Hordes of halfsquads

[Glider]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

...

Split your squads in large clumps of trees where infantry could be waiting for you, and support weapons can't see to help. Other than that, you'll probably be alright against halfsquad hordes.

Treeburst155 out.

There are other situations where advantage is considerable (but not so big as in cases of two halfsquads firing at a single squad from short ranges).

a) Every situation where an on-board support weapon is firing at you. Two spread-out halfsquads will be less suppressed than one full squad.

Every situation where you are involved in long and medium range inf firefights. Split your squads into short-range and long-range elements, hide the short-range elements, let the long-range elements fire. The result - you retain 90% of your long-range firepower and you save 50% of your ammo.

[Dschugaschwili]

Originally posted by Glider:

Every situation where you are involved in long and medium range inf firefights. Split your squads into short-range and long-range elements, hide the short-range elements, let the long-range elements fire. The result - you retain 90% of your long-range firepower and you save 50% of your ammo.

Since CMx1 doesn't track ammo per weapon, this may be even more realistic than running out of ammo for your SMGs after some shots fired at 250m. We'll have to wait for CMx2 to have this advantage nullified.

Dschugaschwili

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Glider:

Ace Pilot, very interesting results that, I think, show that the morale penalty is there.

I think so, too, but, as Treeburst accurately pointed out, the tests aren’t conclusive, and certainly not quantifiable.

Just one question - how far away the split halfsquads were from each other? From your "one ground tile" I would say not far enough (about 40m) for MG fire to affect *only one halfsquad* with one burst.

I knew I didn’t explain this very well.

In my test using half squads, I put a single half squad up against a single MG bunker. The other half of the squad got tucked far away, out of LOS. So the MG bunker had only a single target to deal with, whether it was a full or half squad.

If you placed halfsquads on two different tiles surrounded by water and ran the test we would have a better simulation of real game situations.

I agree that this would simulate accurately the effects of how firepower has to be split (and therefore diluted) when there are two half squads present. However, I was just trying to determine how noticeable the morale difference was between full and half squads.

However, is the morale hit big enough?

That’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it? Should half squads route as soon as they spot an enemy (proper credit to Treeburst ) or should half squads be sturdy enough to perform lone assaults? I think we all agree that the answer lies somewhere in the middle of these extremes.

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

LOL! Yep, that's what it boils down to. The thing is, the designers didn't really intend for large scale use of halfsquads to pay off; but it does....in some situations.

I think Treeburst has an interesting point here. From the CMBO manual:

While squads usually are the smallest maneuverable unit on CM’s battlefield, under certain circumstances the player might want to split one or more of is squads, e.g. in order to set up outposts in front of his main. The SPLIT SQUAD order allows this, but not without certain drawbacks.

One drawback is that half-squads have less combat power than it does as when they are one coherent and well coordinated squad. By splitting squads, the player sacrifices a good portion of a squad’s concentrated firepower in exchange for higher maneuverability of the two units.

The other drawback, maybe even more serious, is that half-squads tend to panic more quickly than full squads. For these reasons, half-squads are usually good only in an observer role (as outposts or scouts), and should be withdrawn as soon as contact with the enemy has been made.

This certainly supports the idea that the designers intended to discourage large-scale splitting of squads and did not mean for them to be used in combat (i.e., withdraw as soon as enemy contact is made). However, by the time CMAK came out, several changes had been made/added (bolded):

While squads usually are the smallest maneuverable unit on CM’s battlefield, under certain circumstances the player might want to split one or more of is squads, e.g. in order to set up outposts in front of his main positions or to assault tanks (and avoid risking a whole squad for this task). The SPLIT SQUAD order allows this, but not without certain drawbacks.

One drawback is that half-squads have generally less combat power than they do when they are one coherent and well coordinated squad. By splitting squads, the player sacrifices a portion of a squad’s concentrated firepower in exchange for higher maneuverability of the two units. The other drawback, maybe even more serious, is that half-squads are more “brittle” than full squads, tending to panic more quickly. For these reasons, half-squads should usually be used only in an observation role (as outposts or scouts).

When squads are split, the resulting half-squads are separated into an assault element (retaining most of the explosives, anti-tank weapons and submachineguns) and a support element (retaining machineguns and rifles, able to provide covering and suppression fire at longer distances).

From this, it appears that the function of split squads has evolved into a more offensive role in the designers mind, since they added tank assault as a valid use (something certainly not for the faint of heart), as well as deleting the reference to withdrawing once contact was made. Plus, the designers changed the splitting algorithm so that the half squads were no longer equal, but instead had a support and assault element to them – again indicating these are more offensive minded.

Form this discussion, it would appear that the designer’s intent for half squads to be used more aggressively has been accomplished. The examples showing how a single squad can defeat another, more powerful squad just by splitting, does concern me a little. However, I think the real problem is that a single squad can only engage a single target. Adjusting a half squad’s morale (and possibly firepower) could address this issue, but I’m not sure what repercussions it would have in other areas.

[Zemke]

I used half squads, but mostly for scouting, OPs, and lead element of the platoon. As for the realism or gameness of it, real Squads are organized into two fire teams, squads maneuver by fire team. As in real life, if the squad is maneuvering, and due to terrain, is forced to maneuver in an area lager than the area reprsented by game tile, then the split squad makes sense. In real life, a squad that is more spead out is harder to control, thus harder to "motivate" it to do what you want, thus a moral hit.

[Glider]

...Adjusting a half squad’s morale (and possibly firepower) could address this issue, but I’m not sure what repercussions it would have in other areas.

Since the BFC is not planning to issue any new patches we are stuck with what we have

That aside, I would not like to see tinkering with so essential a part of the game engine as inf morale and firepower just in order to address this relatively minor issue.

Another thing, I was just thinking about the whole support weapons/double the number of targets issue... here is another frequently encountered situation:

Your 5 MG42 HMGs are set up to cover hundreds of metres of open approaches to an important town. Suddenly two Soviet inf companies appear. Your HMGs have a decent chance of pinning&routing the inf before it reaches the town.

Now change just one detail - all Soviet units are split into halfsquads and spread out as much as possible. You now see more than a battalion worth of inf markers. Almost no chance of stopping them all, IMO.

What do you think about this use of halfsquads?

[Wiggins]

I read carefully this topic and I am really disappointed that you judged me as a "gamey" player. Words: "gimmick", "tricky" style hurts a lot.

I really wanted to join to this discussion and say step by step what has happened during this game, but I wont do this. It is useless, the judgement is delivered.

Hope I will never meet such unfair judgement in the future. And pity, that you Glider take a part with it.

[slysniper]

Well I see you are finding out how split squads give you the advantage, I wouldn't believe those who tell you otherwise. The slight penalties do not come close to the advantage spliting units give. You need to use it or agree before play that only a certain percentage may be split during play.

The game designers can fix this flaw. All that needs to be done is to allow a unit to target more than one unit. If a squad was allowed to target two or three units and split its firepower from one location it would solve the problem you are seeing with the advantage that split squads give.

Have fun with all them half squads, men.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Wiggins:

I read carefully this topic and I am really disappointed that you judged me as a "gamey" player. Words: "gimmick", "tricky" style hurts a lot...

I do apologize for any insult, real or perceived, I might have uttered here.

I already said that I do not care whether the tactics can be described as "gamey" or not. It is just something I would not like to have to do - i.e. spend twice as much time ordering infantry units around in every game.

That said, it seems to me that the thread has moved past the issue of "tricks" and "gamey practice" towards a far more useful area of tests and tactics analysis.

I do think that we could really benefit from your opinion.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Glider:

I refer you to my test on page 5 of this thread. I stopped a Russian SMG company using one MG42 and a Grenadier platoon.

[Glider]

Kingfish, I obviously failed to describe the situation I had in mind properly. I am refering to those frequent situations where several HMGs are trying to prevent enemy from reaching a certain objective (flag, town, woods) by firing from 500m+ ranges. Your test, as I understood it, dealt with a direct assault on a HMG position.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Glider:

You are absolutely correct, Glider.

Amusing but uneccessary debate. Splitting squads gives you an advantage under most circumstances.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Glider:

Kingfish, I obviously failed to describe the situation I had in mind properly. I am refering to those frequent situations where several HMGs are trying to prevent enemy from reaching a certain objective (flag, town, woods) by firing from 500m+ ranges. Your test, as I understood it, dealt with a direct assault on a HMG position.

Just so I understand you perfectly, are you describing a situation where you are defending an objective that is fronted by several hundred meters of open terrain with 5 MG42s in overwatch? Or is the objective undefended and the MGs are the only thing preventing the HS from capturing it?

[Glider]

Yes, in fact any objectie defended indirectly... you are using a number of HMGs to prevent the enemy from reaching some important cover.

[slysniper]

No comment Glider, the only thing you can do for now is have a agreement with whom you are playing that only so many half squads can be used. Or live in fear of the half squad.

Kingfish, which is likly a extremely talented player can stop half squads tactics with skill, but the truth is, he would do the task much easier if they were squads.

Lets see if we can do something from having this become part of CMx2

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by slysniper:

Kingfish, which is likly a extremely talented player

Good Lord, if those who actualy played me saw this quote they would snag it up as sig material right away! LOL!!!!!

To be honest, I'll be the first to admit that you can't stop the HS horde every time, and especially if your opponent insists on a certain parameters that virtually guarantees it will succeed. That being said, there are methods which will limit the advantage one gets from using the HD horde.

The multiple MG42s in Glider's last example certainly wouldn't stop 2 companies worth of HS, but would shred any cohesion that force had going in. Now your opponent has captured the objective, but his force is in tatters (splattered all over manhattan). Now is the time to drop some heavy arty on his head, followed up by a strong counterattack with your fresh, and more resilient, full squads. They can either stay and die, or retreat - across several hundred meters of open ground covered by multiple MG42s. Have a nice day.

[slysniper]

In your own words Kingfish is the statement of how powerful half squad tactics are. These comments are being generated because of the ability of these guys to see that. There is a advantage being given to the half squad tactic because there is a poor design flaw in the game. Half squads should be a standard tactic for someone if they want wins and there is no changes to the game. Will someone at least admit they might be wrong, that said, some good house rules should be developed, because at this point, no programing will be likely done to the existing games.

I like the half squads in the game, but they should have lower morale that is noticable, and multi targeting by one unit is a must.. Imagine a mg being allowed to pick 3 squads to fire on instead of one, a guarantee to stoping that platoon from crossing 200 yards of open field.

This game still has a way to go.

But even with them type of changes, I still see the use for half squads

[Treeburst155]

I think the whole split squad issue could be resolved by a greater morale and firepower hit.

The game has changed from squad based to fireteam based, probably due at least partially to the changes since CMBO, mentioned above. Glider's concerns regarding support weapons vs split squads make sense. Even if spreading (splitting)squads to make suppression more difficult is realistic, the fact remains that support weapons are now significantly less powerful. It may be realistic to split squads; but is the corresponding reduction in support weapon potency realistic?

Treeburst155 out.

[slysniper]

I agree with you Treeburst, but at this point none of this is going to help you with playing the game at the moment.

I really had to smile that there were so many trying to convince you that this half squad stuff wasn't going to give you a advantage.

I figured it out from the moment I started playing real people instead of the AI, it was a must in so many situations.

[Treeburst155]

Hehe.....yeah, when the effectiveness of a tactic is vigorously denied, you know it works.

I'll be splitting squads. Let's face it. It's a fireteam based game now. That is, if you like to win.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

There is another obvious advantage to split squads: waste of ammo on part of the shooter.

Since apparently (see other thread on firepower) the chance of a given firepower wounding a man is constant per man, and hence linear to the number of men in the target, expending one ammo point worth -say- firepower 100 on a unit with 4 men has half the chance to wound one man than the same shot has on a unit with 8 men. CM does not seem to model that the same volley now concentrates on fewer men.

Are there more tests available on how quickly morale decreases under the same fire for spilt versus full squads? I recommend using area fire to test this, BTW, because it leads to more constant rate of fire.

[Treeburst155]

Great info, Redwolf! This supports the "dilution of support weapon" argument Glider has been putting forth, and the new focus of my attention too.

This makes me want to call squad-splitting gamey again. The way CM applies firepower to the enemy is being manipulated. But, because I will be splitting squads now, it CAN'T be gamey to do so.

Treeburst155 out.

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Redwolf:

There is another obvious advantage to split squads: waste of ammo on part of the shooter.

Since apparently (see other thread on firepower) the chance of a given firepower wounding a man is constant per man, and hence linear to the number of men in the target, expending one ammo point worth -say- firepower 100 on a unit with 4 men has half the chance to wound one man than the same shot has on a unit with 8 men. CM does not seem to model that the same volley now concentrates on fewer men.

I thought you had said something like this before, Redwolf, so I was expecting fewer casualties among the half squads in my tests. I didn't see that, though. I didn't run very many trials, which could certainly explain the unexpected result.

Are there more tests available on how quickly morale decreases under the same fire for spilt versus full squads? I recommend using area fire to test this, BTW, because it leads to more constant rate of fire.

Area fire would even out the ammo expenditure variable. My concern is that the target could move out of the area of effect. Since I don't know how spread out area fire is, or if it diminishes as you move away from the target point, how would I tell if the "firepower received" by the target was constant across several tests? Is there any way to limit an infantry's unit's movement beyond surrounding them with water?

[Treeburst155]

Morale test idea:

Set up 20 firing lanes divided by woods. Have one halfsquad in each lane walk across the lane while an MG42 several hundred meters away in each lane opens fire. At the end of the minute, record the condition of each halfsquad. Run the test 5 times for 100 tests. Then do the same for whole squads. Compare.

Adjust MG range, experience, etc.. so that a few halfsquads don't even pin in trial tests. Then you know you haven't overkilled the situation. Morale is a tough thing to test for.

Treeburst155 out.

[imported_no_one]

Glider,do you still have the PBEM files in which this took place?It would really clear alot of things up for me,perhaps others as well.

[Glider]

Yes I do but I am not sure how would they help anyone. My opponent, Wiggins, already said in this thread that he had not used halfsquad forces globally and the FOW would prevent you from seeing much anyway.