ScubaSam Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 Had a bit of a nosy through the scenario editor today, on the Brits Module, and was wondering how Company Sergeant Majors (CSMs) / Regimental Sergeant Majors (RSMs) had been dealt with. Cue one test where various HQs get shot up by Syrian Rifle squads over and over again until the ranks of its various members are laid bare. I discovered that CSMs are to be found: 1) Driving the OC's vehicle in Mechanised and Armoured Inf Companies. 2) As a member of the battalion HQ section in both Light, Mech and Armoured Inf Bns. RSMs were to be found nowhere It's my understanding that both ranks basically fulfill the casualty/admin/logistics supply role for the company/battalion (depending on the rank), so I sorta expected to see them floating about in either one of the HQ teams or driving one of the HQ vehicles (as happens with Mech and Armoured Infantry). My Questions are: 1) How come Light Infantry Companies don't get a CSM to "Get Amongst Them" and generally be nasty to the troops? 2) Why do the Battalion HQs of all infantry types get a CSM, but no RSM? I was looking forward to having an RSM, even if just to conduct imaginary beastings to pinned down sections in the middle of a battalion attack, etc etc 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 30, 2009 Share Posted July 30, 2009 A lot of the personnel and vehicles you'd expect to find at Bn Main HQ have been deliberately excluded. The on-map HQ elements are what you'd find at Tac HQ or in the Recce Gp. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If we included all the HQ personnel (for all forces) you guys would hate life! I'd have to do some counting, but I'd guess that if you counted up all of the organically assigned HQ personnel for a battalion sized force you'd have at least another company's worth of stuff to order around. And that stuff would have no actual tactical purpose except avoiding being killed And with WW2 it's even worse! The HQ for a US Heavy Weapons Company HQ for example, has 34 men assigned to it. A Rifle Company HQ has 35! So if you were to field a force of two Rifle Companies backed up by a Heavy Weapons company, you'd have to maintain over 100 soldiers! Hardly any of them having any tactical purpose as far as the game goes. I mean, cooks and buglers were definitely important in other ways, but since we don't simulate chow time and reveille Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 with WW2 it's even worse! The HQ for a US Heavy Weapons Company HQ for example, has 34 men assigned to it. A Rifle Company HQ has 35! So if you were to field a force of two Rifle Companies backed up by a Heavy Weapons company, you'd have to maintain over 100 soldiers! That 100+ soldiers being comprised of the HQs of the respective companies, correct? Hardly any of them having any tactical purpose as far as the game goes. I mean, cooks and buglers were definitely important in other ways, but since we don't simulate chow time and reveille But what about those times when some courageous captain or lieutenant rallied the cooks, clerks, and buglers to reinforce his decimated company in the face of a heavy enemy counterattack? Sure, that sort of tactical scenario would be much more common for the Germans (enough so that it might well fall into the realm of "outliers"), and the same qualitative circumstances might be simulated by an understrength squad or platoon of infantry with Green skill armed just with rifles, but . . . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 ... what about those times when some courageous captain or lieutenant rallied the cooks, clerks, and buglers to reinforce his decimated company in the face of a heavy enemy counterattack? Sure, that sort of tactical scenario would be much more common for the Germans (enough so that it might well fall into the realm of "outliers"), and the same qualitative circumstances might be simulated by an understrength squad or platoon of infantry with Green skill armed just with rifles, but . . . What about them? Those guys are easy to simulate, if that's what you want to do, by re-purposing other units in the editor. But there's no reason to simulate them for every scenario. Is there? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Good point, Jon. On the other hand, there are units already included in any given TO&E which might be omitted in any given scenario. *shrug* 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Which, in turn, is a fair point However, the ones that are currently included are all what you'd find the the F Ech. What you're asking for is that the A1, A2, and B Echs all be modelled too, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, given the context that CMSF is set in. IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Good point, Jon. On the other hand, there are units already included in any given TO&E which might be omitted in any given scenario. *shrug* But then you might start up a Quick Battle and have to take a heavily defended village with a load of cooks and buglers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Which, in turn, is a fair point However, the ones that are currently included are all what you'd find the the F Ech. What you're asking for is that the A1, A2, and B Echs all be modelled too, but that doesn't make a lot of sense, given the context that CMSF is set in. IMO. Ah, I see. Come to think of it, the rallying-the-trains phenomenon is, I suppose, enough outside the temporal as well as spatial realm of CMx2 to be not worth explicitly including. Better to leave room for simulating it. But then you might start up a Quick Battle and have to take a heavily defended village with a load of cooks and buglers. Maybe. But that's not the sort of situation in which cooks and buglers would (if they had a CO who was sane) be called upon to fight. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Yes, but that's the point CS is making 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I discovered that CSMs are to be found: 1) Driving the OC's vehicle in Mechanised and Armoured Inf Companies. 2) As a member of the battalion HQ section in both Light, Mech and Armoured Inf Bns. Actually they aren't CSM's. They certainly are Warrant Officers Class Two but they aren't fulfilling the role of Company Sergeant Major. Those formations have WO2's as the senior crew commander in the Mech and Armd Inf Coy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSam Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Actually they aren't CSM's. They certainly are Warrant Officers Class Two but they aren't fulfilling the role of Company Sergeant Major. Those formations have WO2's as the senior crew commander in the Mech and Armd Inf Coy. Oh, I'd seen the WO2 badge and assumed they were the CSM (in the absence of any other WO2s floating around the battlefield). So basically, CSMs and RSMs are (for the purposes of CMSF) assumed to be with the supply train? I can totally understand not modelling the entire HQ unit, but I was looking forward to seeing the most senior NCOs make an appearance, especially as I'm sure I've seen Company First Sergeants and Command Sergeant Majors in US units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Oh, in theory it would be beautiful if we could have every single man in every single unit simulated with his correct duties and equipment. Then we could let players determine which ones to use or not use. For QBs we would have to restrict purchases to "frontline units" only. But this will never happen because... Adding support units is a TON of work. They have a lot of specialized equipment, especially vehicles, which serve absolutely no purpose in a tactical combat environment other than being shot to pieces in some sort of "oops" scenario, like the infamous 507th Maintenance Company in Nasiriyah. You can simulate this now with LMTVs and their crews plus some escorting Humvees. There's no need to add all the stuff the 507th actually had. In short... adding the support units probably triples the amount of work we have to do, which is the bulk of the work needed to make the game itself. That means higher costs, longer development times, and yet no real additional functionality. Not a good plan Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Instead of having everything INCLUDING the kitchen sink in the TO&E, I've often thought BFC should have gone to the other extreme and just given us the building blocks of a TO&E. For the base game we could have had things like "M4 Rifleman", "M203 Rifleman", "M249 Automatic Rifleman", "Fireteam Leader", "Squad Leader", "Stryker ICV" etc. You would then build your TO&E from the bottom up, first putting together fireteams, then squads, then platoons, etc. It would have been more work for the scenario designer but greatly enhanced flexibility too - as you could have non-standard formations, or formations designed to fit into their accompanying vehicles. BCF could have provided some example formations in the editor - or just outlined them in the manual. What I miss more than anything about CMx1 is the ability to have squads short of a few men - which wouldn't be a problem with the bottom-up approach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Having that option would push CM even further into the relms of 'perfect game' for me. It would be an awesome feature! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSam Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 Sounds a bit more like what games such as ArmA do in their scenario editors. It doesn't take that long to build a few squads and a platoon HQ in that, with whatever mix of weaponry/soldiers you like. However, that approach only really works for small amounts of units, and it also relies on the scenario builder knowing the ins and outs of every single formation they want to use. You also lose out on the automatic links between HQs, so the soldier wouldn't recognise he is part of 3rd squad, 2nd platoon, B company, or whatever. That makes the whole C2 simulation pretty much irrelevant. While it'd be nice to tinker around with the formations now and again for one particular scenario, I think I much prefer the top down approach BFC use Now, if TOEs were editable/moddable, that would be a different story 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 CM has always been, and will always be, a game which is fundamentally rooted in realism. Having people make up their own TO&E, which is completely unrealistic from real TO&E, is nothing we are interested in explicitly supporting. Most people, I think, don't want to build their own TO&E because they don't want to have to figure out what works and what doesn't. Most of the TO&E you guys play with, especially in CM:SF, exists because the real military already did trial and error. So I think there's little value in allowing people to make their own TO&Es from the ground up. Having pre-battle casualties is something we just haven't got around to doing. It will be done and there's no need to change the way TO&E works. Same thing with user created "task forces" (battle groups), which are higher level organizations of standard lower level TO&E elements. It's just that these things take time to implement and we've got some other stuff to get done first. But both will happen and probably soon. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted August 1, 2009 Share Posted August 1, 2009 Well the reason I would like to edit TO&E's is to simulate other countries armies such as the Soviet forces or some kind of obscure African country. My 'perfect' military game is some kind of sandbox where I can simulate any conflict in modern history in great detail at all levels from operational down. Obviously a long way to go till that happens Creating casualties and 'ad hoc' formations would be great as well to simulate more specific battles like ambushes or last stands. All of this (for me) would be historic but it might be fun to play with new TO&E's to see what works! I see your point about keeping it simple for the average user though, it makes sense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 The TO&E was a source of enormous angst for the Brit Module - because it is so quirky and because the variety of units modelled in the Brit Module was so big the whole thing took a long while to put together and probably contributed to the long timelag between the issue of the Brit Module and the USMC Module. Many design decisions and compromises were made to get the thing to look and behave right and it was only when that was sorted that the Campaign could be put together. It is hard enough to explain the difference between WO1s and RSMs and WO2s and CSMs (lets not get into the RQMS/CQMS debate) to Brits let alone Americans. As others have said - the design decision was to include 'F' Echelon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 OK, where are the Senior NCOs? Light Infantry: CSMs drive the supply wagon with the rifle companies (TUM ST with lots of ammo) RSM not present Mechanised infantry: CSM is commanding the Company commander's vehicle RSM not present Armoured infantry: CSM is commanding the Company commander's vehicle RSM not present This is consistent with accounts of organisations eg 1PWRR in Iraq, where the RSM is generally not in the fighting echelons. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSam Posted August 8, 2009 Author Share Posted August 8, 2009 The guy driving the TUM ST with all the Ammo, LASMs etc onboard doesn't show in game as having any rank, but I agree thats where a CSM should be. How come British RSMs (or OR-9s/E-9s to use the NATO terminology) don't count as forward echelon when American E-9s do? I've seen USMC Sergeant Majors in game, so do the two ranks have different doctrinal roles? I'd assumed they'd be quite similar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 OK, where are the Senior NCOs? Light Infantry: CSMs drive the supply wagon with the rifle companies (TUM ST with lots of ammo) RSM not present Mechanised infantry: CSM is commanding the Company commander's vehicle RSM not present Armoured infantry: CSM is commanding the Company commander's vehicle RSM not present This is consistent with accounts of organisations eg 1PWRR in Iraq, where the RSM is generally not in the fighting echelons. Actually there are plenty of "Senior NCO's" As any member of the Sergeants' Mess will tell you, Warrant Officers (both Class Two and One) aren't "Senior NCO's" as they hold the Sovereign's Warrant. The term "Senior NCO" applies to Sergeant and Staff / Colour Sergeant Moving on. As I said before, no the CSM's aren't commanding vehicles. They hold the rank of Warrant Officer Class Two but the role they fill and therefore their title is not "Company Sergeant Major". The Squadron / Company / Battery Sergeant Major is NOT shown on the CMSF:UK ORBAT. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricochet67 Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I recall our Warrant Officer telling us his rank was WO Class Two and not WO Second Class. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 I recall our Warrant Officer telling us his rank was WO Class Two and not WO Second Class. No argument here. But I didn't see anyone call them that in the earlier posts (unless I missed it with my quick scan). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScubaSam Posted August 10, 2009 Author Share Posted August 10, 2009 It sounds like its only British-heads posting so far - any Americans (or BFC) care to shed light on what the role of an E-8 or E-9 is in the US Army/USMC, in a combat situation? Obviously the roles of a an American First Sergeant and Sergeant Major must be different to their CSM and RSM counterparts over here, seeing as one set is in the game and the other isn't. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.