Company and Battalion HQ

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You are right - in SL he is Rosenberger, in ASL he was Klotz, IIRC.

Good catch!

Heh heh, I don't remember what I had for lunch today, but I can't forget the names of SL leaders... it's a gift

[BloodyBucket]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

Guys,...

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....

Steve

Yep. Perhaps that is where a true multiplayer game would shine, with a pre-battle briefing, and each element commander having a locked field of view and limited communications with other elements. In the current system, the player is given C&C and intel that any WWII officer would have given a (insert body part here) for.

Still, it is interesting to think of additional things the Co. and Bn. commanders might do in the current game. Increase fire support availability or effectiveness? Make reinforcements arrive faster? Change flag locations in mid battle?

Serve as a huge VP penalty if whacked? Make the player fill out pages of reports after each battle? Put the town you just liberated off limits to enlisted men?

[James Crowley]

Steve

Your description of Co.& Bat. HQ's functions is exactly what they should be, but I, like others, was not aware that they exerted any influence over platoon HQ's in the game. This appears to be undocumented AFAIK.

The impression I had was that their only effective in-game role was to support units not in C&C of their platoon HQ. All the on-screen indicators support this. If squads are in range of their platoon HQ and a Co. or Batt. the in-command lines go to the platoon HQ and there are none between the HQ units. (hope that makes sense)

This has very important implications, especially if the C&C model is going to be the same in CMBB.

If true, then History Buff has it right when he says that there should be very large penalties for loss of those higher HQ's. The reality was that very many tactical-level battles were lost because of officer/leader casualties rather than, necessarily, troop casualties.

Also, if true, this again demonstrates the need for the CMBB manual to be far more explicit in the details of how things work, rather than merely descriptive.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

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 ).

Following up on James Crowley's post, I too am a bit uncertain about this in CMBO. Leastways, I've never noticed for Co/Btn HQ's in that game to have any noticeable effect on lower HQ's, although either can certainly "grab" out-of-command squads, weapons, and teams.

It might be different in CMBB instead, because recalling from an earlier-offered CMBB screenshot, I was seeing squads identified more explicitly as being attached to a specific company. In CMBO, squads are linked only to platoons, and if out-of-command from their immediate platoon CO, then can be taken "in command" by any Co or Btn HQ unit that is close enough to do so. Under such a premise, it's uncertain that a specific company HQ will provide some benefit to specific platoon leaders in CMBO.

(It would be a simple matter to check out later, however, through scenario editing & initial deployments.)

So perhaps it's that CMBB has indeed provided a bit more scope to higher HQ's after all?

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.

True. The bigger issue here, of course, is not about Btn HQ's "passing information" to higher HQ's in the scope of a CM battle, but of how the Co/Btn HQ's might influence the passing of information & orders to lower units when the shooting starts. Let's just say that in the scope of a 1-hour battle, if a company HQ got KO'ed or disrupted, I could see some "inertia" creeping into the subordinate platoons within that same 1-hour timeframe.

But then, it gets back to pondering how this "effect" could be properly captured in a CM game.

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.

We'll wait to see until then. In fact, based on the initial comments in your earlier post, I think there already might be something different in CMBB that I will be watching for.

[ February 01, 2002, 08:56 AM: Message edited by: Spook ]

[Enoch]

The introduction of relative spotting does immediately present one function that coy and Bn HQ could play. Company HQs could pass info between plts with its command radius. Battalion Hqs could pass info between companies within its command radius. This might prove especially important for armored vehicles. Would they operate on the same frequency as platoons?

I too, am a bit puzzled by the statement that Coy HQ can have an influence on plt HQs.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry guys, you took my words too literally. In CMBO there is, as you rightly think, no direct relationship between a Company HQ and the platoons underneath it. In other words, Company HQs can be switched around between companies and the game system doesn't know/care about it. In CMBB we have explicite connections as one of you noted.

The Coy or BN HQ "influence" over a Platoon HQ is strictly limited to one of two things:

1. Trumping/replacing the Platoon HQ and taking command of its units.

2. Using its ability to Rally when a Platoon HQ decides to run away. In CMBO, unless I am seriously mistaken (remember, we did this part of the game nearly 3 years ago!), any higher HQ can rally any lower unit, regardless if it is an HQ or not. So a BN HQ can rally a Coy HQ. However, to the best of my knowledge the other attributes don't do anything for an HQ.

Even if I am mistaken (but I don't think I am) about the ability to rally a lower HQ, what I said before about the Company HQ being critical at times in restoring order is just as real in CMBO as it is in real life. I can't count how many times my Company HQ has bailed me out.

In fact, I clearly remember one of the test games I did of Valley of Trouble for the Gold Demo where a German Company HQ made a last stand on the big hill with scattered remains of my force. I managed to hold the hill under intense pressure just long enough for the reinforcements to arrive. Without the Company HQ I would have been screwed. The HQ also managed to rally Broken/Routed crews and get them to exit the map more quickly than if they had been left on their own.

So again... anybody that thinks that higher HQs serve no useful purpose on CMBO aren't using them very well

Steve

[ February 01, 2002, 11:38 AM: Message edited by: Big Time Software ]

[Enoch]

Steve,

I agree with what you said about how to use company hqs now. I also use them to rally troops when the platoon hq decides to go to the rear and soil his pants. They have helped hold the line on many occasions and this is an important function. I just hope to see a greater role for them in CMII and perhaps we can revisit the topic when the engine re-write begins.

[Spook]

Originally posted by Big Time Software:

So again... anybody that thinks that higher HQs serve no useful purpose on CMBO aren't using them very well

Steve

Oh, I do use them, and in the ways that you describe. In fact, my typical usage of Co HQ is to gather the company mortars under its "command," put it in a good spotting location, and have it spot for the mortars. MG's & other weapons teams that normally can't keep up with infantry platoons also gravitate to the Co HQ, which I hardly would ever use to lead an advance. And of course, if a higher HQ is highly rated, but a platoon which is needed for a specific task has a "lousy" platoon CO, then the platoon leader is "sent back" and the Co CO takes over. Plenty of uses.

Still, IMO, all of that still doesn't equate to representating the likely "command effect" that the higher HQ's really could have, even in the tactical scale of CM. If a Co or Btn HQ got waxed during an attack, then I presently believe that even within an hour's timeframe, that would chainlink to the immediate subordinate troops in some way. Right now in CMBO --- it doesn't.

[Thin Red Line]

For the same reasons, I find there is no unit more useful than a CO, even better with it goes with fighting bonus. Put a HMG and a few mortars under his command, it can save your day.

[ February 01, 2002, 12:04 PM: Message edited by: Thin Red Line ]