name of the German Col. in SL who actually provided a negative benefit (a 6 + 1 perhaps?). It would be interesting to see those HQ leaders who were political placements who might negatively impact their platoon's performance. Wouldn't you be pissed in a small QB where you got your one COY commander with negative ratings. Of course, we would end up sending that guy out scouting w/o any backup at the first opportunity...

Still, it would be humorous.

-R

[Shep]

During a battle Battalion HQs react to the broader picture - what they hear from their subordinate companies, and what they hear from the regimental HQ above them.

How would this translate in the game? Not likely to affect HQ bonuses, but it *might* affect command delays one way or the other.

Can a Bn or Co HQ give greater efficiency in command to their subordinates? Sometimes this happens before the battle in efficient planning and clear communication regarding contingencies... but command delays (or lesser delays) during the battle are also a reflection of the clarity with which the upper level command element communicates.

Don't know if at this late date something like this is possible, but it's probably worth the research and implementation for future modules.

I'd think that the aforementioned idea of giving Company and Battalion HQs a command range that affects delay times is well worth the research and implementation.

Also... what pre-battle functions could be modeled? How about pre-plotted arty fires? Ambushes?

Anyway... great idea.

[JonS]

Giving pns within the radius of the bn or coy HQ stouter morale might be reasonable, even if you disagree with upping the other three.

One thing about the command radius the way it is at the moment is the 'non-stickiness' of it for support units. I usually have my mortars back from the firing line, but still in touch with the pn commander who can see what is going on. This works great most of the time - he can call in fire when and where he needs it. The problem comes when a reserve pn moves up into the same area as the mortar - invariably the new guy will take charge of the mortar, which then becomes useless.

I general I like the way you can seamlessly switch support units between commanders, but from time to time it would be nice if they weren't as easy to chat up as a varsity girl at 2am.

Regards

JonS

[Spook]

Well, as Enoch has cited me having invoked the "Co/Btn HQ" matter on another thread, I suppose that I should add some commentary here.

First off, in regards to the future treatment of Co/Btn HQ's in the CM series, I am not such after any specific command mechanics to be applied, rather than that I think that some expanded command effects should be allowed for in the utility of Co/Btn HQ's.

(Did that sound sufficiently arbitrary & confusing? )

By example, consider Berlichtingen's counter-replies on adjustments to command radii and adjustments to orders delays. I don't inherently agree with Berli's stance --- but neither do I disagree. Because I don't know yet as to what specific new "command" method, if any, should be implemented in the future of the CM series. All that I do know is that in the present system, "every platoon leader carries a marshal's baton in his backpack" (deriving from some Napoleonic-era quote). Meaning that regardless to the location or state of higher HQ's in a game, a platoon CO unit is uneffected either positively or negatively. But the obviously biggest positive is that they are never "out of command" per se; even in battalion-level games, every platoon leader will always adjust (based on its experience) to the battalion-level master plan, no matter how often that plan changes or evolves during the battle. And in historical terms, that was something that could never be expected on a regular basis.

As far as the present CMBO is concerned, the battalion HQ's could just as well be replaced by big-point objective flags. That actually might be more realistic in a way, because taking and holding such an objective (even allowing that the HQ could've evacuated) would provide an award for causing "command disruption" to the other side.

Now, here's one possible way of how I think that a Co/Btn HQ could help provide "command effect": A system of "command points," available to these HQ units. Each turn (or even a group of turns), such a HQ has an allotment of points to expend on providing some command bonus to subordinate units. Such a system is an abstraction, but could sufficiently represent the "higher guidance" provided by higher HQ's in the time-scope of a CM scenario.

And what of the case of Co/Btn HQ's being lost, or put in a state of panic/rout? Well, in that case, a possibility could be that subordinate leader units would have their command modifier reduced by one (a +2 going to +1, or even a 0 going to a theoretical "-1"). The other leader qualities -- morale, combat, and stealth --- are ones that needn't be affected, as these are more "local" in application to the squads. But that command modifier is one that should be regarded to be more linked to higher levels, and thus should be allowed to be affected in an abstract way.

Take note. These examples above are given only as that --- examples. Because I'm sure that these have might have their own pitfalls with added review. The point again is that for Co/Btn HQ's, their ability to have more "command effect" in an abstract way, than is the present case, should be desired. But this shouldn't be done by adding overt complexities and details, which the AI would probably barf on anyway in trying to handle it.

Anyway, Steve of BTS has indicated that for the future CM II, he & Charles do seem amenable to expanding the scope of Co/Btn HQ's. And that is encouraging enough for me. I'm certainly not going to beat over this on CMBB, given that so many other new odds & sods, like optics and artillery control options, are being grappled with in that game first.

[ January 31, 2002, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ryddle:

Can anyone remember the name of the German Col. in SL who actually provided a negative benefit (a 6 + 1 perhaps?).

-R

Col. Klotz - there was a poster here named after him - the same guy who did the illfated ASL2CM site.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by ryddle and Michael Dorosh:

Q. Can anyone remember the name of the German Col. in SL who actually provided a negative benefit (a 6 + 1 perhaps?).

A. Col. Klotz - there was a poster here named after him - the same guy who did the illfated ASL2CM site.

That's funny - in my copy he's Col. Rosenberger. Did they change the countersheets in different editions of SL? :confused:

[Charlie Rock]

A battalion commander nowadays moving outside of his TOC (Tactical Operations Center) moves in what is called a TAC (Tactical Assault CP). He usually has an S3, fire support officer, aerial liasion type guy, maybe an assistant S3, but probably not, and RTOs. With all the antennaes, their CPS are poetically called "The Shrimp Boat"

A Company commander will have usually two RTOs, one on the battalion push and one on company.

What sorts of things do they do?

Improve platoon performance? Probably not.

Boot the LT in the a#$ ? Yes. I think CO's could rally broken PLs especially well.

Maneuver squads to give them stealth, micromanage them, etc? no.

Usually the platoon leader gets an FO, who is a green type of PFC or junior sergeant. Platoon leaders are challenged to synchronize calling for fire and maneuvering squads. Company commanders, on the other hand, synchronize stuff better, because they are not physically pushing squads around.

CPs should have a greater bonus working with artillery than PLs. Usually the lowest ranking Fire support officers are moving in the shrimp boat at company level. An FSO moving with a good CO might be able to call fire as if he had a near-perfect line of sight, to reflect the CPs ability to read maps, talk on the radios, etc. Perhaps a CO can spot for an FO as if he was a mortar. Really, they should stay together. Shouldn't decrease time for the call for fire, perhaps accuracy would be affected though.

COs and Battalion commanders are more likely to have comms with air power, so things they have LOS with may be more likely to be rapidly targeted by aircraft. Same same with tanks. Tankers usually are on separate radio frequencies than grunts, so to talk to the tank you need their freq which equals a radio, radioman, bigger CP. Perhaps a company commander's leadership at half strength could apply to the tanks, or his "range" affects tanks nearby but PLS don't do as well.

Since CPs usually are not up close and personal with the lead squads they may have the same leadership factors based on range as PLs, but a much larger range with units that come with radios, such as tanks, other CPs, FOs, etc.

One thing I think is very interesting is how aircraft can bomb and blow up enemy units without the player seeing what they are shooting at, until a ground unit is in LOS. Perhaps squads that can't trace a command link from platoon to company can shoot at enemy like aircraft, you see the firing but don't know at what until the chain of command gets reestablished.

Maybe keeping a battalion commander near a back map edge could increase the reliability for reinforcements. Food for thought.

CPs should draw sniper fire the way flamethrowers draw fire from everyone else. If you see a dozen "Infantry squads?" lined up the sharpshooters should be able to glass them, see antennaes, and engage. Watching where snipers shoot could become a planning tool. Or, to simulate that sharpshooters don't have radios usually, sharpshooters can fire up HQs but not show the red line for engaging. That would encourage keeping the CPs back but prevent the sniper from drawing everybodies fire onto the CPs.

Food for thought.

[Midnight Warrior]

more thoughts on this subject:

1.The higher level HQ's probably wouldn't have much impact on the perforance of the platoons, themselves, but they might eect the performance on the platoon leaders.

2.The extra command radious might refect better/more radios andmore staff to manage the battle.

3.I think that what CM needs is some type of action points that limit how manythins a unit can do at once. As the game currently is a platton can do many things atonce. For example one sqaud can split, a HQ can spot for a mortar (while also rallying a broken uit), another squad could mount on a vehicle, and another squad could be given complex orders ALL in the same one minute turn. If each platoon had a maximum of action points and each action used up so many to peforman an action, then there could be some sort of limit to what a platoon could do at one time. Given this a superior HQ could either add to the platoons command points are lower the action points required to perform certain actions.

[Silvio Manuel]

Originally posted by apex:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />One of the big problems facing a real commander is trying to minimize the damage that incompetent underlings create.

Taking a platoon HQ with bad or no bonusses to sit on the sideline while the company or battallion CO takes over is SOP for me. Dunno about others.

apex</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Offwhite:

Originally posted by ryddle and Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

Q. Can anyone remember the name of the German Col. in SL who actually provided a negative benefit (a 6 + 1 perhaps?).

A. Col. Klotz - there was a poster here named after him - the same guy who did the illfated ASL2CM site.

That's funny - in my copy he's Col. Rosenberger. Did they change the countersheets in different editions of SL? :confused: </font>

[Sir Uber General]

I really like the idea related to LOS/FOW, although it would seriously change the way the game is played today:

You can only see enemy units that are not only in LOS of your troops, but those spotting troops must also fall under c&c their Pn HQ, and that Pn HQ must be under C&c of a CO or Bn HQ.

If a unit that spotted enemy was out of c&c of appropriate HQ, then you wont see those enemy until he comes back under HQ influence - and unless he still has LOS to the unit when he gets back under c&c of approprate HQ, you will only see the "LOS lost here icon" in the place the enemy unit was last spotted.

I hope that made sense.

Man, that would change things! Co HQ would need to be somewhere near his platoons so you the player can see what those platoons are engaging. Dont know how you can fit Bn HQ into that picture but I havent really thought about this much. My idea would also get around the gamey use of scouts with telepathy - scouts our of c&c would need to return to their Pn HQ's c&c to report what they have seen - and I think that would be cool!

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

I don't know how anybody can think of a Company HQ as being of low value. I use 'em all the time in their most realistic role. They are the command and control Fireman. Or as one might call 'em... The Fixer or The Cleaner

The main role of the Company CO is to keep the platoons moving. If this means booting some Lt in the ass, then that is what he does. If it means coordinating heavy support weapons in the rear to make sure his platoons out front are correctly supported (i.e. kicking many PFC and Sgt butts ), then that is what he does as well. When things get really bad, the CO is supposed to be there to take over for a fallen/mangled Platoon or to rally troops which have lost their nerve.

All of these things are doable in CM and are done by me in every single game I have ever played. I love my Company COs in general, but especially the ones with the double morale bonus. Those guys are very often what keeps me together instead of falling apart.

Battalion HQs are like super Company HQs. While the Company HQ is there to keep things cool for his particular company, the Battalion HQ is there to keep things running smoothly for the whole force. In some cases I have used my BN HQ to steady a Coy HQ, which in turn helps steady the platoons. Works like a charm, although in CMBB I believe we have reduced the speed of a BN HQ because it is assumed he doesn't go anywhere without his bulky communications crap (think of it as a cross between a shrimpboat and large tugboat ).

In real life the HQ units had one extra duty during the actual shooting time. And that was to pass information back and forth between the various formations (higher and lower) to keep things coordinated and acting in according to whatever plan (even if not much of a plan) happened to be in place at the time. In a CMBO battle the communications between BN and higher isn't really an issue.

But the more important thing here is that because the player is floating above the battlefield, totally aware of the disposition of each and every one of his men and the known enemy positions, the realistic levels of C&C are already far exceeded to the extreme. Meaning, there is very little we can do to whittle down the unrealistically high levels of coordination to a more realistic level, and then to impart that onto the C&C network.

For CMBB there won't be any changes here. However, for the engine rewrite... welll... we have some ideas. Not sure what we will actually be able to do or not, but the thought that we wish to make improvements in this area (i.e. better distribution of poorer levels of intel) is already in place. Having Realative Spotting opens up doors to us which currently do not exist in CMBO/CMBB.

Steve

[Sir Uber General]

In some cases I have used my BN HQ to steady a Coy HQ, which in turn helps steady the platoons.

Are you saying that Bn HQ's combat bonuses apply to other Coy HQ's bonuses, and they in their multiplied state are passed down to lower level units?

I didnt know that - it is not apparent from the red c&c lines that do not go from HQ to HQ.

I suspect I have misinterpreted what you just wrote.

[History Buff]

In my opinion I think that the Hq units should be protected at all costs. A severe punishment should be incurred is the Batalion HQ is killed. IE a long time delay is put on all of his companys, which now are leaderless because they don't have any orders coming to them anymore. As a result it takes time to get people moving when they finnally figure out what to do. This can also be moddeled for Platoona and Company commanders.

"Wha... Wheres the Major!"

"I don't know, I'll take charge."

"No I will,"

"Should we take that hill?"

"We should move to the left."

"We should move to the right."

Arguements to persist when there is no longer 1 sole leader of a force.