Augustus Gloop

I think what we're talking about is diminishing returns for adding more people into the squad. What we're trying to find is the optimum point where we gain the most for each member.

Obviously in a straight shooting situation, 6 should be more powerful than 4, because they can pour out more lead at the same time. However, that NEVER happens on the battlefield. When's the last time you stood out in the street taking all comers?

The point is I feel that squads of 3-4 can be as effective as having 6 along when used correctly in most situations.

There are plenty of situations when you want to have a full 6 along. Capping Command Center on Cerbere and all other slow cap flags for example.

__________________

jepzilla

Theory is one thing, but the proof is in the pudding, so to speak.

Sometimes at TG during scrims one team elects to use a larger number of smaller squads. In every instance of that which I have been party to (i.e., most of them), the team with lots of small squads got steamrolled. Maybe a cohesive 3 or 4 man squad will be effective against uncohesive pubbies, but against decent competition it will be consistently destroyed when it faces a 6 man squad, and its team spends the entire game basically running away. Every time.

GlobalWarmin

Exactly.

The best situation is a 6 man squad that knows how to spread out and play as individuals towards the same goal, instead of all bunching up on the SL because they don't want to get yelled at for lone wolfing.

Nemesis

Jep pretty much nailed it.

IF all things are equal then 6 beats 4 every time. It's a numbers game and the numbers almost always win. If everything is equal.

When it comes to skill imbalances then of course, the smaller higher skilled squad can and will win. Same goes for a less skilled squad that works as one against a higher skilled squad that isn't.

This really has nothing to do with tactics if you want a brass tacks answer. It comes down to assumptions and facts. Is your squad more skilled? Are you working as a team against an OP4 that isn't?

Is each squad led by a smart SL? Those things are what will decide the issue, not what size squad is the ideal size to accomplish what task.

You can argue it all day with your perception being reality, but again, if EVERYTHING is equal, there is no arguement. 6 will always beat 4.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Augustus Gloop

Nemesis, about 5% of battlefield is straight man to man shooting situations.

All of the rest is accomplishing little goals like delaying forces, setting up multiple lines of fire, and sneaking past front lines that have nothing to do with man to man shooting. It's all about maneuvering and flanking, and coming from unexpected directions.

My opinion is that many small groups will out maneuver and out flank larger, less efficient groups.

__________________

daithi1

Fubar what squad numbers were you running in Arithea's Tampa Titan scrim? I know I ran three four man squads and a two for a gunshipy/mayhem squad. We lost someone before go time so we were down to 4-4-3-2. We won. Next round I was down to 4-3-3-2. We also won this round. My quality of SL was good, very good but not the 'best' of TG (sorry this is only my opinion, I don't mean to insult). As for a ease of CO organisation I think there were no problems.

I personally think in theory 6 squads of 4 will always better or equal to than 4 squads of 6, no matter what the situation. The manouvreability gained makes things happen. OK you will probably need a good CO to co-ordinate well (this isn't as hard as people believe). I dunno, this topic is never going to get answered definitively no matter how many tests you do there is no way to eliminate variables.

I think we should try and vary squad sizes on ClanMod and see how it goes. The downside of this strategy is that two six man-squads attacking will have a good chance against two four man squads (rather than 1v1). The CO wil have to be very alert to see chances to push their 'extra' squad in these situations.

__________________

Heretic1

I've noticed a few posts proclaiming how difficult it would be for a CO to effectively coordinate many smaller squads compared to just a few larger squads.

Small. Unit. Leadership.

The squad leader is more than capable of controlling his own squad, he doesnt need the CO to tell him every move he should make. A CO is your eye in the sky, he's there to give you intel and support. If the CO is honestly trying to coordinate all of your squad movements during the course of the battle then he's going to be swamped, period. It is your job as a SL to navigate the battlefield tactically and efficiently, and always pay heed to your commanding officer's occasional barking of orders.

MDFubar

I believe that we ran small squads, but I can't really remember. I do not believe that coordinating more squads as a CO is that much more difficult, it actually gives you more options.

ClanMod is a totally different game considering the tactics required with the limited weapons. Although I do think that it would make a difference there too, but a different difference. Everyone will have a different opinion on what they feel is better, an no one is really wrong. this is, after all, a thread for ideas and opinions.

We played Suez last night and I took 2SM's with me to go recapture Refugee, while leaving 3 members behind to defend Dry Lake. Once we got to Refugee, I instructed anyone that died to spawn on me and any ramianing members to relocate to our ne w position. This gave us a small strike force with available back-up. It worked great, 6 man squad broken into two fireteams. Could we have accomplished this with two, three man squads...yes. The difference was one Sl communicating to two fireteams instead of two Sl's not communicating with each other.
All situations are valid and Gloop is right, we don't stand in the street exchanging lead....at least not sober. I think that mobility and flexibility is the key.

__________________


"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr

Crux

Folks, I'm not talking about a 4 vs 6 match. I'm talking about two even teams with different sized squads. If, by your arguments 6 beats 4 every time, then would 8 not beat 6 every time?

So let's take a 12 vs 12 match then. One team has two squads of 6, the other three squads of 4.

Team 1 sends 6 men to a flag that is defended by 4 people and takes it. Team 2 sends 8 men to a flag that is defended by 6 people and takes that. The difference here is that now Team 1 holds 1 flag and has lost 6 tickets, and Team 2 holds 1 flag and has lost 4 tickets.

So since we're discussing teams that are made up of multiple squads, maybe we should recognize the fact that squads can work together, and be effective doing so. Ie, multiple squads can attack the same objective in concert, and bring numerical superiority when needed.

At the end of the day, it comes down to the commander's ability to utilize those squads, be they 4 people or 6.

__________________

MDFubar

I had used an example of this in an earlier post. based on your eaxample of a 12 v 12, I would put my money on the 3 4-man squads over the 2 6-man squads.

Reason: Mobility and flexibility, not to mention the fine example of ticket loss per engagement.

__________________


"No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."
- General George Patton Jr

Nemesis

Again, it comes down to assumptions. A smart SL in a 6 man squad will split his team to help the second squad if he see's they are having issues.

It is also a terrible waste of resources as you are using 8 men to take and hold one point when 6 would have been fine. Meanwhile, Squad 1 has taken their point, can hold it with 3 men against a squad of 4 while the other 3 have moved on to the next objective.

See? It really doesn't matter how you split your squads, it matters how they are used and how well they work together. So the original point about what size is the best doesn't really matter. Because it's subjective to way to many other factors to have a set in stone, right or wrong answer.

It's basically a debate that is being argued for the sake of arguement and nothing more. Which is fine and dandy, as I always love a good debate.

Again, it comes down to combat intelligence and skill. Yes, they will out flank larger, less efficient groups, but not a larger EFFICIENT group. You missed my point about all things being equal.

You can't assume that your smaller groups are better than my larger ones. If we make that assumption, then whoever has the best people/team will win regardless of size.

But you're trying to stack the deck in saying that your smaller group is better just because it is. Which is wrong. It's only better if all the factors stated fall in your favor. If they don't, then I'd put money on the squad of 6 against the squad of 4. Same goes for 3 squads of 4 vs 2 squads of 6.

The numbers are equal, so it depends on how those numbers are used.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Augustus Gloop

Actually, what I'm trying to say is that all things being equal, smaller squads are inherently more efficient, not that my squads are more efficient than your squads.

__________________

DunNa

Because at the end of the day it is. There are times a 4man can get the job done but a 6man will get it done easier.

That one extra medic can make all the difference in the world. That extra engie can mean the difference between popping the APC and your squad getting ownt. Running in squads of 4 and having one guy respawn in as recon to RDX assets is crippling where as in a squad of six its not such a big deal.

The 6man squad is cappable of much stronger pushes on defended positions, they are also just as capable as a 4man as breaking off and flanking and hitting undefended objects. In those cases you can even just send the SL and 1-2 guys while the rest help hold a position until they die and then res on the SL to hold the new position.

6man squads offer more flexibility in what your capable of, not that a 4man can't do the same jobs but 6 will have an easier time of it and if for some reason they get ownt they have a stronger chance of having one extra medic that could revive them all.

As for being "more stealthy" as a smaller squad, if any commander or SL worth his salt see ANYONE breaking through they will fall back. They don't go "oh its only 1-2 dudes who cares". Its also not like you can all dodge UAV/Scans. You will only be able to avoid detection for so long and the difference between a 4 and 6 man squad in this case is minimal.

While I'm sure we can craft scenarios where 6, 4 or whatever size squads are superior based on team sizes, maps, and so on in generally I would rather have a 6man squad going into a fight with absolutely no previous knowledge of what would be needed. It just offers more flexability and chances for success.

Crux

How many men does he detach? 2? So now we have 8 vs 8 and 4 vs 4? Who wins this scenario? Looks like a coin toss to me.

How would 6 have been fine? If you'd sent 6, you would have 6 vs 6. How does that win you the point? In truth, you're using 12 men to take one point, and the other team is also using 12 men to take one point.

So why can't the 8 man squad take their point, hold it with 5 men against a squad of 6 and send the other 3 onto the next objective?

Everything you're saying applies equally to both teams in the scenario mentioned. You're just pretending that it will only work for one of the two teams.

Actually,

I know this. My point here is to challenge the commonly held misconception that if you have a 4 man squad you're doing your team a disservice and not using good teamwork.

No, it is a debate that is being had because there is an important lesson here.

Bingo.

__________________

Grimmfist

Optimum squad size is directly affected by optimum squad skill. I don't see how these things can be divorced in the discussion. A small cohesive highly skilled squad will have a much better chance of surviving than a large unskilled squad. Hand/eye coordination for shooting, ability to understand situational awareness, and length of time training together are all important for any size squad to act at its best potential. Numbers may be equal but skill is often not equal and the less skilled team will lose more often than win no matter the size of a squad. If this is an argument to have admins approve locked squads then take away the kick script if you do not join a squad. Then there can be all sorts of highly trained, well led, smaller squads. Nothing wrong with that, if that is what the community wants. Because, with everything being equal, it's a game.

__________________