'I wanna send my RPG guy onto the roof' suggestion

[hcrof]

RSColonel_131st brought up the inability of Syrian squads to do logical stuff like split off the RPG team. The subject has come up before but this time I had an idea that would make all parties happy on this one. (Including me)

Basically, add the option to 'spread out'. After clicking the spread out command, the player then selects a direction and the second team will move 1 action spot in that direction. THE SQUAD REMAINS WHOLE and when the order is given to move, they close back up again.

When in a building, the direction command can be used to specify which side of the house the second team is to cover. The team will then move up one floor and cover that side.

You could have a similar button that just moves the RPG team.

Because of the nature of the command, the Syrian squad can only spread out when stationary and so cannot do anything that would go against their training, it justs adds a bit of flexibility to the defending player.

I can think of loads of ways it would improve realism and player enjoyment. For example, has anyone wondered why you get a really long trenchline with everyone bunched up at one end of it? Problem solved

[akd]

It would be better to simply allow Syrian squads to split into logical teams, only allow the team to maintain command links in close proximity (say voice only) to the leader, and have the player suffer severe consequences if command links are broken (separated team becomes combat ineffective).

While splitting off a team may not fit real world Syrian doctrine, this is one of those areas where player management is often needed to make-up for AI limitations, and the best example of this is probably setting up a logical defense of a building.

[hcrof]

Yes, your suggestion would be ideal but I don't think is is possible to do in a reasonable timeframe.

The thing is that command links only spread from the platoon commander to the elements under his command. A split squad is effectively 2 squads and each has a seperate link to the command HQ. This means that you could move the two teams in a squad far from each other but as long as they maintain seperate links to the platoon HQ they are OK.

This is not Syrian doctrine and AFAIK would take a large coding effort to change.

My suggestion keeps the squad whole so chain of command issues don't come up and therefore makes it easier to implement.

[stikkypixie]

I would tie this ability with the experience level of the Syrian squad. If veteran or higher for example, they can split teams. Or some other modifier, this would reflect the astute commander tactical ability.

[RSColonel_131st]

I really don't care much how it is done, but that has been one of the things that REALLY limit my enjoyment of the Syrians. If I want to watch out and maybe shoot a Bradley coming down the road, I don't want 9 guys on the roof getting shot if the US side catches me.

And the most rigid squad structure will still allow to send someone up on a stairwell when the squad leader stands in screaming distance at the bottom of it.

Rendering the unit ineffective as soon as it is too far away sounds like a good plan.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

While splitting off a team may not fit real world Syrian doctrine

the kind of splitting discussed is in no way against Syrian doctrine. there is no military force on this planet that has such a tiny squad footprint as currently forced. but i admit, my interest for this game has reached the zenith many moons ago already, so i am just talking as i walk by.

[Battlefront.com]

Yes, this is an age-old discussion we've had. The problem from a game standpoint is that breaking small units up into even smaller ones can have negative overall effects. Some of you might remember issues which cropped up in CMx1 when Squads were split. In fact, I lost a tourney game because of a bug that nobody had found (had to do with Global Morale) Then there were the definite advantages that a player using split Squads could achieve over a player who didn't, despite our best attempts to even that out.

What splitting units does is cause a sort of arms race for more and more micromanagement features which are, in theory, designed to overcome the previous ones. Everybody thinks that their concept represents the "final solution" to end it, but in reality that doesn't happen. The only real way is to simulate actual combat with 100% realism, which is absolutely impossible to do.

So what we are stuck with is some sort of compromise between real world flexibility and limitations imposed on us all by the fact that this is a game and therefore inherently artificial. That doesn't mean we can't make improvements, because that's not true. It just means that they aren't usually as "easy" as "adding a button".

I don't think we'll change this any time soon, but it's definitely been noted.

Steve

[undead reindeer cavalry]

fair enough & a good reply (am i not wonderfully self-righteous for giving comments like that?) .

tho i do remember the split squad bug a bit differently.

[hcrof]

Thanks Steve for having a look at it.

Its not a perfect solution but I think it goes some distance towards realism whilst keeping the coding effort down!

[Battlefront.com]

URC,

fair enough & a good reply (am i not wonderfully self-righteous for giving comments like that?) .

Noted

tho i do remember the split squad bug a bit differently.

Geeze... was I playing you? I can't remember who I was playing with, but that guy was definitely not upset when my units routed under simple small arms fire and yet I still had a very capable defensive force Ah... I remember it well...

Steve

[Meach]

The arguements for "I wanna split off the SAW guy too" would quickly follow. Or.."I wanna leave the DMR guy on this hill to cover my approach"

As fun as it would be to micromanage I think it would start a downhill slide if one unit got this ability.

[hcrof]

Meach, Im not asking for anything new here - you can already split off the anti tank element in US squads. Its just a simple solution to allow regular Syrian squads to defend with some of the flexibility enjoyed by everyone else in the game.

You can't 'leave' anyone anywhere because the squad does not split fully, just spreads out a bit. There is still only 1 floating icon for example, and movement orders affect the whole squad.

[Meach]

Hcrof, Fair point.

I am thinking "down the road" more tbh.

[akd]

Yes, this is an age-old discussion we've had. The problem from a game standpoint is that breaking small units up into even smaller ones can have negative overall effects. Some of you might remember issues which cropped up in CMx1 when Squads were split. In fact, I lost a tourney game because of a bug that nobody had found (had to do with Global Morale) Then there were the definite advantages that a player using split Squads could achieve over a player who didn't, despite our best attempts to even that out.

What splitting units does is cause a sort of arms race for more and more micromanagement features which are, in theory, designed to overcome the previous ones. Everybody thinks that their concept represents the "final solution" to end it, but in reality that doesn't happen. The only real way is to simulate actual combat with 100% realism, which is absolutely impossible to do.

So what we are stuck with is some sort of compromise between real world flexibility and limitations imposed on us all by the fact that this is a game and therefore inherently artificial. That doesn't mean we can't make improvements, because that's not true. It just means that they aren't usually as "easy" as "adding a button".

I don't think we'll change this any time soon, but it's definitely been noted.

Steve

I have a feeling I missed some of these discussions, but I'm having trouble understanding what you are saying is not possible or would need to be changed here.

A regular Syrian squad cannot split into teams, either via "split teams" or "anti-tank team" commands, versus say a Syrian airborne/spec ops squad that can. I understand this is meant to represent their lower level of training and organizational flexibility (they are entirely dependant on the SL for cohesion). When moving around in the open, they occupy more than one action square, so they do "spread their force" horizontally when, say, lining up along a wall.

However, place them in a multistory building and they are compacted horizontally on a single floor. Unlike a squad that can separate off teams, there is no way to spread their force vertically or to defend opposite walls.

The issue of all around defense of a single floor could perhaps be addressed by allowing a squad given a 360 deg. cover arc to spread to opposite walls, rather than only covering adjacent walls.

For the original problem discussed here, the only solution I see is to either allow the AI to spread vertically to occupy more "action spots" (I understand building stories are not really action spots in game terms), which could be frought with problems, or allow the player more control over the disposition of the squad. The only way I see to keep the latter from conflicting with the attempt to realistically portray Syrian squad organizational limitations is to make a separated team (e.g. anti-tank team with one RPG and one ammo bearer) totally dependent on maintaining command links to the parent squad leader (rather than a higher organizational unit).

[dan/california]

You can give 360 degree cover arcs now, do they work the way they should might be in question. It is definitely possible, just select target arc and hit the shift button.

[akd]

You can give 360 degree cover arcs now, do they work the way they should might be in question. It is definitely possible, just select target arc and hit the shift button.

I know the 360 deg. arc is possible, I just meant actually moving part of the squad to cover the opposite wall so the squad is more spread out on the floor it occupies.