Treeburst155

No, I'll love it. You'll hate it because the game won't allow you to have one guy throw a grenade at one target while spraying another with his SMG. Treeburst155 out. [ January 31, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

I've run into this many times before. Halftracks are timid. If they take fire that can hurt them (MGs could do it if close enough), or if they spot something like a tank or an AC, they get out of LOS. Remember, just about anything can kill a halftrack. I've had some luck by buttoning the HTs. This way they don't spot something dangerous so easily. They're more likely to "run the gauntlet". Treeburst155 out.

Not only that, but if a squad is split into two halfsquads you need two mortars (or two HMGs) to keep it under fire, while you need only one to keep a full squad under fire. </font>

This sounds like what I said.Go figure :shrug: </font>

Thanks for posting, Steve! Treeburst155 out.

I'm not convinced either. I think, over the years, people have been splitting squads for the "normal" reasons, which quite often puts them out of command. This brittleness caused by being out of command is perceived as a penalty for being split, and not the standard effects of being out of command. Two halfsquads in command don't seem too brittle to me; but that's just an impression, not the results of testing. Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

Very interesting observations from actual games, Glider. More ammo is required to put down two half-squads than is required for one whole squad...overwhelmed support weapons (not a deep woods fight)....hmmmm....not good. Treeburst155 out.

I agree...a completely random QB for ladder play. The luck of the draw would even out after about 20 games, and the truly skilled would be on top. As for situations where halfsquads prevail, they are not rare enough for my liking. Lots of maps have fairly large clumps of trees. Lots of enemies hide in those trees. Lot's of them will be split. Treeburst155 out.

Think positive. When the splitting doesn't work anymore, who will want to go to the effort? Sheesh....I hope I'm right. Treeburst155 out.

Stikkypixie, Once the masses are informed, the tactic will no longer produce an advantage. At that point, it might be quite easy to get opponents to agree not to go overboard with squad splitting. Why double the work of an orders phase, when there is nothing to be gained from it? Treeburst155 out.

Hmmm.....we have the first really good argument in favor of Halfsquad Hordes. Congratulations Lord Peter. This part is especially good IMO. I actually have to agree: "In a relative sense, I suppose you might say that splitting squads can give a player an unrealistic advantage in certain situations. However, it is more accurate to say that, in some situations, not splitting squads puts a player at an unrealistic disadvantage. But that's not a very compelling argument for requiring the opposing player to also do something just so he will be at the same disadvantage." I will fall back on the archive posts by Steve, which give a clear indication of designer intent with regard to split squads. Is it gamey to split squads wholesale? Maybe not. Is it unrealistic? Maybe not, if both sides have split their squads; but split squads vs unsplit squads definitely produces unrealistic results, at least in trees. I will be splitting squads in heavily-wooded areas from now on, as the tactic is far too effective to ignore, and will surely catch on. Because I do not do gamey things, I will no longer attach that label to large scale squad-splitting. Split and be happy, for I too have split. See you in the trees. It's a target rich environment out there! Urchin, I'll get right on our forest fight. Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 out.

Hi Urchin, Three things. One, I don't have time to sit down to TCP/IP. I'm on and off the computer all day. It would have to be PBEM. Two, my opponent in this test should be highly experienced so skill level is not a factor. I believe you said you were a newbie. Three, the test scenario would have to be constructed with care. I'd say at least two hours of work, probably three. I haven't begun to work on it yet. I'm waiting for the hardcore Halfsquad Herders to take me up on my offer before beginning work on the test scenario. I don't want to waste my time creating a scenario for nothing. Having said that, the Herders Of Halfsquad Hordes may consider my reluctance to play the test game with YOU as ammunition to use against me in this thread. They are desperate for ammunition. Unfortunately, I'm in a no-win situation. If I play you, the test is invalid because of the newbie status of my opponent. If I don't play you..... If the Halfsquad Herders cry out for me to play the test game with you, and agree that it is a valid test, we will do it. In the meantime, if you want to play a slow friendly PBEM (1 file per day), I'd be happy to play any type of game you want. Send me a setup. Email is my profile. Treeburst155 out.

Member Member # 1222 posted July 29, 2001 18:00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BloodyBucket is correct. According to Steve, the only reason you can split squads in the first place is for recon purposes, or to simulate a very thin line. Even this was not necessarily going to make the final cut, so don't expect anything more. Big Time Software unregistered posted August 25, 1999 00:07 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You can also split a squad into a half squad. There are penalties for doing this though. The unit cohesion is disrupted so each half is not quite as effective as it would be as part of the whole. Also, squad halves don't have as much will to press on as a full squad. Against a lone sharpshooter this shouldn't be a problem, but against anything like a squad and they will really not want to continue on. Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted September 06, 1999 21:17 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The point about keeping squads together is that CM is NOT a game about 1/2 squads. So we have employed some realistic, if abstract, means to disuade people from going over the top with their forces. The biggest is the combat effectiveness of the unit. 12 Garands firing in a coordinated fashion from a single firing spot are going to be more effective than 6 firing from two differen spots under different leadership. Obviously there are cases of flanking where this would not be true, but we are talking in generalities here. The other thing is that some squads (German ones in particular) were designed to use their weapons in combination with each other. The LMG would engage for supressive fire or on massed targets, while rifles and assault rifles were brought to bear on individual targets to accurately take out the enemy. Close range the MP40 would start up and join in. So if one 1/2 squad gets the LMG and the other doesn't, this throws a monkey wrench into the whole works. Steve Big Time Software unregistered posted September 06, 1999 23:53 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The intention of 1/2 squads in CM is to use them SPARINGLY for recon (attack) and outpost duty (defense). Doing more than this, as Fionn will tell you, is a bad idea Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CM Archives, August 25th, 1999 Steve says, " posted August 25, 1999 20:18 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CM divides up the weapons as evenly as possible between the two halves. Sections will rejoin when near each other and neither one is doing much of anything. Split squads are not a good idea. Fionn has used them all over the place, and I think he is suffering for it. The Squad is the building block of the game and we discourage breaking it up in several ways. While sending a half squad on point, or leaving a half squad as an outpost, is acceptable use, dividing up squads to simply have more areas covered is not. Half squads are less effective in terms of firepower and are also less likely to stand up to punishment. We are watching Fionn's guys carefully to make sure that this happens. So far I think it hasn't hurt him too badly, but I also suspect he could be doing more harm to Martin, and less to himself, if his guys were full squads. Hard to say, but that is the way it looks to me. Steve [ January 30, 2005, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Split squads were put into the game so that whole squads did not have to be risked when assaulting enemy armor, and to provide small units for OPs/LPs, and to walk point (scout). There are supposed to be penalties to morale and firepower for splitting squads. None of these penalties are evident to the player, based on information provided by the game, but MAY still be in effect. Why do you suppose the designers put them into the game? Think about that for a minute. Could it be they didn't want people splitting large numbers of squads without paying a price? Why would I want to voluntarily take a hit to firepower and morale by splitting squads just before conducting an attack? Because I've found a hole in the game engine. Treeburst155 out.

Urchin, Have you been following this thread? This isn't a nice friendly game. It's actually a test to prove a point. Are you one of those bad Halfsquad Herders? Somehow I don't think so. Treeburst155 out.

The condensed Treeburst155 position on Halfsquad Hordes with a few quotes from supporters too: One squad can fire at only one target. They cannot split fire to deal with a split squad unless they split themselves. This GAME LIMITATION forces everyone to split all squads in order to compete. This is not what the designers intended, obviously; or they would have given us split squads as the default. No defending squad is going to IGNORE 5 guys at 2 o'clock completely, just so they can hammer the 5 guys at 10 o'clock (same range). One attacking squad shattered one stationary defending squad simply by splitting. Everything else was equal. Fire from multiple directions is powerful, especially when it cannot be suppressed due to game limitations. It was effectively 2 to 1 against the Russians, even though they had twice the firepower of each attacking halfsquad. I just ran my test again. This time the Russian squad lost 5 guys before breaking on turn 3. The Germans lost one guy, both split squads in good condition. I just split a German company. No globale morale hit was evident. I was still at 100% a couple turns later. In any case, these so-called penalties for squad splitting are FUBAR, and likely not being applied. The Russian SMG squad panics and runs away in 5 out of 5 tests. How can you justify 10 men ON THE ATTACK scattering 10 defenders of equal strength EVERY time? Two platoons vs one should see victory for the two platoons. They have twice the firepower. How does this relate to a split German rifle squad decimating a Russian SMG squad in trees? A whole squad has all the support weapons a split squad has. Why should my stationary defenders need to call in the HMGs just because you sent a couple LMGs a few degrees off to the left. My whole squad has sufficient firepower to deal with it. Oh, that's right....they can't deal with it because they can only fire at one unit at a time. If I have a platoon that is losing a fight due to hordes of halfsquads with firepower totalling only 75% of mine, I have a gamey opponent. When are half squads more effective than whole squads? In any situation where all else is equal. In fact, when all else is equal, the unsplit squad will lose even if it enjoys a significant firepower advantage. To my mind, Glider and Treeburst155 have comprehensively and repeatedly shown that mass squad-splitting is “as gamey as a jeep recon”, and is “almost absurdly unrealistic.” The game-designers missed this one, and, as I said (on yes, page one), "it's a pity". Attackers do not generally get overwhelming victories when they attack at 1:1 or worse. I'd bet the attacker usually gets his butt kicked at those odds. Your two halfsquads against one whole defending squad will get that victory EVERY time. Unrealistic and gamey. If I have 10 guys behind trees trying to stop 20 guys, it is reasonable to think that I just might get my butt kicked. There is no game limitation in play here. There are simply too many enemy troops to resist! The game simulates this well. By splitting a single squad, this nice simulation of overwhelming firepower is still in play; but there is NO OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER! The game limitation is that the program does not know when a 2:1 unit count does NOT represent overwhelming firepower. By splitting squads, you trigger the limitation. You take advantage of what is really a good feature IMO. I think a big part of the failure to connect here is that I have wooded terrain in mind, while you squad splitters are thinking in more general terms. Unfortunately, combat between squads quite often takes place within a clump of trees, or from one clump to another. This is when halfsquads rule. I'd bet the further the range (and LOS), the less the halfsquads can dominate; but in a forest or orchard, lookout. I would never attack at 1:1 unless I first split my squads to make it 2:1 in my favor. Are you saying that I should be willing to take the time to manage a company of halfsquads? This game has been out for many years. Never once have I been forced to manage large numbers of halfsquads. Now, several years later, you gamey guys find a hole in the program, and I'm supposed to rethink the entire way I play? Just so you can get 2:1 odds with 1:1 firepower? It's a target rich environment out there. A challenge to all Herders of Halfsquad Hordes!! I'll make a scenario, tourney save it, and send it to you. You study it in the editor, then pick your side and do a setup. I get halfsquads. You don't. If you beat my Halfsquad Hordes, I'll put the following in my signature for 1 year: " I, Treeburst155, am proud to be a Herder Of Halfsquad Hordes because it has been proven to me that it is not a gamey tactic." [ January 29, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

OK, no takers on my human v human test battle. So, I'll sweeten the pot. I'll make sure there is one HMG per platoon for both sides. This way the whole squads will have support weapons to fend off the halfsquads. Hehe....you'd better think about who's going to support the support HMG when it gets hit by two halfsquads. Why? Because your squads will have their hands full with two halfsquads each. It's a target rich environment out there! Treeburst155 out.

I think a big part of the failure to connect here is that I have wooded terrain in mind, while you squad splitters are thinking in more general terms. Unfortunately, combat between squads quite often takes place within a clump of trees, or from one clump to another. This is when halfsquads rule. I'd bet the further the range, the less the halfsquads can dominate; but in a forest or orchard, lookout. Treeburst155 out.

I would never attack at 1:1 unless I first split my squads to make it 2:1 in my favor. Treeburst155 out. [ January 29, 2005, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

No, it's gamey becuase of all the reasons mentioned in ALL my posts in this thread. Are you saying that I should be willing to take the time to manage a company of halfsquads? This game has been out for many years. Never once have I been forced to manage large numbers of halfsquads. Now, several years later, you gamey guys find a hole in the program, and I'm supposed to rethink the entire way I play? Just so you can get 2:1 odds with 1:1 firepower? Sheesh..... Treeburst155 out

The talking is over. Both sides have been presented MANY times. The only thing left is combat. Take me up on my offer above, or let me have the last word in this thread. You guys don't think massive splitting of squads is gamey? Then, try to beat my Halfsquad Hordes without splitting your own squads. Prove to me it's not gamey. It's time to put up, or shut up. Who's first? Treeburst155 out.