Italian infantry squad critique/question

[YankeeDog]

@Steve

Thanks for the response. I’ll defer to your obviously superior knowledge on the technical game issues involved, though honestly some of what you say does leave my scratching my head when I try to reconcile it with my gameplay experience.

If I may conjecture a bit further, from a “big picture” modeling point of view, I think the essential problem here is that the gameplay “Split Teams” function actually models two very different general types of “real world” tactical actions. Specifically:

A) Splitting squads to allows the player to deploy and move small fire teams as completely independent units, separating them by substantial distances that put them out of any C2 with each other.

Splitting squads also allows the player to tweak the specific deployment and/or movement of fire teams of a unit while still keeping the teams close enough together to be considered one unit from a tactical/C2 viewpoint. That is, the unit may be “split” in technical gameplay terms, but the teams are not far enough apart to really be “split” from a C2 and tactical doctrine viewpoint.

Now, I will completely agree that use (A) is unrealistic for forces like the Italians in WWII (and also most Syrian forces in CMSF). Such nationalities generally lacked the small-unit doctrine and training to effectively execute such tactics. Therefore, I agree that prohibiting split units in the game to prevent tactic (A) from being used by players makes sense.

Unfortunately, completely prohibiting split squads also prevents the player from executing tactics in the ( category and I would submit that even taking into account the doctrinal/training deficiencies, these types of split teams adjustments are still completely realistic for e.g., WWII Italians and modern Syrians.

To cite some examples, splitting teams and adjusting the teams’ local movement and deployment allows me as player to:

• Split an approx. 10-man Italian infantry “team” into 2 sub-teams, and then place these teams in two adjacent small buildings, rather than being forced to cram the whole unit into one small building, which creates a concentrated target for little firepower advantage. In two immediately adjacent buildings, the teams are still close enough together to be led by one NCO. Looking at the big picture, the 10-man team is not “split” from a tactical or C2 viewpoint.

• Say I am deploying the Italian infantry along a wall but there’s an opening, such as a gate, where I want to deploy the unit. With Split Teams, I can separate the teams by one action spot, placing one team on either side of the gate, with none of the soldiers the poor-cover action spot that actually contains the gate. Again, the 8m gap of the gate isn't going to prevent the NCO from keeping his men in command, so the unit isn’t really “split” from a tactical doctrine viewpoint; I’ve just used the Split Teams command to achieve a more effective, realistic deployment for the unit as a whole.

• In movement, splitting teams in combination with small pause orders and/or slightly different movement paths allows to execute real-world squad formations as required by the tactical situation at hand – if fire is coming from the front, I can make the squad move in Line Abreast by plotting the two teams to move in adjacent action spot lanes. If fire is coming from the flank, then I issue identical waypoint paths to the two teams, but stagger their movement by 5-10 seconds, so that they move in line ahead formation. Simply plotting movement orders for the (unsplit) unit as a whole will not reliably achieve either of these results above, especially because which movement formation is the better choice is context-dependent.

• Say I want to move a 10-man Italian team through a narrow (one action spot) gap in a minefield. With split teams, I stagger the moves of the teams with pause orders to make sure each team moves exactly through the gap in the minefield, in sequence. But without the Split Teams order, it is very hard to guarantee that one of the two teams in the unit won’t move on a path to the flank of the other, and in so doing possibly traverse the mined area.

And so on. It’s pretty clear to me that the idea would be a way to prevent the player from doing the (A)-type wide separation, “independent” deployments with split teams, while still allowing the player to do (-type “local adjustments” with split teams. I don’t have any special insight into how to achieve this, but I do see this as the essential conflict in the simulation that’s going on here.

Cheers,

YD

[Michael Emrys]

A) Splitting squads to allows the player to deploy and move small fire teams as completely independent units, separating them by substantial distances that put them out of any C2 with each other.

Now, I will completely agree that use (A) is unrealistic for forces like the Italians in WWII (and also most Syrian forces in CMSF). Such nationalities generally lacked the small-unit doctrine and training to effectively execute such tactics.

I have to wonder in which WW II armies this would have been a common practice. I have no hard data on the subject unfortunately, but my sense from many various readings is that on the battlefield most soldiers did not like to get out of visual or vocal range of their buddies in the platoon and certainly did not like getting separated from their squad mates. With elite troops like Commandos or paratroops, it would have been more likely, but for run-of-the-mill dogfaces, the greater problem was to prevent them from bunching up in an effort to seek comfort in numbers.

In short, I think we as players enjoy quite a bit more tactical flexibility than our historical counterparts already. Understandable that we would like even more, but if CM is going to continue its claim as a realistic game, some limits have to be observed.

Michael

[Sgt Joch]

The problem with a lot of these discussions is they take place in a vacuum. You have to look at the bigger picture.

From the player's point of view, the CM model is unrealistic in portraying WW2 tactical warfare. The player has a god's eye view, can see the position of all of his units, has all available intel on enemy forces and can instantly change the plan of all of his units and coordinate their actions to a degree which would have been completely impossible for any WW2 commander.

Certainly, in RL, a squad/team leader could order 3-4 privates to split off in a group and go occupy another spot, but let's look at what would happen in a RL 1943 Italian squad. The "group" would have no radio, probably no map and no training in acting on their own. Once they were out of sight of their squad leader, they would most likely be killed or captured or hunker down in a spot, that is if they did not desert outright. If they did see something useful, they would have to go back, find their squad leader and report what happened and get new orders.

Now in CM, as soon as the "Group" is detached, it is magically equipped with a GPS, a Radio, a laser range finder and Blue force tracking, allowing the overall commander to instantly know where they are, what they are seeing and the exact position of suspected enemy units allowing the commander to coordinate the movement of all other forces. In addition, the "Group" can act as an independent unit all on its own.

Yes, the Italian units are inflexible, but the Italians went to war with that organization and never changed it. The inflexibility is part of the reason why their combat performance was abysmal unless they were backed up by German forces. I recall reading somewhere that part of the reason for the large squads was to allow squad leaders to keep an eye on all their men so they would not desert. Let's not forget that in 1943, most Italians saw the Allies as liberators and not invaders. We are not talking about the Waffen SS here.

Even with large unsplittable squads/teams, the performance of Italians in CM is still way better than it would be in RL, because of all the other limitations of CM. The same is true of Syrians in CMSF. If you allow the Italians to split down further, you turn them into an ersatz flexible German Army and increase their performance even more. This seems to me to be much more unrealistic than the current system.

Not allowing squads/teams to split may appear to be a blunt instrument to deal with what is essentially a C2 issue, but so were command delays in CMx1 and many players still hold that up as a Gold standard.

[YankeeDog]

I have to wonder in which WW II armies this would have been a common practice. I have no hard data on the subject unfortunately, but my sense from many various readings is that on the battlefield most soldiers did not like to get out of visual or vocal range of their buddies in the platoon and certainly did not like getting separated from their squad mates. With elite troops like Commandos or paratroops, it would have been more likely, but for run-of-the-mill dogfaces, the greater problem was to prevent them from bunching up in an effort to seek comfort in numbers.

In short, I think we as players enjoy quite a bit more tactical flexibility than our historical counterparts already. Understandable that we would like even more, but if CM is going to continue its claim as a realistic game, some limits have to be observed.

Michael

You make good points, I think. It's a complex question for which there is no easy answer. The devil is in the details. Depending on details of terrain and the tactical situation at hand a forward OP of 2-3 men could easily be 100m or more ahead of the MLR, and out of immediate C2. However, such a position usually wouldn't be expected to fight, but rather bug out back to the parent unit at the first sign of trouble.

Similarly, patrols through "no-man's land" of roughly 1/2 squad to keep tabs on enemy positions and movement were also common practice.

In tactical AARs, you'll find all sorts of accounts of a small teams being sent away from the main platoon to gain an advantageous observation or firing positions.

But it's also true that small teams of less than squad size were rarely expected to show much initiative or creativity, which player control of split teams in CMBN does allow.

In the game, if a 6-man patrol, out of C2 with its platoon, spots a heretofore unknown enemy AT gun and the player immediately orders the unit to try to sneak up on the gun and take it out, this is arguably not very realistic. IRL, such a unit would usually show little tactical improvisation or initiative, and would just probably stick to their patrol plan, or bug out immediately, and report the presence of the enemy back once they got back to the main body rather than improvise tactics on their own.

On the other hand, if AT gun's position is already at least generally known, then it's not as unrealistic for an independent 6-man patrol to try to sneak up on it and take it out -- this would abstractly represent a situation where the patrol's orders were something like "There's an AT gun up on that ridge. Move up that defile, locate the gun and if you get the drop on it, take it out."

Hard to for any tactical wargame to make these kinds of distinctions, and also balance the desire for realism with the need for the game to actually be playable and fun.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's a design tip for any discipline, game or otherwise. If you have an exceptional condition that you're trying to address (allowing/disallowing), you either come up with a simple way of satisfying the need or you design it out of the system. Because once you start down the road of complicated cause/effect balancing act to address a point of minutia, the most likely result is chasing one's tail in a futile effort to get it to work better than a more simple solution.

If it were absolutely necessary to allow the Italians to break up the LMG Squad (Team in real life), I would advocate auto panicking if they go out of C2 with the Squad Leader. That would put real teeth into splitting when splitting shouldn't happen. But this takes us down a road the game has no history of going down and therefore it's not up for consideration. I'm simply pointing out how I would approach this in order to keep it simple and realistically discourage gamey abuses.

YankeeDog, if we put aside some time to make new complex interdependencies in order to make the game more realistic we would be seeking features which would REDUCE tactical flexibility, not increase it. Because as the game stands now, the player has vastly more tactical flexibility and control than any real world force would ever have. Even on today's battlefield. Sgt Joch quite nicely summed that up. Spending considerable time giving the player historically unjustifiable increases in tactical flexibility, is definitely not where we should be focused on.

Combat Mission is a balance between playability and realism. Which means not introducing features for one that undermines the other.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Now, to specifically address this point...

Splitting squads also allows the player to tweak the specific deployment and/or movement of fire teams of a unit while still keeping the teams close enough together to be considered one unit from a tactical/C2 viewpoint. That is, the unit may be “split” in technical gameplay terms, but the teams are not far enough apart to really be “split” from a C2 and tactical doctrine viewpoint.

Yup. These are still exceptional circumstances, but cumulatively they add up to a reasonably significant need. A need most nations can fulfill by splitting (or not, in my case) without seriously compromising reality. Unfortunately, this isn't true for very poor quality organizations such as Italians and Syrians. Hence the argument I've been making since the beginning which is we need to keep the total impact of splitting in mind, not just the exceptional justifications.

As I've said all along, I almost never split my Squads and yet I win battles just fine. So anybody that argues that splitting is a necessary element to victory is wrong. Or is a really crappy player

Once a Squad is split the ability to control the player's use of the separate units becomes almost impossible. Yes, we can (and do) offer several ways to discourage this. But it isn't enough. It also complicates gameplay from a mechanics standpoint since the player is forced into additional micromanagement tasks. Some people like that, most don't. Which means the game suffers, as a whole, the more micromanagement becomes standard play.

I'd rather see additional effort put into more natural, non micromanagement methods for realistically increasing tactical position flexibility.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

I'd rather see additional effort put into more natural, non micromanagement methods for realistically increasing tactical position flexibility.

Steve

This I will definitely agree with. As the game engine develops, I would definitely prefer it if I felt the need to do less micromanaging (such as splitting squads), rather than more. If the squad AI can eventually improved so that squads "know" to do things like split themselves into adjacent small buildings to attain proper dispersion without direct player micromanaging via something like the Split Teams order, I think that would be just peachy.

And no, splitting squads frequently is not necessary to play competently. Generally speaking, you win or lose a battle on the basis of much larger tactical decisions. How and where you deploy the platoon as a whole matters much more than specifically where you deploy the individual teams (or where AI decides deploy them, if you don't split).

It does provide an advantage, though. And while the overall tactical effect may not he huge, it sure does get my goat every time I see a squad doing something boneheaded like charging forward in line-ahead formation, when the known incoming fire vector clearly to the front, and therefore they should be moving in a line abreast or Vee formation. As long as this continues to be the case, I will continue to split my squads to attain (my perception of) realistic squad movement and deployment.

[poesel]

YankeeDog, if we put aside some time to make new complex interdependencies in order to make the game more realistic we would be seeking features which would REDUCE tactical flexibility, not increase it.

What about that mode where you only can look out of your units eyes at level one (level two for vehicles)? Would love that.

[YankeeDog]

YankeeDog, if we put aside some time to make new complex interdependencies in order to make the game more realistic we would be seeking features which would REDUCE tactical flexibility, not increase it. Because as the game stands now, the player has vastly more tactical flexibility and control than any real world force would ever have. Even on today's battlefield. Sgt Joch quite nicely summed that up. Spending considerable time giving the player historically unjustifiable increases in tactical flexibility, is definitely not where we should be focused on.

Steve

Ya, I'll buy that. As long as they're well executed, I'd actually like to see more restrictions on player control that reduce the level of tactical flexibility and coordination the player can achieve due to his god-like, fly-around-the-battlefield perspective.

But I am still concerned that the no-split paradigm, when combined with other deficiencies such as poor overall TOE structure, poor weaponry, lack of radios, etc, may just hit the Italians a bit too hard with the "faulty doctrine stick". Relative to other nationalities, they kind of seem like the inbred cousins of the CM family... to a degree this is justified, but it can be taken too far.

[Tank Hunter]

Here are some photos from real life showing how US Inf looked like during Vietnam in training and under fire when it comes to spacing.

US Inf training at Tigerland prior to deploying

US Inf Advancing during Tet

US Inf defending a base during NV Tet Offensive

Same as above

Defense at Khe Sanh

As has been pointed out before men under fire seem to like hugging eachother. Even extremly trained soldiers do that.

Giving Italians the possibility to split would be unbalancing considering their WW1 tactics and lack of leadership especially when you conisder that soliders with better training even years after WWII liked and still like to "bunch up" when under fire.

[Boche]

You know what is going to be interesting? Italian vs Italian battles, that sounds like a whole new different war.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the pics.

It's always an interesting discussion. Tactically, at least from a game standpoint, spreading out has traditionally yielded unrealistic benefits because the game doesn't penalize disbursement enough (or at all, usually). Yet real life combat has all kinds of reasons why tactical spacing is sub-standard compared to gamer expectations. Hell, even according to doctrinal expectations! So it is only natural for gamers to object to CM's portrayal in general, when in general it's pretty close to real life. As noted above, there are exceptions and we do try to take those into consideration.

Steve

[JonS]

I wonder if part of it might be visual tricks making the CM world seem smaller than it is. I used to think that artillery footprints were too small in CM, until I measured them and they're about 70-80m across, which is right where they should be.

But even knowing that, they still look so darned small to me. It's sort of the same with infantry - they look like they're using spacing only slightly greater than Napoleon would have been happy with, but when you measure it they're at least as spread out as the Vietnam pics above.

In a defensive position, typically a platoon "should" occupy an area about 75m x 75m, and a company something like 250m x 250m which, when you lay it out in CM, seems very tight. But that's what it's supposed to be. But I bet very few CM players keep their platoons that tightly bunched.

[MikeyD]

My civie dilletante self could never quite understand the concept behind the urban warfare 'stack', the maneuver where you compress your whole squad into a space so tight that they have to shuffle forward to keep from tripping over eachothers feet. I can imagine a police SWAT team doing that but police SWAT teams aren't usually facing hand grenades and RPGs.

[JonS]

My civie dilletante self could never quite understand the concept behind the urban warfare 'stack', the maneuver where you compress your whole squad into a space so tight that they have to shuffle forward to keep from tripping over eachothers feet. I can imagine a police SWAT team doing that but police SWAT teams aren't usually facing hand grenades and RPGs.

It's a way of dealing with a reverse slope defence.

Being inside a building essentially puts the occupier (or defender) in a reverse slope position - the attacker cannot use the full panopaly* of weapon systems available to him, because the building wall completely blocks LOS and LOF. The attackers have to go through the door which is a natureal choke point and obvious POE. The defender can array all of his wepaons againt that point, whereas initially the attacker doesn't have any firepower to pit against the defenders.

The point of the stack is to get everyone in through the door in as short a time as possible to overcome the defenders advantage and suddenly dominate the first room with the firepower they bring with them. Once a 'bridgehead' in the building is established you can rinse-and-repeat until the building is clear.**

There's also a psychological reason, a really important one. As jobs go, charging into a room you have reason to believe is occupied by someone who wants to kill you totally sucks. Being the first man through the door sucks even harder. But having the rest of the stack there, physically holding and pushing each other through the door, is very reassuring and ensures that the whole group will actually get in there and clear the room. The same thing applies to sticks of paratroopers standing at the door looking down at several hundred metres of nothing.

Jon

* "available to him" is a key phrase here. Any building can be destroyed by the enthusiastic application of HE from a distance, or even nuked from orbit (it is the only way to be sure, after all), but for various reasons those options may not be available to the commander on the spot.

** incidentally, before the attackers go through the door they are in a reverse slope position too. Or they should be. The stack should be safe(ish) in their stacked position, just like any other FUP should be safe(ish).

[Battlefront.com]

I wonder if part of it might be visual tricks making the CM world seem smaller than it is.

Huh. You know, I have never thought about that consciously before. But I think you're onto something. I too have found myself thinking "nah, that can't be right" about various things, then I check the Action Spots in the Editor and... yeah, it's right. Or at least close enough.

Probably one reason is we don't normally walk around the world mentally noting where things are and measuring relative distances between them. But when we play CM we are trying to do just that AND relate it to the real world. That's a lot of information to process while also concentrating on terrain features, enemy units, conditions of your own units, etc.

Added to the fun is the known issues of spacial relations processing in the cranial grey goo. Coincidentally I went over to a house today to wish some friends' a fair journey to a new house. I've been in their place a hundred times. With all the furniture out the place looks tiny!! I even said to a few people today, "my God! There were times when we had 20 people in that room! How the heck did we all fit in there?!? Looks like a closet now that the furniture is all out!".

Brains are pretty funny with the whole perception vs. reality thing sometimes!

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Coincidentally I went over to a house today to wish some friends' a fair journey to a new house. I've been in their place a hundred times. With all the furniture out the place looks tiny!! I even said to a few people today, "my God! There were times when we had 20 people in that room! How the heck did we all fit in there?!? Looks like a closet now that the furniture is all out!".

Just to highjack the thread for a minute, I had a dramatic experience of a similar kind. I live in an apartment of almost exactly 500 sq. ft. The space is divided in such a way that it can seem quite roomy. However, after the fire six years ago, I had to move out while the place was being rebuilt. Although only one corner was seriously damaged by flames, the insurance adjuster said to strip it and rebuild it in toto. One day after all the drywall had been removed but not yet replaced, I went back to see how the work was coming along. With nothing but studs where walls had been, standing in the middle the place looked like one of those cages they keep chickens in. Even though my LOS was actually longer from one side to another, it felt smaller. Was that because with opaque walls up, I subconsciously imagined a large space on the other side? I don't know, but it was an odd feeling and strangely counterintuitive.

Michael

[sburke]

I wonder if part of it might be visual tricks making the CM world seem smaller than it is. I used to think that artillery footprints were too small in CM, until I measured them and they're about 70-80m across, which is right where they should be.

But even knowing that, they still look so darned small to me. It's sort of the same with infantry - they look like they're using spacing only slightly greater than Napoleon would have been happy with, but when you measure it they're at least as spread out as the Vietnam pics above.

In a defensive position, typically a platoon "should" occupy an area about 75m x 75m, and a company something like 250m x 250m which, when you lay it out in CM, seems very tight. But that's what it's supposed to be. But I bet very few CM players keep their platoons that tightly bunched.

Some guy wrote a mini white paper on writing up op sheets for the gamers Screaming Eagles in Holland. In it he discusses the frontage you should use for your Op sheets and it was interesting in that it was explicitly telling people their op sheets to be realistic needed to define much smaller frontages.

[WriterJWA]

Some guy wrote a mini white paper on writing up op sheets for the gamers Screaming Eagles in Holland. In it he discusses the frontage you should use for your Op sheets and it was interesting in that it was explicitly telling people their op sheets to be realistic needed to define much smaller frontages.

That smells like company/battalion operations. I'm always surprised how narrow company and battalion fronts are in attacks. Do you have a link/source for that white paper (provided it's even published)?

[sburke]

That smells like company/battalion operations. I'm always surprised how narrow company and battalion fronts are in attacks. Do you have a link/source for that white paper (provided it's even published)?

Hopefully this doesn't get me dinged- it isn't a game link.

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/tcs/TCSGeneral/Opsheet2.htm

[womble]

Probably one reason is we don't normally walk around the world mentally noting where things are and measuring relative distances between them...

But it'd be a shame to go to Normandy for a holiday and not do a bit of mental noting, wouldn't it? Or was that just me?

[Sgt Joch]

more info on WW2 unit frontage, from Doubler, "Busting the Bocage":

1. pre-D-Day doctrine:

The Army's primary ground-gaining arm was the infantry. Because of its ability to seize or retain major objectives, the infantry battalion was the most basic combat unit of the U.S. Army. Infantry doctrine prescribed that battalions usually attacked in daylight to seize terrain objectives. While envelopments were preferred over penetrations, infantry doctrine admitted that the battalion-size attacks were usually nothing more than frontal assaults against enemy defenses. Battalions attacked along a frontage of 500-1,000 yards in width, depending on terrain and enemy dispositions. The rifle companies of the infantry battalion performed the actual tasks of seizing objectives and closing with the enemy. Normally, a battalion attacked with two companies abreast, the third company acting as the battalion reserve. One of the attacking companies conducted the main attack, while the other supported the main effort with secondary attacks. A single rifle company's zone of attack was usually 200-500 yards wide.

2. early attempts at breaking through Bocage:

The Bocage also adversely affected command and control of small units. Companies and battalions did not attack along fixed frontages as prescribed in standard doctrine. Instead of attacking along a frontage of between 200 and 500 yards, company-size attacks were canalized into single fields. Likewise, battalions attacked on fronts as narrow as 300 yards in order to seize a group of adjacent hedgerow fields. Standard control measures and boundary lines between units were almost meaningless in the compartmentalized terrain. Commanders learned to orient their attacks along roads and paths running through the Bocage. At the company level, maintaining proper orientation during an attack proved difficult. Hemmed in on all sides by the hedgerows, platoons lost their sense of direction and without a fixed reference point often became disoriented and could not pinpoint their own location on their maps. These orientation problems aggravated normal difficulties in getting platoons and companies to advance under fire

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp

[WriterJWA]

Hopefully this doesn't get me dinged- it isn't a game link.

http://www.gamersarchive.net/theGamers/archive/tcs/TCSGeneral/Opsheet2.htm

Ahhhh yeah ... it's basically a dumbed-down five paragraph order, which in full would be a bear to write for gaming, especially for a multi-company operation.

One game where it was particularly necessary is Uncommon Valor: Campaign for the South Pacific, a localized precursor to the War in the Pacific line of games. If you didn't draft some kind of an operations order, you'd end up dead in the water, so to speak. I printed out an 11x17 theater map and laminated it and would plot future moves with dry-erase markers.

There is a program out there (the name escapes me right now) but it allows you to load game maps and draw out operation plans over the internet with a few friends. Not sure how it would be done, but it would be cool to import CM maps into it. I may even get into the habit of printing off maps (the problem is, though ... translating elevation on a 2d map).

[YankeeDog]

If it were absolutely necessary to allow the Italians to break up the LMG Squad (Team in real life), I would advocate auto panicking if they go out of C2 with the Squad Leader. That would put real teeth into splitting when splitting shouldn't happen.

Just re-read the entire thread and noticed this, which didn't register on me the first time.

IMHO, something like this would be a great addition to the game engine. Probably needs refinement, but a feature like this could dramatically improve the realism factor around what the player can and can't do with split teams. All the more interesting because a feature like this could be refined to accurately represent more subtle differences in doctrine and experience; I would actually advocate a feature like this applying to all nationalities (though, in the case of nationalities with significant doctrinal deficiencies like the hapless Italians, perhaps more severely to some nationalities than to others).

Actually, now that I think of it, with a feature like this, hard-coded national differences might not really be necessary. An Italian squad has 20 men, and only one NCO to lead them all. A German squad leader is responsible for about half this headcount (exact # dependent on date and exact formation). So even without hard-coded national differences, a feature like this would restrict what you can do with split teams more for Italians than for Germans, simply because the Italian squad leaders were spread much more thinly. Realistic. Elegant.

For example, maybe Conscript and Green split teams unit auto-panic once they're out of Voice C2 with the squad leader, But Regular split teams don't auto-panic until they're out of both and Voice and Visual contact. Finally, Veteran split teams could work like Regular, but only automatically go to "Nervous" rather than "Panic" once out of contact with the Squad Leader.

Er sumfink like that. Obviously, a system like this would be a major new feature requiring significant development and testing time, so it would be for 3.0 at the earliest. But I think it's a great idea. Please do keep it in your ideas file, Steve.

[WriterJWA]

Just re-read the entire thread and noticed this, which didn't register on me the first time.

IMHO, something like this would be a great addition to the game engine. Probably needs refinement, but a feature like this could dramatically improve the realism factor around what the player can and can't do with split teams. All the more interesting because a feature like this could be refined to accurately represent more subtle differences in doctrine and experience; I would actually advocate a feature like this applying to all nationalities (though, in the case of nationalities with significant doctrinal deficiencies like the hapless Italians, perhaps more severely to some nationalities than to others).

Not a bad call! But instead of auto-panicking, which to me sounds extreme, perhaps they go to a nervous state at the lowest grade, and maintain their composure at the highest (which would reflect better training, etc...). Otherwise, I think you're on to something!