RockinHarry
Posts: 2963
Joined: 1/18/2001 From: Germany Status: offline
|
Sorry Gunny! Couldn´t resist. quote:
ORIGINAL: Dragoon 45 Only if I am playing another human player who insists on using it, otherwise I leave C&C off. I don't really think the C&C feature is all that historically correct expecially for the US or Germans where squad leaders and vehicle commanders exercised a lot of individual initiative especially after their Plt Ldr or Co Cdr was killed or wounded. IMO this is a lil bit much of a generalization! On what command levels did US, germans (any any) ect. commanders excercised the mentioned individual initiative?! How did the excercised individual initiative influenced actions of neighboring units (if any)? Unfortunately direct take over of a company by a Plt. commander (or squad leader taking command of Cpy.) is not simulated in SPWAW, except in campaign play, but has actually nothing to do with the debated C&C feature. C&C means that boundaries (assumed to extend towards the formation objective flag, about 3 hexes wide per squad!) are assigned on Plt. level and that the Plt. units are to move within the given boundaries. As said this gives a 3 hexes wide corridor that a single squad can move towards an objective. This is 150 meters or more and actually gives lots of freedom for single squad movement. For single vehicles with many movement points, the boundary even broadens considerably with distance! Not sure on what assumption this broadening of boundaries is based though. Now the theorethical case when a Plt. commander takes over a Cpy. due to the loss of the Cpy. leader. Does that change the given company mission (objective, boundary, ect.) automatically? Normally the new Cpy. commander (formerly Plt. cdr) would continue the orginal mission by his own initiative. This is the point. If it would have been a commander from an army with low individual initiative, the Cpy. most likely would not have continued its mission due to the loss of the Cpy. commander. That surely depends upon type of mission, but I assume "attack" in this case. As said, this sort of stuff is not modelled in SPWAW. However, parts of the initiative system is reflected by the nations command ratings which affect amount of command points generated each turn. Usually units are not just given movement boundaries, they are given fire boundaries/arcs as well! In SPWAW you can always target any enemy unit in range you like, which is pretty much unrealistic either. In this case C&C gives you more freedom as it was historically the case! The C&C feature in SPWAW is pretty much balanced IMO. It integrates well into the SPWAW game system which in large parts is very abstracted anyway and gives an idea what (restricted) command and control is about. The best thing with C&C in SPWAW is that it can be either switched on or off by your decision! Many other games enforce you to play a game in certain ways without this choice. Yet again a short summary from the game manual (page 75) about what C&C is meant to be: "The SPWAW Command and Control system is not intended to be a realistic simulation of command in the Second World War, but it is intended to force a player to do three things: 1. Think ahead. You have to think through a plan about where you want your troops to be at least a couple of turns in advance. If you change your mind in the middle of a battle, you may find your troops unable to comply with your new orders. 2. Maneuver by platoon. You are typically a battalion or regimental commander, commanding several companies whose basic maneuver element is the platoon. SP: WAW units may be squads and individual vehicles, but players need to think in terms of maneuvering platoons. 3. Pay attention to stance. Troops can be either advancing or defensively seeking cover. Alternating platoons from supporting positions “in cover” with those carefully advancing will greatly reduce casualties."
_____________________________
|