Hordes of halfsquads

[Treeburst155]

.....because the trenches effectively negate the unsupressed incoming fire. The trenches are what balance out the split squad hordes. A hail of gunfire against a CM trench is reduced to a very minor nuisance. Put the defenders in the same cover as the half-squads. Take away the MG 42, and two Russian squads. Try it again...whole platoon against split platoon. Note respective firepowers at the engagement range. Make sure your defenders do not have more than a 1.5 to 1 FP advantage. They will go down.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

In Kingfish's test, heavily outnumbered defenders defeated a horde of split squads. Why then can a defending SMG squad in woods not defeat a single split rifle squad?

Because the defenders didn't have a trench to cause the cover imbalance necessary to defeat the split squad tactic.

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

...

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.

I suppose that you created an obstacle that could not be overcome by either a full squad or a halfsquad assault.

The advantage halfsquads have is not overwhelming, otherwise the game would be unplayable. It just gives you an edge.

[Treeburst155]

I think the edge one gets by splitting squads is very significant. CM trenches are just formidable enough to beat the tactic. This means we probably don't need to split squads in trenches. I will anyway.

Treeburst155 out.

[Paul AU]

Well, I learned a bit more here. But, seeing as we’re repeating ourselves:

I had said to Glider (back on page one of this thread):

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

Glider’d replied:

“I don't intend to.”

stikkypixie affirmed:

“You had better not.”

But, Glider had also originally said:

…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 other words… Glider will be using a lot of half-squads from now on.

(I wasn’t going to mention it, but seeing as it’s been quoted again….)

Anyway.

I’d also said on page one: “But if someone with a 94% win-ratio thinks the half-squad gimmick is worthwhile - it probably is.”

To my mind, Glider and Treeburst155 have comprehensively and repeatedly shown that mass squad-splitting is “as gamey as a jeep recon”, and is “almost absurdly unrealistic.”

The game-designers missed this one, and, as I said (on yes, page one), "it's a pity".

- - - - - - - - - - - -

“I’m just saying, sir, that world opinion isn’t really behind us, sir.”

“You can shove ‘world opinion’, private. Why, the last time we bowed to world opinion was at Suez, and ain’t even started paying for that screw-up yet!”

- Capt. “Hawk” Hanson, in “How Sleep the Brave”

[Treeburst155]

[Glider]

I don't see any logical contradiction

Originally posted by Paul AU:

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

Glider’d replied:

“I don't intend to.”

Yes, I don't intend to use it a lot

…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 other words… Glider will be using a lot of half-squads from now on.

Yes, one of those hopefully rare occasions. I can't allow the club performance to be affected by my reluctance to use the halfsquad tactics against people who use it all the time.

[Treeburst155]

Split them squads, Glider!! You must adapt to enemy tactics, gamey or not. War is hell...not to mention your orders phases. LOL!!

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Yeah, ordering around two battalions of infantry split into halfsquads... equal to four battalions worth of orders. Oh joy.

[Treeburst155]

Just the thought of it makes me laugh. "How did 3rd Squad B get so far from 3rd Squad A?. Oh, I see. I moved 2nd Squad A instead of 3rd Squad A last turn. So where is 2nd Squad B; and how come this squad isn't split? Oh, it's an HQ. Now where is 2nd Squad B? Oh no, 1st squad rejoined themselves! I know I left them far enough apart. I'll have to watch out for that. Now back to that 2nd Squad B....or was it 3rd Squad B? Alt-U

Treeburst155 out.

[Kingfish]

Glider,

Keep your units intact, and insists on playing as the defender. Buy trenches, MG42s, and barbwire. Throw in a couple of TRPs for your arty. Then come back to us with the results.

[Treeburst155]

NOW I see what you were trying to get across, Kingfish. You weren't arguing in favor of halfsquad hordes, just illustrating how they could be beaten without resorting to the tactic yourself. Hopefully Glider will be able to buy trenches, HMGs, and be on defense. There's nothing better than a non-gamey win over gamey tactics.

Treeburst155 out.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by 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.

If the defending squad would have been attacked and flanked by two full squads, the defending squad would still only be able to fire at one of the attacking squads, yet, you would not have complained, because they were full squads. However, it's still gamey that the defender can't fire at nore than one target. I guess all attacks should now be done at one squad versus one squad. Anything else would be taking advantage of game limitations, and thus, be gamey.

[dieseltaylor]

Nailed it in one Sanok : )

In the game I am currently playing CMAK my half squads are very fragile on defences compaed to my full squads.

[stikkypixie]

Running some tests right now.

Ok I had a jaeger squad face off against a partisan squad, both with 10 men.

When I split the jaeger squad and set them 20m apart the routed the partisan squad faster than the full jaeger squad.

But when I just split the partisan squad (without moving the halfsquads so they are basically sitting in the same space as the full squad) the fared much better than the unsplit squad against the the 20-m apart halfsquads.

So much so that they drew, whilst they unsplit partisan squad lost.

Hmm I can't seem to get consistent results, but it seems that the distance between the half-squads is very important and only 5 meters makes a difference and causes the inconsistenty (sp?).

Having done lots of tests, I have the impression that although splitting squads doesn't give you an overwhelming advantage, it does help.

Incoming fire from two halfsquads only 20m apart at a distance of 80 meters makes and angle between them of 13-ish°. That's hardly a flanking fire is it.

But I am biased .

[ January 29, 2005, 05:46 AM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ]

[Tero]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

In Kingfish's test, heavily outnumbered defenders defeated a horde of split squads. Why then can a defending SMG squad in woods not defeat a single split rifle squad?

Because the defenders didn't have a trench to cause the cover imbalance necessary to defeat the split squad tactic.

Is there any difference if you assign cover arc and do (or do not) assign a target manually ?

[Glider]

...

Having done lots of tests, I have the impression that although splitting squads doesn't give you an overwhelming advantage, it does help.

Incoming fire from two halfsquads only 20m apart at a distance of 80 meters makes and angle between them of 13-ish°...

You get that kind of results because you keep halfsquads fairly close to each other. All inf units within a certain range (about 40m I think) from a target are being suppressed when that target takes fire.

Try spreading out the halfsquads so they do not both get suppressed when one of them takes fire. The results will show you how a pathetic Rifle squad managed to defeat SMG monsters at 20m ranges

[stikkypixie]

Originally posted by Glider:

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

Having done lots of tests, I have the impression that although splitting squads doesn't give you an overwhelming advantage, it does help.

Incoming fire from two halfsquads only 20m apart at a distance of 80 meters makes and angle between them of 13-ish°...

You get that kind of results because you keep halfsquads fairly close to each other. All inf units within a certain range (about 40m I think) from a target are being suppressed when that target takes fire.

Try spreading out the halfsquads so they do not both get suppressed when one of them takes fire. The results will show you how a pathetic Rifle squad managed to defeat SMG monsters at 20m ranges </font>

[Glider]

...

What do happens if you split the smg squad but don't move them and let each half target a german halfsquad. If they win (or get a significant better) than it proves that half-squads are gamey.

I don't know, I don't have time to test right now, my guess is that they would do much better, but still be at disadvantage (compared to the squad vs squad situation where the SMG squad would always win) since both SMG halfsquads would be taking suppression any time one of the German halfsquads fired.

[stikkypixie]

Well if you have the time, try it. Because if they do better than that means that the smg squad has the capability do defend itself against two german half-squads, yet when unsplit is unable to use it due to engine limitations.

[stikkypixie]

Ok I did the test with the smg squad splitting.

When two german half-squads fire at one soviet smg squad, almost on a line like this:

o X o

(o= german jaeger halfsquad, X=full soviet 9 men smg squad; distance between the o's is 59m; distance from X to either o about 20m),

the smg squad gets slaughtered.

But if a split the smg squad (not moving the soviet half-squad, so merely clicking the split command, same configuration) and let them target one german halfsquad each like this

o <-x x-> o (x= soviet halfsquad; o=german half-squad; -> target line ), the russians win.

What does this tell me? Well using halfsquads like is taking advantage of the engine's limitations, because a same smg squad that has the capability to defeat two german half-squads, can only win if you split it and target appropiately.

Why? Because CM only let's one squad target one other squad at the same time. In reality the two german half-squads should have lost, because the soviet squad should have targeted both of them (which is well in their means since they have an equal number of men).

Note that this is completely different from being flanked by two full squads unlike some have said.

Because the defender wouldn't have the firepower to pin both full squads at the same time.

[ January 29, 2005, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: stikkypixie ]

[Sanok]

Originally posted by stikkypixie:

Why? Because CM only let's one squad target one other squad at the same time. In reality the two german half-squads should have lost, because the soviet squad should have targeted both of them (which is well in their means since they have an equal number of men).

Note that this is completely different from being flanked by two full squads unlike some have said. Because the defender wouldn't have the firepower to pin both full squads at the same time.

It's no different. A defending squad can fire at only one target. Two full squads attacking, using flanking maneuvers, is still gamey, because it takes advantage of that engine limitation.

It sounds like the anti-split squad group wants it both way.

[Treeburst155]

Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes, one defending squad cannot reasonably be expected to suppress the fire of two full attacking squads. Therefore, the game limitation of a single target doesn't really matter because the defenders wouldn't have the weapons to suppress all the attackers anyway. The defender correctly gets overwhelmed. Your puny halfsquads, on the other hand, should not be able to overwhelm an equal defending force so consistently and as easily as they do.

Attackers do not generally get overwhelming victories when they attack at 1:1 or worse. I'd bet the attacker usually gets his butt kicked at those odds. Your two halfsquads against one whole defending squad will get that victory EVERY time. Unrealistic and gamey.

Treeburst155 out.

[Sanok]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes, one defending squad cannot reasonably be expected to suppress the fire of two full attacking squads. Therefore, the game limitation of a single target doesn't really matter because the defenders wouldn't have the weapons to suppress all the attackers anyway. The defender correctly gets overwhelmed. Your puny halfsquads, on the other hand, should not be able to overwhelm an equal defending force so consistently and as easily as they do.

Attackers do not generally get overwhelming victories when they attack at 1:1 or worse. I'd bet the attacker usually gets his butt kicked at those odds. Your two halfsquads against one whole defending squad will get that victory EVERY time. Unrealistic and gamey.

Treeburst155 out.

I hardly think your five tests are worthy of concluding 'every time.'

It's still the same principle, no matter how you try to explain it. Flanking takes advantage of an engine limitation, whether its full squads or half.

[Treeburst155]

The thing about Halfsquad Hordes is that the tactic is easily defeated by splitting your own squads. It's not a brilliant tactical idea. Using the tactic just forces the game into a halfsquad fight. Anyone who doesn't do it will likely lose. Why don't we just not do it, and make the orders phases much more pleasant?

Treeburst155 out.