nhammen

I did not read the entire thread, so sorry if I say something that has already been said. I have commanded a few times now, and I have to say, it depends on the situation. If the server is almost empty, I hate it when the squads under me fill up, because that means my whole team is in one location, instead of spreading out and taking more flags. Now, when the server is full, then it depends on the map.

Maps with one defined route (Berlin, Camp Gib) need a smaller number of large squads because a) the teams will be clumped together anyways by the stupid chokepoints that EA loves and managing a smaller number of players is easier on the comm, b) it is easier for the defending team to hold the line if the SLs can utilize larger groups, and c) if a SL on the attacking team does manage to sneak past the defense, he should be a leader of as large of a squad as possible.

Belgrade, Sidi, and Verdun need about half large and half small; the 2 large squads holding a central location and the flag closest to the enemy uncap, and the small groups capping lesser flags to prevent bleed, and holding when necessary.

I honestly don't know what works best for Cerbere or Suez. Other than the fact that the attacking team needs to try to get a squad into the flag in the enemy's backside.

Edit: I was talking about the large versions of Sidi and Verdun. The small versions only need large squads; each squad picks a different flag and just turtles.

__________________
- Drake_Anra

Crux

Edited to remove response to Nemesis. This isn't a debate. It is supposed to be a discussion.

__________________

Crux

This is an interesting point. I think you are right in this regard except in two circumstances.
1) An outstanding commander who is effectively implementing strategies for multiple smaller squads and communicating his needs well
2) Extra communication means such as Teamspeak to coordinate between squads

Sadly neither is common, so for public play the larger squad will typically have better communication than two smaller squads.

This is a great thought also. Now we're talking more on an applied level than theoretical, but that had to start at some point Good Sls are hard to find, and this is a strong factor in favor of larger squads.

I'm not sure I agree with this one. I mean no matter how good the people are there is always going to be someone who wanders out of position at some point. With a smaller squad it is just easier for a SL to notice and to reign them in. That's my opinion anyway

This is a very, very excellent point. I hadn't really considered map shape when thinking about this, but it does have the potential to bear a big impact. With narrow maps flanking becomes reduced or eliminated. A larger squad has a great capacity to punch through the enemy lines through brute force.

This is largely a rehash of #2, but it doesn't make it any less true the second time around

They certainly can be more fun. I think for multiple smaller squads to be used effectively you need two things:
1) Enough good quality SLers
2) A commander skilled enough to handle the increased number of squads and coordinate their actions well.

Given how infrequently we get either of those, the majority of time in conquest play larger is probably better.

__________________

Stealth831

I find that groups of 3-4 are best, as it gives the SL less to keep track of and leaves more people open to form other squads, leading to more spawn beacons and the like (and better cohesive groups)

Baggy911

As long as the squad co-operates, 6 men are much more likely to win in a fight than two 3-men squads., due to the lack of SL-to-SL communication. Were there SL-to-SL comm, small squads would have the upper hand.