Nemesis

Which negates any advantage of sending 2 four man squads against one 6 man squad because the other 6 man squad can compensate for the number imbalance on either point. So again, it comes down to which squad/squads is more skilled and better led, not what squad size is better suited to the task.


You said earlier that a squad of 4 should be able to defend against a squad of 6 using a sentry gun and IDS. Yet now 6 can't beat 6 straight up? You just made my point, if all things are even, there really is no tactical advantage to the smaller squads for this situation.


Both sides can do that just as easily. No better and no worse. To beat the dead horse, it comes down to leadership, skill and the squad working as a team. The size is irrelevent to the discussion when you really get down to it.

Hello Pot? It's the Kettle. You're black.


I never said you're doing your team a disservice. There are plenty of situations where a small squad is effective and devestating to the OP4's strategy if used correctly. However, if we're talking in general situations and not tailor made specifics, then the smaller squad is putting itself at a disadvantage just by the numbers. All things being equal.


Crux, you've made some good points and it's a valid question. But I don't see much of a lesson because it all depends on the situation. Your original question was what is the optimum squad size and challenging the thought that 6 is best. Then the argument got turned to favor specific situations that fit the small squad concept. But it doesn't wash because you can't just throw out variables like skill, map, commander, etc. when they don't suit the argument or POV. In certain instances, small squads can and are effective, however if we're talking Optimum in general then the only real advantage a team of smaller squads give is additional spawn points. Which I can argue would be negated by the added medics/support to a larger squad.

But to each their own. If it works for you, then more power to you. You're the SL so only you can say what is most effective for YOUR style. I just happen to disagree with the concept that 4 trumps 6 if all things are equal.



Exactly


*Edit for additional thoughts.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Crux

Yet after reading (or not reading)...

Why do you quote me and then repeat what I've already said as an argument against me? You're agreeing with me.

__________________

daithi1

Aww I wanted the Crayfish to win, it's unfortunate I don't understand you're analogy at all.

__________________

ultrablue

Weight lifted on high
proud blue armor, vision blurred.
sleep now with fishes.

Catman1975

355, but I only cry because of your awesomeness

__________________

Zoopy

So if there were 6 man squad consisting solely of Crux and clones of Crux and you pitted them against a 4 man squad consisting solely of Crux' evil twin and clones of himself, who would win?

This is of course assuming that evil Crux has the same capacity as normal Crux and that the clones don't have any physical deficiency due to the cloning process.

ThaDoctah

354, because Stella doesn't count as a grown man anymore
:row__row__row__yourboat:

__________________

<Someone give me more training STAT!>

Zoraster

It depends on circumstances, but I find that six is generally my prefered number.

1. Communication. Due to the way squads work in a pub game, having just 3 or 4 in a squad limits the amount of communication that's going on. It makes coordinating an attack more difficult. If we had SL-to-SL communication, this wouldn't be true, but as it stands it certainly is.

2. It requires just one good squad leader. Good squad leaders are in somewhat short supply. I know that I'd prefer to have my team have 50% of my squads led by superior squad leaders rather than reduce that number down to 25%.

3. Squad cohesion. I disagree that smaller squads are better for cohesion. I think this perception may just be that typically if you have a squad of 3 or 4, you don't have any "pubbies" in your squad.

4. Linearity of the maps. The majority of maps that are played now are pretty linear in design. It's true that you can do things to try and move laterally or get around the line, flank, etc. but by and large the way the maps are set up, they funnel toward choke points and having 8 squads rather than 4 doesn't really lead to any improvement.

5. Marshalling pubbies. It's not necessarily true that forming smaller squads won't allow pubbies to get into good squads, but I think it'll limit their exposure to the best squad leaders. And from a team perspective, making sure that pubs get used effectively really can make a difference.

6. The good squad leader will know when to split his forces anyway.

---
All that said, I think on certain open maps having more squads of fewer people is a boon. For example, I think playing Sidi large you really SHOULD be in smaller squads. Defense points are fairly easy to defend with fewer people and attacking can almost always be done on empty flags.

In smaller games such as a 12 v 12, smaller squads make a good deal more sense. In fact, I think there's probably a relationship between the number of flags accessible by each team and the optimal size of the squads.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are plenty of ways to utilize a smaller squad effectively. But I don't think that overall it's an effective way to play the game.

Also, I think as a squad leader, smaller squads can be more fun. There's a sense of versatility that you have when you're in a smaller squad. I know when I lead a 6 man squad, even though doing something like taking statue is boring, i know if I don't use my 6 person squad to do that, my team is going to hurt. There's not as much of this feeling with a 3 person squad. You're more free to do things that possibly aren't essential for the team, but are more fun and varied. Additionally, as noted above, I think smaller squads for the best squad leaders mean fewer people who aren't going to work really well with them. Not having to herd sheep can be a lot more fun.

__________________
|TG| Zoraster | Tactical Soccer Managing

Nemesis

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.



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.


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.


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.


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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

Augustus Gloop

I think the idea here is more:

A 25 member Crux team divided into 1 Crux commander and 4 squads of 6 Crux each (putting aside for the moment that 24 Crux would have to take orders from someone else!)

VS

A 25 member Evil Crux team divided into 1 Evil Crux commander and 6 squads of 4 Crux each.

Which would win?

__________________

Nemesis

Well it's about damn time you showed up and made that clear. Though it's still not clear what would happen if the crayfish brought in a squad of those Japanese fighting bugs...

But thank you Obi Wan KenoBommando, you really were my only hope.

And I've been trying to get thrown out of this thread since yesterday.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

ultrablue

So now the question is this: Is a squad of six crayfish more effective against two squads consisting of three crayfish each. Consideration of all crayfish lifting that 20 ounce weight daily is accounted for.

Nemesis

Are we talking about crayfish on land or underwater?

Because, everything changes based on certain variables depending on environment; like sun, terrain, tide, depth and most importantly, if it's crayfish season or not.

You also have to take into account any natural crayfish predators that might join the fray.


Wait, Bomm threw me out of this thread already, so you never saw me here.

__________________
It's all in the Reflexes.

DunNa

Clearly the CRUX OF LIGHT! would win the battle due to easier time corridinating themselves unless all Crux's gain some sort of magical telepathic communication skill or are raising hell on TS thats almost completely incoherient as 20 Crux's cry out in rage at once as they get killed by one APM.

Er it would be easier to corridinate 2 squads of 6 and then have the SL split them up more if needed then it would be to corridinate 3 squads of 4. Yes they technically have the same fighting power but outside of them all being in a linked uncluttered voice chat to easily say who goes where its gonna be abit more hassle for little to no real benefit.

Augustus Gloop

Do you really think that commander Crux would have trouble coordinating 2 more squads of Crux (Cruxes?) than usual? I think he'd have a bunch more options, not more confusion.

Also, would 8 squads of 3 pwn the other two versions?

__________________