Ok, if we're going to continue to cherry pick quotes, then let's take a look at exactly what you've been saying and see how much we really agree.

Originally Posted by Crux

What is the optimum squad size?

I ask because the last few days I've been running very small squads of 2-4 people for training purposes for the 3rd (involving a few non-3rd at times). And, I've noticed consistently very high levels of performance from these small squads. Namely, we've not had any noticeably decreased ability to impact the outcome - we've still been capping flags per usual, defending flags per usual.

But, part of it also might be due to the smaller squad size allowing for better communication, more cohesive action and less of a tendency for people to wander off?

Start off ok, but we can see where you're already leaning. You say you're asking the question because you really don't know the answer yet that is hardly the case.

Time spent playing Battlefield: 21 days 19 hrs 22 mins.
Time spent Squad Leading: 14 days, 19 hrs 16 mins.

I've led the same people before as parts of full squads in the same situations. I do have some idea what I'm talking about.

Self serving. By making that statement you are trying to diminish the arguments against as not as informed. But you forget you're at TG where most of the people posting on this thread have led a squad or 100.

Secondly I am comparing a squad of 4 players of caliber "A" with a squad of 6 players of caliber "A". I'm assuming the effects scale as the quality of players changes, but I don't know conclusively. That's why I'm trying to open a discussion so we can talk about it and not just operate on assumptions.

Why does everyone assume automatically that 6 > 4?

Where in here do we make even close to the same arguement? I've said over and over again that ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL, 6 > 4. It's not an assumption, it's a fact based on superior force.

So unless two situations are completely and absolutely identical in every respect we can't draw comparisons between them? I can't compare the response time and cohesiveness of my small squad with that of a larger one unless we are on the same map, in the same position, with everyone on my team doing the same thing against an opponent also doing the same thing every time?

You can, but you're not being honest in your evaluation. Because you add in a new set of variables each time you run the experiment so nothing can ever be solved. All it would do is change your perception, not the reality.

Yes they are. But what if the squad of 3 players doesn't match up alone against the squad of 6? What if two squads of 3 do? Or two squads of 4? Or what if the squad of 3 hides, lets the squad of 6 leave and then caps behind them?

Or what if Aliens decided to join the fray on the side of the squad of 6 thus blasting everything to oblivion and taking the planet for themselves?

Any squad/squads can employ the same tactics if they are led by a smart SL. Again, ATBE a team filled with squads of 6 can and will do just as well, if not better than squads of 4. The ability to adapt is equal regardless of squad size. Yet you're saying that a smaller squad is better able to adapt. Based on what real proof other than your own personal experience?

Experience that can be trumped by others on this thread that feel the opposite of you.

A 4-man squad could potentially defend against a 6-man squad's attack. With the advantage of setting up a defensive position, with IDS and a sentry gun as force multipliers, I believe a 4-man squad led by a competent squad leader could hold of a 6-man squad full of equal skill soldiers consistently.

Now we get to the crux of the argument. (no pun intended...ok, maybe a little one.) As you clearly stated, you do believe that 4 > 6 if all things are equal. Where in that statement do you see us even being close to agreeing?

After stating that, the rest of your points about not knowing or just wanting to have a discussion about this fly out the window because you are clearly biased to your stated POV. Once you state that fact, you just lost most of your high ground for open disscussion. Because the only way you can keep making your point is if you truely believe what you just said.

Or did you post it and not read what you wrote?

Now if your commander is good, he could use this to his advantage. Placing say one or two squads in defensive positions, he could then match up two 4-man squads against a long 6-man. Except, being in two squads, a pin and flank would be brutal (negating the defensive advantage listed above). Squad 1 comes in from the front and pins them down with fire. Squad 2 flanks and hits them from behind.

Commander: Squad One, Squad two is being flanked at playground, your position is clear, can you send 2 men to assist? (Squad 1 and 2 are both 6 man squads in your above stated situation)
Squad One SL: Roger that!

The point is that again, you seem to claim that your small squads are better able to adapt, when clearly that isn't the case. And a smart commander would have the same assets available regardless of squad size along with the ability to move men as needed to each encounter. Battlefields are fluid and constantly moving, who's to say that the commander couldn't bring in a free squad of 6 to counter your 8. Now it's 12 v 8 and pretty brutal for the bad guys. But again, we're supposed to assume that the larger squad can't move or adapt as well as the small.

But, that takes a pretty high degree of coordination to implement. And of course there are so many variables. Individual skill level. Squad leader ability. Squad leaders are a HUGE force multiplier.

Wow, contradicted yourself 2 sentences later. So, all things CAN'T be equal for your theory to work? What one is it? 4 > 6 only if everything falls into their favor or is it on a consistant basis regardless of variables? When here I just thought that even if everything is equal, 4 is up to the task.

Boy, now I'm confused.

The point of this discussion is, where does that point lie? I'm not posting this thread for discussion because I know the answer and want to share it. I want to talk about it and figure it out Obviously a lot of it just depends on the squad too.

See above about being confused. Is a smaller squad OPTIMUM or isn't it? Again, at one point you say that if everything is equal, then it is. Then you now say that everything really isn't ever equal, so who knows?

Exactly, so why even the discussion on what is the optimum squad size when it just clearly depends on the task assigned and situation?

I can see where you might feel we're making the same points because you can change your point from sentence to sentence.

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.

That's a pretty base statement that is hardly true. If 4 > 6 in your earlier statement then why isn't 6 > 8 in the same situation? And why are we assuming that it's 4 tickets vs 6 tickets lost? If it's a man for man exchange we're down to 2 tickets each and an even exchange. Team 1 won by two and lost by two.

Otherwise, it's cherry picking numbers to suit your POV and it doesn't wash in a real world situation.

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.

Wow, we agree again. Imagine that.

You want it both way's, Crux and that's really not fair to a debate. Either state what you believe or don't. But don't come here, cherry pick quotes, make statements about not reading what you've posted and try and take a high road that clearly isn't your's.

You go from stating a belief to backtracking to coming back to said belief again and again. Numerous people have posted opposite opinions and the only way this debate is fair is if we take that ALL THINGS ARE EQUAL and proceed from that point.

If you are honest, and do that then you really can't claim that 4 > 6. Because the non cherry picked numbers just don't add up.

Thus endith the lesson.