Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 I can't even reproduce the FP reduction in the editor when splitting squads. I'm sure it happened when I made the test scenario, but I can't do it again. In any case, these so-called penalties for squad splitting are FUBAR, and likely not being applied. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 It doesn't matter very much... from my tests I would say that the advantage is so great that an ordinary German rifle squad split into halfsquads would defeat even a Russian SMG squad during a short-range firefight in a forest. I'll try it out now... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Five tests, scattered trees German Rifle 41 sqad divided into 2 halfsqads, both firing at a Russian 9-men SMG squad at 22m. All units outside HQ radius. The result: The Russian SMG squad panics and runs away in 5 out of 5 tests. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Hehe....case closed. GAMEY, GAMEY, GAMEY!!! Defenders of the wholesale splitting of squads are simply defending a VERY effective gamey tactic they have come to enjoy, and rely on. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_no_one Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Ok,first off let me say that if this is true,then I am very disappointed that the penalties that were said to be in the game,arent there.This means that,atleast on some level,you have found a problem,but I must ask.How do you guys play when you play this game? In your test scenario,the reason the full squad lost is not a gamey issue,but rather a failure on your part to dictate fire control of your squad. I am curious,what would happen in your test scenario,if you were to let it unfold the way it does with the full squad engaging half squad A at the half way point of the first turn.Half squad B engages the full squad at the same time.In the orders phase for turn two,you switch the full squad to fire at half squad B.In each following orders phase,switch the full squad to the other half squad,or the enemy squad that isnt pinned.What is the result? Plus this doesnt factor in the proper use of support weapons.If you had setup a proper defense/perimeter,you should have had support units to aid the lone full squad. Lets also look at firepower.FP of 60 will pin/panic/rout and will cause only a couple of casualties.FP of 140 will pin/panic/rout and cause several casualties. So,it is my humble opinion that if you used the fire technique above,the full squad should prevail.Well,maybe 7 times out of 10.Plus if the lone squad is hanging in there for 3-5 turns before panicing/routing,they gave you plenty of time to reinforce them. The reson that this isnt gamey is because you can create the exact same situation with two platoons of infantry versus one.I mean wtf?!?!? I have only occasionally used split squads,but I have used them--mainly on the defense,and mainly for the extra foxhole thing.So I am not really defending its use,but rather am trying to put the blame where I think it belongs--some ones gameplay 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Two platoons vs one would make the results reasonable would it not? How can you justify 10 men ON THE ATTACK scattering 10 defenders of equal strength EVERY time? Forget support weapons and reinforcements for the defender. At 1:1 odds, the attacker should not win EVERY time. Heck, the attacker wins at 1:2 odds according to Glider's SMG test. BTW, I did play both sides in my test. I did change targets manually in one of them. As soon as I did this, the suppressed halfsquad resumed firing again. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_no_one Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Yes I know,read the begining of my post.It is unfortunate that the penalties that are supposed to be there arent.If they are/were,there shouldnt be a problem. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by no_one: In your test scenario,the reason the full squad lost is not a gamey issue,but rather a failure on your part to dictate fire control of your squad. I dictated fire control where appropriate, switching from the supressed to the unsuppressed. This resulted in the supressed resuming fire. Plus this doesnt factor in the proper use of support weapons.If you had setup a proper defense/perimeter,you should have had support units to aid the lone full squad. Irrelevant. At 1:1 odds, the defender should not lose EVERY time. Lets also look at firepower.FP of 60 will pin/panic/rout and will cause only a couple of casualties.FP of 140 will pin/panic/rout and cause several casualties. A broken defender is all I need. Casualties will take care of themselves at that point. So,it is my humble opinion that if you used the fire technique above,the full squad should prevail.Well,maybe 7 times out of 10.Plus if the lone squad is hanging in there for 3-5 turns before panicing/routing,they gave you plenty of time to reinforce them. I shouldn't have to reinforce a squad that already matches the enemy strength. The reson that this isnt gamey is because you can create the exact same situation with two platoons of infantry versus one.I mean wtf?!?!? Two platoons vs one should see victory for the two platoons. They have twice the firepower. How does this relate to a split German rifle squad decimating a Russian SMG squad in trees? I have only occasionally used split squads,but I have used them--mainly on the defense,and mainly for the extra foxhole thing.So I am not really defending its use,but rather am trying to put the blame where I think it belongs--some ones gameplay Who's gameplay? The halfsquad horders? Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 22m .... does this signify that any group of men engaged in a fire fight get really scared if someone else joins in that close? How does it pan out at 50 metres , at 100 metres I cannot take it as case proved if you are only going to take it for close combat. Have you tested my example of a split squad breaking from a house with one 75mm shell hit? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 dieseltaylor, Split squads are not the best way to go in EVERY case; but they are best in MANY cases, high cover infantry fighting in particular. No-one, BTW, you do not need to split squads to come up with extra foxholes during setup. They gave us a feature for that. Hit Alt-F during setup to place extra holes. The scenario designer may disable this feature. In that case, splitting to gain extra holes is gamey. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_no_one Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Plus this doesnt factor in the proper use of support weapons.If you had setup a proper defense/perimeter,you should have had support units to aid the lone full squad. Irrelevant. At 1:1 odds, the defender should not lose EVERY time. Wrong.The game of CM trys to accurately portray combined arms action.If this is true,then support weapons can be,and should always be,factored into the equation. I shouldn't have to reinforce a squad that already matches the enemy strength. True,but hey,sometimes these things happen--do what you gotta do.If you have a 1:1 platoon of non-split-squads and your platoon is losing its fight--for whatever reason--and you dont reinforce them,I guess thats gamey too? BTW, you do not need to split squads to come up with extra foxholes during setup. They gave us a feature for that. Hit Alt-F during setup to place extra holes. The scenario designer may disable this feature. In that case, splitting to gain extra holes is gamey. Thanks,but ummm...did you know that not every scenario comes with this feature in use?Hmmm,maybe that is gamey too... Aside from that,I think you are pretty well decided on this issue.I dont think there is anythin else that I can say to try and help you see the big picture,sorry. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by dieseltaylor: 22m .... does this signify that any group of men engaged in a fire fight get really scared if someone else joins in that close I simply wanted an extreme test. We all know that the German Rifle 41 squad is one of the worst close-combat units and that the Russian 9-men SMG squad is... a monstrosity. That the Rifle 41 should have stood no chance against the SMG devils, yet they won repeatedly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 No-one, You are ignoring test results. 10 regulars against 10 regulars with comparable firepower should not result in the decimation of the unsplit squad EVERY time. In fact, if the whole squad is defending, I would think it more realistic that the ATTACKER needs to call in for help. A whole squad has all the support weapons a split squad has. Why should my stationary defenders need to call in the HMGs just because you sent a couple LMGs a few degrees off to the left. My whole squad has sufficient firepower to deal with it. Oh, that's right....they can't deal with it because they can only fire at one unit at a time. If I have a platoon that is losing a fight due to a superior enemy in numbers and/or firepower, I need to bring up some help. If I have a platoon that is losing a fight due to hordes of halfsquads with firepower totalling only 75% of mine, I have a gamey opponent. If the designer disabled fallback foxholes, you are being gamey by gaining them via split squads. The "big picture" is not worth seeing if it encourages unrealistic squad level combat. Treeburst155 out. [ January 28, 2005, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 It's interesting to note that only Glider and I have run tests. I think it would be good if split squad proponents run some tests too. The unrealistic results will then be obvious to them. Perhaps the Herders of Half-Squad Hordes don't wish to face the truth? Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 In my opinion the essential problem is this: If two opponents are evenly matched and one uses halfsquad hordes - he will most probably win. I am playing two mirror games against the opponent (from the beginning of the thread) that is using halfsquad hordes. While I lost one game I pulled every trick in the book and then some in the other and sprang a few nasty ambushes. What it gained me is an about equal position... because the halfsquad system provides him with additional survivability. When ambushes and artillery barrages start he simply has twice as many inf units and twice the chance that some of the units will survive unscathed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Half squads can probably withstand arty better because the Halfsquad Herder is able to spread his squads out. There may be a LOCAL morale factor that negates this advantage. However, based on our investigation of the other penalties for splitting squads, I would question whether there is any significant LOCAL morale hit applied to halfsquads. It's a difficult thing to determine...kinda like figuring out if a squad went fanatic or not. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: Half squads can probably withstand arty better because the Halfsquad Herder is able to spread his squads out. There may be a LOCAL morale factor that negates this advantage. However, based on our investigation of the other penalties for splitting squads, I would question whether there is any significant LOCAL morale hit applied to halfsquads. It's a difficult thing to determine...kinda like figuring out if a squad went fanatic or not. Treeburst155 out. Can't you set fanatic level to zero? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Yes, but the question is whether or not halfsquads' morale degenerates under fire more rapidly than the whole squad. Determining this for certain would be difficult, just as determining fanaticism takes many turns of observation to be sure. I was just using fanatacism as an example of the testing problem. You're right though. To test for brittleness in halfsquads, fanaticism would have to be turned off. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Ran my own test just now. German Grenadier platoon MG42 HMG team 4 trenches 2 AP minefields Total axis points - 189, of which 135 is on actual combat units. Russian SMG company Total price - 272 points, all in combat units. German units set in trenches, and deployed in tall pine tiles. 2 squads cover flanks, and fronted by mines. Remaining squad and MG facing the front. No mines. HQ behind all. Entire Russian SMG company split into half squads and deployed in tall pine tiles, but out of LOS to Germans in setup. A strip of clear terrain, about 50m wide, seperates the two tree lines. German units given mutually supporting covered arcs about 60m in front. Russians are ordered to advance towards German units, leapfrogging split squads forward, so at least half the entire force is firing on the Germans at any one time. By the end of the 5th turn I had decimated the Russian company, losing only the MG42 team and maybe 2-3 othe soldiers. Ran a second test, again with half the company providing cover fire, but this time the other half using the human wave command. Same results as first test. Entire company decimated. I should add that the mines played no part in either test. None of the Russian units made it that far. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Kingfish, You simply employed the split squad tactic in a situation where it would not work. Any short range, limited visibility, heavy cover combat involving 1:1 will see the split squad win EVERY time. Combat in woods often happens this way. Also, your situation may be difficult for the Russians to win whether the squads are split or not. One heavily fortified platoon with HMG 42 and 50 meters of clear terrain in front of them would be a formidable job for a company, split or not. Remember that an entrenched MG42 has been the topic of a thread or two. They are VERY tough to put out of action. Your trenches are just helping to neutralize the unsupressed incoming fire. EDIT: Your test may be a good indicator that halfsquads do indeed take a local morale hit. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 When are half squads more effective than whole squads? In any situation where all else is equal. In fact, when all else is equal, the unsplit squad will lose even if it enjoys a significant firepower advantage. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glider Posted January 28, 2005 Author Share Posted January 28, 2005 Any short range, limited visibility, heavy cover combat involving 1:1 will see the split squad win EVERY time. Combat in woods often happens this way. I would just add that they are better in another freqently encountered situation: Exchange of fire at medium ranges between two inf forces in cover. Split squads save ammo since you hide the short-range element and let the long-range element fire. Also the enemy support weapons have twice the number of targets they need to suppress. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Yes, Glider, good point. The split platoon would gain the upper hand. All things being equal....firepower, cover quality, experience, leader bonuses, etc...The unsplit platoon could even have a significant firepower advantage. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Treeburst155 Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Glider: Split squads save ammo since you hide the short-range element and let the long-range element fire. Also the enemy support weapons have twice the number of targets they need to suppress. I've done this before. I thought it was quite clever too. I only split a couple squads though. I wanted to use the LMGs for long-range suppression and conserve ammo. Doing this on a large scale....well, it just makes me shake my head in disappointment. I don't want to HAVE to split all my squads to have a chance. Heck, I might as well start splitting my squads at setup, and get used to it. Treeburst155 out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 28, 2005 Share Posted January 28, 2005 Originally posted by Treeburst155: You simply employed the split squad tactic in a situation where it would not work. Any short range, limited visibility, heavy cover combat involving 1:1 will see the split squad win EVERY time. Combat in woods often happens this way.The purpose of my test was to show that a heavily outnumbered defender can defeat the SMG half squad horde that Glider was referring to in his first post. Note that splitting the SMG company creates 22 units, 11 or more that are smothering the trenches with a hail of fire, while the other 11 are advancing. The Germans can only engage 5 at a time, yet they stopped them cold. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.