HQ Attributes and Subordinate Units

[Holman]

I still have some questions about how a HQ's attributes affect their subordinates. I'm not looking for the specific formula to game the system, but for info on how best to use commanders.

For instance:

1) Do the attributes of a company commander travel down the chain of command to affect squads and teams in the company's platoons? Or do they just affect the most immediate subordinates (i.e. the platoon commanders and teams directly attached to the company commander)?

2) Do HQ attributes still affect subordinate units when they are out of contact with the HQ?

3) Does a nearby HQ from a different unit affect all units near it? For example, if Company A's HQ gets wiped out, can Company B gather up platoons/squads from Company A and give them any assistance?

4) Is a bad HQ (e.g. -2 leadership, -2 morale, etc) still better than no HQ at all? What about if it gets wiped out? (I'm not trying to find an incentive to frag the lieutenant, but...)

[Statisoris]

I too would like clarification on all of this. So many aspects of CM are really mysterious. While we are on the mysterious, do shadows provide concealment and What's the difference between the Leader vs Commander infantry specialties?

[Michael Emrys]

...do shadows provide concealment...

I asked this question in a thread a few days ago and was told by people whom I suspect know what they are talking about that no, they don't. Shadows are just eye candy and have no effects on game play. The foliage that casts shadows however does provide some concealment as usual.

Michael

[Erwin]

I am certain you are absolutely correct Michael. However...

[A Canadian Cat]

I am certain you are absolutely correct Michael. However...

Did you stick that "However..." on the end, just to prevent your quote from ending up on his sig? Very clever:)

[womble]

2) Do HQ attributes still affect subordinate units when they are out of contact with the HQ?

As far as they go, I don't think they do if there's no C2 link.

3) Does a nearby HQ from a different unit affect all units near it? For example, if Company A's HQ gets wiped out, can Company B gather up platoons/squads from Company A and give them any assistance?

A superior HQ can provide short range C2 for the units subordinate to one of its subordinate HQs. So A Company or Battalion HQ can provide voice and sight C2 (but not distant sight) to the squads of its platoons, but A-1 HQ cannot provide C2 for A-2's squads, and BCoy cannot provide C2 for any squads from ACoy.

4) Is a bad HQ (e.g. -2 leadership, -2 morale, etc) still better than no HQ at all? What about if it gets wiped out? (I'm not trying to find an incentive to frag the lieutenant, but...)

It has been stated by BFC that a bad HQ is better than no HQ or even a surviving HQ that's out of C2.

[Erwin]

I still find the C2 system rather opaque. I wrote a couple weeks ago that as I battled thru the xnt but tough "Courage and Fortitude" campaign I lost several platoon HQ's.

This has given rise to some interesting strange phenomena:

1) The Co HQ's did NOT give C2 to the leaderless platoons in their company even when literally sitting on top of them.

2) Platoon HQ's were NOT replaced in subsequent battles. So, in my current La Haye battle I have 4 or 5 leaderless platoons whose company CO's also do not give them any C2.

3) I have one platoon that started with a one-man HQ, and he does NOT give HIS OWN platoon any C2 even when literally sitting on his men.

This doesn't spoil the enjoyment for me since I do not perceive that the leaderless/no C2 platoons are functioning any worse than the platoons with HQ's. It seems to indicate that C2 is perhaps a bit too subtle in the CM2 system (for game purposes).

Someone asked me for a file to examine since it was possible there was something weird with the campaign itself. That was sent but I haven't heard anything since. I have been saving these game files almost every turn, so if anyone else is interested...

[Statisoris]

Does BF consider details on how the C2 system really works a trade secret that might hurt the game if released? I think I remember Steve stating a while back that the whole system is purposely vague, but I don't remember why.

[YankeeDog]

I still find the C2 system rather opaque. I wrote a couple weeks ago that as I battled thru the xnt but tough "Courage and Fortitude" campaign I lost several platoon HQ's.

This has given rise to some interesting strange phenomena:

1) The Co HQ's did NOT give C2 to the leaderless platoons in their company even when literally sitting on top of them.

Definitely not always true; I have been able to take over a platoon whose leader was killed by a lucky "to whom it may concern" bullet with the Company HQ. I have no idea what the restrictions are for when you can and can't do this.

2) Platoon HQ's were NOT replaced in subsequent battles. So, in my current La Haye battle I have 4 or 5 leaderless platoons whose company CO's also do not give them any C2.

Yeah, this is an issue. Maybe there should be a bump down in leader quality or something to represent a new Plt HQ who hasn't been with the unit very long, but unless campaign battles are designed to represent action taking place on the same day, separated by only a short time interval, lost leaders should usually be replaced, representing either a temporary battlefield promotion from within the unit, or with a Lieutenant sent down from Battalion er sumfink.

3) I have one platoon that started with a one-man HQ, and he does NOT give HIS OWN platoon any C2 even when literally sitting on his men.

This is probably because the actual Plt Leader was killed -- if the last man left in the HQ unit is the radioman or on of the runners (a E1 rank, generally), he won't be able to lead the platoon.

This doesn't spoil the enjoyment for me since I do not perceive that the leaderless/no C2 platoons are functioning any worse than the platoons with HQ's. It seems to indicate that C2 is perhaps a bit too subtle in the CM2 system (for game purposes).

Interesting. I my experiences give me the opposite impression. Definitely quite a noticeable difference in terms of relaying spotting info, which I consider very important as aimed fire is much more effective than area fire in many cases. Also a significant difference in terms of maintaining morale under fire, and rallying a unit from Pinned (or worse).

[womble]

...as I battled thru..."Courage and Fortitude" campaign I lost several platoon HQ's.

This has given rise to some interesting strange phenomena:

1) The Co HQ's did NOT give C2 to the leaderless platoons in their company even when literally sitting on top of them.

I also lost a number of HQs. I found that in the battle where the HQ was lost, the Coy took over perfectly as it should, but in subsequent battles where there was no replacement HQ leader, it did not pick up the slack. The Bttn HQ did though.

2) Platoon HQ's were NOT replaced in subsequent battles.

I think that might just be unlucky. I'm pretty sure I got at least one new Looie during the campaign. If your Plt commanders got particularly hard-hit in Razorback Ridge or N803, you were unlucky in the sense that there aren't any replacements between either of those and La Haye du Puits, as it mentions in the briefings for those two.

3) I have one platoon that started with a one-man HQ, and he does NOT give HIS OWN platoon any C2 even when literally sitting on his men.

He's probably a survivor of the HQ who's not the leader. Or do you mean he was a single man HQ right from the beginning of Over Hill Down Dale (or whichever scenario he showed up in first)?

[Erwin]

Most, maybe all platoon HQ's were lost in the infamous "School of Hard Knocks". AFAIK none have been replaced in the subsequent battles.

The HQ with one guy started like that at the start of La Haye. I only noticed later that he was not giving any C2 to his platoon.

Anyway... am getting great experience in handling platoons that have no C2.

I play WEGO Warrior, and I am as surprised as you guys probably are that I cannot perceive much difference between the platoons with C2 and the ones without C2. It was a lot more obvious to me in CM1. It doesn't mean there is none in CMBN. Maybe it is more realistic. I just cannot tell. That may be due to my fairly cautious game style(?)

[YankeeDog]

I play WEGO Warrior, and I am as surprised as you guys probably are that I cannot perceive much difference between the platoons with C2 and the ones without C2. It was a lot more obvious to me in CM1. It doesn't mean there is none in CMBN. Maybe it is more realistic. I just cannot tell. That may be due to my fairly cautious game style(?)

(emphasis added_

This may be part of the reason for our differing impressions. I play WEGO Iron, and Steve has mentioned that in addition to the differences in what units you can see, when (as described in the manual), the C2 rules are stricter in Iron than they are in lower difficulty levels.

[womble]

I play WEGO Warrior, and I am as surprised as you guys probably are that I cannot perceive much difference between the platoons with C2 and the ones without C2. It was a lot more obvious to me in CM1. It doesn't mean there is none in CMBN. Maybe it is more realistic. I just cannot tell. That may be due to my fairly cautious game style(?)

I reckon out-of-C2 units are more unstable, reaction-wise. A team that would get Shaken by 1 casualty when out-of-C2 will often just get Cautious when in C2. I play the same style as you do.

(emphasis added_

This may be part of the reason for our differing impressions. I play WEGO Iron, and Steve has mentioned that in addition to the differences in what units you can see, when (as described in the manual), the C2 rules are stricter in Iron than they are in lower difficulty levels.

Oh poot. That's a shame, because the interface embuggerances of Iron really put me off wanting to play it, but I'd like to have access to that 'harder' C2 mode without the extra clicking involved in managing troops in Iron.

[Vanir Ausf B]

According to the manual, anyone playing on a difficulty level above Basic Training is using the harder C2 mode, or what the manual calls "the standard Command & Control rules".

Not that the manual couldn't be wrong, mind you, but I've yet to see any evidence that it is.

[A Canadian Cat]

<snip>Interesting. I my experiences give me the opposite impression. Definitely quite a noticeable difference in terms of relaying spotting info, which I consider very important as aimed fire is much more effective than area fire in many cases. Also a significant difference in terms of maintaining morale under fire, and rallying a unit from Pinned (or worse).

The other place I really notice that CC matters is with broken troops. By definition broken troops are not in good shape and they do not perform very well. But if you can keep them under CC (with an HQ unit that is in good shape) they will contribute.

I have seen broken squads out of CC basically routinely not follow orders, fire maybe two rounds before running away even when they are in a relatively safe place.

I have also seen broken squads in CC do OK. Nothing fantastic but if you keep them out of close contact they will fire at the enemy and contribute some covering fire for other units.

[YankeeDog]

According to the manual, anyone playing on a difficulty level above Basic Training is using the harder C2 mode, or what the manual calls "the standard Command & Control rules".

Not that the manual couldn't be wrong, mind you, but I've yet to see any evidence that it is.

I don't think the manual is wrong in this area so much as it simply doesn't provide all the information -- Steve made some specific comments here on the forums a while back in response to a post of mine that there are some differences in the way C2 behaves at the upper difficulty level(s) (not sure exactly where these differences kick in; maybe at Elite, maybe at Iron, maybe a little bit of both). I just made a quick search, but I couldn't find the comment; if I have more time, I'll look again later.

But Steve didn't say specifically, and I am really not sure *how* C2 is different at the higher difficulty levels. My impression is that it might simply be that information spreads more slowly if you have marginal C2 connection in Iron (such as distant visual). I've also noticed that it seems to be easier to lose radio connections in Iron, but I haven't done any tests here so it's hard to say definitively what's going on.

[Vanir Ausf B]

If there are any differences in C2 at the higher difficulty levels other than interface changes then the manual is indeed wrong, at least with regard to the difference between Warrior and Elite as the manual explicitly states that they are "identical" except for the interface restriction.

I think this may be the Steve Statement you're remembering:

Some quick comments having only skimmed this thread:

1. There are no mechanics differences in the spotting model at all on any level. Spotting is spotting is spotting. However, the way spotting information is passed around the C2 chain is determined by the difficulty level. This can have a profound effect on the reaction to spotting information, but the spotting information itself is always the same.

That is vague enough it could be interpreted either way. Absent any empirical testing we will probably need Steve to make a more definitive statement . Or we can parse his words and endlessly debate their meaning as if he were some Old Testament prophet

[sburke]

If there are any differences in C2 at the higher difficulty levels other than interface changes then the manual is indeed wrong, at least with regard to the difference between Warrior and Elite as the manual explicitly states that they are "identical" except for the interface restriction.

I think this may be the Steve Statement you're remembering:

That is vague enough it could be interpreted either way. Absent any empirical testing we will probably need Steve to make a more definitive statement . Or we can parse his words and endlessly debate their meaning as if he were some Old Testament prophet

Sort of like this?

Woman in crowd II: Oh! This is his gourd!

Gourd man: Ten!

Woman in crowd II: It is his gourd! We will carry it for you, Master! ...Master?

Man in crowd IV: He's gone! He's been taken up!

All the crowd, pointing at the sky: Ooh! He's been taken up!

Gourd man, shouting at the sky: Eighteen!

Man in crowd III: No, there he is.

Crowd: Ooh!

Man in crowd V: Look!

Crowd: Oh, ooh!

Man in crowd III: He has given us a sign!

Man in crowd V: He has given us...his shoe!

Man in crowd III: The shoe is the sign! Let us follow his example!

Man in crowd IV: What?

Man in crowd III: Let us like him, hold up one shoe and let the other one be upon our foot, for this is his sign that all whofollow him shall do likewise!

Man in crowd III: No, no, no, the shoe is a sign that we must gather shoes together in abundance!

Woman in crowd II: Cast off the shoes! Follow the gourd!

Man in crowd V: No, let us gather shoes together! Let me!

Woman in crowd: Oh, get off!

Man in crowd IV: No, no, it is a sign that like him we must think not of the things of the body, but of the face and head!

Man in crowd V: Give me your shoe!

Man in crowd IV: Get off!

Woman in crowd II: Follow the gourd, the holy gourd of Jerusalem!

Gourdy part of crowd: The gourd! The gourd!

Man in crowd VI: Hold up the sandal, like he has demanded us...

Man in crowd III: It is a shoe! It is a shoe!

Man in crowd VI: It's a sandal!

Man in crowd III: No, it is not! It is a shoe!

Woman in crowd II: Cast it away!

Man in crowd III: Put it on!

[YankeeDog]

If there are any differences in C2 at the higher difficulty levels other than interface changes then the manual is indeed wrong, at least with regard to the difference between Warrior and Elite as the manual explicitly states that they are "identical" except for the interface restriction.

I think this may be the Steve Statement you're remembering:

That is vague enough it could be interpreted either way. Absent any empirical testing we will probably need Steve to make a more definitive statement . Or we can parse his words and endlessly debate their meaning as if he were some Old Testament prophet

Yeah, that's the one, I think.

It does seem to me that he's indicating that there is some kind of stricter C2 rules at one or more of the upper difficulty levels. You're right, though that it's a very obtuse comment and without further explanation, it's impossible to say definitively what he's referring to.

It would also be a very difficult thing to prove or disprove by some sort of in-game test. You'd have to run exactly the same set of circumstances at various difficulty levels, and then carefully track how spotting information propagates around the C2 chain. And you'd have to do many iterations at each difficulty to draw any reliable conclusions. No thanks; I think I'll just live in ignorance and play the game.

[Erwin]

"...it's hard to say definitively what's going on." A very profound observation by YankeeDog that covers pretty much 99% of all issues raised in these forums.