PCO Add Ons

[Mad Russian]

Hmmm...the exact same problems HQ units have in real life.

Good Hunting.

MR

[rickier65]

Yes, I think this could be a problem. Maybe we need to make them part of a regular unit, but add the ability to transfer them to another unit.

Or maybe an addition layer of FOW so that the leader units appeared to be "squad sized" until some level of critical observation occurred?

Rick

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki

So if we could get the squads fleshed out and improve the command structure for the parts of the leaders the infantry combat would be better. How does everyone feel about the actual results that the game produces when the infantry does do battle?

I'm interested in hearing the response to this.

thanks
rick

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Rick


Yes, I think this could be a problem. Maybe we need to make them part of a regular unit, but add the ability to transfer them to another unit.

Or maybe an addition layer of FOW so that the leader units appeared to be "squad sized" until some level of critical observation occurred?

Rick

Having the HQ units being singled out and shot at is fine, you could FOW all units a little more. I think that when the lead starts flying one would be a whole lot less able to ID other units. Other then maybe an estimate as to the number of men in a squad, but other then this and a little more knowledge as to what type of gun is firing back, I think that you would just start shooting at whoever is shooting at you. With just the number of men showing, it would not take too long and after some losses there would really be no way to determine the makeup of any squad or HQ unit or ID them at all.
You could also give the HQ's a better chance of hiding and causing the enemy to lose contact.
Anyhow, I think that if used properly, the enemy will have enough to worry about with your attacking squads to not take too much time singling out the HQ's for too many turns.
Didi not the forward Platoons and Companies take terrible losses in men and leaders during combat?

[Mad Russian]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki


Did not the forward Platoons and Companies take terrible losses in men and leaders during combat?

Yes, and they still do today.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mobius]

The only way to do it is to make the AI take over targeting so even if the player knows which is the HQ section he can't do anything about it. So it becomes like watching a movie of a game rather than playing it.

[Mad Russian]

Or you could have it where the leadership values affect the units within his command radius with his command attributes. Like in actual combat situations. A company commander doesn't set every gun to fire. He adds his knowledge to the events. If you choose a squad, gun or vehicle to fire and a leader is with them then they get his added effects. If they are having their morale tested he can effect that.

There are DOZENS of wargames that have leadership modifiers applied that aren't just sit back and watch the movie reels.

What we are talking about here that is different from most is that the leader would only affect those under his command. The 1st Platoon Leader wouldn't affect the units of 2nd Platoon even if he was standing right next to them. Adding the chain of command would take a bit of coding but is far from impossible and would give an added layer of immersion.

At least that's my take on it.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

So the leader would only be able to influence those under his command. How about only being able to direct fire on those units that the HQ has LOS to. That way if the player wants to expose the HQ squad more for a better chance at directing fire and modifying effects, it is the player's choice to do so and will pay the possible consequences in the enemy being able to target the HQ squad with more units.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Mad Russian
What we are talking about here that is different from most is that the leader would only affect those under his command. The 1st Platoon Leader wouldn't affect the units of 2nd Platoon even if he was standing right next to them. Adding the chain of command would take a bit of coding but is far from impossible and would give an added layer of immersion.

At least that's my take on it.

We have the rubber bands where the colors show some kind of affect. On the down side if the leader stays only with one squad like it is now if a different squad routs there is no way for the leader can run back and cheer lead it back to health.

[Mad Russian]

What you have now is a leader that is assigned to a squad. Not his entire platoon. He is with one squad and one squad only. You as the gamer do not determine where he is. If those men of his platoon are close enough he affects their actions. But if you want to move him you have to move the entire squad he's with. Which is slower than a command group of one or two men moving. And takes longer to activate a squad than it should a command group.

You also only have platoon leaders in the game. There are no steps above him. We have battalion sized fights and even some regimental sized fights. Those leaders aren't in the game at all.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

Mobius and MR, you guys hit the nail on the head. A separate Command Squad for a platoon is needed, as well as some to represent Battalions ect.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
Mobius and MR, you guys hit the nail on the head. A separate Command Squad for a platoon is needed, as well as some to represent Battalions ect.

I don't see what a separate command squad would do for a battalion during the battle.

[Ratzki]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Ratzki
Mobius and MR, you guys hit the nail on the head. A separate Command Squad for a platoon is needed, as well as some to represent Battalions ect.

I don't see what a separate command squad would do for a battalion during the battle.

For a start, a Battalion HQ would provide command control over sections and platoons that are not normally in a Company but are under the Battalion HQ's control. An example would be an early Russian Rifle Battalion has a two gun AT Platoon and six 82mm Mortars that are under the Battalion HQ's control to be assigned somewhere or kept under his command.
Plus, as some have been stating, it would be an idea to build a functioning Chain of Command with orders suited to each level.

[Mad Russian]

As in real life, the battalion command section would add it's support to company level units. So if there was a company commander in the game, which there isn't it would add his leadership to that company unit. Just as the company commander would add his leadership to those platoons under him.

Why is there a chain of command in the military? For many of the reasons they are there in real life they could be in the game.

1) Artillery fire direction, actual artillery direction and not just every squad leader, or single sniper on the entire map being equipped with a radio as the game now has it.

2) Morale support in the event of units taking fire. For the leader if far enough away, and for the unit they are stacked with directly.

3) Reduction in order delays. It takes no time at all for a platoon leader to be activated to move/fire if the battalion commander is standing right next to him. Much less time than if the battalion commander has to issue those orders to a company commander, who in turn has to issue them to the platoon commander.

Even Balck, Rommel and Guderian, to name a few, were in the location of the heaviest fighting so that they could personally influence the outcome.

4) Tactical prowess. These guys have "been there, done that". They are the ones who have a grasp of the tactics and how to apply them. They can and do make a difference by being in the thick of the fighting.

As has been mentioned, that's the exact reason so many junior officers and NCO's become casualties. They are the ones that are in the thick of the fighting and they are some of the ones that become casualties.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Ratzki]

So would it be enough to just have the various leaders modify different events in the game like morale? Or would some leader specific "orders" be needed as well?
Also, how do you feel about the results with infantry combat the way that it is now?

[Firebri]

Any news for the troops ? [:D]

[rickier65]

ORIGINAL: Panzerbri

Any news for the troops ? [:D]

things have been a bit busy with several members of the team, so there hasn't been much additional work done.

Thanks
rick

[Yoozername]

I would rather see a wargame model Command Posts instead of having to model every 'Butter-Bar' in the field. For most company sized infantry units, a single command post would suffice. It could be tied into the abstracted ammunition and morale effects. Having a Command Post move onto an objective could be factored into more 'victory points'.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Having a Command Post move onto an objective could be factored into more 'victory points'.

Like a Brain-Bug Mr. Rico?[:D]

I'd separate that into a immovable re-supply point and a staff car that can go claim flags for more points.