Battalion HQs - How to best utilize them

[Voxman]

My knowledge of how to use Battalion HQs is limited. Currently, I view them as 'just' strong Company HQs. I tend to keep them to the rear of my troops.

Questions:

!) Am I overlooking the value of Battalion HQs ?

2) If a Battalion HQs is eliminated, what are the global consequences to the Battalion ?

3) What advantages does a Battlion HQs have over a Company HQs ?

4) What strengths does a Battalion HQs have and how can they effect my troops ?

5) If my Battalion HQ is eliminated, what impact would it have on my troops ?

[ November 01, 2002, 09:42 AM: Message edited by: Voxman ]

[Silvio Manuel]

1) No, they're just 8-man Company HQs, really.

2) just the normal for any eliminated troops

3) 8 men instead of 6

4) same as Company HQ

On a side note, if you want to risk them in front-line firefights, the 8 men give decent firepower, esp. German ones in CMBO that have 4 SMG.

[Sarge Saunders]

Man I love using company and battalion HQs. If you get lucky and have one with lots of double bonuses just attach several squads to it and use it as a vanguard force. Find any platoon HQs that aren't good and pull them away, assigning them to mortar spotting or to work with a machine gun team....maybe even a tank hunter team. Then give that platoons squads to the company or battalion HQ.

coy/battalion HQs work well with scouts since they spot better and can actually help your scouts fight once they find the enemy.

I have been known to take all +2 coy/battalion HQs and give them as many as 9 squads. They have to work in a tight formation so watch out for artillery. But such a force can be powerful. + 2 command bonus is critical for such a large formation though.

Keep em forward, but safe.

This all stems from a change in philosphies for me. I used to take my best HQs and squads and keep them back in reserve. Figuring that when the **** hits the fan I could send those guys in to help out.

But now I have found that if these really good HQs are up front then reserves are not needed at all to help in those situations. Because the front line troops can handle adversity much better.

Use those HQs up front where they can do the most good.

-Sarge

[ November 01, 2002, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Sarge Saunders ]

[Silvio Manuel]

I like to pick low/zero bonus Platoon HQ's and keep them in the rear to command some support units, and swap in a talented Coy/Bn HQ to command the Lt's Plt.

Let's say you're attacking w/ 1 company (maybe 2 Plt's up, 1 back); the 'back' platoon gets the Coy HQ, and he can rally the routees and take charge if a Plt HQ gets killed, all the while your original Plt HQ is in back commanding maybe a nice 4x50mm or 81mm *indirect* fire mortar section or some MGs or Guns. That all depends on what you value and what the bonuses are- i.e. if the 'talented' upper level officer has +2 combat, you may prefer to keep him back w/ the mortars that w/ the frontline Plts.

[ November 01, 2002, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: Silvio Manuel ]

[Bone_Vulture]

Like already mentioned, company/battalion HQ's can be really effective commanding support units in the background, like mortars and field guns, especially if they have a high morale/firepower bonus.

They also make great on-board mortar spotters... A command bonus comes handy here.

[Doodlebug]

I can't help thinking, gentlemen, that all the above replies are fine in regards to wringing the best play advantage out of the available command stands but doesn't address whether or not company and batallion HQ units should have a greater and more widespread effect on the battlefield. To remove the platoon HQ merely because a superior HQ has higher bonuses and reallocate the units accordingly may be excellent within the scope of the combat equations but is surely unrealistic? To treat higher HQ's as merely larger or "harder" platoon HQ's can't be right. Would it not be more appropriate to see a platoon in command of it's own units and which is itself in the command range of it's superior HQ pass down an increased, or cumulative, bonus? This would encourage a more realistic chain of command whereby the company and batallion HQ's sat back and actually commanded. If you're busy leading assaults in one sector you can't be exerting much influence in any other area.

[Voxman]

You hit the nail on the head Doodlebug.

Battalion HQs if only used as swapped out Platoon Commanders is ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of having a real-life battlefield program.

I think the connection lines of Battalion command should be long and add communications ability and other such things to the battalion.

This would seem to be the way to make the program work in a more real-life way. Just to use a Battalion HQ as a Platoon leader on steriods is absurd in the extreme.

Are 'we' sure that Battalion HQ does nothing more than a Company HQ ?

Originally posted by Doodlebug:

I can't help thinking, gentlemen, that all the above replies are fine in regards to wringing the best play advantage out of the available command stands but doesn't address whether or not company and batallion HQ units should have a greater and more widespread effect on the battlefield. To remove the platoon HQ merely because a superior HQ has higher bonuses and reallocate the units accordingly may be excellent within the scope of the combat equations but is surely unrealistic? To treat higher HQ's as merely larger or "harder" platoon HQ's can't be right. Would it not be more appropriate to see a platoon in command of it's own units and which is itself in the command range of it's superior HQ pass down an increased, or cumulative, bonus? This would encourage a more realistic chain of command whereby the company and batallion HQ's sat back and actually commanded. If you're busy leading assaults in one sector you can't be exerting much influence in any other area.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Voxman:

I think the connection lines of Battalion command should be long and add communications ability and other such things to the battalion.

Are 'we' sure that Battalion HQ does nothing more than a Company HQ ?

I disagree. The time when a BN HQ can influence the battle is before it actually happens, where he outlines strategy with subordinates, arranges fire support and resupply, and coordinates with follow-up forces.

Once the fight has started the actual control of the battle has been passed down to the individual platoon and squad leaders. Sure, CO and BN HQs can lend a hand, but only in a limited way.

We have to keep in mind that we are talking about the control of a +1000 man force with 1940's technology.

[Sarge Saunders]

Originally posted by Voxman:

Battalion HQs if only used as swapped out Platoon Commanders is ridiculous and defeats the whole purpose of having a real-life battlefield program.

CM is not a real-life battlefield program. And the main reason is that YOU, the player, are the commander. This is just a way to utilize units to their maximum potential.

I mean if this were "real", I could dismiss crappy platoon LTs and give command over to some +2 combat non-com. Or split the battalion HQ and send over the battalion exec to lead a company into battle.

Originally posted by Voxman:

I think the connection lines of Battalion command should be long and add communications ability and other such things to the battalion.

But they aren't. Connection lines are only influenced by experience level of the HQ and command bonuses.

Originally posted by Voxman:

This would seem to be the way to make the program work in a more real-life way. Just to use a Battalion HQ as a Platoon leader on steriods is absurd in the extreme.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I can assure you that I have used this tactic to win against very, very good players.

Originally posted by Voxman:

Are 'we' sure that Battalion HQ does nothing more than a Company HQ ?

Yes we are positive. More men and more weapons. They do nothing else more than a coy HQ.

Look, I didn't realize you had a bone to pick with CM's modelling of HQs. From your post title and such, it seemed you wanted advice on how best to utilize them as they are currently modelled.

Trust me, everything I have stated (realistic or not) is a tried and tested CM battle tactic. Use it and win. Otherwise change this thread title to "why HQs are modelled incorrectly in CM". But I must warn you: this has been discussed many, many times before.

-Sarge

[THumpre]

[/qb]

[Doodlebug]

The time when a BN HQ can influence the battle is before it actually happens, where he outlines strategy with subordinates, arranges fire support and resupply, and coordinates with follow-up forces.

Once the fight has started the actual control of the battle has been passed down to the individual platoon and squad leaders. Sure, CO and BN HQs can lend a hand, but only in a limited way.

We have to keep in mind that we are talking about the control of a +1000 man force with 1940's technology.[/QB]

I have to disagree with you here I'm afraid. If the battle were only influenced before the battle then the planning would be very stereotyped.

"The barrage will being at 05.00.

It will last 20 minutes.

It will then lift and you will advance to your objective.

You must reach "X" at 06.30.

The creeping barrage will move at 100 metres a minute. You must keep pace.

Good luck Gentlemen. Return to your units."

If it's all pre-battle planning then you end up with a WW1 attack. Fine if all the cogs mesh but a disaster if anything unforseen intervenes.

If companys and batallions could lend a hand but only in a limited way then why are we using them to spearhead attack groups at all?

And finally, and most importantly, it is because of 1940's technology that the company and batallion commanders must remain "standoffish". They cannot risk becoming embroiled in a local action and thereby be pinned down. FO's now have wire bound communications in CMBB,and so should a batallion command post. Mobile communications as we understand and appreciate them are much more novel(runners were still the norm) and somewhat unreliable. Direct combat intervention was a last ditch action either offensively to make a final push or defensively if the rear areas were being seroiusly threatened. To use the slightly higher level example, Urquhart at Arnhem left the Divisional HQ to find out what was happening when the communications setup failed and ended up hiding to avoid capture. Throughout that period he could not know or influence the deployment of any of his assets. What difference then the batallion commander gallantly assaulting across a field at the head of his composite combat group and getting pinned down behind a wall?

"Hurry Smith and bring up the telephone exchange"!