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.

Part of this might be due to the manner in which I squad lead. I tend to pay a *lot* of attention to what is going on big-picture, and try to take my squad to places it can have an impact. Sometimes that means hitting small holes in the enemy defense to cap a flag. Other times it means finding a flood of enemies and placing ourselves squad in their path.

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?

But I'm curious. Just because the game allows us to put 6 in a squad, does that mean 6 is really the best number?

Discuss.

__________________

Jakaleel

I find a full squad of mixed TG / non TG works well. Last night the 21st played once with a full 6 men squad. We played two 21st squads after that round unlocked to allow other members TG / non TG to join.

It's annoying to join in the middle of the game and find all the squads not filled, locked. Two man tank/walker/gunship. Two to four man APC/transport. Three man DOOM Buggy. One man with sniper in name or player name (another name for lone wolf).

__________________
|TG-21| Jakaleel
SAAW Team

FYAH29

For me it would depend on any preconceived plans prior to the start of the match. If I plan to defend Toll on CampG I want a full 6 man squad to get the best coverage, allow us to chase down runners and yet still cover East and West. I agree that a 4 man sometime allows better communications and in a fast moving, attack / take flags squad can give you more cohesiveness. I find when I'm SL (not that often) with 6 man squad, it does tend toward overkill when defending some flags, and I'll send 2 SM's to gather intel, chase a small breakout, or help at a heavily attacked flag.

__________________

Lorax74

I like a squad of four or five members. Six seems to attract too much attention itself. Three or four is great for rapid deployment, fast response, or specialty (anti-tank, air, etc).

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

Augustus Gloop

3 to 4 might be the optimum number if they have worked together before, or are used to taking orders. It might be an interesting experiment in a scrim to have one side use 6 squads of 4, rather than 4 squads of 6 on one team to see how it works out.

__________________

Lorax74

My initial guess is with six squads of 4 will win.

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

Heretic1

Squads are very effective when filled and organized appropriately. It doesn't have to be up to the SL to micromanage all of his SM's. Split your aquad into two fireteams of three people and appoint a fireteam leader. This gives the squad leader more flexibility in his tactical decision making, your squad can take two routes instead of one and each team can focus on different specialties.

Given proper leadership skills this can be very effective. However, the SL is your spawnpoint (beacon notwithstanding), and this may cause some speedbumps.

Crux

Don't take this the wrong way, Jaka... but nothing in here addresses what is actually best for teamwork and results. It's all about what annoys you and what makes you happy.

__________________

Lorax74

When I squad lead, I am usually on point and moving. I find it much easier to keep a squad of four closer to me than I do a squad of six. With six, it feels like I waiting for stragglers to catch up a lot.

__________________
TG-9th Lorax74

Specterr

IMO a good squad of four can be just as effective as a squad of six in 90% of the situations, the only time it would suffer is a direct attack on a flag with 6+ defenders, or holding ground...as long as you avoid those situations it's just as good, if not better.

__________________

Catman1975

Probably for most situations, I would say a full six man squad , unless it's a specialized squad, would probably be the most effective. It doesn't require everyone to be an assault medic (which I can not play for crap), when assaulting a flag it's those extra couple of people that can make the difference and on a 64 person server splitting down into 2-4 man squads is going to be hell for a commander.

I can see a place for smaller squads on smaller servers, but not on a full 64 player server.

While a decreased performance wasn't noticed by the squad leader, unless played under the same circumstances, we don't know how a full squad would have performed.

__________________


Catman is batsh*t insane and all of his posts should be read with extreme scrutiny and disdain. If at any time you become compelled to relate or agree with any post by Catman, you should seek immediate, professional, psychiatric counseling. Catman recommends 1-800-OMGIMNUTS, he swears by (at) them.

sc1ence

I think all squad sizes are effective if the squad is placed in an appropriate role for its skill and strength.

I personally like to run with a full 6 squad members. If the situation calls for a smaller squad, I will break the squad up into fireteams. If I have 6 in the squad, I will make sure they are in the thick of things.

__________________

Crux

Well, you don't need everyone to be an assault medic in a 4 man squad either. Typically I've been running 3 assaults + 1 support, but can switch either an assault or the support out for engineer as needed. Really 2 *good* medics in a squad can do a great job of keeping everyone alive.

Based on what? I ask this as a legitimate question. Why not?

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.

__________________

DunNa

To a certain extent yes, but your also talking about sub-6man squads filled with nothing but 3rd/leetsauce TG players. 4 or more good players all in one squad can wreck an opposing team made up of mostly random people.
How many of those hours were spent as an SL of random squad "bravo" with 4-5 guys in it who while they try to do what they are told just arn't clanning caliber players. Its nothing wrong with those people its the nature of the game.

Its like talking about how a small group of SF took out an Iraqi garrison and attributing it to the SFs smaller group size providing you an advantage, and not the other factors.

6 good players > 4 good players. Not that those 4 good players can't accomplish some of the same things, but 6 could almost certainly do everything the 4man could AND more.

Zhohar

Good question.

I've always assumed six to be the default, but I've been running in a three man squad as well and it seemed to work out better than regular, full-house squad.
I'd imagine it would be easier on the comms, easier on revives, and easier on mobility. It'd be easier for the SL to organize everyone and it'd be easier to stick together.

This is really a very good question. I think I'll try running a three man squad for the next few days. I have a hunch that it works better than a 6 man squad only if experienced players are involved: newbies gain strength in numbers, experienced soldiers learn to maximize what they're working with. That's purely a theory right now, and something to test extensively.

I've six days SL experience and I've never even thought of this. To be perfectly honest, I feel kind of ashamed right now.

__________________