Italian infantry squad critique/question

[WriterJWA]

In the game, an Italian rifle squad is broken down into two nine man sections, one of all riflemen lead by Caporale Maggiore and a nine man weapons section lead by a Sergente, with a two-man leader element lead by a Sergente Maggiore.

According to this Italian infantry manual, as posted here, the table on the last page shows the same two sections, but with no center leader unit, the MG section lead by the Comandante di'Squadra, the squad commander, and the section section lead by a Vice Comandante di'Squadra. Each squad is 18 men per Italian TO&E. The game shows it as 20. Why the difference?

C2 was a problem for the Italian Army, especially without radios and other "modern" C2 implements of the time. Was the addition of a seemingly fictional leader element designed to alleviate that for play balancing, or designed to abstract Italian C2 problems with extra elements?

Would a more realistic alternative seems to be to have a single 18 man squad than can be divided into two separate elements per Italian doctrine, much in the same way an American rifle squad can be divided, without there being the addition leader element as a separate unit on the map?

For reference:

[John Kettler]

WriterJWA,

Am certainly no expert on the subject, but having read the translated manual and counted the depictions in the diagram, I'd guess that somebody, somewhere thought the count was for the squad strength without the SL and ASL. Clearly, that is NOT the case.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ChrisND]

Each squad is 18 men per Italian TO&E. The game shows it as 20. Why the difference?

When was your source written? Organizations changed after the beginning of the war, and my sources indicated they increased in size from 18 to 20 at some point during the war (I don't remember when just now).

Would a more realistic alternative seems to be to have a single 18 man squad than can be divided into two separate elements per Italian doctrine, much in the same way an American rifle squad can be divided, without there being the addition leader element as a separate unit on the map?

At first I looked at making the squads be 20 man squads, but Steve and I rejected this approach because not only would 20 men get REALLY crowded in three action spaces, but the game's squad system and pathfinding etc wasn't really made for squads of that size. Running around with it joined up would be asking for problems.

Instead we've got what you have now, which is the squad permanently split and the squad leader acting "section" HQ between the LMG and rifle groups.

Also, any further debate on this would be academic. Low-level TOE like this is not going to be changed in a patch.

[akd]

The Rifle Company - the Italian Rifle Platoon used a unique internal organisation.

It was divided into two large Squads, each of twenty men, which were further split into Rifle and Light Machine Gun groups.* The Squad was commanded by a Sergeant or Major Sergeant, who controlled the LMG Group.* This was made up of two detachments, each of a Corporal gunner, an assistant gunner and two ammunition bearers.* Each detachment served a Breda Modello 30 light machine gun.* The balance of the Squad was found in the Rifle Group of eleven men, which included a Corporal Major and Corporal.

The manual indicates that the two Groups were to operate as distinct elements, with the two LMGs supporting the Rifle Group onto its objective.* At the time, most other armies embedded a light machine gun with each Section/Squad, themselves roughly half the size of the Italian Squad, which by comparison seems an unwieldy organisation.* Individual weapons are given as pistols for each Corporal gunner, a carbine for the Major Sergeant and rifles for all others.

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Italian/italian_infantry_battalion%201940%20to%201943.htm

[Battlefront.com]

When was your source written?

1940. You can find it here:

http://comandosupremo.com/italian-infantry-squad-tactics.html

It is likely the Italians found that in practice they needed a few more men.

At first I looked at making the squads be 20 man squads, but Steve and I rejected this approach because not only would 20 men get REALLY crowded in three action spaces, but the game's squad system and pathfinding etc wasn't really made for squads of that size. Running around with it joined up would be asking for problems.

Yup. When we designed the game we didn't think of an oddball situation where we might wind up with three nearly maxed out Teams within a Squad. That's... nuts! And so far, after 8 CMx2 releases this is the first time we've faced this sort of problem. The next time I think we might see it is early war Romanians. So I think we can be forgiven for not designing the whole game and UI around this possibility

Instead we've got what you have now, which is the squad permanently split and the squad leader acting "section" HQ between the LMG and rifle groups.

Which is how it worked in real life. Given the horrific state of Italian C2 anything other than what we came up with would make it even worse. Other nations don't have these sorts of problems to overcome, thankfully.

Also, any further debate on this would be academic. Low-level TOE like this is not going to be changed in a patch.

Especially because we already used this information to determine how to approach the ungainly Italian organization. The current system is pretty accurate, though of course not perfect for all situations at all times. But I don't think I'd call anything perfect for all situations at all times, which means one can make an argument to redo pretty much any TO&E decision made since CMSF. Which is obviously a line of argument that's not going to go very far

Steve

[John Kettler]

How I love grog discussions! Increased the squad from 18 to 20, eh? Now, that's research!

As a bonus, the BFC co-consul and his formal/informal colleague reveal the inner details of why the Italians are the way they are.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Battlefront.com]

Oh, Normal Dude is way more than a formal/informal colleague on this one

And a quick plug for ND... I always felt the TO&E was in good hands with him. Well, at least after he learned how all the various bits and sub bits work together. Just like you don't want to experience brain surgery carried out by a 1st year med student

Steve

[Amedeo]

Still, I think that the LMG group should be allowed to be split into two fire teams. It won't require a TO&E change and it won't be a game breaker. Will allow for a more accurate depiction of what is in the aforementioned manual, though.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's the problem. The manual explicitly states that under "exceptional" circumstances the LMG Squad (game terms) can be split into two separate Teams (game terms). Well, unfortunately there is no way for the game to enforce "exceptional" and therefore players will NO DOUBT change the exceptional into the normal. So we go from one realism problem to another. And I say that makes the overall realism take a worse hit than it currently has.

OK, so in real life they made allowances for the LMG Squad (game terms) to split apart in "exceptional" circumstances. If you look at the chart you can see the limitations on this splitting. They are to be used for, and only for, "wings" to bracket the Rifle Squad (game terms). How can the game enforce that and prevent players from doing whatever they want with them, completely contrary to doctrine?

Further, look at the spacing. Based on the pacing counts (see this website for a conversion) when split the LMG Squad's two elements ("Teams" in game terms) have about 1-3 Action Spots between them and the Rifle Squad (game terms) while on the move. When deployed for combat the spacing is 1 Action Spot between. How can the game enforce this and prevent players from doing whatever they want, completely contrary to doctrine?

I don't see how opening up Pandora's box furthers the game's realism, but I sure do see how it will harm it. Potentially severely.

Steve

[Childress]

I don't see how opening up Pandora's box furthers the game's realism, but I sure do see how it will harm it. Potentially severely.

You convinced me. But this topic is proving more durable than the pyramids. Maybe a new sub-forum is in order.

[Amedeo]

Steve,

I understand your concerns and I agree that, when in doubt, a conservative approach should be preferred but I'd also like to bring to your attention two other important points:

- If something is depicted in one third of the illustrations in a regulation, it's probably something that is likely to happen often, despite it being styled "exceptional" or not.

- More relevant: section 222 of the aforementioned instruction clearly states that when advancing under fire, it is expedient for the LMG group to alternate movement and fire for the LMGs themselves. That means that the standard practice was that one LMG fires while the other bounds forward, while the rifle group regulate its movement on the firing weapon (weapon, singular, not weapons, as in the PDF! There's an error in the translation, the original says: il gruppo fucilieri regola il suo movimento sull'arma in funzione).

Thus, it's evident that the current impossibility to split the LMG group forbids something that was normal practice. Moreover, if your concern is that the two weapons should only remain at the wings without wandering about, consider also that the intervals and distances shows in the pictures are not compelling and should not be taken as the norm. And they can considerably be different from what is shown, in accordance with the commander's orders (this is written on the regulation, it's not my guess).

So, for the aforementioned reasons, I'm still convinced that you should allow the LMG group (and only this group) to be split into two fire teams. It won't be a game breaker and, more importantly, will enhance the overall realism and the attention to detail that are a trademark of the CM series.

Regards,

Amedeo

[ASL Veteran]

Steve,

I understand your concerns and I agree that, when in doubt, a conservative approach should be preferred but I'd also like to bring to your attention two other important points:

- If something is depicted in one third of the illustrations in a regulation, it's probably something that is likely to happen often, despite it being styled "exceptional" or not.

- More relevant: section 222 of the aforementioned instruction clearly states that when advancing under fire, it is expedient for the LMG group to alternate movement and fire for the LMGs themselves. That means that the standard practice was that one LMG fires while the other bounds forward, while the rifle group regulate its movement on the firing weapon (weapon, singular, not weapons, as in the PDF! There's an error in the translation, the original says: il gruppo fucilieri regola il suo movimento sull'arma in funzione).

Thus, it's evident that the current impossibility to split the LMG group forbids something that was normal practice. Moreover, if your concern is that the two weapons should only remain at the wings without wandering about, consider also that the intervals and distances shows in the pictures are not compelling and should not be taken as the norm. And they can considerably be different from what is shown, in accordance with the commander's orders (this is written on the regulation, it's not my guess).

So, for the aforementioned reasons, I'm still convinced that you should allow the LMG group (and only this group) to be split into two fire teams. It won't be a game breaker and, more importantly, will enhance the overall realism and the attention to detail that are a trademark of the CM series.

Regards,

Amedeo

Section 222 is easily satisfied by using the Assault Move command that is present in the game now. It doesn't require the team to be split into independent entities. It's pretty obvious that you feel passionate about this issue Amedeo, but I don't think you are going to have any success in moving this issue in the direction that you want so you might as well just take a few deep breaths and let it go my friend.

[Battlefront.com]

- If something is depicted in one third of the illustrations in a regulation, it's probably something that is likely to happen often, despite it being styled "exceptional" or not.

Diagrams aren't included based on frequency of use or relative importance. If there are three possible formations then there will be three diagrams. So your point here isn't relevant.

- More relevant: section 222 of the aforementioned instruction clearly states that when advancing under fire, it is expedient for the LMG group to alternate movement and fire for the LMGs themselves.

Yes, and this is possible. Use the Assault Command and that is exactly what happens.

That means that the standard practice...

For that particular action, perhaps. Though I don't see where it says it's "standard practice". And regardless, it's possible to do in the game right now without any changes.

Thus, it's evident that the current impossibility to split the LMG group forbids something that was normal practice.

Incorrect. The manual very specifically states this is "exceptional", not "standard".

Moreover, if your concern is that the two weapons should only remain at the wings without wandering about, consider also that the intervals and distances shows in the pictures are not compelling and should not be taken as the norm.

When a manual suggests specific spacing, in meters or paces (as this manual does), I think it would be foolish to dismiss it.

And they can considerably be different from what is shown, in accordance with the commander's orders (this is written on the regulation, it's not my guess).

Generally speaking that is why there is a range of distances provided. This demonstrates the extent of flexibility under almost all situations. So yes, a Commander has flexibility, but it would almost always be within these boundaries.

So, for the aforementioned reasons, I'm still convinced that you should allow the LMG group (and only this group) to be split into two fire teams. It won't be a game breaker and, more importantly, will enhance the overall realism and the attention to detail that are a trademark of the CM series.

Ah, but might I remind you of what you said at first:

I understand your concerns and I agree that, when in doubt, a conservative approach should be preferred

The issue here is not of doubt, it is of certainty. If we allow people to split this unit they will "abuse" the privilege. I can guarantee that without any hesitation, reservation, or doubts of any sort. 30 years of gaming experience makes me quite certain of this

Given this capability players will not limit their use to "wings" as the manual specifies, they will not limit their use to "exception" circumstances, they will not stick to the separation ranges. Which means we come right back to the primary problem with any game environment which attempts to impose real world restrictions. There are always exceptions to every rule, but the more we allow players to leverage those exceptions unrealistically, the more unrealistic the game becomes.

Going all the way back to CMBO I used an example from a tactics book I have. A US Rifle Platoon was pinned down by a MG42. To overcome this they found some cows and herded them into the MG42's field of fire and used them to block the bullets. This allowed a couple of soldiers to flank the MG position and take it out. Realistic? Absolutely. Common tactic? Absolutely not. Should we allow it in the game just because it was technically possible? No. If we did, how often do you think we'd see this tactic used?

Obviously splitting of the LMG Squad (Team in real life) isn't nearly as extreme as this. But the underlying dilemma is the same. By allowing the unusual to be common the overall realism declines.

I see no reason to change things.

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

The issue here is not of doubt, it is of certainty. If we allow people to split this unit they will "abuse" the privilege. I can guarantee that without any hesitation, reservation, or doubts of any sort. 30 years of gaming experience makes me quite certain of this

Ah, man, I have to agree with you. I have almost 50 years of gaming experience, and right from the first I had to spend most of my time going though the rulebook and explaining to my opponent why what he just tried to do is illegal. This with practically every opponent I ever had. That's one of the main reasons why I became a solitaire player.

Michael

[Amedeo]

Diagrams aren't included based on frequency of use or relative importance. If there are three possible formations then there will be three diagrams. So your point here isn't relevant.

Perhaps. But I wanted to underline that I am requesting something that is written on the regulations, something that, albeit exceptional, was, for sure, more frequent that any bizarre tactical exploit devised on the fly by a creative squad leader (whether it involved cows or not! ).

Yes, and this is possible. Use the Assault Command and that is exactly what happens.

Point taken. I wasn't considering this possibility.

For that particular action, perhaps. Though I don't see where it says it's "standard practice". And regardless, it's possible to do in the game right now without any changes.

If the manual states that it's advisable to do something in a given way, I dare to say that it was standard practice. For that particular action, of course... but this is obvious!

Incorrect. The manual very specifically states this is "exceptional", not "standard".

I was referring to the advancing in bounds, although I admit I didn't consider it was possible to do something similar with the assault command.

When a manual suggests specific spacing, in meters or paces (as this manual does), I think it would be foolish to dismiss it.

But, for the vary same reason, it would also be foolish to dismiss the fact that the note under the diagrams says that the intervals and distances given are in no way to be considered normative (emphasis in the original).

Generally speaking that is why there is a range of distances provided. This demonstrates the extent of flexibility under almost all situations. So yes, a Commander has flexibility, but it would almost always be within these boundaries.

As I said, the note states that the intervals are not to be taken as boundaries, even if they are given as intervals (e.g. 8-30 paces).

The issue here is not of doubt, it is of certainty. If we allow people to split this unit they will "abuse" the privilege. I can guarantee that without any hesitation, reservation, or doubts of any sort. 30 years of gaming experience makes me quite certain of this

You don't have to persuade me. My gaming experience make me certain of this too...

Given this capability players will not limit their use to "wings" as the manual specifies, they will not limit their use to "exception" circumstances, they will not stick to the separation ranges. Which means we come right back to the primary problem with any game environment which attempts to impose real world restrictions. There are always exceptions to every rule, but the more we allow players to leverage those exceptions unrealistically, the more unrealistic the game becomes.

You're right. But you also know that almost any rule is susceptible of abuse and no wargame can be totally fool-proof: Jeep recon, crewmen grabbing victory flags, you name it.

The point is: is the benefit of additional detail totally offset by possible exploitations or not? Our opinions, about the issue at hand, diverge. Of course I have no problem if you says that the cons outweights the pros, in this case. I just wanted you to ponder the case with the benefit of a more accurate translation of the relevant sections. If your call remains the same, it's OK for me.

Going all the way back to CMBO I used an example from a tactics book I have. A US Rifle Platoon was pinned down by a MG42. To overcome this they found some cows and herded them into the MG42's field of fire and used them to block the bullets. This allowed a couple of soldiers to flank the MG position and take it out. Realistic? Absolutely. Common tactic? Absolutely not. Should we allow it in the game just because it was technically possible? No. If we did, how often do you think we'd see this tactic used?

Obviously splitting of the LMG Squad (Team in real life) isn't nearly as extreme as this. But the underlying dilemma is the same. By allowing the unusual to be common the overall realism declines.

As you said, the issue at hand isn't nearly as extreme as this. Unless, of course, you can provide a quote with commands and diagrams for a cow attack, taken from an official U.S. Army field manual!

I see no reason to change things.

That's fine. I just wanted to provide additional food for thought, but it's obvious that the call is, rightly, yours. I do not think that the possible exploits of allowing the LMG section to split would eclipse the added realism (actually, I think that nothing short of giving the Regio Esercito some tacnukes would imbalance the game in favour of the Italians, but I digress... ) anyway, as I said, it's only my opinion and I have no intention to insist, if you think that the evidence presented is not compelling.

Regards,

Amedeo

[YankeeDog]

Regarding the “unsplittable” squads issue:

I’ve commented on this before, in other threads dating back to not long after the release of CMSF (regarding Syrian unsplittable squads rather than Italians back then, obviously).

Rather than re-hashing and quoting my own posts, allow me to reiterate briefly: Steve, while I understand your opinions and the motives behind this design decision, I don’t agree.

IMHO, in the context of CMx2‘s current modeling and UI interface, making Italian infantry squads completely unsplittable simply goes to far. If the choice for Italians is only between never split squads ever, and split squads with the same flexibility as for other nationalities, then I think the latter is the better option. Clearly, neither option is ideal. But IMHO, way it is in CMFI now is on the wrong side of the pro/con balance (and same goes for most Syrian forces in CMSF, IMHO). Personally, I’d like to believe there is an achievable middle ground, but not being part of the design or coding process, obviously I have no way of knowing what’s possible, and what’s not.

But there’s no sense in beating a dead horse. Obviously, you’ve made your decision. You’re the one who took the risk to start your own game company, and stake your livelihood on same. I respect this. It’s not a game-breaker, it’s but it is a strong “Gee, I sure would have done that differently...” It certainly does make me much less likely to play scenarios with Italian forces. But there’s plenty else to keep my attention so it’s not like you’re losing a sale in my case.

If nothing else, I guess take this post as a request make it a priority to add features to the game engine that allow a better way of modeling national differences like this that aren’t so procrustean. (to use a favorite adjective I’ve used to describe this issue in the past...) I REALLY want to see a better way to represent national doctrinal/training differences like this by the time we get to the East Front...

Cheers,

YD

[MikeyD]

Its hard to argue that squads can't split when they in fact come onto the maps pre-split. What you can't do is MERGE them into a single 20 man unit. What other countries are they not able to merge their split squads?

[ASL Veteran]

IMHO, in the context of CMx2‘s current modeling and UI interface, making Italian infantry squads completely unsplittable simply goes to far. If the choice for Italians is only between never split squads ever, and split squads with the same flexibility as for other nationalities, then I think the latter is the better option.

The Italian squads are split. They start split by default. What you are referring to as squads are actually teams. You are asking to split a team into two sub teams with one element led by a private.

[WriterJWA]

http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com/Italian/italian_infantry_battalion%201940%20to%201943.htm

According to this post, which is leaning on the 1942 Brief Notes on the Italian Army "[A rifle platoon] was divided into two large Squads, each of twenty men, which were further split into Rifle and Light Machine Gun groups. The Squad was commanded by a Sergeant or Major Sergeant, who controlled the LMG Group. This was made up of two detachments, each of a Corporal gunner, an assistant gunner and two ammunition bearers. Each detachment served a Breda Modello 30 light machine gun. The balance of the Squad was found in the Rifle Group of eleven men, which included a Corporal Major and Corporal."

If you look at the diagram, the squad leader is assigned to the "group" with the LMG teams (fig. 1 and 2). The game uses a separate leader element, which is against doctrine, and can also be used as a separate element in-game, one that wouldn't exist on the battlefield.

Team One: Nine men, two LMG teams plus the Sergeant or Major Sergeant.

Team Two: Eleven men, all riflemen led by a Corporal Major and a Corporal.

No additional maneuver element present....

[YankeeDog]

Its hard to argue that squads can't split when they in fact come onto the maps pre-split. What you can't do is MERGE them into a single 20 man unit. What other countries are they not able to merge their split squads?

The Italian squads are split. They start split by default. What you are referring to as squads are actually teams. You are asking to split a team into two sub teams with one element led by a private.

Whatever. As I have noted before, I view this as kind of hair-splitting as semantic niggling.

But if you must, here you go:

IMHO, in the context of the CMx2 engine, infantry units with more than 7 members that cannot be be further subdivided for command and UI purposes are too unwieldy to allow the player to to execute realistic deployment and tactics in many situations. In my view, such teams should therefore be allowed to split, even if the training and tactical doctrine for the nationality of the unit in question did not allow for a great degree of initiative and flexibility at the lower levels of infantry organization.

Happy?

[JonS]

Happy?

In the sense that I understand what you're saying? Yes. Very happy.

In the sense that I agree with what you're saying? Not so much.

Why should an Italian platoon - with all the acknowledged handicaps of poor doctrine, poor training, poor organisation, and poor leadership - be able to divide itself up in to more sub elements than a German platoon? You're asking that the Italians have more tactical flexibility than the Germans. Is that reasonable?

[YankeeDog]

In the sense that I understand what you're saying? Yes. Very happy.

In the sense that I agree with what you're saying? Not so much.

Why should an Italian platoon - with all the acknowledged handicaps of poor doctrine, poor training, poor organisation, and poor leadership - be able to divide itself up in to more sub elements than a German platoon? You're asking that the Italians have more tactical flexibility than the Germans. Is that reasonable?

But it wouldn't be that way. The Italian platoon has only one junior commissioned officer and 2 squad-leader noncoms for 42 men. Now I know what you're thinking: "Yes! This is why split teams are not allowed!". But in CM terms, this also means that even if full splitting for Italian infantry platoons is allowed, a large number of those split teams are going to be without a "Leader" or even an "Asst. Leader" specialty soldier.

An Italian platoon fully split into constituent teams, would have 8 teams (not counting HQ team), but only 2 "Leader" specialty soldiers. By the book, perhaps the Corporal and Corporal Major ranks in the squads should be reflected as "Asst. Leader" soldiers, but I would argue that eliminating the Asst. Leader soldiers and in the Italian squads would be a very effective way of abstractly limiting their tactical flexibility.

It's also going to be hard to keep all 8 of those teams under C2 of the platoon CO if you spread them out very much.

In contrast, The German platoon has one platoon leader officer (or, sometimes, Sr. noncom) for about 30 men, plus enough noncoms to give each split team at least an Asst. Leader, if not a full-out Leader. Much easier to deploy effectively.

Experience with CMBN has taught me that the game levies substantial morale and C2 penalties for teams without a Leader or Asst. Leader soldier. This alone would make Italian platoons substantially less flexible than German ones. Add other national differences, such as deficient small arms weaponry and scarce radios in the Italian formations, and I really don't think players would find them anywhere near as flexible as the equivalent German formations.

Further, there are all sorts of systems in the game now that could be used to further restrict the flexibility of Italian split teams. Expand the Morale/C2 penalties levied on split teams -- right now, this penalty seems to usually only hit Scout teams, but there's no reason it couldn't be expanded to other teams in the case of Italians. Restrict the types of Split teams the player is allowed to generate -- perhaps Italians should only generate Scout and LMG teams, no assault teams. Restrict the number of splits allowed per platoon -- e.g., an American or German platoon can potentially generate 3 or more scout teams, perhaps an Italian platoon could be restricted to allow only one Scout team at a time across the entire platoon. Etc. These suggestions are off the top of my head, and obviously these fall under the category of stuff that would require additional coding time, but they are all based on systems and mechanics that are currently in the game.

But enough. I'm honestly not particularly interested in spending much more time debating an aspect of the game that obviously isn't going to change for this version. Perhaps worth revisiting for 3.0, but for now, I admit defeat and will settle for simply putting my objection on the record. I don't think I'm going to change your mind, nor do I think it's likely you are going to change mine. It's OK. I still love you.

But I suspect we can also agree that this is an area of the game model where it would be great to see some further work and refinement in future releases.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

Perhaps. But I wanted to underline that I am requesting something that is written on the regulations, something that, albeit exceptional, was, for sure, more frequent that any bizarre tactical exploit devised on the fly by a creative squad leader (whether it involved cows or not! ).

Noted And there's no question that if there wasn't a serious downside to allowing the LMG Squad (game term) to split, this would be a no-brainer thing to add. If it was a common, routine tactic I'd also say we should probably support it. If it was a much more flexible tactic I'd also say we should probably support it. But none of this is the case. Which means we have to balance the tradeoffs of one choice vs. the other. And I remain convinced that the current method is the better of the two choices.

But, for the vary same reason, it would also be foolish to dismiss the fact that the note under the diagrams says that the intervals and distances given are in no way to be considered normative (emphasis in the original).

As I said, the note states that the intervals are not to be taken as boundaries, even if they are given as intervals (e.g. 8-30 paces).

Yes, but saying the manual's stated spacing has no meaning, because it could be overridden, isn't a valid way to examine this situation. The worst thing to do to a simulation is to balance it's elements based on "outliers". Could an Italian Squad be spread out more than the 8-30 paces? Sure, why not? Some German squads were broken up 3 men per foxhole with 50-100m between them. That certainly wasn't in the manual! But these are extremes and if we allow the extremes to be normal, then we do more harm than good. Which you seem to understand when you say...

You don't have to persuade me. My gaming experience make me certain of this too...

Always good to not have to go explain this in detail!

You're right. But you also know that almost any rule is susceptible of abuse and no wargame can be totally fool-proof: Jeep recon, crewmen grabbing victory flags, you name it.

The point is: is the benefit of additional detail totally offset by possible exploitations or not? Our opinions, about the issue at hand, diverge. Of course I have no problem if you says that the cons outweights the pros, in this case. I just wanted you to ponder the case with the benefit of a more accurate translation of the relevant sections. If your call remains the same, it's OK for me.

Very true that there is no way to stop people from breaking reality and/or the spirt of the game, no matter how hard we try. But the harder we try the more difficult it is to break reality and/or the spirt of the game. Which is why we try so hard

That's fine. I just wanted to provide additional food for thought, but it's obvious that the call is, rightly, yours. I do not think that the possible exploits of allowing the LMG section to split would eclipse the added realism (actually, I think that nothing short of giving the Regio Esercito some tacnukes would imbalance the game in favour of the Italians, but I digress... ) anyway, as I said, it's only my opinion and I have no intention to insist, if you think that the evidence presented is not compelling.

And this is the best sort of debate to have! Yes, it is a judgement call. I also agree that it's VERY much in the gray area either way. Clearly the way you're asking the game to work is not inherently unrealistic and the abuse of it (which we all agree will happen) might not make any real difference. I put it back to you the opposite way... NOT allowing this tactic probably has no noticeable negative effect on the overall performance of Italian infantry. Therefore, its absence isn't a big deal in terms of outcome. Because of this, it is overall better to keep things nice, clean, and simple the way they are.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

But it wouldn't be that way. The Italian platoon has only one junior commissioned officer and 2 squad-leader noncoms for 42 men. Now I know what you're thinking: "Yes! This is why split teams are not allowed!".

No, it's because they weren't allowed as per doctrine. Which is why they don't have more leaders and vice versa.

An Italian platoon fully split into constituent teams, would have 8 teams (not counting HQ team), but only 2 "Leader" specialty soldiers. By the book, perhaps the Corporal and Corporal Major ranks in the squads should be reflected as "Asst. Leader" soldiers, but I would argue that eliminating the Asst. Leader soldiers and in the Italian squads would be a very effective way of abstractly limiting their tactical flexibility.

I know the game mechanics inside and out, as well as looking over the Italian manual. I could not disagree more.

Experience with CMBN has taught me that the game levies substantial morale and C2 penalties for teams without a Leader or Asst. Leader soldier. This alone would make Italian platoons substantially less flexible than German ones. Add other national differences, such as deficient small arms weaponry and scarce radios in the Italian formations, and I really don't think players would find them anywhere near as flexible as the equivalent German formations.

Putting aside the fact that what you are asking for is unsupportable from a historical perspective (i.e. gamey), you're overlooking the obvious shortcoming in your thinking. And that is the Italians are already at such a C2 and Morale disadvantage, even when not split, that splitting won't be that much more of a disincentive. Further, you are arguing that one should split explicitly to get an advantage they can't get right now. So what you're arguing is:

1. Players should be allowed to have unrealistic degree of control and flexibility as the norm.

2. The reason for this is for the Italian player to gain an advantage they currently don't have, and wouldn't have in real life under most circumstances.

3. And to prevent the player from actually benefitting from this unrealistic capability, the game should impose new penalties to remove any unrealistic advantage gained from the unrealistic tactic of splitting.

To which I say we already have a solution... don't allow splitting.

But I suspect we can also agree that this is an area of the game model where it would be great to see some further work and refinement in future releases.

Yes, though there's hardly anything in the game that I'd dare suggest is "perfect". The overall balance is more important than any one individual feature, though. Which is why we strive so hard to keep things balanced, even if here and there someone can point to an isolated feature and say "there is room for improvement".

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

If you look at the diagram, the squad leader is assigned to the "group" with the LMG teams (fig. 1 and 2). The game uses a separate leader element, which is against doctrine, and can also be used as a separate element in-game, one that wouldn't exist on the battlefield.

Sorta. Look again and you'll see that the Squad Leader floats between the two Teams (Groups) depending on tactical formation. Sometimes he's with the LMG Team (Group), other times he's with the Rifle Team (Group). In some instances he is floating somewhere inbetween.

Which means we can't just stick the dude in one Team or the other because that would have a significant, and unrealistic, tactical downside for the Italians. On the other hand, there aren't many downsides to having him be out as his own maneuver element. Consider that his entire reason for being is to be in C2 with his Teams (Groups). Which means a player that uses the HQ as a separate maneuver element is going to harm his gameplay, not help it. Especially because the HQ is extremely fragile and susceptible to pinning/elimination.

Obviously the best solution would be the ability to attach/detach the leader from one or the other Team (Group) in some sort of automated. That's a big deal to code and get working for the player, so it's not on the menu.

So this is an example of where we have to bend reality slightly to fit game mechanics in order to give the best overall realistic result.

Steve