Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ScoutPL

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 02/10/1970


  • Biography
    Fifteen years as an Infantry Officer, recently volunteered to transfer to Simulations Operations.
  • Location
    Fort Bragg, NC
  • Interests
    Miliatry History, Wargaming
  • Occupation
    Simulations Officer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Hey fellas, ScoutPL here. Bil asked me to chime in. This fight is from awhile ago (over a year I guess), so my memory for the detail is rusty but I think I can give you an idea what I was thinking. Key to my plan was the open ground that existed between what I assumed was Bils front line (based on scenario intel and confirmed in the first few turns) and the actual objective. Essentially, his line of communication from his forward trace back to his main position could be interdicted with fires. So I set up a pretty strong Support By Fire position with my machine guns, Forward Observers, and one STUG. I dont remember precisely, but I think there was an infantry platoon there for security, as well. The main attack would consist of an end-run to my left, what Bil has labeled as AOA2. I felt it offered the most cover and concealment and would force Bil to fight in two directions at once. I had one ace in hand that made such an aggressive move possible: a few heavy trucks. After the STUGs and a dismounted platoon proofed the route, I was able to move most of my company by truck to the Attack Position in two quick trips. Then it became a slug fest as I pushed up the hill hedgerow by hedgerow.
  2. Hello all, Experienced player looking for opponents, send me a message at toddj4143@gmail.com if interested. Thanks
  3. It depends on what you are using your supporting weapons for. Mortars are best stationary with a "Fire Direction Center" unit nearby (usually one of the MTR platoon HQ units). The MTR platoon HQ or Weapons platoon HQ can then be used as an extra forward observer for your mtrs. MGs are often pushed forward to support your attack. Best used in a support by fire position where their longer range will keep them out of range of most small arms (if the terrain will allow). The weapons platoon HQ can be used to C2 those guns once the rifle platoons move forward, leaving the MGs behind. You can then move the MGs up when you need them and they stay under control of a HQ unit and gain those benefits.
  4. I believe rocket attacks are the exception here. Its been awhile since I let this happen but I am fairly certain I was rocketed in my setup zone a number of times (the area of effect is so broad).
  5. This is exactly what I do. Select Human pick forces and when the selection screen pops up select "Recommend Setup" (or whatever the verbage is). Then delete the arty/mtrs/rockets that are inevitably selected. (Dont let yourself preview the other units, the fire support assets are always at the bottom.) Russian fire support is so cheap it rarely makes a difference in the balance. Well, except the AI doesn't get to kill all of your infantry in the first 30 seconds. The only other option is to edit the QB maps and delete the Target Objectives that are telling the AI to fire those missions, then re-save under a different name and special select that map when creating your QB.
  6. Dumb grunt prediction: Syria and Iraq will dissolve as nation states. Creating a new Sunni dominated state in the west and an Iran satellite, Shia state in the east. The Kurds will hold out for as long as they can, especially if they can maintain control of the northern oil fields. The brits drew the lines, the UN has worked to maintain them, but due to everyone's attention being on other things, or simply lack of real interest, the old lines will blur. The US cannot support Maliki, since he has strayed rather far from the mandate given him and his government. Without that support the sectarian violence will take hold. At this point I only see the West getting involved if there is a substantial threat to the worlds oil supply or an obvious attempt by either faction to finance/shelter terrorist extremists. I don't know that ISIS really fills that bill so far, I think they are mostly just trying to form a country all their own at this point.
  7. I always thought the biggest reason was clearing houses. Without clearly delineated rooms, staircases, doorways, etc it would be impossible to accurately track every round in a structure. Clearing houses is abstracted, so friendly fire has to be as well.
  8. Does anyone else believe the new tweaks to the game engine make this kind of combat ridiculously (ie unrealistically) difficult? I mean everyone's TTP (including my own at this point) seems to be throw a few bodies out front and when they get waxed you will have some idea where the enemy is. Or spray the ground to your front and hope you can suppress any enemy there so you can spot them before you walk on top of them. As a professional infantryman I have to say this is just WRONG. Restrictive terrain is the infantryman's friend (whether he be attacking or defending). There is comfort and confidence in having a tree or some micro terrain to hide behind, take cover behind etc. And nothing, absolutely nothing, will give your position away faster than firing your weapon, particularly within a few hundred meters. I can understand a squad gaining the upper hand in the first few seconds of a firefight but once they have fired their weapons they will no longer be hidden or "unspotted." From my observations so far it seems to be related directly to spotting and to some degree reaction time/tasks. Practically every time I make contact in the woods my guys will get chewed up, often without even spotting who is shooting them. Even more frustrating is that since they haven't identified a target they aren't doing anything but dying. Any rifle team/squad with the slightest bit of training would respond with a fusillade of fire and hand grenades in order to try to gain fire superiority over their ambushers, even if it were just area fire (spray and pray). I thought the previous versions of the engine handled this rather fairly. Why the changes? Am I alone in this assessment?
  9. Sounds like a fun campaign, but its not a "Recon" campaign. Its a "behind the lines" campaign that could be fought by an infantry platoon, an engineer platoon, etc. An actual scout/recon campaign would bore most players to tears. "Ok, I've been sitting here for two hours and nothing has happened. I dont guess the enemy is coming this way." Game End - Total Victory (you survived).
  10. I would argue that recon units in CM are just "regular infantry," they just happen to be poorly armed regular infantry. And by poorly armed I mean they lack the versatility of a regular line squad. Yes, if you preview a QB map and know you have a lot of restrictive terrain to fight in, than you may be tempted to cherry pick some recon units that have a high ratio of SMGs. As you say, a great tactic if you are just looking for the best advantage in winning a game, not the way you should probably go if you are looking for a realistic challenge. I was agreeing that scout squads can best be replicated in game by giving them higher morale and experience status for the small boosts in capabilities this will give them, but in the long run I don't feel their special skills are really at all applicable to CM. Honestly, I feel the same about snipers. When supporting a line company a sniper team is often best utilized in the support by fire position providing precision supporting fires or used on a flank as an OP (and thus, often not even involved in the actual fight). Sniping as a standalone mission is also outside the purview of CM, for many of the same reasons I gave for scout/recon formations. If you are just looking for game fun with interesting and unique units that have distinct capabilities than I would suggest another game system that focuses on rock, paper, scissors type of roles for the entities. I say this with all sincerity- I just don't think you will get it from a game designed from the ground up as a specific simulator. The recon units in CM are there to simply give the game flavor and provide scenario designers (and cherry pickers) some more options, not to conduct actual recon missions as they would RL. But I know you have been around for a long time and are well aware of the games shortcomings.
  11. I have to agree with Erwin, though for a different reason. Reconnaissance (Scout) units are especially trained, organized, and equipped to seek out the enemy and report back to higher. These specially tasked units work directly for the staff intelligence officers (at any level) and report directly to them and the commander. Their tasks are often based on the intelligence officers assessment of the enemy and terrain in coordination with the operations officer who is focused on the mission. For example, your battalion has to seize a key crossroads. The intel officer identifies three avenues of approach, each with a possible chokepoint, as well as likely enemy observation points and defensive positions. The Ops officer identifies preferred support by fire positions and assault positions and (along with the fires supporter) likely locations for mortar firing positions. All of these locations are given to the scout platoon. In US doctrine these are called Named Areas of Interest or NAIs. The scout platoon then develops a plan for movement into the area and designates which scout team will investigate and report back on each NAI. This is when fieldcraft comes into play. The scout team leader than has to develop his own plan of action and attempt to gain as much info as possible. Quite often this will be limited to getting within a few hundred meters of a suspected enemy position and just listening. You don't have to actually see a military unit in order to confirm its presence, they are notoriously loud. You can hear vehicles, you can hear picket pounding, you can hear digging, etc. If the SL doesn't hear anything than he may or may not decide to creep closer for eyes on, depending on how ballsy he is feeling and how many more NAIs he needs to clear. The scout platoons primary mission is to confirm or deny the intel officers predictions/assumptions of the enemies disposition and assist the ops officer with his planning of actions on the objective. All of which, by the way, is outside the scope of Combat Mission. This is not a scouting game. Its not a reconnaissance game. Stealth is not a factor. Its a game designed to portray armed COMBAT at the company and battalion level. There are reconnaissance units in the game. But that doesn't make it a reconnaissance game. There are engineer units in the game but it also does a horrendous job of replicating the capabilities they bring to the battlefield as well. Recon units were included because sometimes such units find themselves fighting on the front line or caught up in an enemy offensive, etc. So, in game terms, they are essentially poorly armed, low manpower "regular" infantry units.
  12. I've played them both as well, each for different reasons. If you are looking for a click fest, adrenaline rush, ending in screams of frustration and pounding of fists, try CoH. If you are looking for a tactical sim that will test your ability to conduct fire and maneuver while you enjoy your ham sandwich with just a touch of Grey Poupon than go for CM. They are so different its even hard to compare them. Essentially CoH could be played with Orcs and Space Marines on distant planets... oh wait a minute... If someone tells you they think CoH rocks and CM sucks, ask them to explain the difference between a 251/9 and a 251/10 and then draw your own conclusions.
  13. Check out my CMSF tutorials. First one is of a rifle company assaulting a town. Very applicable to your discussion here. There are supporting videos on Youtube.
  14. Some more suggestions. Most of these read as after action reports at the squad and platoon level. A little hard to believe at times so take it all in with a skeptical eye, I am not an expert on post WW2 german literature but often thought when I was reading these books that it could all be propaganda. Good resource for getting an idea of what small unit actions looked like though. http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Aces-Soldier-Stackpole-Military-ebook/dp/B004BJ11E0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Aces-Commanders-Stackpole-Military-ebook/dp/B008ML7DEK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1401200766&sr=1-1&keywords=panzer+aces
  15. The difference between one armys tank crews and another. One army devotes time and energy to crew drills and gunnery. The next one over perfects moss and bark collection battle drills.
  • Create New...