With tanks on the prowl should squads alway be split?

[Bulletpoint]

12 minutes ago, Zveroboy1 said:

The TACAI for micro actions isn't bad at all though. I see vehicles backing into mini compounds formed by buildings to break LOS in a way that makes sense instead of just in reverse down a street.

I think that's just that it gets lucky some times. I see a lot of infantry sensibly falling back from buildings under heavy fire, but then decide to camp outside on open pavement instead of falling back just 10 more metres and seeking cover in another building. It seems pretty random to me.

[Thewood1]

Yeah, I don't think the TacAI has much context to incoming fire outside own morale state and direction of fire.  

[Bulletpoint]

3 minutes ago, Thewood1 said:

Yeah, I don't think the TacAI has much context to incoming fire outside own morale state and direction of fire.  

I think it does try to go to a spot where there's no LOS from the incoming fire though. Which makes sense.

It would just make a lot more sense to also find a spot where there's some kind of cover. Also it would make the game more challenging. I often find that after flushing enemies from cover, they camp outside in the open, and I can then just move into their previous positions (buildings) and pick them off easily.

Edited December 16, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[domfluff]

The only real reason to not split squads is to reduce the cognitive load. CM requires a lot of attention over a long period, and so shortcuts like not splitting, or the Assault command can be extremely useful to avoid mental fatigue.

That means I'll often not split squads early in a battle, but it's definitely the case that you're better off with more control over the individual elements than with them combined. Fatigue isn't as much of a problem in PBEM (since you might be spending a few minutes per day on a game), but it can build up with a multi-hour single player scenario.

[BornGinger]

A little question concerning tanks on the prowl and split up squads. Which team in this picture is actually going to use the rifle granade on an armoured vehicle? Is it the C-team in which the bottom rifle man is designated as antitank or is it the A-team which actually has the rifle grenade in the equipment tab? Would be good to know asap as the tank is getting closer and will be close enough in about two to three minutes or so.

Of some reason I can't upload the image from imgur or any other image sharing website and am only allowed to upload a picture of 40kb which will be too small to see what's on it.

Edited January 8, 2020 by BornGinger

[domfluff]

It'll be the team that has the equipment on the tab. Or should be, at least. "Anti-tank" is not necessarily a meaningful title in a CM squad.

[BornGinger]

I was thinking the same. But as the rifleman in the C-team is designated as the antitank rifleman maybe he's the one with the duty to do the work and the picture in the A-team's equipment tab doesn't have any value to them. That's why I'm a bit confused.

[Erwin]

The order in which one splits a squad will determine if the team with the AT weapons is designated "AT".  But, as Domfluff says, whichever team has the AT weapons is the team to us vs armor regardless of name.

[BornGinger]

All righite, then!

That problem is sorted.

Thank you, friends!

Edited January 9, 2020 by BornGinger