Is no HQ better than a bad HQ?

[xian]

If a platoon has a leader with a -1 or -2 leadership penalty is it better for the squads to be out of the control and command range of their leader?

[TheVulture]

Haven't tested to be sure, but in CMx1 the design system was that uints had -1 to +2 modifiers, and out of command units were at the '-2' level. Each +/- was equivalent to one level of unit experience. So if the order of troop experience was conscript -> green -> regular -> veteran -> crack -> elite (which IIRC it was in CMx1) then a veteran unit with +1 leadership would be the same as a crack unit with normal leadership, while an out of command veteran unit would be equivalent to a green unit with normal leadership (two levels lower).

I don't know if that is the same in CMBN, but since the leadership modifiers appear similar I wouldn't be surprised if it was something like that, so an out of command squad counts as one with a -2/-2/-2 leader (per the manual, leadership modifiers apply in three areas: command, fitness and morale. Although I don't think I've ever seen a morale modifier).

I don't know how the differing levels of command stack either. A squad has its own command modifiers. Are these combined with the platoon leader modifiers? Does one overrule the other? Do you pick the best modifier out of all the ones that might apply? No idea. One of those things that will become apparent with testing I suppose.

[ChrisND]

I would imagine that you would want your leaders in command of their troops always, if nothing else to connect them to the C2 net.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of all those war stories about grizzled vets snearing at '90 day wonders' fresh off the boat come to take command, still with a crease in their trousers. They might say no command s better than bad command. I can't say how the game models it, though.

[gunnergoz]

Well, if the looey is gone, who else is going to draw fire while inspiring the troops?

[zukkov]

2 words. lt. dyke... :-p

[Battlefront.com]

I would advise against fragging your own HQs. They might be incompetent and uninspiring at times, but they do keep lines of communication open. Usually that has value. Usually

Steve

[xian]

OK - yes. I understand that from a communications and command POV it has value.

But does a poor HQ lower the ability of a squad below that of no HQ?

[Holman]

This is a good question. In addition to the influence of bad HQs, I'd like to know exactly what bad effects (morale?) attend a squad out of command.

[MikeyD]

When making CMSF scenarios I was always raising & lowering unit HQ ability ratings in an effort to adjust and balance gameplay. Sometime good soldiers with bad HQs, bad soldiers with good HQs. I've got to admit I was making a lot of work for myself based on assumptions, not on documented procedures spelled out in black & white somewhere. Even to guys who have been at it for awhile the game is still something of a black art.

[Vinnart]

Frag out!:0 Serioulsy, from what I have seen is that the -1,-2 does not spread the info as fast as a difference. +2 seems to spread the word fast, and all the platoon will react faster to spotting a target one meber may have spotted. I have not obseved poor HQ effecting good squads in any other way. They seems beyond slower C2 reaction times the modifier seems to only effect Hq section in its combat direction, and not squads with better modifiers with in the platoon.

[Holman]

*Bump* in the hope of more information.

For example:

A unit out of contact with its leader suffers certain morale effects, or so I understand. C&C issues aside, will an infantry squad with -2 leader be better or worse off when out of contact with that leader?

Put another way, does a bad leader still give a penalty to its squads when it is out of contact with them? Or does the bad leadership have an enduring effect on subordinates regardless of contact?

Another question:

How far down do leadership effects go? Does a +1 company commander give any benefit to the squads in the company's platoons?

[Steven482]

And yes.... I still want my command lines back. :-)

Steven

[LJFHutch]

Well regardless of whether bad HQs are worse than none, I assume seeing a squad wax your HQ probably wouldn't do wonders for morale and all that stuff =D

[Holman]

Bumping this one again in case anyone from BTS sees it.

Would love to know more about HQ effects.

[vincere]

Along similar lines:

Does having a green Company C2 link have a culminative boost to performance?

Out of C2 with platoon HQ, does a link with company help mitigate the lack of C2?

[Cymru]

If they make a Band of Brothers scenario there could be an option to include Cpt. Sobel with a -4 ranking

[Myles Keogh]

If they make a Band of Brothers scenario there could be an option to include Cpt. Sobel with a -4 ranking

One of the worst things about that horrid book was the trashing of poor Herbert Sobel. The man was dead at the time that book was published and was unable to defend himself against the slanders perpetuated against him within it. I'm sure he probably had a entirely different take on things in comparison to Major Winters and the handful of NCO buddies of Winters' that Ambrose chose to interview. (Ambrose could have done some real research and tracked down Sobel's family for information as to any former 101st comrades who may have been willing to speak on his behalf. However, Ambrose and "real research" are two things that did not mix.)

The irony is that Winters and the Currahee vets that Ambrose interviewed all admit Sobel whipped them into a very good company, but then out of the other side of their mouths say what a terrible combat commander he would have been. It's classic double speak and leads one to wonder where their animosities towards him truly lay. (Some have surmised that latent anti-semitism may have played a role.)

Maybe Herbert Sobel was a lousy officer, but "Band of Brothers'" completely one-sided portrayal of him was decidedly unfair and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

[vincere]

One of the worst things about that horrid book was the trashing of poor Herbert Sobel. The man was dead at the time that book was published and was unable to defend himself against the slanders perpetuated against him within it. I'm sure he probably had a entirely different take on things in comparison to Major Winters and the handful of NCO buddies of Winters' that Ambrose chose to interview. (Ambrose could have done some real research and tracked down Sobel's family for information as to any former 101st comrades who may have been willing to speak on his behalf. However, Ambrose and "real research" are two things that did not mix.)

The irony is that Winters and the Currahee vets that Ambrose interviewed all admit Sobel whipped them into a very good company, but then out of the other side of their mouths say what a terrible combat commander he would have been. It's classic double speak and leads one to wonder where their animosities towards him truly lay. (Some have surmised that latent anti-semitism may have played a role.)

Maybe Herbert Sobel was a lousy officer, but "Band of Brothers'" completely one-sided portrayal of him was decidedly unfair and should be taken with a large grain of salt.

Obviously watched it twice and going to re-run again when I need to get pumped for CMBN.

Thanks for posting this view. I've read misgivings about Ambrose elsewhere and didn't do the math and link him to BoB. Seems only honourable to consider that it should be acknowledged that it seems Ambrose didn't look for alternative views of Sobel. But I guess the Sobel of Ambrose's book meets a stereotype fit for pop literature that Ambrose aimed for.

[Runyan99]

It is a strange thing in our modern culture where absolutely everybody must be defended and stood up for.

[Invader_Canuck]

I thought Sobel was handled in an interesting manner in BoB.

He was clearly credited with whipping Easy into a tip top unit, but they portrayed him as clueless in terms of tactics and his ability to remain calm under pressure. Maybe this is true.

Towards the end of the series when he gave 'Popeye' a lift back to the boys he was shown slightly better in that he helped an AWOL soldier return to his unit without dicking him over.

The truth is probably that Sobel was not a great combat leader, lacked the confidence of his soldiers (Something that shouldn't be down played) but was exceptional at training the men up.

Whatever the case may be, I also found it slightly off putting that he was vilified to the extent that he was, when many of the original Curahee men clearly owed him their lives for the prep work he did for them.

[sburke]

It is a strange thing in our modern culture where absolutely everybody must be defended and stood up for.

Probably true, but in this case it is also about setting the historical record straight. Ambrose' portrayal was not at the level that should be expected of a historian. For example having watched BoB I would have been sure Sobel never got to Normandy, however he did jump.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Sobel

[YankeeDog]

In my opinion, actual on-record comments of E Co. members I've read/heard from interviews & documentaries not anywhere near as negative about Sobel as BoB portrays him. Especially the movie version, but to a lesser extent, the book as well.

Clearly, some of the members of E Co. has issues with the guy on one level or another, and it's obvious more than a few thought that Sobel had deficiencies as a combat leader. But if you read/listen to the actual interviews, it's also clear many had grudging respect for him as a training officer, and also his organizational efficiency.

IC may well have it right that the guy lacked the charisma or whatever you want to call it that makes men good combat leaders, but had other skills as an officer that made him better suited to other assignments.

[gunnergoz]

It is interesting when you have a bunch of "warrior" personalities together...they can sometimes instantly "sniff out" who among them is the weak link.

When I was attending Naval Aviation Officer Candidate School in the mid 1980's, we were all being trained by Marine Corps NCO's to become naval aviation officers - mostly pilot candidates, some naval flight officers (think ASW and Jammer operators) as well as naval intelligence officers and maintenance officers (me, for one.) Mind you, this is officer school, not the advanced schools we would go to after commissioning to learn our actual specialties.

At the end of the course, just prior to graduation, the Marines did an interesting thing...they allowed the entire class of 30 or so to vote on the ONE member whom they lacked confidence in and the person receiving the most votes would be kicked out without obtaining the naval officer commission that he or she otherwise would have earned. Yes, we got to choose, not the Navy.

In the end the class mostly voted for one gangly, geeky smart young fellow who was the class know it all but was also very accommodating and not very aggressive. He also happened to be on track to become an air intelligence officer after commissioning. But no, after this, he was kicked out and became a civilian again after 14 weeks of training for no good end.

I asked some of my classmates why they had voted him out. Almost without fail it was because they felt he was not a team player and that they did not have confidence that he would have been able to stand up and tell them bad news as a potential intelligence officer and rather would have told them what he thought they wanted to hear. As pilots, their survival would eventually depend upon accurate, in your face intel about the target and opposition and not one of these guys felt that particular candidate had the guts to tell them they might die performing a particular mission. In other words, he was perceived as being too soft and not "one of us."

What was said to happen to Sobel made more sense to me in the context of what I saw happen in Pensacola that year. Mind you, I'm not saying that Sobel (or the young man kicked out of my AOCS class) were weak, only that their peers perceived them to be unsuited for their military role. Those perceptions can be as damning as one's own behavior, maybe even more so.

[Pak40]

Obviously watched it twice and going to re-run again when I need to get pumped for CMBN.

Thanks for posting this view. I've read misgivings about Ambrose elsewhere and didn't do the math and link him to BoB. Seems only honourable to consider that it should be acknowledged that it seems Ambrose didn't look for alternative views of Sobel. But I guess the Sobel of Ambrose's book meets a stereotype fit for pop literature that Ambrose aimed for.

Ambrose interviewed most of, if not all, surviving members of Easy Company for his book. There were many direct quotes in the book regarding Sobel, including ones that claim that Sobel was the one that made Easy Company what it was. I'm not sure what alternative view of Sobel (regarding his military life) you think is out there, but quite honestly, I think it's unfair to accuse Ambrose of crafting Sobel's persona to fill a stereotype.