Hordes of halfsquads

[Glider]

...If someone doesn't enjoy playing with an opponent who insists on using realistic tactics he should simply find someone else to play with.

Well, the tactics is being used not because it is realistic but because it gives you advantage. Too much realism can damage playability, I don't think that anybody plays "two Guards tank regiments supported by a division of artillery against a depleted Germany infantry company" no matter how realistic they are.

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.

It is true that both halfsquads and squads have their weaknesses and their advantages. But advantages of halfsquads outweigh their weaknesses by far.

In other words, you can have King Tigers and I can have T-34/85s and I can still hand you your head on a platter if you use them in a tactically unsound way. But that does not mean that KTs and T-34/85s are equal.

[Philippe]

Tactics are always used because they give you an advantage. If the ones you are using don't give you an advantage you have to find different tactics that do. This isn't arm-wrestling. If you want a balanced scenario, play chess. Or shogi. Or go. Balanced is boring. And gamey. It never happens in real life.

The intent behind the use of a particular tactic is not relevant. I often use one tactic as opposed to another because I happen to be thinking of a particular part of my girlfriend's anatomy. Are tactics used in the context of lascivious thoughts gamey? Don't tell her that, she hates games.

I disagree that half-squads are better than squads (which is one reason I don't use them much). But even if they were, so what? Real men hunt Tigers with Stuarts. I'm not interested in artificially homogenized and equalized war. Probably for the same reasons I don't eat fast food.

[Glider]

Well, you must make some allowances for us plebs who would like to know how level the field actually is before playing. Personally, Iraqi - USA 73 Easting scenarios never appealed to me, no matter how real-life they might be.

[dieseltaylor]

Glider - if you have the time practice games where you are the half squad champion and attack the AI and find out what makes your half squads break , keep a few squads whole and then see what happens to them.

I took a long time before I found the Russian secret to defeating German armour in 43 but you have to work at this game and in doing so you get a much better understanding of all the variables and tweaks that exist.

I always try to play opponents abck to back so I learn both sides of the at the same time. If there is an advantage you both have the option to play it - or not : )

[Philippe]

You know, if you play a QB you'll probably end up building a force around the tactics you want to use. If, on the other hand, you play an historical scenario, you'll build your tactics around the situation and the forces that are handed to you.

The QB's free reign on buying forces probably encourages weird tactics. Historical scenarios, on the other hand, tend to be immersive, and you'll find yourself behaving in a convincing manner (even if you're harboring unchaste thoughts about your girlfriend). So as much as it goes against Jesuit training to say so, you're probably better off ignoring intent. Judge your opponent by his acts, not by his heart (you probably don't want to know, anyway).

Maybe you should go cold-turkey on the QB's for a while and pretend you're a reenactor. The question may look a little different to you after a while.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Philippe:

I often use one tactic as opposed to another because I happen to be thinking of a particular part of my girlfriend's anatomy.

Well, that explains why in our last game you advanced on my positions in a giant "V" formation.

[Glider]

When I can, I play scenarios. When I must, I play QBs. Mostly, for some strange reason, people insist on QBs.

The entire thread was not supposed to be dedicated to the weirdness of my gaming habits (though I see I am not alone in that particular asylum area ) but to the annoying fact that one can (in my opinion) increase the effectiveness of his infantry by practically doubling the amount of time needed to issue orders.

[slysniper]

I cannot believe that this thread is still going on. It comes down to this, Glider, someone used something you were not use too, he won more because you didn't anticipate such a tactic, learn from it, test it out in game play, split squads is not the answer for everything, but is for somethings like some here have tried to point out, if you dont want to learn when to use it, dont complain when someone who does beats you with it.

I don't like Q.B. much, I like to have some variety in life, I'm not trying to show someone I know what to purchase, I want to take out Brummbars with AT rifles.

You can all say what you want, but anyone who has worn a uniform knows that a squad working together can produce alot of firepower, but most times in combat, you are not able to work as a squad, fire teams become a commom force, yes your morale is lower because most of the time the amount of infomation you have is so limited, you feel like you are all alone. The game is fine, just learn to play the game instead of thinking everything that does not fit your thinking must be incorrect. As many of these post want to voice.

This thread has given me even more incentive to see how spliting my squads effect my play, I mentioned earlier that I use it a lot, but I also know of times that I would never think of it, thats why I play the game, I'm in command.My troops get to live or die from my choices, stop wasting time talking about it and get out there and test it on the game battlefield.

[Philippe]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

Well, that explains why in our last game you advanced on my positions in a giant "V" formation.

I was thinking of the shadow on her cheek and the bridge of her nose at sunrise.

[dieseltaylor]

I thought you would be heading to the target area through the b[r]ush : }

[Andrew H.]

I don't think that split squads are gamey, and I don't think that they are always advantageous.

As Tero pointed out, if you have a situation where there is open area and you can shoot at infantry at 300-500 meters, you will be able to pin split squads with units that would not be able to pin full squads. On the other hand, as I think you are experiencing now, if you are so close that you have enough firepower to basically pin (or worse) whatever you're firing at, split squads are an advantage because only the half squad will pin. I don't think that this is unrealistic, and the obvious counter to that situation is to split your own squads.

I do think that, in this particular battle, you made a particularly bad choice in taking two Hetzers - not so much because of the low HE loadout, but because there is only one MG, with little ammo and a low ROF. A vanilla Pz IV, or even a Pz III, would have been very helpful against the split squads because it can shoot at several at several different units in a turn, and have a better chance of pinning/sending to ground half-squads than squads.

[easytarget]

i believe the answer everyone is looking for in this thread is:

drumroll please

42 angels can in fact dance on the head of a pin

thank you, thank you...

i'll be here all week

[David I]

This is starting to remind me of the trenches plus 30 20mm flak guns argument.

If there was a sure fire way to win any scenario or QB at any time this game system would have died long ago.

DavidI

[Treeburst155]

Split squads are not ALWAYS more effective than whole squads; but instances in which they ARE more effective are not rare. Veterans with a morale bonus make good candidates for splitting, especially if the squad is a high power one.

The Tac AI of a full squad cannot deliver fire in more than one direction at a time. If two halfsquads attack from different points on the compass, even fairly close points, one halfsquad will receive absolutely no fire. No defending squad is going to IGNORE 5 guys at 2 o'clock completely so they can hammer the 5 guys at 10 o'clock (same range). The unsuppressed fire from 2 o'clock will keep them from delivering much effective fire to the 10'oclock enemy. This is a game limitation. Taking advantage of it is gamey.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

I just made a test scenario. One Regular Russian Rifle '42 squad with FP 125 is defending in tall pines, no foxhole, in command (no bonuses) vs one Regular German 41 squad (FP 124) in tall pines, in command (no bonuses).

The German squad is split. FP for the half-squads are 62 and 49 for 111 total. This means the German squad lost 13 FP by splitting. I spaced the Germans 20 meters apart and advanced them. One split squad came under Russian fire and went to ground pinned, the other was unmolested. By the third turn, the Russian squad was broken (no casualties) and crawling away. One German halfsquad was cautious (2 casualties from initial contact). The other was in perfect shape, ready to pursue the broken Russian squad.

One attacking squad shattered one stationary defending squad simply by splitting. Everything else was equal. Fire from multiple directions is powerful, especially when it cannot be suppressed due to game limitations. It was effectively 2 to 1 against the Russians, even though they had twice the firepower of each attacking halfsquad.

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Treeburst, I tried setting up a similar scenario and noticed something strange. When I split a squad into two halfsquads the sum of their firepowers remains equal to the initial firepower of the entire squad (at least according to info screen).

Also, somebody said that splitting squad produces a global morale hit but the morale level remained 100% even after every single squad was split.

[Treeburst155]

You may have found some minor bugs. What kind of squads did you use?

I just ran my test again. This time the Russian squad lost 5 guys before breaking on turn 3. The Germans lost one guy, both split squads in good condition.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

I just split a German company. No globale morale hit was evident. I was still at 100% a couple turns later. Hmmmm....

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

The German Jaeger 42 squad:

German squad

The halfsquad 1:

Halfsquad 1

The halfsquad 2:

Halfsquad 2

[Glider]

The Russian pioneer squad:

Russian pioneer squad

The halfsquad 1:

Halfsquad 1

The halfsquad 2:

Halfsquad 2

[Treeburst155]

So, there are some holes in the penalties for splitting squads. The global morale hit does not register as far as the player can tell; and, in some instances the FP of a squad is apparently not reduced. It's obvious to me that the wholesale squad split is extremely gamey. Look at my test results. How realistic is the outcome when squads are split? It's almost absurdly unrealistic.

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Are you really surprised by your results?

In close encounters of inf forces of equal size the morale factor will always determine the winner. The side that pins and panics first will lose, and lose badly.

If you have two halfsquads firing at a single squad the game engine will practically guarantee that the single squad will panic before it manages to panic *both* of the halfsquads.

[Treeburst155]

I'll admit I was a little surprised at just how very effective splitting squads is. The only defense against wholesale squad splitting is to do it yourself. Notice my test was run with Regulars and no morale bonus. Vets with a morale bonus would be much more effective.

I'm with you all the way, Glider. This is unbelievably gamey; especially when there is real doubt that the split squad penalties to firepower and morale are applied.

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Strange, my CMBB splits even your German 41 squads (FP 124) into two halfsquads, FP 62 each.

[Treeburst155]

Mine does too! In the editor, where I split the squad, it showed a reduction in total FP. In game, no penalty. Very interesting. I need to look into this a bit more. We've found a bug. This of course makes the wholesale squad split doubly gamey. None of the penalties seem to be applied.

Treeburst155 out.