Hordes of halfsquads

[Glider]

I agree, I can only say that I *feel* that, for instance, an enemy inf company divided into halfsquads is much more difficult to defeat, both when attacking and defending.

But it is a very strong feeling.

I would also say that it takes a good player to use all the advantages the halfsquad tactics has to offer (and my opponent is, I think, one of the very best). But, when used properly it really gives your forces a significant boost.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by 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.

Quite possibly true; but difficult to know for sure.

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).

I've tested with all these variables set the same. Attackers and defenders were given the same experience, their leaders had no bonuses, the cover for both was the same (woods), the firepower for both was the same.

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.

The half squad superiority is so obvious it can't be denied. I suspect this is why no Halfsquad proponents ran any tests of their own. They already know how effective the tactic is. That's why they do it.

Treeburst155 out.

[Redwolf]

I am not convinced that the disadvantages that Steve claims halfsquads have actually exist.

My bet is that the morale mechanism is not different for half-squads.

[Treeburst155]

I'm not convinced either. I think, over the years, people have been splitting squads for the "normal" reasons, which quite often puts them out of command. This brittleness caused by being out of command is perceived as a penalty for being split, and not the standard effects of being out of command. Two halfsquads in command don't seem too brittle to me; but that's just an impression, not the results of testing.

Treeburst155 out.

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not sure why we're being accused of lying about our own game The mechanism for 1/2 squads is, as stated, different. At one point a logic flaw had this count against Global Morale as well, and that made the entire force more brittle. I should know... I got bumpped out of a ladder game (largely) because of it. Guys that should have stuck firm got up and ran away. Then I noticed that my Global Morale was crap right from the very beginning of the game. Charles fixed this with whatever patch came out right after. Now it is simply at the local unit level.

Are there some advantages to having split squads? In certain situations, sure. Just as there is an advantage to any player that shows up with more stuff in one spot than the enemy. The way the game system is, more units is sometimes better than better units. But a few HMGs or some mortars can neutralize that real quick.

Half squads have two inherent negatives, besides the extra stuff we put in:

1. Lower firepower. 1/2 the men, 1/2 the firepower (which we then knock down further).

2. Less staying power. A unit's chances of behaving poorly is directly related to losses. The more you have to lose, the greater your chance of having the unit continue doing as you expect it to. The less men in a unit... the opposite. So a 6 man half squad that takes 2 casualties is more likely to break than a 12 man squad with 2 casualties.

Note that CM's squads and half squads have no concept of leadership on a man to man basis. If you split a squad, each half is just as effective as the other in terms of Experience. Other factors vary depending on what type of unit is split (eg. a 9 man Squad results in an uneven split).

For CMx2 this is all irrelevant. 1:1 represenation does away with a lot of these problems.

Steve

[Wiggins]

Well well well. I have never expected that one of my game will cause so interesting discussion. Even Steve, administrator give his word or two there.

It is funny that I splitted only two platoons in the centre to catch Gliders eye while the main forces (not splitted) were in both flanks. Splitting squads is made for exact reason, not in general.

I dont want to talk about if it is a gamey or not - it is stupid question imagined by theoreticians I have never seen in the inter-clubs tournaments. It seems that they are talking about they know nothing.

The reasons of Gliders defeat I suggest find in his German side, my play was just right (not brilliant at all), just using of the weakness of the opponent.

Try this topic.

[imported_no_one]

Hmmm,some interesting happenings....

But a few HMGs or some mortars can neutralize that real quick.

This sounds like what I said.Go figure :shrug:

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm not sure why we're being accused of lying about our own game

I had bugs in mind, not lying.

The mechanism for 1/2 squads is, as stated, different. ..... Now it is simply at the local unit level.

Local morale hit for split squads. Thanks for clearing this up.

Are there some advantages to having split squads? In certain situations, sure. Just as there is an advantage to any player that shows up with more stuff in one spot than the enemy.

...but they don't show up with more stuff in one spot. They show up with equal or less stuff in MORE spots.

The way the game system is, more units is sometimes better than better units. But a few HMGs or some mortars can neutralize that real quick.

HMGs and mortars are of limited use in forest fights. There is also the question of HMG effectiveness when presented with a platoon consisting of 6 units, as opposed to just 3. I have not tested this, so I'm just throwing out the question. It would seem to me too many targets to deal with could be a problem for the HMG.

Half squads have two inherent negatives, besides the extra stuff we put in:

1. Lower firepower. 1/2 the men, 1/2 the firepower (which we then knock down further).

We have a confirmed firepower reduction for splitting. Thanks!

2. Less staying power. A unit's chances of behaving poorly is directly related to losses. The more you have to lose, the greater your chance of having the unit continue doing as you expect it to. The less men in a unit... the opposite. So a 6 man half squad that takes 2 casualties is more likely to break than a 12 man squad with 2 casualties.

Unfortunately, two halfsquads don't sustain enough casualties to break when attacking equal, or even somewhat superior firepower from a whole squad. One halfsquad may pin; but the whole squad will run for the hills.

Steve [/QB]

Thanks for posting, Steve!

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by no_one:

Hmmm,some interesting happenings....

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />But a few HMGs or some mortars can neutralize that real quick.

This sounds like what I said.Go figure :shrug: </font>

[Urchin]

Tree, check your mail.. I used my home address so it is different.

[Glider]

...

It is funny that I splitted only two platoons in the centre to catch Gliders eye while the main forces (not splitted) were in both flanks. Splitting squads is made for exact reason, not in general.

...

It is possible that I jumped to conclusions. During both games I identified about 10-15 halfsquads and not a single full squad... and I noticed that my inf was badly outnumbered, despite the fact that we obviously spent similar amounts of points on armour and support units.

However, our game was not the main issue here... the high effectiveness of halfsquads was. For instance, even in the centre my two platoons of infantry supported by 150mm gun and 105mm FO were unable to force your two halfsquad platoons to withdraw.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Your mortars and HMGs can only hit the fringes of forests...

Not only that, but if a squad is split into two halfsquads you need two mortars (or two HMGs) to keep it under fire, while you need only one to keep a full squad under fire.

[Redwolf]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

I'm not sure why we're being accused of lying about our own game The mechanism for 1/2 squads is, as stated, different. At one point a logic flaw had this count against Global Morale as well, and that made the entire force more brittle. I should know... I got bumpped out of a ladder game (largely) because of it. Guys that should have stuck firm got up and ran away. Then I noticed that my Global Morale was crap right from the very beginning of the game. Charles fixed this with whatever patch came out right after. Now it is simply at the local unit level.

I didn't say you were lying. The engine has many small mechanisms and you are sometimes not totally precise.

I remember when the split-squad global count bug was fixed (I reported it), it affected victory points as well.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Glider:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Treeburst155:

Your mortars and HMGs can only hit the fringes of forests...

Not only that, but if a squad is split into two halfsquads you need two mortars (or two HMGs) to keep it under fire, while you need only one to keep a full squad under fire. </font>

[Philippe]

Why is that a problem? A split squad occupies a much larger area than an unsplit squad, so putting enough lead out there to make everybody duck is going to require a greater expenditure of ammunition. If your target is spread over a wider area of forest, you're going to have to shoot at more trees to be sure that you're shooting at the right ones.

Dispersing a target makes it harder to hit. Since that is true in real life, why is modeling real life in the game such a bad thing? If you don't like the dispersion effect of split squads, you're going to really hate 1:1 representation.

[Treeburst155]

Originally posted by Philippe:

Why is that a problem? A split squad occupies a much larger area than an unsplit squad, so putting enough lead out there to make everybody duck is going to require a greater expenditure of ammunition.

Good point, Philippe. Score one for the Halfsquad Herders.

If you don't like the dispersion effect of split squads, you're going to really hate 1:1 representation.

No, I'll love it. You'll hate it because the game won't allow you to have one guy throw a grenade at one target while spraying another with his SMG.

Treeburst155 out.

[ January 31, 2005, 09:26 PM: Message edited by: Treeburst155 ]

[Battlefront.com]

There are things in any system, including CM, where if you limit the variables and apply a highly specialized tactic you will gain an advantage. Treeburst has apparently found one that involves woods, certain combos of other conditions, and split squads. That is not the same as "all split squads are better than all solid squads all the time every time". In fact, it sounds like a pretty narrow advantage, even if it does work well in one specific situation.

If we were patching CMx1 games I'm not even sure how we could prevent this. The disincentives are there and probably do what they should in most situations most of the time. The advantages (multiple points of fire, close terrain, minimal enemy suppression weapons) that are gained are not something we could simply turn off.

CMx2, no problem. With the 1:1 representation we can work around the abstraction elements that split squads (and other things) are benefiting from.

Steve

[Ace Pilot]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

I'm not convinced either. I think, over the years, people have been splitting squads for the "normal" reasons, which quite often puts them out of command. This brittleness caused by being out of command is perceived as a penalty for being split, and not the standard effects of being out of command. Two halfsquads in command don't seem too brittle to me; but that's just an impression, not the results of testing.

Treeburst155 out.

This raised my curiosity enough to try to test it. I set up Soviet Mechanized SMG units on an open ground tile surrounded by water (so they couldn't run very far). I placed a wooden MG bunker 120m away: 1 MG for 1 infantry unit in an isolated firing range. Other stats:

Soviets out of command

Regular experience

Germans

Regular experience

In 10 trials using full squads after 2 full minutes, I had 8 routed squads and 2 broken. Using half squads, I had 9 routed squads and 1 completely eliminated.

My first observation was that it was difficult to ensure that all other variables were held constant. For example, the MG bunkers didn't always fire the same amount - it ranged from 14 to 16 ammo points. The squads took different casualties (13 in the full squads, 18 in the half-squads). And the range (as measured at the end of each full minute) varied from 106m to 120m for all the tests because the infantry moved using different forms of movement (sneak and run).

It seemed reasonable that, at such a short range, there may be a certain amount of overkill that prevents one from seeing the difference in morale of full and half squads. So I moved the range out to 520m.

I only ran 5 trials each, but the difference to me was clearly noticeable. At the end of two minutes of firing, the half squads showed 4 routed and 1 pinned. The full squads showed 1 routed, 1 broken, 2 pinned, and 1 alerted. Again, many of the variables were not constant (half squads took 4 casulaties, full squads only 1), so this test is certainly open to criticism, but I think it showed some evidence of the difference in morale between full and half squads (e.g., 2 of the routed half squads had no casualties).

Hopefully, this will steer the debate toward the issue of whether the morale difference is adequate or if it should be tweaked. Based on my initial test, it would appear that the difference is subtle enough that it is not noticeable in close range fighting such as in heavy forest.

[Treeburst155]

Good job, Ace Pilot! Morale is a very difficult thing to test for. I wouldn't call your test conclusive; but it does indicate that some morale penalty for the halfsquads is probably in effect. I'd like to see the halfsquads twice as brittle; but we'll have to wait for the new CM for the fix. Thanks again for running that test!

Treeburst155 out.

[Treeburst155]

All split squads are better than all solid squads all the time every time when all else is equal

I think the halfsquad advantage is only severe in large wooded areas, where armor, arty, HMGs, and mortars cannot easily take part in the firefight, if at all. Still, based on general CM experience, I would imagine a large number of halfsquads could make for a tougher game in general, as Glider has said. I've never had to face hordes of halfsquads in a fairly open situation.

Treeburst155 out.

[SgtCheese]

I don't think they should be TWICE as brittle. Sometimes a squad splitting up to do a local flank was realistic, so completely eliminating their effectiveness would be a blow to game play.

[Treeburst155]

They should be brittle enough to make up for the fact that the whole squad can't direct one single round in the direction of the flanking halfsquad. IOW, the flanking element should pin at the sight of the enemy.

Treeburst155 out.

[David I]

So all this is to say that sometimes it's better to have half squads, and sometimes it better to have full squads? Depending on the tactical situation? No ****? :eek:

DavidI

[Treeburst155]

LOL! Yep, that's what it boils down to. The thing is, the designers didn't really intend for large scale use of halfsquads to pay off; but it does....in some situations.

Split your squads in large clumps of trees where infantry could be waiting for you, and support weapons can't see to help. Other than that, you'll probably be alright against halfsquad hordes.

Treeburst155 out.

[Glider]

Originally posted by Ace Pilot:

...This raised my curiosity enough to try to test it. I set up Soviet Mechanized SMG units on an open ground tile surrounded by water (so they couldn't run very far). I placed a wooden MG bunker 120m away: 1 MG for 1 infantry unit in an isolated firing range. Other stats:

Ace Pilot, very interesting results that, I think, show that the morale penalty is there.

However, is the morale hit big enough? Just one question - how far away the split halfsquads were from each other? From your "one ground tile" I would say not far enough (about 40m) for MG fire to affect *only one halfsquad* with one burst.

If you placed halfsquads on two different tiles surrounded by water and ran the test we would have a better simulation of real game situations.