Is there any disadvantage to splitting squads?

[noxnoctum]

As in a morale penalty or anything?

[Erwin]

In CM1 there was, but apparently not in CM2.

[MOSwas71331]

As far as I'm concerned, the biggest disadvantage to splitting squads is increasing the number of units you have to micromanage. And I do mean MICRO. Things that you could do in minutes in CM1 take tens of minutes in CM2. Increasing the unit count and increasing the time required to direct each unit, multiply the effort required to play CM2 and, for me, decrease the enjoyment.

[winkelried]

On the other hand the three elements of the squad can handle three different targets e.g. the scouts observing with a restricted cover arc and keep an eye on the enemy, the assault team handles the enemy LMG and infantry and the anti-tank team gets rid of this nuisance called Sherman/StuG.

[noxnoctum]

Well that's good to know. I was under the impression that with each new split the quality of the leadership of the sub-unit was worse.

Will definitely change my play-style. I play wego exclusively these days so micro is not an issue .

[slysniper]

In CM1 there was, but apparently not in CM2.

That was not really true either. Splitting squads in the old game was better also. many players felt you were cheating if you did it. Steve even pointed out how it was taking advantage of the game design that was not intended.

But better players understood the advantage of splitting then.

This version still has more advantages for units being split.

[Erwin]

noxnoctum: You do have to look at the leader values of the teams/split squad. Sometimes they can be a lot worse than the squad. Sometimes the leader value will be different depending on HOW you split the squad.

On the whole, I have noticed that CM2 teams can do a lot more damage compared to CM1 teams. So, I find it more effective to split squads for example even to do assaults rather than use the assault command for the whole squad.

slysniper: I found CM1 teams were great for recon, but not that great in combat, so I tried to keep my assault troops unsplit. Then again, I was never that good with infantry. I much prefer handling armor and doing maneuver.

[slysniper]

noxnoctum: You do have to look at the leader values of the teams/split squad. Sometimes they can be a lot worse than the squad. Sometimes the leader value will be different depending on HOW you split the squad.

On the whole, I have noticed that CM2 teams can do a lot more damage compared to CM1 teams. So, I find it more effective to split squads for example even to do assaults rather than use the assault command for the whole squad.

slysniper: I found CM1 teams were great for recon, but not that great in combat, so I tried to keep my assault troops unsplit. Then again, I was never that good with infantry. I much prefer handling armor and doing maneuver.

In the old system you are correct that if a unit was split, it lacked firepower if it was to come upon a full squad by itself. but the point was to make sure you had two split squads for a normal squad you were up against. Thus the fire power was basically the same, but you had only one unit taking a beating on morale and losses where-as your opponant had a full squad taking a morale beating. On defence, it allowed you to cover more ground and not leave holes for the enemy to take advantage of.

Actually, these things are still some of the reasons spliting is so important still. But in the new game, its much harder to get multible units to see and combine fire on a certain spot. That is the only drawback to splitting that I know of.

[Erwin]

Maybe vs the AI, but vs human I can't recall anyone making the error of having an exposed squad without cover so I could attack it with teams. I also play the huge scenarios so maneuvering with platoons is quite normal, let alone squads.

[umlaut]

Things that you could do in minutes in CM1 take tens of minutes in CM2.

Yes. If you try to play CM2 like you played CM1, but I don´t think you should:

When CM2 was released, I was a bit disappointed that the focus had turned to smaller scale battles. Now I really appreciate it: I now have much more fun and experience more immersion controlling one platoon of infantry than I had with one company in CM1. This game offers many more details - and as a consequence larger battles become overwhelming.

I really don´t miss the larger battles of CM1 any more - and when someone makes a large CM1 style scenario, I give it a miss: Far too many troops to manage.

So IMO it is just a matter adjusting your expectations and playing style to CM2.

[Erwin]

However, remember that all innovation/invention is driven by those who wish to transform their environment to their wishes rather than resigning to the way things are.

[Sgt Schultz]

I have found that a reinforced Company w/armor on the map at any given time is a decent trade-off for us CM1 large-battle types.

You can still have a battalion, you just need to kill off a few then reinforce to keep things manageable.

So battle durations and distances may increase to compensate.

We won't be in the damn Bocage country much longer, so maps can open up with less stuff on them. This allows larger/longer maps.

By the time your first Company runs out of steam/has to garrison/etc, the next comes on.

---------------

Back to splitting squads ....

Yes, I do it almost every time. I run full squads for approach marches, but once the 'line' is reached, they split.

Protection of AT assets is the biggest driver for me. I may need that tube guy, so he gets to stay back. This becomes one LESS unit that will be dealt with every turn as well.

Many splitting situations are for just that reason ... you want to keep someone safe. Therefore, they probably wil not be getting every-turn attention for orders.

-

[womble]

Protection of AT assets is the biggest driver for me. I may need that tube guy, so he gets to stay back. This becomes one LESS unit that will be dealt with every turn as well.

It's not just 'safe' you want to keep them. It's "from firing their ammo off in largely speculative manner against targets you didn't want them to"