Hordes of halfsquads

[Glider]

We have all used halfsquads occasionally, when needed.

However, I am currently playing a game against a player who divided his entire infantry force into halfsquads. Now, I know that they are more fragile, morale-wise, but it seems that the advantages outweigh this liability by far.

Essentially, it seems that a 4-unit normal platoon stands almost no chance when fighting 7-unit platoon of halfsquads. Besides the better use of the ammo supply, the main advantage halfsquads have seems to be the simple fact that they are in two places at the same time. While one of them is exchanging fire with the enemy and being pinned, the other blazes happily away, often from some unpleasant flanking angle.

Anybody examined this issue? I am tempted to start dividing all my inf units at the beginning of each game but that sounds somehow... gamey?

[GRUMLIN]

I'd say its a fair tactic. He would pay the price if you happened to drop some large arty on his head, plus if you time it right I would hope that you can engage him piecemeal to avoid that 7-4 disparity.

Next game I'd be tempted to splash out on some 150mm+

G

[Jasper 2x]

I think it would also depend on how many squads you have on the map

[Bone_Vulture]

My first thought is that fighting a throng of half squads will require a lot more of fire order micromanaging.

Again, it all depends on the terrain and equipment available. Perhaps setting the defenses in multiple close layers, so that the remaining half squads can't suppress the furthermost layer of defenders, set deep in woods or something?

Screenshots please.

[Glider]

The game is still not over... I have only MS Paint so screenshots will not be so good.

Essentially, he has a battalion of infantry divided into halfsquads. They even seem to be less sensitive to arty barrages because they are spread over wider area.

[Glider]

Hm, it turns out I do not know how to attach screenshots

Anyway, he does not have a battalion of inf, there is simply not enough points, more like 2+ companies of Russians and Romanians.

One of the typical engagements went like this: About 2-3 platoons of Russians and Romanians divided into halfsquads ran into my vet German SMG platoon at about 80-120m ranges. Russian SMG halfsquads started flanking and charging forward accross open spaces while Romanians provided support. I had 2 81mm mortars and 2 Hetzers firing HE available. I hurt him somewhat but he kept advancing and pushing forwars and in three turns my platoon was dead.

What I am saying is this - an infantry force that should (had it been divided into standard squads) have had to stop, redeploy, take 70+ 81mm and 75mm shells - instead just rolled over my position.

[Bone_Vulture]

Ah, sorry Glider. I forgot that you need to host your screenshots....

Anyway. SMG squads are truly a tricky challenge, since - as we all know - an SMG half squad has the same firepower at close range than a full rifle squad.

The only good news is that this means your opponent won't be to provide covering fire the half squads that are in the back. I'd say your only ally in this case is the distance: you need to focus your fire on the SMG squads, and somehow pin the enemy some 60-100 meters away from your troops. Do not try ambushing, SMG's aren't a fun treat in close quarters.

Now, with any of luck, your opponent's forces will get pinned to the degree where he might be forced to use the SMG squads to provide ineffective fire over long distances. This'd be the dream scenario for you.

[Glider]

Basically, I expected to see SMG squads and mostly I can deal with them... the problem is that the SMG squads I faced were much more effective because they were divided into halfsquads.

For instance, my 2 81mm mortars should have been able to suppress quite a few of his SMG platoon. That works fine when you meet HQ+3 squads, but not so fine when you meet HQ+6 halfsquads.

[Treeburst155]

Hmmm...I'll have to try this out. I can see how it would work well against units firing directly at specific units. Against area fire though, the half-squads would pin sooner. As stated above, arty is the answer. Other area fire would work too, as long as the firing units did not spot any specific unit. In which case, they would abandon their area fire orders. I think the tactic might be somewhat gamey; but I'd have to test it out to be sure.

Then again, you have 10 guys split into two fire teams of 5 guys. One hits from the southwest, the other from the southeast....hmmm...the defending squad should be able to split its fire; but it can't. Therefore, it's gamey.

Treeburst155 out.

[Corvidae]

I often use half squads, both on defence and offence, they can lay more fire and are harder to spot and/or hit, they can be fragile yes,, but when they hold, they rock,, and when properly spread out, they hold together well under fire, , If a half squad does break and run, the other half is still there fighting, On the down side, they pin faster and take longer to recover if pinned, so moving under fire can be slow,

[tooz]

Out of curiosity--what is the name of the scenario you are playing, or is it a QB. I don't know of any released battle/op that has Russians and Romanians fighting alongside against the Germans. Sounds like fun, Half-squad hordes and all.

[Glider]

As Corvidae says, if spread out they are less sensitive even to artillery fire. I mean, it is more difficult to hit 7 spread-out units with a mortar barrage than 4.

Tooz, I am fighting a QB. My opponent is, in my opinion, probably one of the best 10 CM inter-club players in the world and before the battle he sent me his required specifications, mirror-battles, time frame, terrain etc...

Hi style is, not surprisingly for someone with a 94% win ratio, gloves-off do-or-die type... so he has everything, Romanians cavalry, Soviet airborne and Guards fighting side by side, predeployed AT-guns and halfsquad hordes

The only thing that bothers me is this - if halfsquads are really more effective (and it seems that this will be the final ruling) than, when fighting battles against opponents like this one I will simply have to start splitting all my inf into halfsquads... and it is somehow annoying, tedious and a bit gamey.

[Tero]

I have a couple of PBEM regulars who like to spring the half-squad attacks on me.

Defending against the half-squad hordes I usually keep my squads fairly close together, all in CC. I place the defence positions insider woods whenever possible so the attack must traverse open ground before reaching my positions. Reverse slope works also but it is harder to manage in case the plan crumbles. A LMG or HMG to lace up the platoon is preferable too.

The key IMO is to issue cover arc zones rather than direct fire commands. Normally I do not overlap the zones so I can cover more ground. I do plot them all the way to the LOS limit or 300-500 meters, which ever comes first. That way my units switch fire from supperessed units to live ones more likely. And the attackers are more likely to stall far away from the defences. Works great on on rushing (running) half-squads too unless the overwatch fire is withering.

Oh, almost forgot: split squads take a morale hit. That is bit of data is worth its weight in gold.

[Glider]

Open fire at 300-500 metres with inf squads? Would it not be just a waste of ammo?

[Tero]

Originally posted by Glider:

Open fire at 300-500 metres with inf squads? Would it not be just a waste of ammo?

Depends how you see it really.

The idea is to suppress the oncoming half-squad infantry hordes, right ?

The half-squads have already sustained a morale hit when they were split up so in theory suppressing them will not take as much ammo as it would take to suppress a full squad. At 300-500 meters the ROF is not that great so the ammo used should not drain it all out too fast.

The Borg makes all half-squads fire at your spotted full squad(s). If you have set up your zones fortuitously your squads will suppress enough of them so your units will not get suppressed too much.

CAVEAT: any oncoming armour must be dealt with other means. They are sure to ruin your day if you let them advance alongside the horde AND engage your defending units.

[Glider]

...

CAVEAT: any oncoming armour must be dealt with other means. They are sure to ruin your day if you let them advance alongside the horde AND engage your defending units.

That is not a problem in games like these, we are both playing so cautiously that (and we are at the turn 20), all tanks on both sides are still keyholed at initial reverse slope positions, firing only at rare targets of opportunity.

Back to "fire at 300-500m" issue, do I gain anything that way? With games of 30+ turns he has more than enough time to rally and push forward from cover to cover.

[Tero]

Originally posted by Glider:

Back to "fire at 300-500m" issue, do I gain anything that way? With games of 30+ turns he has more than enough time to rally and push forward from cover to cover.

I look at the problem slightly differently. His success is dependant on how you have placed your defences every bit as much as it is dependant on his plan of attack.

ANY delay in the opponents plan works against him. That means that in order to have the assets in place for the final push he needs to manage them closely. If you take pot shots at his exposed units it means he has to use terrain which takes that much longer to traverse. A well placed barrage or a few on-map mortar shells will send his units ducking. Recovering from that will take precious time.

Also, if the half-squads bunch up they will merge. Make that work FOR you.

You can ruin his plan by simply forcing him to commit heavier assets earlier than planned. Or by forcing him to divert from his axis of advance.

The half-squad rush works only if he can attain local superiority when he wants where he wants.

[Glider]

Hmmm, that is an accurate description of what is actually happening... every few turns I sacrifice a few precious HE tank or mortar rounds to disrupt his approach. Obviously, I will have less HE support remaining for vital attack turns but that cannot be helped.

All your points are totally valid but can be applied to ordinary infantry advances, too. The main issue remains - halfsquads are just like ordinary infantry - but more effective. Their only drawback is the morale hit but it seems to me that advantages are far more numerous.

[stikkypixie]

So you think half-squads are too effective?

[Glider]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

So you think half-squads are too effective?

I don't know whether they are *too* effective. They seem to be more effective that whole squads and that makes halfsquads the default choice and that is just annoying and doubles the time you have to spend ordering infantry around.

[Treeburst155]

The purpose of half-squads, according to the CMBB manual, is to be able to assault armor without risking entire squads, and to set up outposts. Any large scale division of squads into half-squads takes advantage of the "split" feature, and is therefore gamey IMO.

Having said that, the manual also states that the combined firepower of two half-squads is a bit less than if the squad were whole. Also, the half-squads are more brittle. If these two drawbacks do not adequately offset the advantages of splitting squads, the tactic is doubly gamey IMO.

Treeburst155 out.

[Bone_Vulture]

Like I said, this problem likely concerns only SMG squads, due to their extreme firepower. Come to think of it, splitting the squad is an excellent tactic, especially when ambushing: you get two little squadlings that you can set in key locations, and tear apart any enemy squads that trigger the ambush.

Uhm... Perhaps in the future CM engine, a half squad will get some sort of visible penalty to their firepower and morale.

[Paul AU]

If it makes you feel any better, Glider, yes, what you describe seems extremely "tedious and gamey". And the game-designers should be having a look at this.

But if someone with a 94% win-ratio thinks the half-squad gimmick is worthwhile - it probably is.

I think that's the price you pay for stepping into the ring with such, er, 'good' players - do-or-die, gloves-off, (not to say monomaniacal) people to whom nothing is too tedious or gamey if it gives them a 1% advantage…

I think you'll be using a lot of half-squads from now on.

A pity, really.

"You've got to get down in the sh!t with Charlie. 'Cause that's the only way to win!"

- Capt. "Hawk" Hanson, in How Sleep the Brave.

[Brent Pollock]

I'll step in as a dedicated "Spawner of Half Squads".

Gamey - hell no! This seems like an accurate reflection of proper squad tactics; assault section moves in while the firebase lays covering fire. Second nature to players of Up Front. Moreover, you gain in coverage and manoeuvre but lose in bulk firepower and morale, so there is a trade-off.

I tend not to use it with lousy troops because I suspect (no proof) that the morale hit makes them virtually useless. I usually deploy at least half of a platoon. My main reason for doing it is damage minimisation: you only lose half as many guys when scouts hit an ambush or if an OP gets overrun. In tight LOS games (e.g. lots of woods/rubble) the manoeuvring is great as two half squads can outflank a single squad. As to it being gamey because a single squad cannot engage two targets at once - phah! - if you'd had the sense to deploy that squad in the first place, it could've engaged two targets at once

And you can prevent them from recombining by swapping half-squads during set up (e.g. 1A goes with 2B and 1B goes with 2A)...I admit that I find that part gamey

[Sergei]

To counter half squads, why not just split your own defending squads? That way you can divide your fire.