Splitting infantry

[Kelen]

:soap: I agree with Soldier, I don't see splitting squads as 'gamey'; and according to many people in previous discussions, there's no such thing as 'gamey' anyway, just different views, (although that isn't necessarily my view).

If playing a defend scenario then I regularly split my quads in order to get the additonal foxholes for alternative defence lines, and defence in depth. Any good commander would set this up when defending a prepared postion, and this is the one way of acheiving it.

When crossing open ground again it makes sense to disperse your troops, this does mean that enemy troops are expending the full firepower on only half squads, but as previously mentioned half squads are more brittle so that tactic is a double edged sword.

I also frequently split squads for decoy purposes. It gives the impression, (initially at last), that a particular group is a larger force than it actually is, and If I can con my opponent in believing that they are a greater threat than they are, and in so doing get him to redeploy additional tropps, or expend valuable artillery in trying to meet that 'threat' then great. Valid tactics often used in actual warfare.

Lastly, there are no formation orders in CM. A squad represents a compact unit of men. If defending a building or terrain feature in real life that compact squad would naturally disperse to cover windows/doors, often on different floors, or to spread out along a treeline, ditch or hedge. You cannot order your squads to do this in CM so splitting them is the only way to try and obtain this greater tactical flexibility.

Yes I do see some things that people do in CM as 'gamey', (e.g. the ridge line thing), and a don't doubt that some people have probably thought out 'gamey' tactics when splitting squads, however I've not met one yet, and I don't see the way inwhich I use them as such.

However, as per previous 'gamey' discussions, if you don't like the way a particular opponent plays, it's your choice not to play them again.