Squads not splitting???

[Childress]

Go into the Saved Games menu. Select a saved game. Press Delete. Nothing.

Maybe a quirk of my PC. I dunno.

[Chek]

Opps Steve doesn't seem to be deleting,never occurred to me to actually try it.

[Chek]

Disregard above post.

Hey Childress,click on the file you wish to delete,then click on the icon to it's right,finally click delete file and you'll get a prompt asking if you wish to delete it,the rest is self explanatory.

[Childress]

click on the file you wish to delete,then click on the icon to it's right,finally click delete file and you'll get a prompt asking if you wish to delete it,the rest is self explanatory.

Good God, you're right.

Although non-intuitive ....

[Battlefront.com]

Good God, you're right.

Although non-intuitive ....

Intuitive if you are planning on doing mass-deletes You can click on lots of files and then delete them in one go. We figured that was the primary way it would be used so we geared it towards that. Since this is a brand new feature we may make adjustments based on widespread use patterns.

Steve

[Chek]

Intuitive if you are planning on doing mass-deletes You can click on lots of files and then delete them in one go. We figured that was the primary way it would be used so we geared it towards that. Since this is a brand new feature we may make adjustments based on widespread use patterns.

Steve

Exactly what I was about to say,if an old bugger like me can figure it out surely these computer savvy youngsters can.

[womble]

One thing I'd like to challenge is the notion that troops bunch up unrealistically in CM...The answer is SOMETIMES for SOME units from SOME nations it can be argued that Squads are too bunched up. I definitely agree with that and won't try to say CM's depiction is perfect. However, I think the average player vastly overestimates how likely soldiers are to spread out in real life.

I think to some extent people underestimate how spread out a team/squad can be in-game, too. AIUI, "minimum" spacing for advancing across clear terrain is 5m. A team of 4 in an 8m AS, optimally scattered (so "at rest", for the sake of CM comparisons; all bets are off once they start to move ) will have a spacing of 4m, given no other influences. Not far off reality. And as you say, Steve, most 'bunching' occurs around cover or obstacles, and almost all the footage I've seen of soldiers in live fire situations, they're bunched around cover or obstacles and a lot less than 5m apart.

[GSX]

Answers from the other thread:

The first suggestion (trying to have common LOS to stuff) is actually in there already. The problem is that anything automatic is going to run into problems with doing something automatically in the wrong situation. We've played around with this aspect a lot since 2006 and it's gotten a lot better. Might be time to look into further tweaks again.

The second suggestion of allowing units to spread out only if they stay with LOS sounds simple on paper, but computationally it is extremely difficult to pull off. First there is the performance hit from all the LOS checks between Teams. That would likely kill the idea right there because LOS checks are extremely expensive from a CPU standpoint. Suddenly doubling the infantry based LOS checks would likely not be viable (I can almost promise it wouldn't be). And even if it weren't a problem, then we would have to write some pretty spiffy TacAI to keep the units together under a variety of tactical circumstances. That doable, but again it comes at a cost and would open the floodgate to a host of problems that would probably take years to tweak out.

Actually, that probably would have been the norm for any building greater than the size of a hovel.

Standard rule of thumb... if a player asks for more control and more flexibility, it is almost always not realistic though he will try to justify it as such.

Just saying

Steve

And yet surely there has to be a balance between real life tactics and game limitations?

If the games unable to represent the reality of a bigger Italian squad because of the size of the action spots, then perhaps allowing those squads to be broken down into something that fits within the games limitation makes gaming a wee bit more equal?

I often had this problem with the Syrians in CMSF where the game tries to stick tactically to real life but the engine just can't produce real life.

After all, there would have been many occasions where Italian squads were split down into less that squad level and if the game mechanics aren't able to replicate the actual situation, why not have the ability. After all those than don't want to split don't have to.

[ASL Veteran]

And yet surely there has to be a balance between real life tactics and game limitations?

If the games unable to represent the reality of a bigger Italian squad because of the size of the action spots, then perhaps allowing those squads to be broken down into something that fits within the games limitation makes gaming a wee bit more equal?

I often had this problem with the Syrians in CMSF where the game tries to stick tactically to real life but the engine just can't produce real life.

After all, there would have been many occasions where Italian squads were split down into less that squad level and if the game mechanics aren't able to replicate the actual situation, why not have the ability. After all those than don't want to split don't have to.

I think the Italian squad is already split in game. What you are referring to as Italian 'squads' are really Italian 'teams'. So what you appear to be asking for is to be allowed to split Italian 'teams' into sub teams or even smaller teams. I'm not certain that's what you are intending to say, but that's how I'm interpreting it because what you see in game is an Italian squad that is already split into it's component sub teams. If you allowed the teams to be split further then that wouldn't be supported by the command structure within the squad since there aren't any 'sub team leaders'. It would be helpful if everyone used the same terminology in this discussion since the loose usage of 'teams' and 'squads' can lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

[c3k]

I think the Italian squad is already split in game. What you are referring to as Italian 'squads' are really Italian 'teams'. So what you appear to be asking for is to be allowed to split Italian 'teams' into sub teams or even smaller teams. I'm not certain that's what you are intending to say, but that's how I'm interpreting it because what you see in game is an Italian squad that is already split into it's component sub teams. If you allowed the teams to be split further then that wouldn't be supported by the command structure within the squad since there aren't any 'sub team leaders'. It would be helpful if everyone used the same terminology in this discussion since the loose usage of 'teams' and 'squads' can lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

That is a very cogent observation.

[Sergei]

In game terms, the 'squad formation' consists of two units, one of which is a one-team 'Squad HQ' that includes the LMG and the other is a two-team rifle squad.

[Battlefront.com]

I think to some extent people underestimate how spread out a team/squad can be in-game, too. AIUI, "minimum" spacing for advancing across clear terrain is 5m. A team of 4 in an 8m AS, optimally scattered (so "at rest", for the sake of CM comparisons; all bets are off once they start to move ) will have a spacing of 4m, given no other influences. Not far off reality.

Correct. The most spreadout is while on the move in open terrain in unknown territory. This is logical because ambushes and directed artillery/mortar fire should be expected. Better to not provide the unseen enemy with a concentrated target. And CM does a reasonable job of this because Teams space out quite nicely over several Action Spots when on the move. Again, it's not perfect in all situations, but it's pretty darned close.

And as you say, Steve, most 'bunching' occurs around cover or obstacles, and almost all the footage I've seen of soldiers in live fire situations, they're bunched around cover or obstacles and a lot less than 5m apart.

I watched three random videos from Afghanistan last night for the heck of it. One of them was a USMC Squad along a raised road through some sort of cultivated fields. No cover anywhere. The Marines were spaced out maybe 5-6m apart until someone sniped at them. They dropped and over the course of a minute or two they started bunching into pairs while the SAW gunner fired away. The Squad then consolidated and that's where the video ended.

The second video was of a US Special Forces unit conducting a firefight from a sunken road. There was about a dozen in the force and they were spaced maybe 2-3m apart. Some were right on top of each other. They stayed like this for quite a while. Let me stress again... Special Forces.

The third video was of FOB (base) defense. Guys were clustered together wherever there was an opportunity to fire from. Right on top of each other in most shots. They eventually sent a patrol out and 4 Soldiers left the base right on top of each other.

Again, this isn't to say CM's handling of spacing isn't perfect in all situations all the time for all forces, but it's hardly as problematic as some make it out to be.

And yet surely there has to be a balance between real life tactics and game limitations?

Absolutely. Which is why the Italians are setup the way they are.

If the games unable to represent the reality of a bigger Italian squad because of the size of the action spots, then perhaps allowing those squads to be broken down into something that fits within the games limitation makes gaming a wee bit more equal?

As ASL Vet has already wonderfully detailed, that is exactly what we did. The Squads (in game terms) are actually Teams (in real life). They are organized into Sections (in game terms) which are actually Squads (in real life). The Platoon has the Sections (game term) attached to it instead of Squads (real life term).

I often had this problem with the Syrians in CMSF where the game tries to stick tactically to real life but the engine just can't produce real life.

The only realism problem I agree with about the Syrians is they should be allowed to split off the RPG Team. That wasn't possible with the CMSF engine, it's possible now with Version 1.0 that Normandy is built on. Otherwise I think the inability to split the Syrian Squads, or Italian "Teams" (Squads in game terms) is realistic. I've explained that above.

After all, there would have been many occasions where Italian squads were split down into less that squad level and if the game mechanics aren't able to replicate the actual situation, why not have the ability. After all those than don't want to split don't have to.

You should re-read this thread. It's not realistic and therefore nobody should have the ability.

If you allowed the teams to be split further then that wouldn't be supported by the command structure within the squad since there aren't any 'sub team leaders'.

Quite right.

It would be helpful if everyone used the same terminology in this discussion since the loose usage of 'teams' and 'squads' can lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

Yes, it can be confusing. The Italians are uniquely organized for CM. We had two choices on how to portray a Squad (real world):

Squad (game terms)

A Team = 7 Men

B Team = 7 Men

C Team = 6 Men

Section (game terms)

HQ Team = 2 men

LMG Squad = 9 men in 2x Teams

Rifle Squad = 9 men in 2x Teams

The first option puts the 20 men into 3x Action Spots with only one maneuver element by default. The second option puts the 20 men into 5x Action Spots with 3 maneuver elements by default. We chose the second option.

Which means inherently Italian Squad (real life terms) occupies roughly 40% more space than other nation's Squads. It is also, by default, "Split" into 3 maneuver elements whereas by default other nation's Squads are 1 maneuver element. Since the Italians have roughly 40% more men this seems to be a realistic balance of both density and tactical control. Calls for the Italians to have MORE maneuver elements than the Germans, Americans, and British per leadership element would be a total disaster from a realism standpoint. Looking at the Italian Squad Manual confirms the folly in thinking we should allow Italian Squads (game terms) to "Split".

Steve

[duckEfuzz]

I'm not sure how possible this is, but other games i have played that relies on action spots has given you the ability to choose various options.

At the moment the game selects random action spots for the size of the squad.

I was wondering how difficult it would be to have the ability to regenerate that random action spot selection, maybe a key press that randomly generates another 3 action spots until a pattern you find desirable is accepted.

Maybe this would solve the MG behind the ridge problem.

Great to have all your feedback steve, i cant think of many other games where we'd enjoy this sort of treatment!

[GerryCMBB]

Just need a bit more help (I am going through the tutorials first so I haven't met the Italians yet).

1. The terms squad and section here are synonymous?

2. An Italian squad/section has 20 soldiers. But in the game this is already split into two nine-men teams. So the largest chunk we will have to deal with is 9 men?

3. The HQ team leads the squad/section. Do the teams have their own lower-level leaders also?

Thanks in advance,

Gerry

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure how possible this is, but other games i have played that relies on action spots has given you the ability to choose various options.

At the moment the game selects random action spots for the size of the squad.

Actually, the spots are "intelligently" chosen based mostly on terrain, direction of travel (or Face Command), and the type of Command being used.

I was wondering how difficult it would be to have the ability to regenerate that random action spot selection, maybe a key press that randomly generates another 3 action spots until a pattern you find desirable is accepted.

I have long since wanted a "Shuffle" key that would do precisely this. But alas... still has not happened.

Just need a bit more help (I am going through the tutorials first so I haven't met the Italians yet).

1. The terms squad and section here are synonymous?

For Italian infantry type units only, what you normally think of as a "Squad" for other nations portrays a real life Italian infantry "Team". Using the game's terminology, here is how it looks:

Normal (Game Terminology):

Platoon

1x Platoon HQ Team

3x Squad

---Team (with Squad Leader and usually rifles)

---Team (usually rifles)

---Team (usually with LMG)

Italian (Game Terminology):

Platoon

1x Platoon HQ Team

2x Section

---1x Section HQ Team

---1x LMG Squad

------1x LMG Team

------1x Ammo Team

---1x Rifle Squad

------1x Rifle Team

------1x Rifle Team

Italian (Real Life Terminology):

Platoon

1x Platoon HQ Team

2x Squad

---1x Squad HQ Team

---1x LMG Team

------1x LMG Sub-Team

------1x Ammo Sub-Team

---1x Rifle Team

------1x Rifle Team

------1x Rifle Team

2. An Italian squad/section has 20 soldiers. But in the game this is already split into two nine-men teams. So the largest chunk we will have to deal with is 9 men?

Correct.

3. The HQ team leads the squad/section. Do the teams have their own lower-level leaders also?

Yes. They are commanded by a Sergeant. Everybody else in the unit is a Private.

Steve

[akd]

If you allowed the teams to be split further then that wouldn't be supported by the command structure within the squad since there aren't any 'sub team leaders'. It would be helpful if everyone used the same terminology in this discussion since the loose usage of 'teams' and 'squads' can lead to a lot of misunderstandings.

There are no sub-team leaders for scout and AT teams, so the game does currently support sub-division in the absence of leadership.

[ASL Veteran]

There are no sub-team leaders for scout and AT teams, so the game does currently support sub-division in the absence of leadership.

I think it's fair to say that scout and AT teams are task specific and that the person 'leading' the team is only leading it for a short time for a specific task as directed by an officer or an NCO. "Hey Joe, go look over behind that barn and tell me what you see." There is a big difference between something that is task specific and something that is a leadership function standardized within the TO&E. In other words, the sergeant and the corporal have specific leadership functions to perform at all times under all circumstances, whereby the scout team just has to do something specific that the leadership directs them to do.

[sfhand]

...

The only realism problem I agree with about the Syrians is they should be allowed to split off the RPG Team. ...

Steve

Not meaning to derail the conversation, but rhetorically, are you saying you don't think a Syrian squad would occupy more than one floor of a multi-story building?

[Fernando]

Italian 20-man squads ("section" in game terms) were organized to act as a coordinated "team" (group of men acting together) with half squad/team doing the support task (the LMG team/"squad" in game terms) while the other half squad/team (Rifle team/"squad" in game terms) assaulted/outmaneuvered the enemy.

In game terms you get two units, a rifle half squad/team and an LMG squad/team. Any player can use them as two independent squads, beign free to sent the rifle part of the squad (Rifle Team) 10,000 miles away if it pleases him while he makes the LMG half squad (LMG Team) emigrate to America, paradrop in China or go to the oposite corner of the game map 1000-1500 m away from the rifle half squad. It it is not freedom to do gamey things I don't know what could be.

In real world I am sure no Italian squad leader would leave half squad go away hundred of meters away but a player can freely do it. However there are players who don't have enought. They want even more. They want to micromanage things, make Italians even more flexible than they were, be able to divide 20-man squads in three units (one 9-rifle half squad, and 2 LMG quarter-squads) in order to be free to place LMGs one by one where they wanted converting large unwieldy Italian squads in flexible German squads/teams.

My God! You are free to do things an Italian real commander didn't or did not dare to do, namely split a 20-men squad in two then sent the resulting teams wherever you wanted, far far away one from another, but that's not enought, you want even MORE!!!

[eltorrente]

This is a game, and so decisions must be made to best represent the limitations of the Italian squads within the confines of the game. This seems to be the best way to represent how inflexible they were. It isn't perfect, but it certainly makes them play differently and with less flexibility than other nation's infantry.

I just played a pbem as Italians and it was a learning experience, but it was fun. Noob and I played the "Avanti" scenario, and I had to surrender because I simply used them in the wrong way. I was trying to play them like the Germans that I'm so used to, and my guys were dropping like flies. I'm looking forward to playing with them again and adjusting my tactics and being more careful this time.

[GerryCMBB]

Good Lord man, how can you have finished a PBEM already?

Gerry

[GSX]

Correct. The most spreadout is while on the move in open terrain in unknown territory. This is logical because ambushes and directed artillery/mortar fire should be expected. Better to not provide the unseen enemy with a concentrated target. And CM does a reasonable job of this because Teams space out quite nicely over several Action Spots when on the move. Again, it's not perfect in all situations, but it's pretty darned close.

I watched three random videos from Afghanistan last night for the heck of it. One of them was a USMC Squad along a raised road through some sort of cultivated fields. No cover anywhere. The Marines were spaced out maybe 5-6m apart until someone sniped at them. They dropped and over the course of a minute or two they started bunching into pairs while the SAW gunner fired away. The Squad then consolidated and that's where the video ended.

The second video was of a US Special Forces unit conducting a firefight from a sunken road. There was about a dozen in the force and they were spaced maybe 2-3m apart. Some were right on top of each other. They stayed like this for quite a while. Let me stress again... Special Forces.

The third video was of FOB (base) defense. Guys were clustered together wherever there was an opportunity to fire from. Right on top of each other in most shots. They eventually sent a patrol out and 4 Soldiers left the base right on top of each other.

Again, this isn't to say CM's handling of spacing isn't perfect in all situations all the time for all forces, but it's hardly as problematic as some make it out to be.

Absolutely. Which is why the Italians are setup the way they are.

As ASL Vet has already wonderfully detailed, that is exactly what we did. The Squads (in game terms) are actually Teams (in real life). They are organized into Sections (in game terms) which are actually Squads (in real life). The Platoon has the Sections (game term) attached to it instead of Squads (real life term).

The only realism problem I agree with about the Syrians is they should be allowed to split off the RPG Team. That wasn't possible with the CMSF engine, it's possible now with Version 1.0 that Normandy is built on. Otherwise I think the inability to split the Syrian Squads, or Italian "Teams" (Squads in game terms) is realistic. I've explained that above.

You should re-read this thread. It's not realistic and therefore nobody should have the ability.

Quite right.

Yes, it can be confusing. The Italians are uniquely organized for CM. We had two choices on how to portray a Squad (real world):

Squad (game terms)

A Team = 7 Men

B Team = 7 Men

C Team = 6 Men

Section (game terms)

HQ Team = 2 men

LMG Squad = 9 men in 2x Teams

Rifle Squad = 9 men in 2x Teams

The first option puts the 20 men into 3x Action Spots with only one maneuver element by default. The second option puts the 20 men into 5x Action Spots with 3 maneuver elements by default. We chose the second option.

Which means inherently Italian Squad (real life terms) occupies roughly 40% more space than other nation's Squads. It is also, by default, "Split" into 3 maneuver elements whereas by default other nation's Squads are 1 maneuver element. Since the Italians have roughly 40% more men this seems to be a realistic balance of both density and tactical control. Calls for the Italians to have MORE maneuver elements than the Germans, Americans, and British per leadership element would be a total disaster from a realism standpoint. Looking at the Italian Squad Manual confirms the folly in thinking we should allow Italian Squads (game terms) to "Split".

Steve

Thanks for the detailed explanation, not having the game I was under the misconception that they were squads.

[MikeyD]

I'm reminded of that old Henny Youngman joke. A guy goes to the doctor, raises his arm and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this." The doc responds "Then don't DO that!" If its a bad idea to crowd a 9 man Italian half squad into a small building then don't crowd your half squad into a small building! In QB purchase you've got a whole selection of individual subunits to purchase. LMG and MMG teams, breach units, etc. You can get that three man LMG team you want alone on the 3rd floor of the building. It just won't be the integral squad weapon.

[Battlefront.com]

I think it's fair to say that scout and AT teams are task specific and that the person 'leading' the team is only leading it for a short time for a specific task as directed by an officer or an NCO. "Hey Joe, go look over behind that barn and tell me what you see." There is a big difference between something that is task specific and something that is a leadership function standardized within the TO&E. In other words, the sergeant and the corporal have specific leadership functions to perform at all times under all circumstances, whereby the scout team just has to do something specific that the leadership directs them to do.

Yup, absolutely. Any numbnuts private can be given a simple set of instructions to complete a specific task within simplistic parameters. At most he's giving some instructions to an assistant that are also very narrow in scope.

Leadership is necessary when the range of decision making is broader and more open ended. It's also necessary when there's a gaggle of men who need to be coordinated and motivated. Two guys moving around a corner to use a Bazooka isn't rocket science (heh).

Steve

[JonS]

My God! You are free to do things an Italian real commander didn't or did not dare to do, namely split a 20-men squad in two then sent the resulting teams wherever you wanted, far far away one from another, but that's not enought, you want even MORE!!!

Yep.

I think that most people would agree that during WWII the Italian army was on the whole woefully ineffective. Over the last 30-odd years I've usually seen that ascribed to terrible weapons (which is to a degree true), poor manpower (which is sort-of true, in terms of comparative education and exposure to motor vehicles), poor motivation (probabaly true, but who can bame them), and a highly nebulous "poor leadership".

Well, now we really get to see the tactical effects of what was previously nebulous. Poor leadership resulted in a quite restrictive doctrine, which has been reflected in the game with limited ways to reconfigure platoons, and it also resulted in poor training which we also see in the game in terms of limited ways to reconfigure platoons.

Flexibility is the by product of good doctrine coupled with good training. The Italians had neither of those things, so they don't get a lot of flexibility. That's not a bug, it's a feature.