Hordes of half squads, continued

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

In order, I would probably choose to open fire one at a time, this way:

-HMG(s)

-1A (has more ammo from split than 3A)

-3A

-LMG(s) (less ammo than A half splits)

-4A

-2A

-2B

-3B

-Spiderman

Can you expound on this point a little more? It seems like just firing with 1A would not do much, and likely not enough to keep an enemy from advancing into the trees occupied by your HQ.

And since you seem to want 2B to fire last, I would think that you would need to engage with 1A and 3A on first contact.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by David Chapuis:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

In order, I would probably choose to open fire one at a time, this way:

-HMG(s)

-1A (has more ammo from split than 3A)

-3A

-LMG(s) (less ammo than A half splits)

-4A

-2A

-2B

-3B

-Spiderman

Can you expound on this point a little more? It seems like just firing with 1A would not do much, and likely not enough to keep an enemy from advancing into the trees occupied by your HQ.

And since you seem to want 2B to fire last, I would think that you would need to engage with 1A and 3A on first contact. </font>

[Tigrii]

So what you're saying is that the main advantage of this defense is not its firepower but its dispersion. Since the number of men in the unit has no effect (I think) on its rate of suppression, doubling the number of units that must be suppressd while halving the size of each unit halves the effective suppresion capability of the attacking force. If the attacker chooses to concentrate his fire on one unit then it will suppress or break, but you lose only half a squad while you have your 400 FP hitting their guys in the kill sack. So its a win-win situation.

[Glider]

Yes, though halfsquads are more brittle than squads a dispersal as good as this one outweighs that shortcoming by far.

Effectively, you would need at least one crack sniper, 4 crack 82mm mortars, a HQ spotting for them and two SMG platoons, preferably vet or better to have at least a chance against this position.

Obviously armour with HE capability would change this equation but that is for defender's armour and AT guns to deal with, not a single inf platoon.

[Guest ExplodingMonkey]

Who's interface is that in the pic? I like it!

[dieseltaylor]

While mulling over the half squad dilemma it occurreed to me that to a degree if battles are fought with 50% casualties a proportion of squads will be unable to split at game start through existing losses.

Furthermore the fragility of reduced half squads will be increased - in some cases substantially.

It has further benefits. I am currently playing in a combined arms assault tourney where I can confidently predict to the point what armour my opponent can afford. 207 points does not buy an awful lot. With 50% casualties my opponent could buy a Tiger, or two decent tanks. I might face a three ATG's rather than 1. In essence much more realistic than the zero casualties scenario.

The fog of war covers the choice parameters not just the physical battlefield.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by Treeburst155:

...and this stuff is supposed to work against ME???

Treeburst155 out.

I think I hear someone screaming "uncle" off in the distance . . . I wonder who it could be?

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by Walpurgis Nacht:

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

...and this stuff is supposed to work against ME???

Treeburst155 out.

I think I hear someone screaming "uncle" off in the distance . . . I wonder who it could be?

</font>

[pavlov]

All this is well and good (not to mention fiendishly clever [and I wonder, to boot, if the originator of this thread suffers from OCD or maybe a severe caffeine addiction, but I digress]), however, one thing bothers me, if just a little. That is, the whole "resupply" concept. Is this a realistic use of the half-squad as modeled in CM or (and I wonder what people think) is this an exploitation of the game dynamic for unfair advantage???

Hm. Maybe I should check out the older threads on this topic.

[Ardem]

I think it is a realistic model, cause there are drawbacks, I find half squad take a lot longer to shake off panic and once broken or routed its normally goodbye.

Also Mortar fire have a much greater impact on small squads, so if your opponent uses his support weapon on an arc, he may pin your troops each time they pop up and you get supressed just as fast.

[Brent Pollock]

And, if you've been reading the CMX2 threads about AI driven fireteams and suchlike, it's an easy way to make believe that you're playing CMX2 already

[PiggDogg]

Ok, ok.

CM half squads are the discussion. CM half squads has some relationship to real life. However, CM is the game which is being played.

Let's cut to the quick.

Question: in terms of CM the game only, ignoring gaminess, & ignoring real life, in each of the CMs (a. BO & b. BB & AK), are half squads generally better than whole squads? :confused:

Cheers, Richard

[ February 25, 2005, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Erwin Rommel]

"I have split my forces into half-squads in an effort to mislead Bil as to the exact strength and composition of my forces. I also feel that it would be inadvisable to present his tanks and their HE rounds with any squad-sized targets. If I must present them with sitting ducks to shoot at I’d rather those sitting ducks comprise no more than five men instead of ten men."

This comes from an AAR from Fion Kelly vs Madmatt when CMBO was still in its infancy.This is also the reason I use half squads in a game in some areas..to confue my opponent and make him wonder about the strength of my forces in an area..I also will use half squads in a spread out line to act as a holding force to allow time for reinforcements to arrive to bolster an area that is under heavier fire.

For me it comes down to a matter of what is happening at the time or what my particular objectives in the battle are as to whether or not I will use split squads in a game.

[Erwin Rommel]

Stupid double post :mad:

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by PiggDogg:

Question: in terms of CM the game only, ignoring gaminess, & ignoring real life, in each of the CMs (a. BO & b. BB & AK), are half squads generally better than whole squads? :confused:

Cheers, Richard

Well, since you used the appropriately vague word "generally" . . . I'd have to say the answer to your question is yes.

[PiggDogg]

Nacht,

Thanks. I used "generally" because in some situations, full squads might be better than 1/2 squads.

For over 4 years, I have played the CMs well enough to compete most well and at least break even with the best in the world who play CM. During that time, I have played the CMs without using 1/2 squads except for skirmish lines and scouts. I guess that now I shall adjust my tactics to reflect the latest CM technology.

Now, the real excitement and fun occurs by having to move approximately 40% more units and by keeping track of 1/2 squads of the same squad in order to keep them far enough apart from each other so that they do not recombine into full squads. :mad:

One must change with the times. Thanks.

Cheers, Richard

[ February 26, 2005, 12:10 PM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]