Split squads for recon purposes - were radios that common?

[Agua]

Well, that's the question. A lot of folks use split squads for recon purposes, but, given the contours of spotting in CM, don't we have to assume that each recon half squad (or team) had radios to enable them to communicate beyond LOS of the HQ units? Were radios that common, or is this an exploition of the game?

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Agua:

...is this an exploition of the game?

Yes. Borg spotting in one of its nastiest incarnations.

Although, to be fair, it's more plausible if the spotting half-squad is close enough to a larger body of troops to communicate through hand signals or a runner.

Michael

[Agua]

Yes, but whether they are close enough for LOS to their HQ units really is just a matter of where the recon teams spot the enemy, right? I'm about of the mind that recon split squads are plainly an exploit, unless someone can come up with a valid reason why these teams are able to communicate to their hqs anywhere on the map. Don't get me wrong, I've used them a bit myself, but I think I'm going cease the practice.

[PiggDogg]

Agua,

Half squads are no more an exploitation of the CM system than using full squads, tank hunter teams, sharpshooters, or crews for borg spotting. In my opinion (& only an opinion), once a unit is in your set up, "almost" any (but not all) use of that unit is OK.

Actually, considering the number of units, the complexity of the game, and the billions and billions of light years :eek: ... Ooops, I not Carl Sagan.

Considering the number of units, the complexity of the game, and the billions of possibilities for gaminess and exploitations, there are surprisingly few instances of true exploitations. Truthfully, I don't consider using half squads for recon or point is at all gamey or an exploitation. This is only an opinion however.

Cheers, Richard

[Silvio Manuel]

They prolly didn't have radios, but then again they are SO fragile esp. in CMBB where MGs are stronger. So you stand a good chance of losing a ~15 unit, it may rout or be killed once spotted, which is more likely b/c in gamey recon usage they are probably far from an HQ.

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

In real life, there is no way that half squads would have radios, not even walkie talkies. Even if they did, they would not have been able to convey such detailed information as we see in CM.

Cheers, Richard

[Asok]

Remember that CM really plays in 'compressed' time. Arty delays are an example of another sort of communication which is not equal to the real thing.

Having borg spotting might represent runners etc. The 'in command' seems to represent 'under the effect of inspiring leadership' more than 'in communication'. An extra variable of 'in communication' could maybe be used to get rid of borg spotting even with (roughly) the current engine.

[Cameroon]

Asok, actually it can't

This was mentioned specifically at _least_ once, though I couldn't tell you the thread... Basically, each unit has a "spotted" attribute. Either it has been spotted, or it has not. In order to even start affecting a change, each unit has to keep track of ALL the units it has seen. And it's got to be efficient.

To get to the question... I don't consider split-squad recon to be "gamey" because there's NO way to do recon that doesn't incidentally take advantage of some game engine limitation. Even if we get real relative spotting with the re-write, you as the commander will still have all of the information that your units have.

Ok, so now that my opinion on this is known, for those that feel split-squad recon is gamey, what is the suggestion for performing recon?

To be honest, most of my games are at a level where any of my "scouts" are usually in command and almost always in LOS. If I'm giving a sharpshooter, sometimes I'll use him for that role.

[Agua]

Thanks for the comments.

Richard, I'd differ with you here, but only on the point that splitting the squads for recon purposes is *dedicating* a portion of the forces to execute an action that designed solely to take advantage of the borg-like quality of sighting in the game - providing information that they historically would be unable to communicate.

Not being judgmental here at all, in fact, I've done it quite a bit. I'm just trying to get some type of justification as to why this isn't an exploitation.

Thanks, everyone for the comments.

[xerxes]

If using split squads for recon is "gamey" how do you do recon without being "gamey." I often use an extra HQ or two as my scouts. Is this "gamey"? Since there is no indication of who has and doesn't have radios, and there is no mechanism for "communication" I think labelling split squad recon as gamey opens up a totally subjective issue.

You as the player have more intelligence and a much greater capability to coordinate the actions of the units under your control then ever existing in WWII. Creating artificial rules in an attempt to limit this is futile and in the end will only lead to disagreements and hard feelings.

[Nidan1]

Originally posted by xerxes:

If using split squads for recon is "gamey" how do you do recon without being "gamey." I often use an extra HQ or two as my scouts. Is this "gamey"? Since there is no indication of who has and doesn't have radios, and there is no mechanism for "communication" I think labelling split squad recon as gamey opens up a totally subjective issue.

You as the player have more intelligence and a much greater capability to coordinate the actions of the units under your control then ever existing in WWII. Creating artificial rules in an attempt to limit this is futile and in the end will only lead to disagreements and hard feelings.

I agree, xerxes, and since CM battles represent local, relatively small unit encounters, most recon should already have been accomplished, and contact is imminent. The scenario briefing should represent formal recon analysis, IMHO. Use of split squads and such for local "spotting" is perfectly legit, and not "gamey" at all.

[Agua]

Well, let's look at it this way. We have unnatural spotting in the game. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. By splitting squads, and creating units which the player is essentially saying "f I lose them, they're lost", he/she is setting these units aside solely for the purpose of taking even *further* advantage of omniscient spotting. That's an exploit, isn't it?

How would recon be performed then? Well, I think there's a legitimate argument that recon in a CM battle should have already been performed before the game begins. Alternatively, use recon in force, with main battle groups in the ready to follow through.

It's not pleasant to think about, because split squad recon has become such regular part of our everyday playing style / method, but without some historical support, or legitimate modeling explanation, I can't come to any other conclusion than its an exploit.

[tiborhead]

Originally posted by Agua:

How would recon be performed then? Well, I think there's a legitimate argument that recon in a CM battle should have already been performed before the game begins. Alternatively, use recon in force, with main battle groups in the ready to follow through.

Hello Agua. Considering the above comment, couldn't you envision a situation on the battlefield (after initial recon has taken place) that would require you, acting a Lt. or squad leader, to send a few of your men to "have a look see over that hill"? Although I do agree that it could be considered gamey by some, and supposedly rightfully so, I can't see it as being an exploitation. For the sake of argument, would it be more acceptable to send a full squad in place of the half, trading off greater losses for info?

I guess the only answer I can come up with requires a bit of "role playing", if you will. In other words, purposefully delaying orders (for a turn or so, depending) based upon the information gained by the split squad to simulate the time it takes for a runner to deliver a message to the HQ.

I would assume the time to respond the info after that point would be part of the normal command delays.

This, of course, would probably be quite difficult to implement in multiplayer unless you completely trust your opponent. I sometimes use this method vs the AI, and it seems to work.

[Agua]

Originally posted by tiborhead:

Yes, certainly. I think when talking about a squad leader getting info at that point, he already has his plan of action and objectives pretty firmly set in his mind and its just a matter of which side of the building to go on - that is, he's in the execution phase of the attack. The way I've seen it done with CM, folks wait until they get pretty detailed info from their teams before they determine their axes of advance. If there were dedicated recon teams, for purchase (assuming radios, binoculars, maps), then I could see their use in the manner in the large survey manner I'm talking about.

Well, I think it comes down to the question, really, of how far out of command range are these squads going to go (assuming the availability of walkie talkies at squad level is pretty rare and going to vary greatly by period and organization). Personally, if entire platoons are sent out, in probe, with their squads separated widely within command range of their HQ, that seems to me to be *perhaps* more plausible as the firepower of the platoon is already within the immediate locale of the ensuing conflict and would be used as such (thus avoiding the use of the squads / split squads *solely* for intel purposes). I don't think, in my mind, it's a question of expense of the loss, as much as the absence of a plausible purpose that doesn't require reliance upon equipment that isn't available. In actuality, there probably weren't a hell of a lot of radios at platoon level either, but given the fact that a platoon, redeployed following initial contact, could engage whatever it happened upon with a genuine shot at doing something more than wasting the enemy's ammo, it doesn't seem exploitive, to me.

Now, I like that, but, like others here have commented, coming up with little rules to compensate is probably unworkable in the vast majority of multiplayer matches.

[ October 25, 2002, 01:41 PM: Message edited by: Agua ]

[CombinedArms]

In CMBO, I didn't tend to use split squads for scouting, not because I thought they were gamey, but because I didn't want to suffer the penalty that came when they got killed before rejoining (basically, the CMBO engine treated a killed half squad as if it were a killed whole squad--plus the other half of the squad would be permanently half-killed). This kind of point penalty actually made it a very bad idea to risk a half-squad at scouting: your 5-6 dead guys will be counted as 10-12 dead guys, so where exactly is the benefit?

With CMBB, this problem either has been fixed, or will be fixed in the first patch (I'm not quite clear on this--I though the problem was solved already, but Madmatt promised a patch fix.) So that makes split squads seem more viable to me--but now, in the scenarios I've been playing, we seem to have lots more tank-hunter teams and sharpshooters, so it is tempting to use them in a scouting role. So I'm still wondering about split squads--the sharpshooters and tank hunters are often vets and therefore better able to operate on their own, w/o an HQ. And tank hunters are often heavily armed with SMGs and molotovs, and thus better able to deal with trouble if they find it.

Just some musings, for what they are worth. Re the original question, borg spotting is just one of those aspect where the game reminds us of the fact that it's a game, and I don't see how the use of some kind of point unit or team can be criticized. I have generally tended to keep my squads and platoons in command because I think they fight better that way, but I've never found reason to object to anybody else's practice in the use of advance units.

[ October 25, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[flamingknives]

Personally, I always keep my half squads in command, using them to scout gaps between cover and take point when I'm not sure when I'm going to bump into the enemy. I send the unit with more close quarters weapons first, with the longer range section providing cover.

This seems like a realistic use of split squad to me. With the slower infantry movement in CM:BB, you have to commit your forces more than in CM:BO, and I use split squads to make sure that I don't get any nasty surprises.

[Michael Emrys]

In over two years of play I don't believe I ever split a squad, certainly not for doing recce. For one thing, it always felt to me that 4-6 guys were too many for scouting. Secondly, the morale hit on split squads seemed too big a penalty to me. Thirdly, my style of play depended on relying on the platoons to provide the "muscle", and splitting up their squads would only reduce them to a relative impotence I did not feel I could afford.

I did use sharpshooters a lot (at usually the rate of one per platoon) in CMBO although I admit that this too was a considerably less than perfect solution. I tried to reduce the gaminess of their use by following them closely (within sight) with the rest of the platoon. So their job was more to walk point than to do actual recon in the usual sense of the word. My objectives and axes of advance had already been settled upon and forces detailed to them. So the scouts' initial job was to try to establish the precise location of enemy units on or near their axis, allowing their platoons to maneuver to engage or avoid them without surprise. After that, they reverted to their normal role as sharpshooters.

I haven't employed any scouts in CMBB yet. I have toyed with the idea of using tank hunter teams for this, but they seem to be a bit over-armed for scouting. Carrying all those antitank weapons clashes with my sense of troops traveling light whose primary job is to get information and report back.

Ideally, we'd see a new dedicated scout unit type come into existence. This would consist of two or three troops that would be lightly armed with standard personal weapons, strongly disinclined to fire them except in self-defense. Any squad could split off one of these per battle. They would move a little faster than a normal squad or half squad and have better stealth characteristics. I would hope that something like this would make it into the engine rewrite.

Michael

[ October 25, 2002, 06:06 PM: Message edited by: Michael emrys ]

[Agua]

Good suggestions for dealing with this Tibor, Flame, Michael. Maintaining LOS / command seems go to a long way towards legitimizing this in my mind. I haven't tried any of these solutions out, but will screw around with them over the weekend. Thanks for the comments, everyone, even you gamey squad splitters.

[xerxes]

I rarely use split squads for long range scouting, I think it's a bad idea. I hate losing my men an 4-6 guys off by themselves will die quite easily in CMBB and you often won't even get any worthwhile intel.

I use split squads to lead a platoon, probably more of a point man than a recon unit.

I also tend to use excess HQs as my forward "recon" but I don't send them 300m away from the rest of my forces.

[PiggDogg]

Guys,

In CMBO & now even more so in CMBB, for recon I use the split squads all of the time. Usually, one 1/2 squad will go up each area of covered approach toward suspected enemy positions.

However, they are usually 50 to 200 meters ahead of the main force men and vehicles. If the 1/2 squads are much further ahead of the main body than 50 to 200 meters, the main force won't be able to effectively support them.

The main force is in good cover (preferably heavy buildings, light buildings, woods, and pines; but in scattered woods if the other cover is not available). Then the main force overwatches the recon guys & then whacks the enemies (especially AT guns and teams) that fire at the recon 1/2 squads.

All of the above exposes the 1/2 squads and protects the main force. Would one prefer the main force to be caught in the open, or would one prefer a few 1/2 squads in the open?

My answer is that I prefer the few 1/2 squads in the open to be cut up.

As far as 1/2 squads being gamey or a CM system exploitation, this above looks relatively historical and logical to me. In my opinion, I don't consider 1/2 squad recon to be in any way gamey or a non historical exploitation of the CM system.

Cheers, Richard

[ October 26, 2002, 12:13 AM: Message edited by: PiggDogg ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

BFC have stated that the only reason half-squads are even in the game is for recon. That settles the issue right there as far as I'm concerned.

Secondly, it isn't an exploit of borg spotting. It's an exploit of the fact that there is one person (the player) controling all the units and therefore knowing what all his units know. This would be the case even with relative spotting.

The best thing to do is just play the game and don't worry about it. I generally use extra HQs or sharpshooters or ATR teams for recon instead of half-squads. Some people think (and have openly stated in the main forum) that any type of recon in CM is gamey. I disagree/don't care, but to each their own.

[skelley]

When I use split squads I have the rest of the platoon in overwatch so they can see or hear where the shots are coming from. Maybe it would be gamey to run a split squad 800 meters out to scout where your parent platoon can't see them.