Hordes of halfsquads

Treeburst155 · January 29, 2005

Sanok,

Run some tests. Space the halfsquads 20 meters apart. The defenders will lose EVERY SINGLE time.

Two full squads represents a 2 to 1 advantage. I can understand them winning at those odds; but 1:1 or worse? No way, especially not EVERY SINGLE time, and with modest casualties too.

Treeburst155 out.

imported_no_one · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes

Wtf is the problem?I mean,I may have missed it,but where was the invitation for you to become champion of this thread?Just because someone disagrees with your ridiculous little scenario editor test,it doesnt make them a "Herder of Halfsquads" and doesnt give you the right to call them that either.

With that said,I will explain to you why your tests are flawed.Lets look at the following example:

Lets say I am dumb enough to play a QB PBEM.I am the russians and I have been given a solid combined arms attacking force,but lets focus on the armor.I have been given two plain 'ole t-34's.My defending opponent has a lone tiger,and has the tiger placed on a giant hill at the back of the map and the terrain is flat and open.Thats got to be gamey,or atleast unfair,right?

However,when I do a scenario edidtor test,I find that it is I who is the gamey one :eek: :confused:

All you have to do is setup the two t-34's exactly 20m's off each side of the tiger.Have the tiger buttoned up and not paying any attention to the t-34's.Click go.Voila!!I am gamey!

Or,or...I have a veteran smg platoon--that is in great cover,trenches maybe--surrounding two veteran rifle platoons that are in the open ground.I click go and they all die--even though they outnumbered me 2:1--I guess I am gamey again.

Do you get my point?I want to see some real tests where the half-squads have to advance under fire to within grenade throwing range,instead of magically appearing there--in perfect flanking postions.I want the full squad in more realistic cover,like woods/tall pines,or buildings.And I want them to where they can fire on the approaching half-squads.Based on how I play,I would also like to have atleast one distant HMG.It can even be as far away as 750m(but would then have to have a plus two to fire power HQ),but should more realistically be no more than 450m.What are the results?

You can make anything look gamey if you put it in the perfect ambush/attacking/flanking position.However,it isnt that easy to get there like that in real combat.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

If I have 10 guys behind trees trying to stop 20 guys, it is reasonable to think that I just might get my butt kicked. There is no game limitation in play here. There are simply too many enemy troops to resist! The game simulates this well.

By splitting a single squad, this nice simulation of overwhelming firepower is still in

play; but there is NO OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER! The game limitation is that the program does not

know when 2:1 unit count does NOT represent overwhelming firepower. By splitting squads,

you trigger the limitation. You take advantage of what is really a good feature IMO.

You want "realistic" testing? Does that mean the defending whole squad is in trenches?

When ALL else is equal, a split squad will ALWAYS win over a whole squad.

I think what is needed is an "in-game" test. You against me. Heavy trees. I Herd the Halfsquad Hordes. You don't. You take 1,500 points of infantry. I'll only take 1,200 because I get the Hordes. You can sit and wait for me if you want; but you get no foxholes (All else equal, remember). I'll even make a nice suitably sized forest map.

Treeburst155 out.

[ January 29, 2005, 06:29 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

imported_no_one · January 30, 2005

You just soooo dont get the point.When,in any kind of realistic engagement,are "all things equal"?I am not going to setup a defense so that all things can be equal.Nor am I going to attack where all things are equal.Why would I?I want a mutually supporting combined arms force,that is setup/operated in some manner to allow the maximum amount of fire to be brought onto the enemy.If I have to shift my forces to do this,then I will.But I am never going to allow there to be a 2:1 or greater disadvantage in or around my MLR.And I for damn sure always want there to be atleast a 2:1 advantage where I am attacking.

You also continue to blur the line between the topic of this thread(spliting ones entire infantry force),and me disputing your scenario tests--that are done on the single squad level--and are being used to prove the overall concept gamey.There is no consideration being given to how different HQ bonuses affect this situation.I thought I heard once that a HQ with a plus(or maybe a plus two)to command would make a ATG more likely to switch to new targets during combat.Maybe something similar happens with infantry?I am pretty sure that I have seen squads switch to different targets during a turn,but am not sure if they still had LOS to both targets.So,I do not know.

I also do not understand why you insist on taking offense(or seem to be)to someone simply debating the "results" of your tests/theories.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

A challenge to all Herders of Halfsquad Hordes!!

I'll make a scenario, tourney save it, and send it to you. You study it in the editor, then pick your side and do a setup. I get halfsquads. You don't. If you beat my Halfsquad Hordes, I'll put the following in my signature for 1 year:

" I, Treeburst155, am proud to be a Herder Of Halfsquad Hordes because it has been proven to me that it is not a gamey tactic."

Treeburst155 out.

imported_no_one · January 30, 2005

:looney:

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by no_one:
You just soooo dont get the point.When,in any kind of realistic engagement,are "all things equal"?I am not going to setup a defense so that all things can be equal.Nor am I going to attack where all things are equal.Why would I?I want a mutually supporting combined arms force,that is setup/operated in some manner to allow the maximum amount of fire to be brought onto the enemy.If I have to shift my forces to do this,then I will.But I am never going to allow there to be a 2:1 or greater disadvantage in or around my MLR.And I for damn sure always want there to be atleast a 2:1 advantage where I am attacking.

Yes, but Halfsquad Horders achieve a 2:1 advantage by splitting squads, not by doubling firepower. How does two groups of five against one group of 10 equal 2:1?

You also continue to blur the line between the topic of this thread(spliting ones entire infantry force),and me disputing your scenario tests--that are done on the single squad level--and are being used to prove the overall concept gamey.There is no consideration being given to how different HQ bonuses affect this situation.I thought I heard once that a HQ with a plus(or maybe a plus two)to command would make a ATG more likely to switch to new targets during combat.Maybe something similar happens with infantry?I am pretty sure that I have seen squads switch to different targets during a turn,but am not sure if they still had LOS to both targets.So,I do not know.

If all else is not equal, there is no concrete evidence of halfsquad superiority. To test properly, all other variables must be removed.

A test of two halfsquads against one squad is the same as 20 halfsquads against 10 whole squads.

I also do not understand why you insist on taking offense(or seem to be)to someone simply debating the "results" of your tests/theories.

I just don't understand how anyone cannot see the wholesale splitting of squads for the gamey tactic it is. Like you said, I just don't get it.

Would you like to take me up on my challenge?

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by no_one:
:looney:

I may be looney; but I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is. Can the same be said for your side of the debate? I've made an offer that is as fair as possible. You get to pick your side after studying the scenario! To refuse is to admit I am right. Prove me wrong by beating my Halfsquad Hordes! Consider it a test. You wanted a better test. Well this is it.

Treeburst155 out.

Sanok · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by 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.

So, what Philippe said was true. It's gamey only because you don't like to do it, and don't want to take the time to manage split squads. There's still that old engine limitation, regardless.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

The talking is over. Both sides have been presented MANY times. The only thing left is combat. Take me up on my offer above, or let me have the last word in this thread. You guys don't think massive splitting of squads is gamey? Then, try to beat my Halfsquad Hordes without splitting your own squads. Prove to me it's not gamey. It's time to put up, or shut up. Who's first?

Treeburst155 out.

imported_no_one · January 30, 2005

If all else is not equal, there is no concrete evidence of halfsquad superiority

Thank you,and good night

It is just like I said,if you have the proper support weapons,and are using them properly,there is no advantage for using half squads.If you allow your infantry engagements to come down to a 1:1 you should lose.Doesnt mean you will(read HQ bounuses,and fanatical troops),but you probably will not fair very well except on the defense.

While you may be right that,on a 1:1 level ,splitting squads may be overly effective,IMHO,what you fail to account for is how that will work in the less abstract 3d environment that the battles take place in.Support weapons are one of the most important aspects of combat within CM.They have to be factored in,and they simply arent in your tests.That,to me atleast,make the tests flawed.

Other than a balanced QB ME,can you tell me of another time when you would/should use your infantry to fight on a 1:1 level?

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by Sanok:
So, what Philippe said was true. It's gamey only because you don't like to do it, and don't want to take the time to manage split squads. There's still that old engine limitation, regardless.

No, it's gamey becuase of all the reasons mentioned in ALL my posts in this thread.

Are you saying that I should be willing to take the time to manage a company of halfsquads? This game has been out for many years. Never once have I been forced to manage large numbers of halfsquads. Now, several years later, you gamey guys find a hole in the program, and I'm supposed to rethink the entire way I play? Just so you can get 2:1 odds with 1:1 firepower? Sheesh.....

Treeburst155 out

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by no_one:
It is just like I said,if you have the proper support weapons,and are using them properly,there is no advantage for using half squads.

If I attack your support weapons with two halfsquads they will only be able to suppress one of them.

If you allow your infantry engagements to come down to a 1:1 you should lose.Doesnt mean you will(read HQ bounuses,and fanatical troops),but you probably will not fair very well except on the defense.

This is the point! The defender will LOSE at 1:1, even if he enjoys FP superiority, when he's up against split squads!! Why should one lose a 1:1 DEFENSIVE fight EVERY time?????

While you may be right that,on a 1:1 level ,splitting squads may be overly effective,IMHO,what you fail to account for is how that will work in the less abstract 3d environment that the battles take place in.Support weapons are one of the most important aspects of combat within CM.They have to be factored in,and they simply arent in your tests.That,to me atleast,make the tests flawed.

So combat in CM is unrealistic if infantry squads don't have outside support. Their organic LMGs don't qualify as support? Remember, we're talking about a 3 minute chunk of time before a defending squad succumbs to two halfsquads. Surely, the defenders can hang on without an HMG for that long. They have the same number of weapons as the enemy, with the same or greater FP!!!!

Other than a balanced QB ME,can you tell me of another time when you would/should use your infantry to fight on a 1:1 level?

I would never attack at 1:1 unless I first split my squads to make it 2:1 in my favor.

Treeburst155 out.

[ January 29, 2005, 09:19 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

I think a big part of the failure to connect here is that I have wooded terrain in mind, while you squad splitters are thinking in more general terms. Unfortunately, combat between squads quite often takes place within a clump of trees, or from one clump to another. This is when halfsquads rule. I'd bet the further the range, the less the halfsquads can dominate; but in a forest or orchard, lookout.

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

OK, no takers on my human v human test battle. So, I'll sweeten the pot. I'll make sure there is one HMG per platoon for both sides. This way the whole squads will have support weapons to fend off the halfsquads. Hehe....you'd better think about who's going to support the support HMG when it gets hit by two halfsquads. Why? Because your squads will have their hands full with two halfsquads each. It's a target rich environment out there!

Treeburst155 out.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

The condensed Treeburst155 position on Halfsquad Hordes with a few quotes from supporters too:

One squad can fire at only one target. They cannot split fire to deal with a split squad unless they split themselves. This GAME LIMITATION forces everyone to split all squads in order to compete. This is not what the designers intended, obviously; or they would have given us split squads as the default.

No defending squad is going to IGNORE 5 guys at 2 o'clock completely, just so they can hammer the 5 guys at 10 o'clock (same range).

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.

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.

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

In any case, these so-called penalties for squad splitting are FUBAR, and likely not being applied.

The Russian SMG squad panics and runs away in 5 out of 5 tests.

How can you justify 10 men ON THE ATTACK scattering 10 defenders of equal strength EVERY time?

Two platoons vs one should see victory for the two platoons. They have twice the firepower. How does this relate to a split German rifle squad decimating a Russian SMG squad in trees?

A whole squad has all the support weapons a split squad has. Why should my stationary defenders need to call in the HMGs just because you sent a couple LMGs a few degrees off to the left. My whole squad has sufficient firepower to deal with it. Oh, that's right....they can't deal with it because they can only fire at one unit at a time.

If I have a platoon that is losing a fight due to hordes of halfsquads with firepower totalling only 75% of mine, I have a gamey opponent.

When are half squads more effective than whole squads? In any situation where all else is equal. In fact, when all else is equal, the unsplit squad will lose even if it enjoys a significant firepower advantage.

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".

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.

If I have 10 guys behind trees trying to stop 20 guys, it is reasonable to think that I just might get my butt kicked. There is no game limitation in play here. There are simply too many enemy troops to resist! The game simulates this well.

By splitting a single squad, this nice simulation of overwhelming firepower is still in

play; but there is NO OVERWHELMING FIREPOWER! The game limitation is that the program does not know when a 2:1 unit count does NOT represent overwhelming firepower. By splitting squads, you trigger the limitation. You take advantage of what is really a good feature IMO.

I think a big part of the failure to connect here is that I have wooded terrain in mind, while you squad splitters are thinking in more general terms. Unfortunately, combat between squads quite often takes place within a clump of trees, or from one clump to another. This is when halfsquads rule. I'd bet the further the range (and LOS), the less the halfsquads can dominate; but in a forest or orchard, lookout.

I would never attack at 1:1 unless I first split my squads to make it 2:1 in my favor.

Are you saying that I should be willing to take the time to manage a company of halfsquads? This game has been out for many years. Never once have I been forced to manage large numbers of halfsquads. Now, several years later, you gamey guys find a hole in the program, and I'm supposed to rethink the entire way I play? Just so you can get 2:1 odds with 1:1 firepower?

It's a target rich environment out there.

A challenge to all Herders of Halfsquad Hordes!!

I'll make a scenario, tourney save it, and send it to you. You study it in the editor, then pick your side and do a setup. I get halfsquads. You don't. If you beat my Halfsquad Hordes, I'll put the following in my signature for 1 year:

" I, Treeburst155, am proud to be a Herder Of Halfsquad Hordes because it has been proven to me that it is not a gamey tactic."

[ January 29, 2005, 10:31 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

Urchin · January 30, 2005

I'll play you if you want.

Want to do PBEM or TCP/IP?

It is 1 am here now though, probably be better to do it tommorrow. If you want to send me the setup now that'd be OK though. Email is in the profile.

Treeburst155 · January 30, 2005

Urchin,

Have you been following this thread? This isn't a nice friendly game. It's actually a test to prove a point. Are you one of those bad Halfsquad Herders? Somehow I don't think so.

Treeburst155 out.

Urchin · January 30, 2005

Yea, I've been following the thread.

I'd still like to try it out.. maybe we can switch sides after one game and run it again.

If the half-squads win both games, you know player skill didn't have much to do with it (cause I'm the first to admit.. my player skill isn't very high).

Get in touch with me tommorrow though, it is bedtime for me now. But tommorrow I'll have all day to play, so we could do TCP/IP and get it done quickly-ish.

stikkypixie · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by Sanok:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />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.

stikkypixie · January 30, 2005

Originally posted by no_one:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:
Sanok, you Herder of Halfsquad Hordes