Mobile HQ Section?

Real time World War II combat simulation
Post Reply
User avatar
Fer
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:05 pm

Mobile HQ Section?

Post by Fer » Fri May 05, 2006 4:44 am

After reading some accounts of actions in N. Africa and Normandy, and playing 3.99u, I wonder if it would be possible to have the option - under certain circumstances - of an HQ section which is based in a tank?

For example, let's say I am commanding a British tank force with a few squads of infantry backing-up my tanks, I would probably be in a command tank - not on foot.

Obviously, a mobile HQ has enormous advantages - speed of movement being the main one. However, this can be balanced in two ways:

- A tank-based HQ could potentially be taken out with one round from an anti-armour unit, so it is vulnerable.

- Tanks are, IIRC, harder to hide than four men, so there is vibility to consider.

Any thoughts? Apologies if this is re-covering old ground ...

- Fer <TZW> :)

User avatar
Sean OConnor
Posts: 1299
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2004 7:47 am
Location: Cambridge, UK
Contact:

Post by Sean OConnor » Wed May 10, 2006 9:03 am

Yes, it's a bit odd to have the HQ as infantry if you're mostly controlling tanks. I'll work on this in the next version.

User avatar
Andy
Posts: 209
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 8:42 pm
Location: Edinburgh! (its le balls)

Post by Andy » Thu May 25, 2006 5:03 pm

having just done a basic radio course in my regiment, my head is full of stuff like vehicles having longer ranges, re-broadcast stations and the like. is there any way of working this into the games?

something like a rebro jeep that can head out onto a hill to regain contact with a unit out of range of the HQ unit. this is especially irritating when theyre only just behind a steep ridge, and the HQ has to go all the way over the one side of the map, often holding up the whole advance for 5-10 minutes whilst contact is lost with units on the other side.
________
Mercury Colony Park
Last edited by Andy on Sat Feb 05, 2011 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Fri May 26, 2006 2:58 am

Andy wrote: ... this is especially irritating when theyre only just behind a steep ridge, and the HQ has to go all the way over the one side of the map, often holding up the whole advance for 5-10 minutes whilst contact is lost with units on the other side.


An important part of running a company battle is "Where do you command from?". The company commander has to be close enough to the troops to keep up with what they're doing and to be able to intervene and lead them personally if they need it. On the other hand, he also needs to be far enough away from the fight so that he doesn't get whacked and so that he can keep tabs on all his troops, not just the closest group.

In my opinion, Firefight doesn't worry about this very much but the "radio range/LoS" feature does a good job of standing in for it. In Firefight, as in real life, where the command locates itself to fight the battle is very important.

You rebro idea is good if communications simulation was the only purpose of the command range feature. I argue that it's not. In a game where the player sees everything, the command range feature is a good way of getting the player to consider the best location to fight the battle from, something that could other wise be ignored.

Remember, we're talking about WW2. What the commander knew about a battle was mainly what could be seen, supplemented by radio messages from platoon commanders (if they had radios (Sovs?, Japs?) and if they had time to send detailed reports in the middle of a firefight). No Blue Force Tracker here.

Cheers,

Andy Brown

User avatar
Fer
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 7:05 pm

Post by Fer » Fri May 26, 2006 5:11 pm

I would agree that making the LOS/LOC system more complex in Firefight might be a lot of work for limited return.

My suggestion about having a mobile HQ alternative was really only to address the situation where a mostly armoured force was obliged to move slowly because of a dismounted HQ - thereby eliminating one of the very advantages of mounted/armoured units: speed.

- Fer <TZW> :)

Andy Brown
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 9:30 am
Location: Christchurch, New Zealand

Post by Andy Brown » Fri May 26, 2006 11:13 pm

I've got no problems with the "mobile HQ for armour-heavy forces" idea and think it would be a reasonable addition to the game if Sean brings it off.

Andy Brown

Post Reply