Hordes of halfsquads

[Glider]

Originally posted by Wiggins:

...

It is funny that discussion was started because of my and Glider game, which where without hordes of HS as talks (lies??) the topic name...

I already said that this was a (wrong) conclusion I drew from the fact that my inf units were heavily outnumbered (despite about equal number of tanks and support weapons) and that at that time I overran 6 or more of your inf units in our other mirror game - which all turned out to be halfsquads.

I checked our AAR files a bit:

Game 1 (you played Germans) you had (in the last turn:

33 halfsquads and 11 full squads, or 33:22 ratio or 60% of your entire inf force divided into halfsquads.

Game 2 (you played Russo-Romanians) you had:

16 halfsquads and 25 full squads, or 16:50 ratio, or 24% of your entire inf force divided into halfsquads.

That said, I want to add that I never criticized this tactics (or you) as unacceptable. In fact I repeatedly stated that our games were not the main issue here. I just did not like the fact that halfsquads appeared to be more effective than full squads... which might start forcing people to split larger proportions of their armies into halfsquads, thereby reducing the fun factor of this game.

P.S. I apologize for a possible +/- several per cent error, I counted the squads and halfsquads only once.

[Wiggins]

Originally posted by Glider:

Game 1 (you played Germans) you had (in the last turn:

33 halfsquads and 11 full squads, or 33:22 ratio or 60% of your entire inf force divided into halfsquads.

In the second game (yes, second, the first one started this topic) HS were needed for reasons written in this topic. The reasons were so many that in the end I got 60/40 proportion.

E.q. I got plt securing my left flank. I really needed new, fresh troops in the centre, but also didnt want to leave flank unsecured. So I splited squad and moved half to the centre, while the rest was still securing the flank. About 25 turn I decided to move the rest of the platoon to the centre, 'cause flanking wasn't possible and waiting for nothing - useless.

On the right flank, I split squad in the middle of the map to make a recon, they were ambushed and killed, so YOU left me hs without second halves of the squads

In the centre in the deep forest I split forces to avoid mortar fire due to truism "split'em all in the forest".

All squads started the game as a full squads but the battlefield needed them splited, because they were so many missions to be done and so few soldiers.

Game 2 (you played Russo-Romanians) you had:

16 halfsquads and 25 full squads, or 16:50 ratio, or 24% of your entire inf force divided into halfsquads.

24% is not much (in the end of the game) - mainly they were splited forces after break-through. It is a good idea to split squads after that to catch as many panic and routed forces as possible and cover as much my new terain as possible. (BTW: nobody mentioned this way of using hs). It allowed me to attack with full squads where needed.

That said, I want to add that I never criticized this tactics (or you) as unacceptable. In fact I repeatedly stated that our games were not the main issue here.

I know about it, but your topic where used by others to pretend specialists in judgment what is gamey or not and I WAS an example.

As a summary: Using hs for reconing, outposting (honourable way of using as sb said) may cause high disproportion between full and halfsquads.

I just did not like the fact that halfsquads appeared to be more effective than full squads... which might start forcing people to split larger proportions of their armies into halfsquads, thereby reducing the fun factor of this game.

Lets say, that this long topic even do not bring closer to the body of the hs using. It is dissapointing due to so many theoreticians were talking. The number of posts is less important than the wisdom of the responses

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Actually, the morale difference is only 1.15 levels. This may not be very much at all when actual gameplay is considered.

Well, it looks then like spilt squads are just downgraded one experience level in the morale department.

That means a splitted veteran squad has regular morale, or a squad splitted under a morale2+ HQ is equivalent to an unsplitted morale1+ HQ.

Treeburst, what was the global morale at the end of your tests?

[slysniper]

Well, I am glad to see that battlefront replied and said that this situation with be handled in their future releases. I knew it was gamey when I started using it, but the last time I checked I was playing a game.

Those that play this game and believe that it has created them into some great military leader are still in a dream world. There is a large void between the two. Get real, it is a game. but it is for us, including myself , the best place to be able to imagine we are there, as we sit in our soft chairs and stuff our faces. All safe and sound, living out our dreams of being some type of war hero.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Wiggins:

... It is a good idea to split squads after that to catch as many panic and routed forces as possible and cover as much my new terain as possible. (BTW: nobody mentioned this way of using hs)...

Just wanted to highlight another possible use of halfsquads.

[Treeburst155]

Redwolf,

I did not look at global morale. There were VERY few casualties after one minute of firing. I spot checked for losses throughout the test.

Treeburst155 out.

[Battlefront.com]

The "gamey" crowd can't throw stones at the "realism" crowd without making themselves hypocrites in the process.

Combat Mission was designed to portray WWII combat as realistically as possible. That should be obvious to anybody who has played some of the other WWII games out there (RTS for example). So obviously we, the designers, intended people to get "into" the feel of WWII combat as it happened to the degree we could simulate. Others just want to blow stuff up

We like both player types, but we don't like it when one tries to claim a position of superiority over the other. There is nothing superior or inferior to the desire to play the game one way or the other. The fact that the two types of players don't tend to mix well when playing the game is understandable. But instead of bickering about it, just play with people you feel comfortable with and establish whatever "house rules" you want. That's the beauty of gaming... no one right way to do it!

Steve

[Philippe]

At the risk of getting myself branded as the Heresiarch of Halfsquad Herders, is it possible that, slightly gamey though it may be, the practise of splitting squads on a large scale has produced an unintended increase in realism? What I'm getting from all this is that if you split into lots of half-squads, sometimes you won't have an advantage but sometimes you will, depending on circumstances. The circumstances that give that advantage most often sound very much like the circumstances that would give the advantage in real life. So it may not have been intended, but I'm starting to wonder if squad-splitting isn't unintentionally ungamey. It may not be how the Designer (Demiurge ?) intended it to be, but isn't the effect (and the superficial tactical appearance) just a tad closer to the real thing? (And yes, I know, this really is starting to sound like a 4th century theological debate).

Credo quia absurdum.

[Battlefront.com]

Remember that CM is not real life and therefore unanticipated things tend to undermine the system because balancing elements are simply not there or are not balanced correctly. It would be nice if things just magically worked as they would in real life, but that isn't what happens.

If both sides play with all their squads in halves... it is more even, and in some ways a little more realistic. On the whole though it is less realistic than if the squads were kept in one piece. The reason is because the game was designed around the principle of the squad, and therefore there are some things that simply don't work as well when faced with tons of half squads. The reason for that is CM was never intended to work that way. Since we didn't intend it to be, we did not program it to be. And if we did not program it to be, chances are it can not be.

For those of you who have coded any type of application that is used by lots of people, you know what I mean. One of the unrelenting rules of software is that the closer the user is to the one in the developer's head, the better the software will perform its intended functions. The opposite is true. Good developers are the ones who anticipate or restrict user actions and program accordingly better than others in their field. And the more complex the program, the better the developer has to be at it. Inherently, however, it is still software and it can still be broken through unanticipated user actions. Swarms of 1/2 squads were not anticipated, ergo the sim will (in some situations more than others) not function as intended.

For us we have never been surprised that people have found ways of doing things we never thought of or actually spent time trying to prohibit. Nope, the surprise is how little of this there has been over the years in relation to the complexity of the scope and subject matter. In this case, we're not surprised people found a loophole with the half squads in certain situations... we're surprised it took 5 years to find it

Steve

[ February 02, 2005, 10:18 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Wiggins]

(...) In this case, we're not surprised people found a loophole with the half squads in certain situations... we're surprised it took 5 years to find it

Steve [/QB]

I still don't think it is a loophole. The most important is a sense of the battlefield, making decisions when split or not. I have played a lot of CMBB games, with players from all over the world, with so many tactics and tricks and I am sure that hordes of halfsquads is not a universal way to win.

In other way:

If one player splits all squads and his opponent plays full squads it is still equal game. Personally, it is better for me if opponents splits all or most of his troops, but if you dont mind I'll keep the reasons of that.

[Battlefront.com]

Certainly the hordes of 1/2 squads is not universal, which is why I am not overly concerned about it from a designer standpoint. But it is still a loophole because the behavior that can be acheived, in certain circumstnaces, was not intended to be possible.

Steve

[Brent Pollock]

Obviously you need to widen the playtesting team - I started doing it from the get-go

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[snip] we're not surprised people found a loophole with the half squads in certain situations... we're surprised it took 5 years to find it

Steve

[Sanok]

Treeburst said, "HMGs and mortars are of limited use in forest fights. There is also the question of HMG effectiveness when presented with a platoon consisting of 6 units, as opposed to just 3. I have not tested this, so I'm just throwing out the question. It would seem to me too many targets to deal with could be a problem for the HMG."

Treeburst, this is realistic tactics against an HMG! If an MG is encountered, the infantry tries to flank it to knock it out. It's gamey *not* to split the squads in this example.

[Sanok]

Even though Steve from BFC said it is gamey to split squads, it is really gamey the way CM is set up. Of course, CM is a game, but look at how squads are modeled. Every man in a squad suffers the same morale affect. Every man panics, or routs, or stays and fights. This is not realistic at all, but gamey. Why? Because CM is a game and things need to be modeled a certain way to play the *game.* Ultimately, this gameyness causes people to complain when real tactics are used. Using real tactics takes advantage of an engine limitation, so it's called gamey, but the "proper" way to play is the way that's actually gamey!

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Brent Pollock:

Obviously you need to widen the playtesting team - I started doing it from the get-go

And Brent looses all the time, so it can't be that much of a strategy worth worrying about

[dieseltaylor]

Problem solved.

Play with 50% casualties. Dependnt on the original squad size a proportion of squads will be too small to split [about 20% for big squads and rising higher for smaller squads]

Even squads big enough to split will generally be frailer with less fire power. You can console yourself that you are being realistic in that most of the time units were never at full strength, and split squads to your hearts content.

It does have one huge advantage as, as we all know, if you play a 1500 point combined arms we know precisely how much armour etc. can be bought. It is human nature to say I have killed X armour therefore he has no more. In the fog of war that is unrealistic levels on information to add to your borg spotting.

In an assault at 1500 points I can tell you the Germans get 217 armour points as the defender. No need to be a genius to see what tanks are affordable.

[Brent Pollock]

Oh yeah...well...at least I can SPELL, yah "looser"

Face it, you're really just GreenAsEnvyForBrent'sHalfsquadHordeKnowledge

Mandatory, obligatory HS content:

Anyone who does NOT like the halfsquad horde should stay clear of my "WBRP - Company Town" battle wherein both sides start fully deployed to mimic lack of cohesion whilst poking their noses into a new town.

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

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

Obviously you need to widen the playtesting team - I started doing it from the get-go

And Brent looses all the time, so it can't be that much of a strategy worth worrying about </font>

[Grond]

I'm surprised this is still being argued about. It's already been shown that half-squads exploit 2 very powerful loopholes in the game mechanics, only being able to target one squad and casualties being proportional to squad size. It also exploits a third only slightly less powerful game mechanic, saving your ammo while forcing the enemy to expend more. There is no way this is balanced out by the slight disadvantages. I'm used to seeing people defend their favorite exploit but this one isn't even close. That doesn't mean you have to ban them completely. You could agree on a ratio, like splitting one squad per company.