Jump to content
Skinfaxi

How to use recon vehicles realistically?

Recommended Posts

Leaving aside the discussion about SOPs - where I agree with Ian to a certain extent, especially if we're talking at the Platoon level rather than the squad or team/vehicle. There is indeed some SOPs in the game, associated to the basic 'Move' command. You can issue a move order towards a certain point specifying the speed/caution - Slow, Quick or Fast - whether you want it to be bounded - Assault - or to be a "move to contact" kind of thing - Hunt. 

 

You can "implement" SOPs by combining this basic commands (and their pre-canned SOPs). Take a look at Bil Hardenbergers' tutorial (linked at the top of the Normandy game forums) for inspiration.

 

I think the problem here is less about manipulating the orders you can give and more about how recon vehicles actually do recon in real life.

 

It isn't by playing dodge ball against high velocity shells moving at twice the speed of sound.

 

 

But going back to the actual point of the discussion: what Jason says, really. 

 

"Active" recon that is, actively seeking the enemy will entail some casualties more often than not. You learn where the minefields are by stumbling on them not using the magic ESP powers Recon vehicles have. You learn where the enemy infantry is by being fired upon (and maybe having the vehicle commander killed or wounded). You learn where the enemy Pak Front is when a high-velocity AT round goes through the leading vehicle and hits the one immediately behind. You learn where the enemy armour is in a similar way.

 

In CMx2 you'll find usually light recon armour in two ways. One, as some kind of infantry support vehicle (which isn't completely ahistorical), deployed on relatively small maps. The other, as the actual thing, with little or no infantry besides some scout or FO teams on really big maps (George MC has made some scenarios where you can use Recon to perform actual recon, like Huzzah or Studienka), and victory conditions requiring you to identify enemy units and retreat most of your recon assets safely.

 

Regarding tactics... if you don't know where the enemy is, you'll have to bit the bullet and really probe like a blind man until you get fired upon. If you suspect where the enemy is, then masking your movement with the terrain features is a must, rather than fancy footwork.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding tactics... if you don't know where the enemy is, you'll have to bit the bullet and really probe like a blind man until you get fired upon.

and then a recon vehicle should retreat, not try to fight a Tiger. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, ok, I understand that you want SOPs. You want them so badly that you even argue against a straightforward solution of the recon vehicle problem.That's a interesting attitude.

Straightforward to you, but your ability to listen to others is , well nonexistent. THAT is an interesting attitude. What you consider straightforward is a specific behavior of a specific vehicle type which CM doesn't even recognize (there is no "recon" type vehicle in the game) so that would have to be a new creation just for starters. In CM a Lynx is just a vehicle with vehicle attributes. That it was historically a recon vehicle is irrelevant in code terms right now. What makes it a recon vehicle is how you as the player use it.

So go tell Phil that creating a new coding parameter, vehicle class with certain tac AI attributes for the new class "recon" vehicle is a straightforward solution and see how far that gets you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sburke,

why do you have such a negative approach?

Let's assume you are correct and there was the need for a recon vehicle class and that class doesn't exist and everything. I doubt that, because it would make the introduction of new units with new capabilities extremely difficult and they seem to have no problems to introduce new units with new capbabilites (see CMBS), but let's assume that's the case.

Instead of your negative approach a positive approach maybe would make you think: if it's not possible for recon vehicles only, could it maybe even be a good idea for other vehicles?

Edited by Skinfaxi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sburke,

why do you have such a negative approach?

Let's assume you are correct and there was the need for a recon vehicle class and that class doesn't exist and everything. I doubt that, because it would make the introduction of new units with new capabilities extremely difficult and they seem to have no problems to introduce new units with new capbabilites (see CMBS), but let's assume that's the case.

Instead of your negative approach a positive approach maybe would make you think: if it's not possible for recon vehicles only, could it maybe even be a good idea for other vehicles?

:huh: facing the reality of what coding might be required is not a "negative" approach.  It is called realistic planning.  You started with an assumption that it was a straightforward easy approach to change TAC AI, now you say it is a straightforward approach to introduce something in code that doesn't yet exist and attach tac ai to it.  I am not saying it can't be done.  It may be possible, maybe even desirable, but it isn't straightforward.  Introducing new units with new capabilities does not at all imply there is a "class" of units that then has particular TAC AI behavior.  This isn't Panzer Campaigns*.

 

As you might put it -

 

Ok, ok, I understand that you want particular TAC AI behavior for a "class" of vehicle that does not exist in code. You want them so badly that you even argue for code behavior for items that do not even exist.

That's an interesting attitude.

 

*not to imply anything negative, simply that the PC series does have unit class attributes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Yup... I agree with the consensus here.

For recon vehicles.. bailing out the crew to “Hunt...” forward on foot to tree line or some such point is often an essential part of the mix. Also... take your time.. difficult with the time limits on some scenarios.

Plus.. I also agree that SOP for Hunt orders in particular would be a huge plus. Hunt is different, it is special. There are a number of uses I would like it for. Pure recon, but also sometimes very cautiously sneaking forward and when an enemy is identified blasting away.But for now asking a bit much ;).

Lucky to have CM at all.. :)

All the best,

Kip.

PS. It is not really a “work round...” for recon troops in armoured cars to stop and go forward on foot. In the accounts I have read of such troops this was very common. The armoured cars were in some ways for getting about in and fighting other armoured cars. But a lot of recon was on foot

PS no 2. The great thing about CMX2, is the upgrade system. Away out in front of all other games already and slowly tweaked and improved the whole time.

Edited by kipanderson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...