Hordes of halfsquads

[Bone_Vulture]

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Damn it Sergei, you think like an engineer sometimes.

(Ja tarkoitan siis kuin insinööri, ei pioneeri.)

[Treeburst155]

Yes, we could all split our squads to deal with the half-squad armies; but do we really want to DOUBLE the work of an orders phase? I guess we do, if we want to compete with the half-squad armies.

I'm positive this large scale use of half-squads was not intended by the developers. Therefore, it takes advantage of the game engine. It's gamey. The counter is easy enough; but doubles the work of orders phases. For this reason, I would not play a person who splits a LARGE portion of his squads.

Treeburst155 out.

[slysniper]

I have just started playing on line pbem and have used the split squad tactic the hole time

in most situations, I have 8 wins and one loss so far, the morale loss isn't that bad of a penalty.

The fact is the more targets you have the more likely that you have units dishing out fire power and not having to deal with return fire. These units typ. gain you your victories in the fire fights. When some units spit, they have cc weapons in one half squad and long range weapons in the other, this gives you the ability to give suppressing fire with the ranged weapons while the other can rush the enemy, and if the rush does not work, you loose only a half squad instead of the full. Keep them morale leaders close and you will be surprised by how you can keep the morale at a livable point for these units. Yes its a weakness in the game design, but for now its how it plays best in my view

[Glider]

...

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

...

I don't intend to

I am not whining because I will lose, I lose quite a few battles and it does not bother me most of the time. I am whining because very soon I will be fighting my current opponent and 11 like him in a club-to-club challenge and I will be forced to use halfsquad-army tactics in order to have a chance of proving that they are not invincible. Tedious and unfulfilling to the extreme...

As far as other games are concerned, I will happily forget about this "advantage".

[Glider]

Originally posted by Bone_Vulture:

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

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

Damn it Sergei, you think like an engineer sometimes. </font>

[imported_no_one]

I dont get what the problem is.If someone tries to attack with half-squads over distance,their individual firepower will be so reduced that it will be ineffective.You might can get many shooters firing from alot of angles(which is a very good thing),but...

All the while you should be opening up with HMG's,any direct fire HE available,mortars,and arty.The only thing the attacker has going for them is that it is a target rich environment,and one can only shoot so fast.

If you can not setup to deny an approach,then you had better have prepared for close quarters combat,and against russian infantry,that often equals smg's.

Here you will have to really be able to concentrate your fire,and your gonna have to be more creative with your armor than just sitting there with a keyhole and nothing in it.If your opponent is already threating your MLR,then it is time to move the armor.He doesnt have to kill your armor to make it ineffective,and that sound like just what he did.

I dont think that spliting two companies of infantry is gamey,I think you trade good for bad,and bad for good.If a split squad takes some casualties its down to only a few men,then their firepower is even less.

The only times I really see for spliting squads is:

1)Low ammo situations.Splitting the squads will double the amount of ammo,but reduce the amount of firepower.

2)The good 'ole split squads so as to get alot of alternate foxholes.But thats just for the setup phase,they are not fought with that way.

3)Scouts/observation posts.

4)At night.Here firepower doesnt matter so much,fire from as many angles as possible,DOES!

5)I have even used late war german pioneer squads in a split-squad role.It was an urban environment and I was pretty sure I would face SMG squads.I only had to defend for a short time(like 25+ turns)and SMG squads dont have alot of ammo,and tend to use it up very quickly.I used the split squads to slow him down as well as make him use up all his ammo.Thats not gamey,thats trading lives for time.Its just trading them at a slower pace.

As far as attacking with split-squads,I think it can be very wise in certain situations.If you are up against two or three HMG's defending a wide front,the movement of multiple targets can overload the defenders,making it so that some infantry can advance unhindered.Which sounds alot like what your opponent did.

Edit to add:

I forgot,there is another use for attacking split-squads--Deception.You can make two platoons look like a company with support,possibly even more.

[Glider]

Originally posted by no_one:

...

Here you will have to really be able to concentrate your fire,and your gonna have to be more creative with your armor than just sitting there with a keyhole and nothing in it...I think you trade good for bad,and bad for good...

To answer the second part first, the problem is this - the bad is just a slightly more fragile morale, while the good... advantages are obviously quite numerous.

As far as my armour is concerned, I managed to set it up so it is keyholed... meaning that my tanks see the flags area and approaches to them but they do not see any part of the enemy starting line (where hidden AT guns are deployed). So I can fire at his inf units. However, the combined HE capabilities of 4 Hetzers, 2 HTs with 75mm guns, 8 81mm on-board mortars and 1 105mm spotter were simply not enough to stop a tremendous wave of Russian/Romanian well spread-out infantry.

[Kingfish]

I would rethink your choices for support units.

The Hetzer, while a decent AT platform, sucks big time in the infantry support role. It's ROF is painfully slow. For a few points more you can get StuGIIIs, which have decent armor and higher ROF.

The 251/9 or 250/8 (I assume that is what you mean by HTs with 75mm guns) is a better choice, but again the ROF is too slow for stopping an onrushing attacker. Their one good attribute is the cannister round, which would shred any infantry force caught in the open. The downside is the few rounds each HT carries, and the need to get close in to use them.

It is in the 81s that you should really reconsider your purchase. The price of a reg 81 is 33 points. With that you get an average of 25 HE shells. You could trade 3 of the on boards for a 81mm spotter (93 points) which will give you double the ammo and ROF (150 rounds and 6 tubes). That still leaves you 5 on boards to deal with point targets. Or you can trade all 8 for 2 spotters, again doubling your ammo and ROF, and still have 80 points left over to buy trenches, AP mines or TRPs.

Likewise, I would dump the 105mm spotter, as you are the defender and aren't looking to soften up a target. I would instead buy as many MG42 HMG teams as possible. For the price of one reg 105mm spotter (148 points) you can buy 5 MG42 HMG teams (145 points). That is some serious stopping power.

[ January 17, 2005, 04:45 PM: Message edited by: Kingfish ]

[imported_no_one]

To answer the second part first, the problem is this - the bad is just a slightly more fragile morale, while the good... advantages are obviously quite numerous.

This is not entirely true.When you split squads,you take a hit to global morale as well.If he split his entire infantry force,consisting of two companies of smg squads,I would imagine that his globale morale took a pretty big hit.

Plus if a split squad takes a couple of casualties they are reduced to essentially a tank hunter team,that sometimes has LMG's

As far as my armour is concerned, I managed to set it up so it is keyholed... meaning that my tanks see the flags area and approaches to them but they do not see any part of the enemy starting line (where hidden AT guns are deployed).

Well that sounds to me like you are half setup to deny an approach and half setup for close combat.

Still no luck on any screenshots?

Oh and listen to kingfish,he is wise

I would try and put the HMGs in command of HQ's with(hopefully)a plus 2 to stealth and a plus two to combat.Engage SMGs from a distance.

[Glider]

The Hetzer, while a decent AT platform, sucks big time in the infantry support role. It's ROF is painfully slow. For a few points more you can get StuGIIIs, which have decent armor and higher ROF.

I bought them because Hetzers can survive 85mm hits, Stugs cannot.

... The downside is the few rounds each HT carries, and the need to get close in to use them.

They are 251/9, with 20+ HE rounds (one had 29 IIRC). They managed to fire off almost all of them from 100m-300m ranges, thanks to the cover provided by Hetzers.

It is in the 81s that you should really reconsider your purchase. The price of a reg 81 is 33 points. With that you get an average of 25 HE shells. You could trade 3 of the on boards for a 81mm spotter (93 points) which will give you double the ammo and ROF (150 rounds and 6 tubes).

True. However, my AARs usually show that my 81mm spotter was able to kill 10-20 enemy inf. My average 81mm on-board mortar kills 8-12 and about 0.5 guns

Likewise, I would dump the 105mm spotter, as you are the defender and aren't looking to soften up a target.

Ah, you see, it is a Meeting Engagement. It just feels like a Soviet assault because of the halfsquad tactics.

[Other Means]

It's an intriguing idea.

What I would do is allow part of the line to be beaten.

You are defending in trees yes? And of course you have a TRP on them? Let the 1/2 squads come and when they are over-running your position, shell it & counter.

Your guys in cover don't get hurt as much as his and with him being 1/2 squads the morale hit will be even bigger.

Then he will be recovering and you can defeat him in detail. Even any of your survivors should be able to bring enough FP to bear to break enough of his squads so your countering reserve can mop up the rest. It will take his split squads so long to be useable that you can get the drop on them.

And if a counter is not possible, give up that part of the line and defend around it. Unless all the flags are in one point you can afford to lose 1 or 2 as long as you have inflicted enough casualties on him.

Anyway - that's my .0025 of a €.

[Glider]

Originally posted by no_one:

...When you split squads,you take a hit to global morale as well.If he split his entire infantry force,consisting of two companies of smg squads,I would imagine that his globale morale took a pretty big hit.

Hit to the global morale too? I did not know that... thanks, that is a really useful info.

Still no luck on any screenshots?

I made them and then found out that I cannot post them.

Oh and listen to kingfish,he is wise

I noticed that

[Glider]

...You are defending in trees yes? And of course you have a TRP on them? Let the 1/2 squads come and when they are over-running your position, shell it & counter.

It is ME, so no TRPs. I did just what you said, it hurt him but not enough.

And if a counter is not possible, give up that part of the line and defend around it.

Just what I am doing, both flanks caved in, I am surrounded, defending the two central flags with an inf company, two Hetzers and a 75mm HT firing in all directions at once. Most of the (empty) support HMGs, mortars and the FO withdrawn to the map edge and ready to be evacuated.

[Sanok]

there is another use for attacking split-squads--Deception.You can make two platoons look like a company with support,possibly even more.

I wanted to mention this as another advantage to splitting squads. With the way BB and AK do unit identification, you'll see infantry squad? and one man icon. As far as you know, it's a full squad. It's so infrequent that you ever reach the ID level to see two or three men icons in the squad, it's a big advantage to split them.

I think BFC dropped the ball on this ID level. I've seen it so many times, that you only see one man icon, even in situations where you should obviously see three. I'll never forget the time I had two squads and an MG firing at an enemy full squad in open terrain, 150 meters away, day time and clear skies, but I only saw one man icon for two turns.

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />...

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

...

I don't intend to

</font>

[Glider]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

...

Btw check out that screenshot thread, I believe it contains information on how to post your screenshots using imageshack or something.

Thanks I will try it out now:

This is the situation seen from the right flank (completely overrun, my Germans are forming a hedgehog around the two central flags)

This is the top view. You can see the central group of German units being enveloped. My left flank supported by 2 Hetzers (no HE), after being dispersed, is trying to slow down the Soviets that seized the flag.

[imported_no_one]

Wow,what a mess

[Philippe]

If I understand what I'm looking at, there's a bunch of Romanian hidden unit markers trying to defend a German victory location from the Russian hidden unit markers. And an oversized unidentified vehicle or two...

Very confusing. Sometimes less is more, which is why they invented sketch maps. Perhaps it would be easier if you made a simple schematic drawing in Paint and posted that ?

[Glider]

Originally posted by Philippe:

If I understand what I'm looking at, there's a bunch of Romanian hidden unit markers trying to defend a German victory location from the Russian hidden unit markers...

Well if they were fighting each other they wouldn't both be depicted as hidden markers now would they

No need for a schematic, a few words will suffice. After overrunning both German flanks waves of Russian/Romanian infantry are enveloping the central flags still held by Germans.

Though I never wanted to discuss *my* game, just the unfortunate fact that dividing all your squads into halfsquads seems to be improving their combat effectiveness quite a bit.

[Philippe]

On several occasions when fighting the AI I have been on the receiving end of split-squad assaults.

I was generally under the impression that the squads, as currently portrayed when unsplit, are actually a bit more bunched together than they would be in real life. This impression comes from staring at the footprint and asking myself if that many men would really stand that close together when they came under fire. They would, but if there was a competant NCO about he would make them spread out. Too good a target for grenades or mortars.

So I don't have a problem with split-squad tactics, and probably wish you could spread out more than just splitting in two implies.

But I don't use split squad tactics much, apart from digging extra foxholes and setting up expendable points to advancing forces.

Why? Two reasons. First, I'm not that good. Second, I'm still mesmerized by late 18th century thinking and want to concentrate attack power at a key point. I've been rolled up too many times on defense when using full squads that were gang-banged one at a time by co-ordinated platoon attacks. I would think those tactics would cut through split squads even faster. Unless I was absolutely swamped, if I saw a bunch of split squads coming at me I'd go light on the artillery but try to organize a few napoleonic infantry counter-attacks. Just because you're outnumbered doesn't mean you can't get there firstest with the mostest.

[Dandelion]

Encouraged and enthusiastic about this new enterprise, I fail to understand why so many are being so negative. Which is not saying I am not open to enlightenment.

Having 11 men on a 2 by 2 square is not exactly the design strength of CM.

Splitting the squads, yet being limited by the command radius (what is it, some 75 meters maximum?) enables a player to extend more realistic frontages.

A IRL squad would use eight pace distance between the men by default in hostile environments, meaning ten men had a frontage of eighty some paces. Meaning that if you deploy in line behind, say, a church in CM, you'd be able to fire forward on both sides of the church. But you're not. Because all of your men are piled in a 2x2 square in the game, and can fire only from there (but still take punishment from a wider, unspecified area - rumored to be 30 square metres).

Myself I have fallen victim to rumors of vulnerability in splitting squads. Believing in it, one will experience it to be true too, when doing it. But I can see now that such fears have been much exaggerated.

I don't feel Slysniper or Bone Vultures opponent have anything to make apologies for. My definition of gamey is the creation and explotation of surreal events. This is in fact forcing the game into greater realism. Lets see if the sound advice of Kingfish and Sergei and others will beat the guy. And if it doesn't, all power to him.

Keep us posted Bone. I promise not to comment on your game, just study the effect of the split squads assault.

Cheerio

Dandelion

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Dandelion:

Encouraged and enthusiastic about this new enterprise, I fail to understand why so many are being so negative. Which is not saying I am not open to enlightenment.

Having 11 men on a 2 by 2 square is not exactly the design strength of CM.

Splitting the squads, yet being limited by the command radius (what is it, some 75 meters maximum?) enables a player to extend more realistic frontages.

A IRL squad would use eight pace distance between the men by default in hostile environments, meaning ten men had a frontage of eighty some paces. Meaning that if you deploy in line behind, say, a church in CM, you'd be able to fire forward on both sides of the church. But you're not. Because all of your men are piled in a 2x2 square in the game, and can fire only from there (but still take punishment from a wider, unspecified area - rumored to be 30 square metres).

Myself I have fallen victim to rumors of vulnerability in splitting squads. Believing in it, one will experience it to be true too, when doing it. But I can see now that such fears have been much exaggerated.

I don't feel Slysniper or Bone Vultures opponent have anything to make apologies for. My definition of gamey is the creation and explotation of surreal events. This is in fact forcing the game into greater realism. Lets see if the sound advice of Kingfish and Sergei and others will beat the guy. And if it doesn't, all power to him.

Keep us posted Bone. I promise not to comment on your game, just study the effect of the split squads assault.

Cheerio

Dandelion

IMO it's gamey in the sense that squad-level tactics are for the AI to handle. A base of fire and a manuever elements are abstracted I believe if you use the advance command.

Using half-squads to do the same is gamey because, while the defender has enough firepower to surpress a non-split squad, it can't supress the same number of men.

[Corvidae]

the use of split squads is not itself 'gamey', the split squad comand does simulate the spreading out of ones troops to make your entire squad harder to spot and hit, this is tactical common sense, however,,,,, the over reliance on split squads can be gamey, if taken to extremes

[Treeburst155]

I'm with Stikkypixie. The game was designed with the squad as the smallest human-controlled element (except support units). Split-squads are for a couple special purposes already mentioned in this thread. The problem is that the program only allows one unit to be fired on by any single opposing unit. If you split that ONE unit, you exploit a limitation in the game. You are making half the squad impervious to fire from a single enemy squad, which was never intended. The squad level abstractions Stikkypixie speaks of are at least partially circumvented. IOW, it's gamey to split an entire company into half-squads. If a unit is not acting as an OP/LP, assaulting a vehicle, or walking point (scouting), it should be an unsplit unit.

EDIT: Splitting many squads in order to deceive your opponent as to your strength seems OK to me; but when they execute an attack, they should be whole squads again.

Treeburst155 out.

[ January 19, 2005, 08:22 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[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'.