Hordes of halfsquads

[Tero]

Originally posted by Philippe:

Using longbows against cavalry charges in the 15th century is gamey.

If someone spreads out a squad to keep concentrated fire from hitting all of it, and if, for some reason, the person firing at him wants to spread his fire evenly across all those targets, all he has to do is tell one clump of men to fire at one target, another at another, and so on down the line. And I'm not describing the game. That's how late 17th century rolling volleys worked in Marlborough's army.

The fact that you can simulate that response by splitting your own squads proves that the tactic isn't gamey. Unless real life is gamey (which it is). I'm not sure it's a good idea to make gamey synonymous with 'something I don't like'.

In fact, the moral hit the units take when they are split up is gamey.

[Glider]

Obviously, our definitions of gamey differ somewhat

However, it seems that we all mostly agree on the following:

1) In CM games halfsquads are (considerably) more effective than full squads. This makes them the default choice for all those who intend to win, except if such persons prefer to fight at disadvantage.

2) The game designers did not intend halfsquads to be default inf tactical units. Otherwise, we would be buying our inf units already divided into halfsquads and the designers would have provided us with "Join" command instead of "Split".

3) Dividing all inf squads into halfsquads contributes absolutely nothing to the quality of gameplay. It just makes order phases about twice as long and tedious, since you have about twice as many units.

Perhaps the practice is not "gamey" but it is definitely not something I would like to see accepted as "just another good CM tactics" by the gaming community.

[Cannon-fodder]

I have to say that I agree with Glider here... I've never been hit by a half squad horde, but I tested it in an AI game and it was pretty unstoppable, especially with SMGs.

The fact is that the developers included the split squad option so that you could conduct recconaissance without so much risk to yourself. In fact, the only non-Gamey uses I can see for splitting squads are recon and deception (making opponents think you have 2 platoons rather than 1 in a place).

I think we should probably add this to the list of 'not done' things in CM as, after all, IRL squads operated as full squads, not as half squads (and yes, I know that nowadays they are divided into two sections, a Fire and a Maneuver, but it wasn't like that in WW2!).

[imported_no_one]

Glider,

Just wanted to point out that you probably never would have encountered this "gamey"(and by the way,I dont believe that it is gamey or as overly effective as you say it to be)tactic if you had not been in the perfect venue for gameyness--Quick battles.

So,you asked for it.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Cannon-fodder:

I have to say that I agree with Glider here... I've never been hit by a half squad horde, but I tested it in an AI game and it was pretty unstoppable, especially with SMGs.

The fact is that the developers included the split squad option so that you could conduct recconaissance without so much risk to yourself. In fact, the only non-Gamey uses I can see for splitting squads are recon and deception (making opponents think you have 2 platoons rather than 1 in a place).

I think we should probably add this to the list of 'not done' things in CM as, after all, IRL squads operated as full squads, not as half squads (and yes, I know that nowadays they are divided into two sections, a Fire and a Maneuver, but it wasn't like that in WW2!).

You are so incorrect, I don't know where to begin. In CW sections, there was a BREN Group and a RIFLE Group. Standard battle drill was for the BREN to provide cover fire and the RIFLEMEN to attempt a flanking.

See the page on THE SECTION on my website at http://www.canadiansoldiers.com - click on organization, then The Section for a complete historical look at Canadian infantry sections (squads) during the 20th century.

http://www.canadiansoldiers.com/organization/section.htm is the direct linkg

My section on WW II tactics is thin for now, but you couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions about fire and movement in WW II, at least with respect to the Canadians and British.

[Glider]

Originally posted by no_one:

Glider,

Just wanted to point out that you probably never would have encountered this "gamey"(and by the way,I dont believe that it is gamey or as overly effective as you say it to be)tactic if you had not been in the perfect venue for gameyness--Quick battles.

So,you asked for it.

Once again, this topic is not about my game. It is not about my obvious and pathetic attempt to convince myself and others that I am being defeated by a flaw in the game engine and not by a better player.

It particularly is not about what I deserve or do not deserve, an issue that concerns you not at all.

It is about the fact that there is a way to make one of the most important factors of the game - infantry - more effective (whether 5% or 20% more effective - that is another issue altogether). And that this way is making the game more tedious and time-consuming, without contributing anything to the quality of gameplay.

[dieseltaylor]

I have had to split a defence into half squads simply because the game , in Combined arms assault, mode gives you too few points to buy adequate infantry. IMHO history is full of WW2 squads being given extended frontages for the very same reason.

I do not see split squads - even mass split squads as gamey.

[Glider]

I don't say that it is gamey. But the vision of two players fighting a big QB and splitting two battalions worth of infantry into halfsquads... now that is just wrong.

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by no_one:

Glider,

Just wanted to point out that you probably never would have encountered this "gamey"(and by the way,I dont believe that it is gamey or as overly effective as you say it to be)tactic if you had not been in the perfect venue for gameyness--Quick battles.

So,you asked for it.

Once again, this topic is not about my game. It is not about my obvious and pathetic attempt to convince myself and others that I am being defeated by a flaw in the game engine and not by a better player.

It particularly is not about what I deserve or do not deserve, an issue that concerns you not at all.

It is about the fact that there is a way to make one of the most important factors of the game - infantry - more effective (whether 5% or 20% more effective - that is another issue altogether). And that this way is making the game more tedious and time-consuming, without contributing anything to the quality of gameplay. </font>

[Glider]

...Will it always work?

Of course it will not always work. But it will practically *always* make a split platoon of any kind of infantry more effective than an 'unsplit' platoon. What a player can do with that advantage is up to him/her/it.

I also fail to see how splitting squads makes them so effective.

Again, there is no *so*. They are more efficient and the degree of increased efficiency can be discussed. They use ammo much more efficiently and they can be in two places at once, thereby only half of the squad can be pinned by return fire that would otherwise pin the entire squad. They are also smaller/cheaper targets.

One other thing,how is issuing orders to two companies of split-squads any more time consuming or tedious than issuing orders to a couple of battalions,plus lots of armor?Same amount of time spent,similar number of waypoints issued....

Issuing orders to couple of inf battalions divided into halfsquads is much more time consuming than issuing orders to the same battalions in "whole squads" mode.

BTW,there is no need to get/sound testy.

I assure you that I wouldn't be sounding testy to you had you not sounded rude to me. If you are willing to tell me that I imagined this and that you did not sound that way, I will be perfectly willing to explain to you that I did not sound testy either

[Brent Pollock]

Amen!

...and the Germans (the very genesis for adopting the LMG 34)...and the Italians (not one but two LMGs in the LMG section)...and Americans (BARs, BARs and more BARS)...and the French (BAR)...and the Finns/Hungarians/Romanians/Russians...Japanese/Chinese/Siamese/Polish/Ethiopians/Greeks/Bulgarians/Yugoslavians/Czechoslovakians I'm not so certain of...along with anyone else I forgot.

As to someone's comment about it not adding anything to the enjoyment... ...I LOVE it. It gives me that micro-managing buzz of having the firebase and assault sections...well...ummm...act like firebase and assault sections. Add to that the layered zone approach (assault section up front with short cover arc; firebase behind another 50m or so with an appropriately extended cover arc) and the Up Stairs/Downstairs split in buildings.

Love it, love it, love it.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

You are so incorrect, I don't know where to begin. [redacted by Brent] My section on WW II tactics is thin for now, but you couldn't be more wrong in your assumptions about fire and movement in WW II, at least with respect to the Canadians and British. [/QB]

[ January 20, 2005, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

[imported_no_one]

Glider,

Ok,I am actually glad that you responded.After my last post I realized what I should have said.This will clear all this up.

Lets look at an example.

You are playing a scenario as the germans and you have been given a completely crack german infantry company.Doesnt matter what type or anything,but they consist of some type of rifle squad.They have no support.

They are up against a battalion of regular and green russian infantry.Doesnt matter what type or anything,but they consist of some type of rifle squad.To make it a little bit more even,you might could say that it is an under-strength battalion.

First off lets look at experience.Being of higher experience means that you have the ability to put out higher FP rates than that of an identical unit of lesser experience.So,a crack unit will have more FP than a regular unit,even when firing with the exact same parameters.

So,you compare the german and russian infantry squads.The german squad--because of experience--has more FP by default.Not including what the HQ might provide.

Now lets look at logistics(and I suck at math,so all this is approx. numbers).Since it is a batalion of infantry versus a company,the russians are going to have an advantage of 3:1!....3:1?That sounds kind of like your situation.

Now,what happens when you split a infantry squad?Because it is split,the FP of the two individual squads is significantly reduced.It is almost like making them lose a couple levels of experience at FP,maybe even worse.This means that the only way that they can really be effective is to fire for longer periods of time,but from as many angles as possible.

Do you see where I am going with this?Are you going to tell me that in real life a defender in a similar situation could not prevail?Think about the fact that as a split squad takes casualties its FP cotinues to drop.IMHO,it also seems easier to panic/break/rout a fresh split-squad than a fresh full squad.

While I was writing this,I actually realized this might be a good tactic to use against an opponent who does the potentially gamey "rush the flag" thing in ME's.Counter-aatack with all your infantry split.

Does any of this change you stance on the issue?If not then i am sorry that I couldnt help.

[Glider]

Hmmm... I understand what you are saying, but that also means that a sudden loss of three men, which would incapacitate a full squad for a long period, will incapacitate only one of the halfsquads, leaving the other fully operational.

I think that Treeburst has pointed out the true source of the advantage... the fact that, while two halfsquads can fire at a squad from two directions, the full squad, despite having the same number of men, can return fire only against one of the halfsquads.

[Cannon-fodder]

First of all, apologies Michael Dorosh, I didn't realise this was the case.

Second, I don't think we're going to get any real agreement here, so how about people say at the beginning of the battle whether they consider half-squad hordes to be acceptable. This should at least save any nasty surprises. From the sound of your opponent Glider, he seems like the kind of guy who buys five platoons of tigers and the rarest, baddest-ass infantry he can get, and never mind the history, so you're probably playing with the wrong guy.

Let's all be friends!

[Treeburst155]

Large scale splitting of squads is GAMEY. I can't believe there is even a debate over this. Any supporting/suppressive role an element of a squad may have is handled abstractly when the WHOLE squad engages in combat. To manually control your supporting half-squad is to probably interfere with the abstract stuff. Even if not, One squad can fire at only one target. They cannot split fire to deal with a split squad unless they split themselves. This GAME LIMITATION forces everyone to split all squads in order to compete. This is not what the designers intended, obviously; or they would have given us split squads as the default. Mass squad splitting is gamey.

Treeburst155 out.

[dieseltaylor]

In a battle I am currently in I can tell you that halfsquads break very easily unless they are in command control - even then they are not robust as a full squad

[Philippe]

A squad can fire at two targets. Or its two halves can fire at one. What is gamey is that it can't fire at three. Concentrating your fire is good tactics. Just because something is not the best tactics doesn't mean it's gamey.

Something is not gamey because of your own personal interpretation of what the designers may or may not have intended, even if that interpretation happens to be correct. I just reread the relevant section of the CMBB manual, by the way, and it sure doesn't read like a prohibition against squad-splitting. What it seems to be saying is that we've modeled squad-splitting on how squads worked in teams (a bit of an oversimplification for three-man German teams), you can mimic real-life to your heart's content with fire and maneuver elements, but be warned, your troops will be very brittle. But whatever your interpretation of the intent behind those three paragraphs describing split squad usage, the designer's intent (which tends to be in the eye of the beholder) is not really what determines gameyness.

Suicidal truck and jeep recons are gamey. Why? Not because the designer didn't intend you to do it but because it wasn't done in real life. [And I'll say rude things in the general direction of anyone who quotes that D-Day story about the possibly anti-semitic unit commander who sent the least experienced, least useful, and most under-armed member of his company down the road ahead of his men in the hopes that he would draw fire and get himself killed]. Trucks and jeeps are valuable assets off the battlefield, and you don't waste them by exposing them to fire, or rushing suspected positions, or driving back and forth across roads at high speeds to exhaust enemy ammunition. Something is gamey because it wasn't done in real life. I worked on an excavation many years ago with someone who had driven a recon jeep in Patton's army. He was always several miles out in front, almost always alone, and very, very careful. And he didn't rush enemy positions to draw fire. And he had an uncanny way of knowing whenever the ceiling of the tunnel we were digging under that

cliff was about to cave in.

Were squads split in real life? Yes. Did people split their squads up and scatter the teams all over the battlefield in real life? Yes, sometimes. But their careers didn't last very long because they eventually came up against someone who understood the German dictum of striking with your hand in a fist, and not breaking your fingers because they were spread apart.

Artificial penalties built into the game to prevent unrealistic behavior are gamey. The point penalty on losing crews is gamey. But a necessary evil. A good model allows you to do something stupid, but at a price. A better model gets the price right.

I probably don't split my squads as often as I should. I tend to split them up on defense to get the extra foxholes that I would have had in real life, but then I run like crazy to reform them into whole squads. And I really hope that the next person I attack likes to split his squads to the max on defense -- and stays that way.

Crossbows are not gamey. Putting them on the index of forbidden weapons is.

[Philippe]

Somebody earlier on complained that there wasn't a reform teams into one squad button. I complain about that every time I try to do it, especially when I don't get it right. I think what is being simulated is the loss of cohesion that occurs when you split up -- less cohesive units are harder to reform, hence no command. You can get them to reform most of the time, but every now and then you get it wrong. That seems eminently realistic to me. And what is realistic cannot, by definition, be gamey.

[Survivalisti]

As a sidenote:

Because of the experience of the War of year 1918 and lessons learned from the fighting in Eastern Karelia during the 1920`s, the Finnish army based it`s squad-level tactics on two soldiers supporting each other in battle.

These two-man "taistelijapari" ("combat couple" if translated rudely) were then only loosely commanded by the NCO and supported by the LMG, and were particularry trained to be able to act without the support of the rest of the squad (or platoon for that matter) if needed.

During the Winter War this practice was tested in battle and partially it helped to achieve the early war-victories of Tolvajärvi, Suomussalmi and Raate. In these encirlements small Finnish units operated quite independendly with platoons and squads split to smaller taskforces and detachments.

After the Winter War and during the Continuation War and afterwards (1941-44) NCO and platoon leader-training actually encouraged action that would be called squad-splitting in the terms of CMBB.

And yes, while fighting early-war forest battles in huge maps with plenty of room for flanking manouveurs and encirclements and even later on with more smg-heavy squads these real-life tactics work quite well.

And the point is that least some armies fought with "split squads" in real life, so so much for that being gamey tactic.

[stikkypixie]

You are missing the point, the squad-level tactics should be left to the TacAI, not the players. No-one's questioning the use of fire teams.

Let me explain two squads equal in weapons, numbers and experience fight in identical terrain in CM.

If neither of the squads split than it's toss of a coin who wins.

If one of the squads splits, even without special manouvres, chances are higher/ real that the squad that has been split will win.

Why? Because CM only lets a squad shoot at one squad and one squad only, so you shoot at half a squad, while the other half can freely shoot at your own squad.

I don't suppose that in real life when 10 soldiers fight 10 other soldiers, this will happen.

I find it hard to imagine that if let say team A decide to divide in two, that team B will only fire with 10 men at the 5 men, while ignoring the other 5.

[dieseltaylor]

So if we carry your argument to the extreme each soldier will pair off shooting against each other. Of course it would then be unfair if one soldier was wounded because then it would be subject to two soldiers firing against him ......

If I have a 12 man squad against a 6 man squad you would deny me the flexibility to use my superior numbers by surrounding you but demand I just use moree ammo to show I am tougher?

As it happens in RL the idea - if you are pushing for a result you try to suppress the enemy whilst working part of your squad to an advantageous position to flank fire etc.

Now within the game you either withdraw your squad to split it , or in anticipation of action you split it earlier.Given that very rarely do you know what the enemy has or where it is you trade off command control for the number of half squads.

I am assuming that you do not group the squads around the HQ to invite atillery , mortars etc. I have seen a half squad break on receipt of a 75mm shell on a house they were in. They are fragile - sending whole squads to kill half squads should be a turkey shoot once they start breaking - but do not expect it to happen if you are simply playing squad against squad with no other action. That should be an exception not common on the battlefield.

I once worked an HQ behind the attackers line and the 4 men killed a dozen from breaking formations falling back [for no loss] : )

[stikkypixie]

Infantry in CM is so abstracted I assume that when two squads face each other they automatically employ the right tactics without my intervening. So if a 12 men squad face a 6 men squad, I assume that the squad leader does his job use the proper tactics, but we (the player) never see it, and only see the animation of two 3 guys shooting at 2 guys.

[Philippe]

I have a funny feeling that people who have spent a lot of time playing Napoleonics have a very different take on this from those that haven't.

It is normal to switch from skirmish formation, to line, to column, to square, to marching order, and back again, and to feel cheated that there was too much abstraction in that limited set of formation commands. Players frequently make the wrong formation choices, and the AI sometimes makes worse ones. Telling your men which basic formation to adopt is well within the ken of a company commander in CM, and a brigade commander or higher in the 18th century.

The tactical reality of CM is taking place at the level of two- and three- man groups. It is abstracted, so you never see these groups or what is really happening when you operate with squads and half squads.

Having the single choice between concentrated in one clump or spread out in two clumps is not exactly a plethora of options. Is it my favorite design choice? No. Are there better ways of doing it? Yes, but the designers clearly decided to go light on tactical sub-routines. Light, but not eliminated.

The ability to split squads does reflect a set of legitimate tactical alternatives: concentrate your forces or spread them out. There are plenty of good reasons for doing both, and there are plenty of good reasons for avoiding both.

The level of tactical interference that a player engages in when deciding to split or not split is probably less than what goes on when he decides to move a tank from cover to cover, sometimes in move, sometimes in hunt, sometimes in fast. Micro-management is not my favorite design feature, but there is nothing inherently gamey about it if you are using it to simulate something that is going on in real life.

Left to their own devices units in CM probably make better choices than the average player more than half the time. But they will panic and do stupid things, like bunch up into a knot of men just before someone tosses a grenade at them, or run towards incoming fire (I first remember reading about this in accounts of WWI, but it's a natural human reaction). That's why you split the squad. You can't have the sergeant spread them out into a realistic footprint, but you can make that footprint more realistic if you split the squad.

Spreading your squad's fire across two targets seems like a good way to fritter away your firepower, but if you think it's a good idea, fine, do it (by splitting your squad), and suffer the consequences. If you split your squad to increase survivability, if you're going one on one with another squad you've just opened yourself up to defeat in detail: his combined squad will silence your split fire team before you can silence him, and he'll then move on to silencing your other team. The real life event involves one squad spread over twenty meters taking on another spread over forty.

The game mechanics that I've just described seem completely consistant with what would happen in reality. And the flip side, the fire team and the maneuver team (discussed in pretty much those terms by the game designers when they explain the rationale for who goes into which half squad) launching a co-ordinated attack against a single target is text-book stuff. May not be perfectly modeled, but the design intent is clearly deliberate. And they've left it up to you to make the bad choices.

One of the things that really flummoxed me many years ago when I first started playing board games against people I didn't know was what to do when someone made a bad move. Often you can recognize it for what it is, but sometimes you expect him to play the same way you do, and by playing badly your opponent confuses you and gains a temporary advantage. If you stay flummoxed and don't punish him for his mistake, you have no one to blame but yourself.

Split squads aren't gamey. They're a real life tactic, and overuse of that tactic in the wrong circumstances presents the side that isn't splitting with an opportunity that should be exploited. And that's how it works in real life. Tactics are a bit like playing scissors-paper-stone: if he comes at you with scissors, grab a rock, but don't complain that scissors are gamey when they were part of the designer's TO&E.

[Glider]

You may argue that splitting all squads into halfsquads makes the game look more like real life... and it does. Obviously, splitting them into single soldiers would make it even more realistic and I think that such one-man inf units would be even more effective than halfsquads.

However, that would not be a very interesting game to play. In the interest of the gameplay quality infantry is abstracted, with the squad level being the default CM inf level.

You might rationalize the decision to splitting all or most of your inf into halfsquads as an attempt to emulate RL, but all you are doing are sacrificing playability in order to achieve certain advantage. If this practice becomes universally accepted the result will be that all good CM players will be splitting all their inf into halfsquads, the advantage you had will disappear and you will still be stuck with ordering 60 inf units instead of 30.

[Philippe]

How the game looks for the purposes of this discussion is irrelevant. We're not talking about modding, we're talking about simulation.

What's at issue is what is realistic. Insisting that players artificially keep their squads together in big, easy targets is no more realistic than splitting squads down to one-man units. No real army that I am aware of has ever been able to maintain cohesion and that level of initiative at the same time. People tend to be a lot more like sheep than they're willing to admit.

The smallest meaningful split would be to two-man or three-man groups, depending on the national army. But that would assume a lot more intelligent and self-motivated NCO's than one should reasonably expect to be present at all times in all armies. So the half-squads is a good compromise (though probably a bit generous to early-war Russians).

The playability question would be more appropriate if taken up with the game designers before release of a game. Like it or not, this is what we've got. If someone doesn't enjoy playing with an opponent who insists on using realistic tactics he should simply find someone else to play with. I suspect that one is a bit less likely to encounter the problematic hordes in historical scenarios than QB's (which I never play because they're gamey).

Split-squad hordes aren't going to become a dominant universal tactic for several reasons. One of them is that the good CM players that I know will hand you your head on a platter if you try it in the wrong situation, and they won't be splitting their squads to clobber you.

Just like in real life.