Infantry Squads

[Scipio]

a)I wonder how the BTS has determined the composition of infantry squads. Do someone has link about it?

b)Wouldn't it be more sensefull if Flamethrowers are part of the engineer squad instead an independent team (like the LMG)? They are currently mostly useless, cause they are to slow to move over open terrain, while their range is to short to hold position and wait for an enemy. But Flamethrowers were mostly used as attack weapons vs fortified positions. As part of the squadf they could move quicker. Especially interesting with the CMBB assault command.

[Kirill S.]

I think it would be a great suggestion to merge different units witha a squad: Like the flamethrower, mmg, bazooka, engineers.

That would add a great assault and command advantage.

[Mud]

Er, why? I understand why integral MGers move faster in a squad -- they're bringing along less ammo and additional gear (tripod, extra barrels?). There's no assistant in an FT team carrying "extra" gear as far as I can tell, so the speed boost would make less sense. Maybe give them the ability to move fast but make it much more tiring than normal. *shrug*

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mud:

Er, why? I understand why integral MGers move faster in a squad -- they're bringing along less ammo and additional gear (tripod, extra barrels?). There's no assistant in an FT team carrying "extra" gear as far as I can tell, so the speed boost would make less sense. Maybe give them the ability to move fast but make it much more tiring than normal. *shrug*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, what is the second man in a Flamethrowerteam doing? The FT is a one man weapon. Or do they have two flamethrowers?

[Redwolf]

Aehm, folks, it may be nice for the player to have a flamethrower run like/with a squad, however it is historical nonsense. These guys *are* slow.

The LMG is already a break in logic, because the LMG team (bibod, no tripod) is slower when bought as a team than when bought in a squad, although it comes with more ammo in the squad. This is a neccessary break in logic to make all those LMGs in squads handable and it's not too bad since LMG teams are rarely used. It is also neccessary to make the "other man takes over when LMG guys is disabled" thing work.

Doing the same for flamethrowers or other heavy units would be a similar break in logic, only it is a worse break and the gains you get from the LMG integration don't apply since you don't have that many flamethrowers, and other squad members won't take them over anyway.

P.S.: Kangaroo...

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Kirill S.]

then how about merging engineers and bazookas with plain infantry?

[Mud]

Hrm. I *thought* FTs each had an FT, not an FT+assistant. Might be thinking of a different game. I'm not sure that "reloading" a flamethrower under battlefield conditions makes a whole lot of sense...

[Scipio]

I just wonder : I often read that Flamethrowers were an sucessfull attack unit. How did they made there job if they are only slow cannonfodder as they are in CM?

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

I just wonder : I often read that Flamethrowers were an sucessfull attack unit. How did they made there job if they are only slow cannonfodder as they are in CM?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were not supposed to walk around in field of enemy fire. They were used against enemies that refused to come out of a positions where they couldn't be hit hard enough by non-flemathrower units, but on the other hand had no mean to cover the area around their position with fire anymore.

Of course, screwups happen and often they were shot, exploding and killing people around them, because the unit which was supposed to secure the area didn't look under each stone.

They were teams with assistents and they are in CMBO, the firepower is not twice for an intact team than for a half team.

[Mud]

Borg spotting, plus FTs being a very high-priority target, probably hurts them badly. Some guy 350m away spotting one might not mean immediate death, but when that spotting information gets telepathically relayed to the target 80m away and that'd been focusing their attention elsewhere, well, that's going to HURT. They also can't run in CM:BO, even for a very short distance.

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

They were not supposed to walk around in field of enemy fire. They were used against enemies that refused to come out of a positions where they couldn't be hit hard enough by non-flemathrower units, but on the other hand had no mean to cover the area around their position with fire anymore.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In other words, they can't be used realistic, cause CM don't modell defenders this way. In this case we don't need Flamethrowerunits in CM, cause they are only expencive waste of purchase points. I propose to cut them out of CMBB.

Alternative, add them to the engineer squad, and make the whole squad slower.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

In other words, they can't be used realistic, cause CM don't modell defenders this way. In this case we don't need Flamethrowerunits in CM, cause they are only expencive waste of purchase points.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes.

I think it is better to say that they had no historical role in the 30 minutes "burst" fighting that CMBO models, except maybe for tasks like pillbox silencing. In real life, they would appear after their side would have won the CMBO-size engagement, to finish off the enemy units still on the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I propose to cut them out of CMBB.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Engineers as a whole don't have the importance in CMBO-size battles as they have an overall importance for a real-life unit over weeks. Play Brigade Combat Team to get the idea.

Also I think that the demo charges are underpowered, but full-priced, which makes the engineer squads unattractive purchases.

That isn't that bad, except that computer-selected forces give them out way too often, IMHO. In real life, engineers were a very worthy assert of high-level units, no way they would be given out for a hasty 1:1.5 force sizes attack like CMBO models.

Other than computer-selected forces, don't choose them and be thankful for opponents who choose them, because they bring a lot of victory points for few risk (both engineers and especially flamethrowers).

Or place them on a victory flag and make a full circle of burning terrain around them, together with something that is hard to kill with indirect fire :-]]]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Alternative, add them to the engineer squad, and make the whole squad slower.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That would only make sense if all squad members took over the flamethrower in case the main man is KIA, like it is done for the LMG. However, this would be nonsense.

Also, what happens if the squad is in trouble? Shoot your own flamethrower guy so that you magically become three times as fast?

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

That would only make sense if all squad members took over the flamethrower in case the main man is KIA, like it is done for the LMG. However, this would be nonsense.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess you forget the game abstraction. The speed of an infantry unit is the average of all squad members. If you see it this way, it makes sense.

The squad members are not modeled as single men. If the last man of a squad carries an LMG, he is still as fast as the squad was, not as slow as a normal LMG team.

[Redwolf]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

I guess you forget the game abstraction. The speed of an infantry unit is the average of all squad members. If you see it this way, it makes sense.

The squad members are not modeled as single men. If the last man of a squad carries an LMG, he is still as fast as the squad was, not as slow as a normal LMG team.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you misunderstood me. I know that the squad with the FT will be as fast as a squad without. If you find that OK, I can hardly argue with you, it is a matter of taste.

What I said in the paragraph you quoted is that the/one reason for the other semi-heavy weapon, the LMG, to be integrated with squads in CMBO is that the LMG should survive the death of its initial owner. This doesn't apply to the flamethrower, as not every idiot in the squad can handle a flamethrower. Except of course you model that by a 50% chance that a squad blows itself up when it tries to reassign the flamethrower.

What you really seem to want is a fast flamethrower and in that case you could just make it a fast unit with the same stretch as a fast squad with a FT would be. You might point out that this nonsense is already done for the LMG, however I explained further above why I can happily accept the stretch for the LMG, but not for the FT.

[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: redwolf ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

The speed of an infantry unit is the average of all squad members.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't really know how BTS arrived at the various speeds of units, but in reality a unit would move at the speed of its slowest member.

So putting a FT into a squad should do nothing but slow down the whole squad.

Michael

[Scipio]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by redwolf:

What I said in the paragraph you quoted is that the/one reason for the other semi-heavy weapon, the LMG, to be integrated with squads in CMBO is that the LMG should survive the death of its initial owner. This doesn't apply to the flamethrower, as not every idiot in the squad can handle a flamethrower. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is maybe one reason for the LMG (I don't know). But what makes you believe it is also a must for the FT? If the FT owner dies, he is dead and the FT is gone.

Michael, that's a point, but the squad speed isn't influence by the LMG. I havn't tested it, but I assume if the squad lost his LMG, it won't be faster than before.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Scipio ]

[Michael Emrys]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scipio:

Michael, that's a point, but the squad speed isn't influence by the LMG. I havn't tested it, but I assume if the squad lost his LMG, it won't be faster than before.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I presume that is because a guy toting a squad LMG will not have all that much difficulty keeping up with his squadmates. Why BTS changed that with the independent LMGs, or even why they are in the game in the first place, I confess I am at a loss to explain.

Michael

[Redwolf]

For the LMG it is less a reality stretch because you assume that the ammo is being carried by all squad members. The actual MG isn't *that* heavy. So you could argue that the same LMG unit can move faster as part of a squad than in a 2-man team.

Also it is less of a strech because people rarely use the LMG team except for quard duty and hence don't have massive reasons to argue about speed.

[Scipio]

Well, can now somebody answer question a?