Scratch Squads

[Gold12]

Hi all!

I realise it may be a bit gamey, but wouldn't it be nice to be able to reform scratch squads out of the remains of infantry?

It's not much of a reflection on my playing style I realise, but I'm frequently left with squads of infantry with one or two hardy souls remaining, which frankly are about as useful as udders on a bull.

Surely in reality such survivors were incorporated into existing formations for the remainder of the battle? It would be nice to be able to lump together a bunch of puny single member squads into one full strength squad, perhaps when under command from an HQ?

[Brent Pollock]

I'm 99% certain this gets done between Battles of an Operation.

It's not really appropriate for the time scale of a single battle; it would usually get done after the unit had time to huddle and reorganise.

[Gold12]

Does this mean that two understrength squads are incorporated into a single squad for example? I thought each remaining squad just got a few reinforcements?

[Brent Pollock]

From what I remember, it's the former. I'm pretty sure I've even had entire understrength platoons disappear.

[throwdjohn]

what i would like to see is hq interchangeability. often we are given section or platoon hq that don't have infantry attached. why can i not assign a couple of squads to these leutinants i have laying around doing nada? this would also be helpful if any plt hqs were ko, then there would be more options to have them regain effectivness.

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

...It's not really appropriate for the time scale of a single battle; it would usually get done after the unit had time to huddle and reorganise....

To be honest, this doesn´t take more then 3 minutes in reality.

Platoon leader: Hey Jones, where is your group leader?

Privat Jones: He is dead, only me and Jenkins survived.

Platoon leader:

Dam! Ok, SMITH!!! SMITH!!!!

Corporal Smith: Ay!

Platoon leader: You take care of Jones and Jenkins now, let´s move we need to get outta here!

....

that´s it.

Can be done even on the run.

But I guess in game terms it is rather hard to be represented.

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by throwdjohn:

what i would like to see is hq interchangeability. often we are given section or platoon hq that don't have infantry attached. why can i not assign a couple of squads to these leutinants i have laying around doing nada? this would also be helpful if any plt hqs were ko, then there would be more options to have them regain effectivness.

This is a eligible question, but I´d like to remind you, that we tend to think to much in game terms here. Just because some soldier is a "lieutenant" doesn´t mean he is actually good at leading a platoon of infantry.

Best example might be the section leader of infantry guns. His job is to lead those guns, and he is trained for that task. Just because his guns are seperated and under command of some company HQ´s to benefit from their extra values, doesn´t mean that he is free do to something else. The game implies that, but in reality he is still in charge of those IGs. And he won´t do a counterattack with totaly foreign Panzergrenadiers about 2.000 meters away.

Same goes for Company HQs. Since the game works with "borg-spotting" you don´t need those HQs in their natural role as a filter for info and orders.

Each sighting reaches you in the instant it is made. No official channel needed, no soldier-group leader-platoon leader-company leader chain.

And no communication between Btl. and company either. But that is a game flaw, that allows you to use Captain miller as a front line hero, while as in reality he would be sitting in the rear of his platoons, coordinating the action.

Of course sometimes HQs did fight, especially to encounter the breaching of forward lines, but their job is to lead the platoon leaders and heavy weapons, not to lead a platoon by them selves.

Imho the game makes it very easy as it is, and even though it might be inconsistent with other games features to not allow all kinds of regrouping, I still wouldn´t like to see a change here. I love the fact that the game recognises leaders at all, and I don´t want to perforate the hierarchy even more.

[Brent Pollock]

Yes, but how often to you get to do that DURING the battle when most everyone has their face in the dirt, no one knows where anyone else is, let alone if they've been hit, and you can't hear anything for the din? The reorg certainly doesn't take long, but the pre-reorg-org can take hours :eek: What you describe strikes me as the lull after everyone has had a chance to pull back to a quiet rally point.

Originally posted by GS_Guderian:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

...It's not really appropriate for the time scale of a single battle; it would usually get done after the unit had time to huddle and reorganise....

To be honest, this doesn´t take more then 3 minutes in reality.

Platoon leader: Hey Jones, where is your group leader?

Privat Jones: He is dead, only me and Jenkins survived.

Platoon leader:

Dam! Ok, SMITH!!! SMITH!!!!

Corporal Smith: Ay!

Platoon leader: You take care of Jones and Jenkins now, let´s move we need to get outta here!

....

that´s it.

Can be done even on the run.

But I guess in game terms it is rather hard to be represented. </font>

[GS_Guderian]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

...Yes, but how often to you get to do that DURING the battle when most everyone has their face in the dirt, no one knows where anyone else is, let alone if they've been hit, and you can't hear anything for the din? ...

Actually it´s even easier in hectic. You scattered men will simply follow the neighboring seargent anyway. (Suming he is from the same platoon/Company and known)

[Brent Pollock]

Sorry - not buying it. This doesn't jibe at all with what I've read of WW II combat accounts; they're all "confusion reigns". Once they get scatterred, they stay down and out of trouble. If you've taken sufficient casualties to warrant a reorg, no one wants to get up and expose themselves.

I'm all for it if you mean a gung ho NCO/officer sweeps the immediate battlezone for stragglers - yeah - that I've heard about. But scatterred grunts actively looking for another shepherd until the danger's past - nope. They always seem to get reorganised only after they've skulked back to safe ground or the enemy has withdrawn.

[GS_Guderian]

So you actually think that soldiers rather stay alone and do not pair up, as soon as another guy struggles through the fire?

I am not talking about Jimmy doing a full scale search and rescue action. I am talking about a look right and a look left. The guys inside a company and especially inside a platoon know each other. They won´t debate about the issue, that it is better to stay together until they made it out of trouble.

[tar]

Well, sure, but I think the key point is "stay together until they make it out of trouble." I can easily visualize informal form-ups as they withdraw to a rally point or other area out of combat, there to await the reorganization that Brent describes.

I doubt that they would reform "in the heat of battle" into effective combat units except in the most rare of cases. Now part of this is likely to be one of perceptions. History more often records the heroic exceptions of ad hoc groups coming together rather than the more common, but mundane reality of straggling in small groups back to rally points.

I would expect that the only fighting such ad hoc groups would be likely to do would be that which was unavoidable (for instance if they were being overrun by attackers). I doubt they would go out on their own looking for trouble.

[GS_Guderian]

Never said anything else, then those guys sticking together.

They won´t stay alone, if they see friendlies. That´s all.

[tar]

Of course one has to remember that soldiers who "decide to sit out part of the battle" is modeled in CM by casualties. I'm not sure if any of the casualties return between operations to reflect the rounding up of stragglers.

The decision to remove these troops as casualties is a reasonable modeling decision, since they no longer contribute to the effective fighting force, and there is no provision in CM for splitting up squads (automatically). One certainly wouldn't want to give theplayer control of such combat ineffectives, since they would certainly be used in a gemey manner.

[throwdjohn]

guderian your post made me think, and i mostly agree with you. in normal conditions sure. but what about when you have no plt leaders left, and need one last ditch counterattack, and that section hq over there, or that unused weapons plt leader is your last survivng officer, why cant he lead them? irl, would he say, "sorry, not my job guys, kill yourselves now and save the amis the touble"?

[GS_Guderian]

Of course you could order that guy to lead.

Question is, does an Artillery Officer lead your Infantry anymore efficient then the Panzergrenadier Coporal?

[Gold12]

I've been following this, and I've still come to the conclusion that something is a little screwy about the handling of devestated squads... while I think it's perfectly fair to say, a squad that's been cut down to a couple of survivors would be prone to stay head down on the turf until danger passes, I would also say that with a suitable NCO or junior officer hanging around the remains of the squad would be absorbed into an existing formation.. in combat or not.

However, NEITHER of these occurances actually happens in CM. I mean, it's hardly realistic to have a single grunt representing the remains of squad to go soldering on his lonesome simply for the sake of preserving his orginal squad, yet this is what occurs in CM. This might be applicable for a specialist, but the reality is a rifleman would either quit entirely and sit the fight out or get picked up by another squad.

I realise such mechanics were/are probably unfeasable from a game engine point of view, it's just one of the quirks of human behaviour that are difficult to model.

[throwdjohn]

damn guderian. ya got me. i surrender.