Assault or Splitting?

[Lanzfeld]

Just curious....

When clearing houses,

Do you like to use the assault command or do you like to split your squads and use assault teams?

Why?

[Gpig]

I personally like to split and use assault teams (after a liberal application of suppression fires).

[TheVulture]

Just curious....

When clearing houses,

Do you like to use the assault command or do you like to split your squads and use assault teams?

Why?

Playing weGo, I'd never use the assault command. I can't think of a single way in which it is better than split teams. Why? The biggest reason is that when assaulting, the two halves of the squad share suppression status. If something opens up on the assaulting element, the overwatch element is suppressed and crawling for cover too, rather than doing something useful like doing what they are supposed to.

Splitting squads also allows more control over putting in multiple waypoints, target commands (close assualt grenade throwing for example) and delays for timing to achieve what you want to. And mixing up different types of move orders. (Assault does sometimes have an advantage in that the timing of the overwatch element moving is guaranteed to be when the lead element stops, but the advtange on really shinrd when you are assaulting an empty location...)

There is one situation where assault has its use: when you want all the teams of a squad to end up in the same action spot, rather than spreading themselves over 2-3 action spots.

So in my experience, assault is worse than useless in the situations where it ought to be used, and its only uses are due to entirely incidental effects that have nothing to do with its intended function.

Just making the suppression / morale state of the two teams independent when using the assault command would actually be enough to make it useful, in spite of the other disadvantages. That one thing alone breaks it beyond recovery IMHO.

[Alan8325]

Always split when you can because morale and suppression with the different teams will be separated. In other words, if one team gets suppressed or demoralized, the other team will not necessarily have it happen as well. With assault, however, the entire squad is still treated as one unit and if one team gets suppressed or demoralized it affects the entire squad.

You also get to choose exactly where each team goes when splitting whereas with assault you don't really know where the moving team will stop. If the distance to the next building is too far, they may stop and go prone before getting there.

There are only a couple of advantages I see to assault mode and they are heavily outweighed by the advantages of splitting. First, assault cuts down on the amount and complexity of movement and pause orders, especially when advancing a dismounted squad along open ground. Second, it reduces the possibility that one of the teams will get out of command. The command issue will almost never crop up with splitting teams however, because the squads that are capable of splitting are primarily BLUE units that have decent communications equipment.

[akd]

Playing RT, I find it better to split. This allows me to keep the teams out of the same action square, but still prep the structure with area fire from the entering team. With the new canceling of area fire orders when a unit enters the structure, I move a single team up to the entry point, give them a 5 sec. pause combined with an area target into the structure from that waypoint, then plot a "quick" or "hunt" command into the structure. This pretty consistently results in the team throwing 2-3 grenades and then immediately entering. Sometimes you may need to lengthen the pause if the unit also has to turn at the waypoint. Hunt for entry seems safer, but sometimes cancels mid-move, perhaps because a grenade might not detonate until just after they have commenced the move.

I generally try to use the assault command very little since it results in entire squads bunching up in single grids. I think it does more harm than good in most situations.

Edit: And as Alan said above, the only real benefit from assault is less micro-management.

[MikeyD]

Lets not forget that is isn't just us assaulting its the AI too. Splitting teams and doing it all by hand may be the most efficient from our perspective but the AI can't (I think) split up squads and send them off in different directions to do heroic feats. It needs the 'assault' command more than we do. If the game didn't have an 'assault' command button they'd have to concoct an assault behavior under the hood for the AI. Its easy to forget that game functions aren't just about us, there's a computer player that needs to fight too.

[c3k]

I use ASSAULT in WeGo, but only if the situation warrants it. I may be wrong, but don't assaulting units get a morale boost? You can't get that boost with split squads, since they can't ASSAULT. Having said that, I do also split my squads. It all depends on if I think the morale bonus will be helpful.

Ken

[MikeyD]

I recall in good-old CMBB the Russian farmboy conscripts would get a big morale boost when you ordered them to 'human wave' into the opposing enemy's lines. That morale boost would last for about the first 30 yards or so.

[pazuzusmiles]

Splitting the teams allows me more controll over the house assault itself...there's some awesome tactical imfo in here guys! Enjoyed reading this string

[noxnoctum]

Splitting always, gives you more control and doesn't result in the suppressing team curling into the fetal position if the assault team gets hammered.

That said in RL battles you often don't have time to do that and just have to use Assault.

I'd like to hear from BFC whether or not using Assault actually gives a morale boost like in CMx1 or not

And also... any plans to fix the above issue with it?

[Lanzfeld]

The manual says nothing of any added moral bonus so I would have to say that it doesnt exist.

[c3k]

Time to line my pixeltruppen up and see if I have any volunteers for a "potentially" dangerous test. Er, mission.

[Lanzfeld]

Any results c3k???

[Fat Dave]

Interesting stuff guys...I didn't realise that the assualting teams shared the same supression status.

split teams it is then.

Cheers

[tyrspawn]

I think this can be considered a bug - something that BF should address.

[Waaarg]

For those who split, how do you handle c2? Do you keep your HQs within visual or shouting range of your teams? Spotting is horrid at elite if you are out of c2.

[c3k]

A few quick tests have shown that the collective wisdom appears correct.

I used US Army squads and sent them over a knife-edge ridge. Awaiting them on the other side of the hill were some BMP-3's. (Now, THERE'S a machine with some firepower!)

One BMP-3 per US Army squad; each squad had a lane to advance through separated from the other squads by tall walls.

The assault squads shared their SUPPRESSION status. If the assault team took massive casualties (Oh, wait. They ALL did.) the base team would have the suppression meter pegged and gain a PINNED.

The split squads did NOT share suppression. When the forward team met the BMP-3's (no one lasted more than a few seconds), the base team did not get suppressed.

The MORALE issue was a bit more complex. The base teams (non-assault element) would get "nervous" or "rattled".

The COMMAND issue is also a bit more complex.

A more refined testing methodology could tease out those elements. However, it appears that there is no benefit to be gained by using ASSAULT, at least regarding defensive qualities. There may be spotting or firing benefits. Using HUNT supposedly confers an advantage to spotting enemy when compared to using QUICK. In a similar manner, there MAY be some offensive benefit to using ASSAULT.

All that my quick test has shown is the difference in suppression status between ASSAULT or SPLIT.

Regards,

Ken

[noxnoctum]

Ya... a shame. Thanks for going to the trouble of testing it out.

Until it's fixed I'll be using split unless I'm in a multiplayer RT battle and just don't have time. That is, unless there's some MASSIVE offensive bonus when you use the assault command... but there doesn't appear to be, at least IME .