Hordes of halfsquads

[junk2drive]

In CMAK a USA 12 man squad has 11 rifles and 1 lmg, grease gun or tommy. When I split, the Sgt with the lmg is in one half and no leader in the other half. For recon / assault purposes, the no leader squad does seem to take a penalty and panic quickly. For combined attack where the Sgt and Lt are in command range, that half squad seems to behave as normal.

My observation, but may be wishful thinking.

[Treeburst155]

Member

Member # 1222

posted July 29, 2001 18:00

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

BloodyBucket is correct. According to Steve, the only reason you can split squads in the first place is for recon purposes, or to simulate a very thin line. Even this was not necessarily going to make the final cut, so don't expect anything more.

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted August 25, 1999 00:07

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

You can also split a squad into a half squad. There are penalties for doing this though. The unit cohesion is disrupted so each half is not quite as effective as it would be as part of the whole. Also, squad halves don't have as much will to press on as a full squad. Against a lone sharpshooter this shouldn't be a problem, but against anything like a squad and they will really not want to continue on.

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted September 06, 1999 21:17

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

The point about keeping squads together is that CM is NOT a game about 1/2 squads. So we have employed some realistic, if abstract, means to disuade people from going over the top with their forces.

The biggest is the combat effectiveness of the unit. 12 Garands firing in a coordinated fashion from a single firing spot are going to be more effective than 6 firing from two differen spots under different leadership. Obviously there are cases of flanking where this would not be true, but we are talking in generalities here. The other thing is that some squads (German ones in particular) were designed to use their weapons in combination with each other. The LMG would engage for supressive fire or on massed targets, while rifles and assault rifles were brought to bear on individual targets to accurately take out the enemy. Close range the MP40 would start up and join in. So if one 1/2 squad gets the LMG and the other doesn't, this throws a monkey wrench into the whole works.

Steve

Big Time Software

unregistered

posted September 06, 1999 23:53

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

The intention of 1/2 squads in CM is to use them SPARINGLY for recon (attack) and outpost duty (defense). Doing more than this, as Fionn will tell you, is a bad idea

Steve

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

[Urchin]

So do you want to run this test now Tree? I've got some time today if so.

[Treeburst155]

Hi Urchin,

Three things. One, I don't have time to sit down to TCP/IP. I'm on and off the computer all day. It would have to be PBEM. Two, my opponent in this test should be highly experienced so skill level is not a factor. I believe you said you were a newbie. Three, the test scenario would have to be constructed with care. I'd say at least two hours of work, probably three. I haven't begun to work on it yet. I'm waiting for the hardcore Halfsquad Herders to take me up on my offer before beginning work on the test scenario. I don't want to waste my time creating a scenario for nothing.

Having said that, the Herders Of Halfsquad Hordes may consider my reluctance to play the test game with YOU as ammunition to use against me in this thread. They are desperate for ammunition. Unfortunately, I'm in a no-win situation. If I play you, the test is invalid because of the newbie status of my opponent. If I don't play you.....

If the Halfsquad Herders cry out for me to play the test game with you, and agree that it is a valid test, we will do it.

In the meantime, if you want to play a slow friendly PBEM (1 file per day), I'd be happy to play any type of game you want. Send me a setup. Email is my profile.

Treeburst155 out.

[Urchin]

Oh, ok. Well, PBEM is OK with me.

I think the main problem is your "Half Squad Herders" don't really care to much lol.

I think it'd be interesting to come up with a way to defeat that tactic.

I think the most valid way to play it would be to switch sides and play it twice. That would minimize the "skill imbalance", if you eat my lunch with the halfsquads, and then I turn around and do the same to you, you'd have a valid point that half-squads have a serious advantage in an infantry fight. If not, I wouldn't really say the advantage is insurmountable.

What kind of fight would you like to do? I've only done "random" battles so far. I like that, but I hate getting stuck with stupid units (for example.. my CMAK game I played I had what looked like a mechanized company of Rifle 40... complete with 20 Bren gun carriers. And that was it lol.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Urchin:

I think the main problem is your "Half Squad Herders" don't really care to much lol.

Oh, they care. Threads don't go this long when people don't care. I'll admit there are only a few of us who seem to care on each side of the debate.

I think it'd be interesting to come up with a way to defeat that tactic.

I think the most valid way to play it would be to switch sides and play it twice. That would minimize the "skill imbalance", if you eat my lunch with the halfsquads, and then I turn around and do the same to you, you'd have a valid point that half-squads have a serious advantage in an infantry fight. If not, I wouldn't really say the advantage is insurmountable.

In a mirrored fight, I could throw the game while playing the full squads to support my side of the debate. My opponent could throw the game while playing halfsquads for the same reason.

What kind of fight would you like to do?

Why don't we fight in heavily wooded terrain. That way we can play with the halfsquad stuff just for fun. I've always liked forest fights.

Heck, I'll make that test scenario for us if you want. I can have it ready by late tonight. You look it over in the editor, pick your side, and do a setup. Sound good?

Treeburst155 out.

[Andrew H.]

It seems to me that splitting squads is a valid non-gamey tactic. Unfortunate, perhaps, but not gamey.

A gamey tactic is one that allows you to use a game limitation to do something unrealistic - as was the case with jeep rushes in old unpatched CMBO, or with the unarmored FlaK vehicle bug. Splitting squads, by contrast, allows you to do something realistic - a couple of realistic things, really. First, it allows a squad to shoot at more than one target. As TB has noted, in certain circumstances, this is a significant advantage. But it's not unrealistic. Second, splitting squads permits you to save ammunition by having only half of the squad fire. Particularly in cases where the support weapon half of the squad is doing the firing, this is not unrealistic, either - in fact, modelling ammo for individual weapons is one big change in CMx2.

Splitting squads to fight with isn't exactly a new tactic, either: Fionn's CMBO AARs (which were old when I joined the board in 2000), often involved an elite half-squad force in front of the MLR. They were there for both recon and for ambush...both of which they did quite well. IIRC, Fionn often split 1/3 of his forces - a significant number, although the "new" tactic, which involves splitting virtually all of the units, appears to be a significant refinement. (I do find it interesting that after 5 years of CMx1, people are still developing new tactics).

In a relative sense, I suppose you might say that splitting squads can give a player an unrealistic advantage in certain situations. However, it is more accurate to say that, in some situations, not splitting squads puts a player at an unrealistic disadvantage. But that's not a very compelling argument for requiring the opposing player to also do something just so he will be at the same disadvantage. Particuarly where: (1) both sides are equally able to split squads; and (2) at least in many instances, splitting squads seemed to be a commonly used historical tactic - indeed, one of the requests in CMBB was for squads that would split into support and movement groups.

To sum up, splitting squads is: (1) not gamey; and (2) not ahistorical. So I don't see any reason why it should be generally disparaged. Of course, it can be tedious to manage the half squads, particularly in larger scenarios - but that can be dealt with either by player agreement or by not playing such large games in the first place.

Right now, though, I'm having fun experimenting with the new (to me) tactic, which has been the most fun I've had with CM in a while - I'd recommend that approach to everyone.

[stikkypixie]

I have to say I agree with you there on not being as gamey as death jeep recon. But when a rifle squad can annihilate a smg at 20m something is fishy.

You are right that when you say that agreements should be made if you want to avoid it.

But like you said yourself you, you didn't know about this tactic until now, and a lot of people still don't, so I feel we should at least inform the masses .

[Urchin]

Ok, I'll be waiting for it Tree.

[Treeburst155]

Hmmm.....we have the first really good argument in favor of Halfsquad Hordes. Congratulations Lord Peter.

This part is especially good IMO. I actually have to agree:

"In a relative sense, I suppose you might say that splitting squads can give a player an unrealistic advantage in certain situations. However, it is more accurate to say that, in some situations, not splitting squads puts a player at an unrealistic disadvantage. But that's not a very compelling argument for requiring the opposing player to also do something just so he will be at the same disadvantage."

I will fall back on the archive posts by Steve, which give a clear indication of designer intent with regard to split squads. Is it gamey to split squads wholesale? Maybe not. Is it unrealistic? Maybe not, if both sides have split their squads; but split squads vs unsplit squads definitely produces unrealistic results, at least in trees.

I will be splitting squads in heavily-wooded areas from now on, as the tactic is far too effective to ignore, and will surely catch on. Because I do not do gamey things, I will no longer attach that label to large scale squad-splitting.

Split and be happy, for I too have split. See you in the trees. It's a target rich environment out there!

Urchin,

I'll get right on our forest fight.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Stikkypixie,

Once the masses are informed, the tactic will no longer produce an advantage. At that point, it might be quite easy to get opponents to agree not to go overboard with squad splitting. Why double the work of an orders phase, when there is nothing to be gained from it?

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Essentially this is the worst case (and inevitable) final result. Everybody splits squads, everybody takes double the time to complete the order phase, nobody gains anything.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Glider:

Essentially this is the worst case (and inevitable) final result. Everybody splits squads, everybody takes double the time to complete the order phase, nobody gains anything.

Think positive. When the splitting doesn't work anymore, who will want to go to the effort? Sheesh....I hope I'm right.

Treeburst155 out.

[junk2drive]

I am hoping that split squads in woods makes treebursts hit more things

Let us know.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

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

Essentially this is the worst case (and inevitable) final result. Everybody splits squads, everybody takes double the time to complete the order phase, nobody gains anything.

Think positive. When the splitting doesn't work anymore, who will want to go to the effort? Sheesh....I hope I'm right.

Treeburst155 out. </font>

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Kingfish:

In fact, that is how a real ladder player should play, and be rated. None of this cheery-picking, parameter fixing crap.

I agree...a completely random QB for ladder play. The luck of the draw would even out after about 20 games, and the truly skilled would be on top.

As for situations where halfsquads prevail, they are not rare enough for my liking. Lots of maps have fairly large clumps of trees. Lots of enemies hide in those trees. Lot's of them will be split.

Treeburst155 out.

[Yeknodathon]

Using split squads for flanking and assault does sort of negate the assault command?

Interesting debate and I can see the arguments for both splitters and non splitters. Interesting to see if BFC will comment on the suggestion that split squads are not taking a firepower or hefty morale penalty?

[Paul AU]

‘Peter, “Glider’s” (and others) previous posts have anticipated everything you’ve said, and to my mind remain an effective indictment on a ‘tactic’ that adds nothing but tedium in a way the game-designers never intended. And adds nothing to the game-experience.

Apparently, They, are working on CM "2nd-Generation". I wonder if someone who has contact with Them, can point Them to this thread. So we won’t see this discussion again for CM-2nd.

Lieutenant: ”We’re going to split the squad into two small units.”

Corporal: "Small units sir?”*waves at his squad*”...ain’t this small enough?”

(From ‘How Sleep the Brave’ (it’s a movie - I’m not making this up)).

[GreenAsJade]

Nice quote!

It's strange how ideas seem to "have their time" ... only a month ago I started experiementing with splitting - I can't remember what triggered me to do so, apart from the idea that having two lines of fire on a target was better than one.

It was interesting to see all the historical comments from Steve about the intent of squad splitting. Now we probably just have to wait for a while, let the first rush of half squad experimentation wash over without instantly rushing to abuse an opponent who happens to split a squad, and see if the half squad tactics that we encounter in real battle hurt enough to draw attention too themselves, or whether on balance the negatives that are supposed to be there do actually come through.

[Glider]

First impressions:

I played/am playing two battles against halfsquad-horde armies. Playing as Germans I was defeated, my 2+ - 3- German inf companies overran by a battalion+ of Russians and Romanians. I had a 105mm spotter, about 8 81mm mortars, 4 Hetzers and 2 75mm SPWs but all that hardly slowed the enemy down... due to the abundance of targets the support weapons were far less effective than usual.

In the other game, where I am commanding Soviets, I managed to ambush and wipe out about two platoons of his troops and to kill most of his on-board AT and inf guns. However, that only means that I managed to hold the line, since my ambushing troops wasted almost all of their ammo killing halfsquad after halfsquad... the ammo expenditure during the ambush exceeded by far the amount that should have been used to kill the same amount of enemy inf in full squad formations.

[Treeburst155]

Very interesting observations from actual games, Glider. More ammo is required to put down two half-squads than is required for one whole squad...overwhelmed support weapons (not a deep woods fight)....hmmmm....not good.

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Yeknodathon:

Using split squads for flanking and assault does sort of negate the assault command?

The assault command really isn't involved here IMO. In trees, you simply move into range, and shoot it out. The whole squad will break with minimal halfsquad losses.

Interesting debate and I can see the arguments for both splitters and non splitters. Interesting to see if BFC will comment on the suggestion that split squads are not taking a firepower or hefty morale penalty?

The penalties for splitting could very well be in place. The player gets no statistical information to verify this however. Also, any negative aspects there may be to squad splitting are not severe enough to undermine the effectiveness of the tactic.

Treeburst155 out.

[Guest BigAlMoho]

Hello,

It seems to me that if you manually target the unsplit squad at one of the half squads it will tend to stay targeted on that half squad allowing the other half squad free reign... But, what if you do not give the unsplit squad any fire orders or if you give it a covered arc? It would be more likely to switch from one half squad to the other, no?

Al

[Glider]

Actually no, inf units are not prone to switch targets easily.

The second game over, it is a 50:50 draw. I would have lost had it not been for a Soviet Airborne crack SMG platoon (squad FP 560 at short ranges) that managed to repulse a wave of charging halfsquads despite being submitted to heavy mortar fire.

There is nothing definite I can say about this game... just a very strong feeling that the enemy infantry was much more difficult to suppress and defeat than it should have been. About two platoons of enemy inf in woods presented me with 15 unit markers... much more difficult to suppress with on-board support weapons that can target only one target at a time.

Also, thanks to the fact that he had about twice the number of independently operating inf units (halfsquads), my opponent managed to spread his infantry in a semicircle, thereby increasing the effectiveness of his crossfire and reducing the suppression effect of the return fire.

All in all, my feeling about this game is - if your opponent is using halfsquads you have to outplay him to get a draw.

[Tigrii]

That seems likely, but bear in mind that against higher caliber bombardents such as arty strikes or tank shelling half squads might be more vulnerable due to lower morale. Also, I think that its impossible to get an accurate test of halfsquads vs. full squads, because there will always be other variables (like the experience level of that SMG platoon). Added to that difficulty is the fact that the people testing it are not impartial observers, and often can't help seeing what they think they should see. A person who thinks half-squads aren't gamey will probably think that the performance of half-squads is lower compared to a person with the opposite opinion, based on the same game.