Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Rankorian

Scout teams--? a problem

Recommended Posts

I think the ability to be able to control your squads is one of the coolest and most realistic features in CMBN. If you are a Sergent in charge of a 10-12 man infantry squad with german MG in the opposite hedrow what are you going to do? --- Keep the entire squad together and rush?? ... or split the squad into 2 or 3 groups so some guys can lay down suppression and other guys can flank and shoot the bastard.

If there is a German tank rumbling down the road a little ways off, are you going to send you entire squad in?? Or are going to keep the majority of the squad on the line and break off and AT detail?

"Boy serg, that field seems awfully quite in front of us." ... what are you going to do?? Walk your entire team across it like any other day in the park?? Or send out a scout team while the rest of the squad lays prone with hair-triggers on anything that moves??

Dividing squads lets people make real-life decisions. .... sure, I agree, there are going to be people that make "Bad" decisions and have 2 or 3 man teams roaming over the entire map without regard to C2 ... but that has its disadvantages too aside from moral effects of being out of C2. ... As a defender, it's a lot easier to take out a lone scout team that it is to take out a well-coordinated squad.

So I say great job BF with the squad control! Personally, I think it's one of the stronger and bolder features in this game.

Completely agree with this. Making the decisions the jetset used plus all the others in a game like this is what sets this game apart from anything else I've every played. This game is all about decisions and the consequences/rewards of those decisions.

As others have also said I agree that you can do gamey things using some of the features available but I don't see that being BF's fault. Police yourself in how you play and/or play with others of like mind and it's not a problem. I'd rather have the ability to be flexibile in how I use my squads and how they tackle battlefield situations then be stuck doing the same thing over and over because I don't have a choice about how to solve the problem. I might as well timewarp and be some Prussian soldier in 1750 in that case. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why not to use the Iron difficulty level if you don't want to let the scouts wander too far? That way when they got out of contact you wont be able to issue commands to them until you get them back to C2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And why not to use the Iron difficulty level if you don't want to let the scouts wander too far? That way when they got out of contact you wont be able to issue commands to them until you get them back to C2

Iron does not work that way. You can always issue commands to units with intact morale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell I even get wrapped up trying to deal with my casualties even though I know that may consume time and risk other units.

Me too!!! Why is that?? In theory I really don't give a damned about a few lines of code (I know that it's more than "a few" lines of code team BF!) ... but I always find myself splitting off a detail to attend to casualties, even if it slows down the overall advance a little bit. .... I usually don't rush medic details into the line of fire in the middle of a field though ... it's usually a clean-up operation after the fire-line has moved forward to the next hedgerow or whatever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too!!! Why is that?? In theory I really don't give a damned about a few lines of code (I know that it's more than "a few" lines of code team BF!) ... but I always find myself splitting off a detail to attend to casualties, even if it slows down the overall advance a little bit. .... I usually don't rush medic details into the line of fire in the middle of a field though ... it's usually a clean-up operation after the fire-line has moved forward to the next hedgerow or whatever.

LOL kind of says it all as far as I am concerned. The game is totally immersive. You friggin care about your pixeltruppen. I don't do it for points or scenario goals. I do it cause my guys are hit!! It just cracks me up that I can get that wrapped up in this game. Yeah there are a few bug issues, but considering what all is in the game the real issues versus perceived issues is incredibly small for a game so incredibly rich.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL kind of says it all as far as I am concerned. The game is totally immersive. You friggin care about your pixeltruppen. I don't do it for points or scenario goals. I do it cause my guys are hit!! It just cracks me up that I can get that wrapped up in this game.

That's how I play, sburke. Amazing a game can do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... sure, I agree, there are going to be people that make "Bad" decisions and have 2 or 3 man teams roaming over the entire map without regard to C2 ...

Once upon a time I made a campaign mod for an operational level Normandy campaign computer game. I spent quite a bit of time tweaking and changing the ToE, I got completely anal about arrival dates and equipment, I changed weapons and the effectiveness of weapons, I changed the OoB about to reflect how units as small as platoon were actually used and organised, I modified the map to give the player more freedom with regards to how they brought their units into the battle. I made a bunch of other changes too. Then I released it into the wild.

A few months later I got an email from a guy who said he was having all sorts of problems, and more or less much demanding I change my work. I asked him to send me a game file to illustrate what he was talking about. When I opened the file I saw that, yes, in fact he was having a bit of trouble. Several days after D-Day there were German units still holding out on the bluffs above OMAHA, and the 6th UK A/B Div was getting trampled on the other side of the Orne. But when I looked closer I noticed that there were American units around Caen, and British units over near Carentan. He had his battalions and brigades and divisions and corps and armys all hoplessly intermingled. Pretty much every division had it's subordinate elements spread from one end of the front right across to the other, most of which were out of C2 and supply because they were so far from their parent HQ. Presumably he was responding to opportunities and threats by simply grabbing uncommitted units and rushing them hither and yon to plug gaps or exploit holes.

Somehow this was my fault.

I didn't feel compelled to make any changes as a result of that particular set of feedback, but it really did leave me scratching my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's how I play, sburke. Amazing a game can do that.

I often loosely plan ahead of time how I'm going to deal with cas, something like "ok, 2 platoon is going to attack across this field, with three sections up in extended line. 1 Platoon and the MMG will provide fire support from here and here, and the company XO will follow up as medics." I also often use scout teams as roaming medics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iron does not work that way. You can always issue commands to units with intact morale.

Ok, my bad. Never played iron so far but understood that every unit has to be under C2 or they are not visible in the map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, my bad. Never played iron so far but understood that every unit has to be under C2 or they are not visible in the map.

But I do think they can be located using the chain of command links on the HQ units. No so sure about detached scouts though. Anyone clarify this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

snip

A few months later I got an email from a guy who said he was having all sorts of problems, and more or less much demanding I change my work. I asked him to send me a game file to illustrate what he was talking about. When I opened the file I saw that, yes, in fact he was having a bit of trouble.

Presumably he was responding to opportunities and threats by simply grabbing uncommitted units and rushing them hither and yon to plug gaps or exploit holes.

Somehow this was my fault.

I didn't feel compelled to make any changes as a result of that particular set of feedback, but it really did leave me scratching my head.

Wait a minute, am I to understand you didn't fix it? sheesh! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, my bad. Never played iron so far but understood that every unit has to be under C2 or they are not visible in the map.

With no unit currently selected, you will see all your units. If you have a unit selected, you will see only what they see/are in contact with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

As with the mortars (different thread), the split squad, especially the scout part, gives a different feel to tactics which I am working through. (I was also not a big fan of massive split squad tactics in CM1)

Yes, I can see why people would think the scout teams are great: why risk a squad when you can risk just two soldiers--two which are guaranteed not to have the heavy weapon of the squad. But my guess is that the casualty rate in CMSF is just different--that Blue squads/platoons, even companies, disappeared at alarming rates in WW2, replaced by new troops. Tell me that there are WW2 vets on this forum that would recognize modern split squad tactics as then standard in their days.

[Was "Bounding Overleap", which was what I was taught in the 70's, used in WW2, or is it fairly M16, with it individual high fire power, dependent?]

It just feels a little anachronistic to me. Generally, did WW2 squads function reliably at the sub-squad level? Send 2 soldiers off somewhere in a less disciplined unit....and you may never see them again. They will just disappear into the countryside. Part of the reason to send 10 or 12 people to do something, a squad, is that it is more likely to actually get done. [Those who train Afghan/Iraq troops can respond, hopefully respectfully, here.]

From my understanding, the German company (not to glorify it, but to set it as a WW2 archtype) was powerful because, fully trained, it could get tactical maneuvers down to the platoon/squad level. But lower? How many armies/units, routinely, in WW2?

Again, not a complaint: more of an issue for thought, particularly as we role time back to units in 1942. It may very well be that some people will not enjoy having less effective troops. Imagine having a Mass Charge as the correct, most effective, approach.

[Thought I had posted something like this before, but don't see it now--apologize if my previous similar post pops up somewhere]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for the thoughtful replies.

As with the mortars (different thread), the split squad, especially the scout part, gives a different feel to tactics which I am working through. (I was also not a big fan of massive split squad tactics in CM1)

Yes, I can see why people would think the scout teams are great: why risk a squad when you can risk just two soldiers--two which are guaranteed not to have the heavy weapon of the squad. But my guess is that the casualty rate in CMSF is just different--that Blue squads/platoons, even companies, disappeared at alarming rates in WW2, replaced by new troops. Tell me that there are WW2 vets on this forum that would recognize modern split squad tactics as then standard in their days.

[Was "Bounding Overleap", which was what I was taught in the 70's, used in WW2, or is it fairly M16, with it individual high fire power, dependent?]

It just feels a little anachronistic to me. Generally, did WW2 squads function reliably at the sub-squad level? Send 2 soldiers off somewhere in a less disciplined unit....and you may never see them again. They will just disappear into the countryside. Part of the reason to send 10 or 12 people to do something, a squad, is that it is more likely to actually get done. [Those who train Afghan/Iraq troops can respond, hopefully respectfully, here.]

From my understanding, the German company (not to glorify it, but to set it as a WW2 archtype) was powerful because, fully trained, it could get tactical maneuvers down to the platoon/squad level. But lower? How many armies/units, routinely, in WW2?S

Again, not a complaint: more of an issue for thought, particularly as we role time back to units in 1942. It may very well be that some people will not enjoy having less effective troops. Imagine having a Mass Charge as the correct, most effective, approach.

[Thought I had posted something like this before, but don't see it now--apologize if my previous similar post pops up somewhere]

Most armies had a previous World War and a few decades to develop the tactics made possible by the options available at the squad level in the game.

Straight from the relevant US field manual:

Duties of scouts. (1) When it is not preceded by friendly troops within view, a rifle platoon in the attacking echelon of a leading company is preceded by its scouts. The scouts operate under control of the platoon leader. (See paragraph 114f.) Deployed in pairs at wide and irregular intervals, they move out boldly to the front to reconnoiter successive positions (objectives) along the route of advance, and seek to force enemy riflemen and machine guns to disclose their position. One member of each pair watches for signals from the platoon leader. They take advantage of cover without delaying their advance, and cross exposed ground at a run. Their distance in front of the platoon is governed by orders of the platoon leader and varies with the ground and with the probable position of the enemy. One moment they may be 500 yards ahead; at another time they may be absorbed within their units. In approaching houses, na-tural defiles, and villages, one scout of each pair cover the movement and reconnaissance of the other.

And:

Fire and maneuver. (1) Unless otherwise ordered by the platoon leader, the squad leader permits his squad to open fire only when fire action is necessary to cover a fur-ther advance. At the first firing position, the squad seeks to gain fire superiority over the enemy to its front. Fire superiority is gained by subjecting the enemy to fire of such accuracy and intensity that his fire becomes so in-accurate or so reduced in volume as to be ineffective; once gained, it must be maintained. Unless supporting weapons or other units are able to maintain fire superiority with-out any help from the squad, enough members of the squad must remain in position and continue the fire to maintain it. The automatic rifle's capacity for putting down a large volume of fire makes it especially useful for this purpose. Meanwhile, other members of the squad move forward, take up firing positions closer to the enemy, and, by their fire, cover the forward movement of the rearward members. By this combination of fire and maneuver, the squad advances close enough to capture the hostile position by assault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, what AKD said. Scouts and Pickets (which are similar in many ways) have also been a part of military history since organized warfare existed. Hell, probably since disorganized warfare existed! It was thought of early on because it was a pretty obvious need. So much so that Scouts and Pickets were developed into specialized units for grander scale military forces. Generally referred to as Recon.

Small unit Scouts were definitely a standard practice that could be tapped into within the WW2 timeframe. The devil is always in whether it's done or done well! And of course good scouts are worth their weight in gold. Since they didn't have dedicated soldiers for such tasks, the personnel came from within the Platoon. Sometimes within the Company, or sometimes both.

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the question here is where to draw the line, then how do we draw the line? Is 200m too much? Or is it 60m? Does this vary based on terrain? How about weather? Time of day? If the side is Attacker or Defender? What happens if you have a unit pinned down and you can't maneuver another unit because it's arbitrarily tied to that pinned unit?

Oh the pain and misery for us only starts there :) And for players it would only get worse than that.

Steve

Actually reading this thread raises a question. With the upcoming Bulge module, how will the spread of troops be handled? Squads can currently be split into 3 teams, however, in places like Bastogne, 2-man teams were spaced so far apart that on both sides soldiers sometimes got lost and wandered across each other's lines.

Will a new team/squad structure have to be sorted out to allow a platoon to stretch out evenly over several hundred meters of frontage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, what AKD said. Scouts and Pickets (which are similar in many ways) have also been a part of military history since organized warfare existed. Hell, probably since disorganized warfare existed! It was thought of early on because it was a pretty obvious need. So much so that Scouts and Pickets were developed into specialized units for grander scale military forces. Generally referred to as Recon.

Steve

Hell during the 17th Century, the spanish Tercios had volunteer units called "encamisados" or "white shirts" that used to do night raids and probe the enemy trenches see what was on the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hell during the 17th Century, the spanish Tercios had volunteer units called "encamisados" or "white shirts" that used to do night raids and probe the enemy trenches see what was on the other side.

Or even in the 16th. When things got tough, a tercio would assemble the best swordsmen and mass them for a night attack...a "camisado" (white shirt event?).

The Great Captain (whose name I can never remember, but who won some very tough battles in the very early 16th century and was the idol of all the Conquistadors) had a famous white hat and white shoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually reading this thread raises a question. With the upcoming Bulge module, how will the spread of troops be handled? Squads can currently be split into 3 teams, however, in places like Bastogne, 2-man teams were spaced so far apart that on both sides soldiers sometimes got lost and wandered across each other's lines.

Will a new team/squad structure have to be sorted out to allow a platoon to stretch out evenly over several hundred meters of frontage?

I wonder if such a scenario would even be much fun...enormous map, scattered troops, limited mobility, limited visibility, mostly just surviving shellings day after day.

Perhaps some of the Bastogne crossroads defense scenarios might work - more variety of troops and equipment and denser spacing of assets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Send 2 soldiers off somewhere in a less disciplined unit....and you may never see them again. They will just disappear into the countryside.

And just where will a couple of GI's disappear to in the summer of '44 in Nazi occupied France?? :) .... Maybe it would go down as follows:

"Hey Joe, the Serg is oudda' of sight! Wadda' say we bust out of here and make our way over to the Rhine to go canoeing?"

"Gee Louie, sounds swell! And I betcha two bits I catch the first fish!"

:D

I don't mean to be an a$$hole or anything ... it just struck me as kind of funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More likely they'd go off to find the nearest Calvados stash. That, or look for souvenirs. Later, when the front moved forward many did disappear...in Paris. At one point the army figured it probably had something like 10,000 deserters in the rear areas (called ComZ - Communications Zone), many of them looking for whoopie in Gay Paree and living by selling cigarettes and GI gasoline on the black market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or even in the 16th. When things got tough, a tercio would assemble the best swordsmen and mass them for a night attack...a "camisado" (white shirt event?).

The Great Captain (whose name I can never remember, but who won some very tough battles in the very early 16th century and was the idol of all the Conquistadors) had a famous white hat and white shoes.

Fernandez de Cordoba :D

Still I dont know why people are complaining about scouts, the fact that BF gave us more options as to how to control our troops makes me happy. I always value that a company gives us variety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi gunnergoz,

Defection has always been a problem. I know it was a huge problem in parts of the Eastern front. ... I thought it just sounded funny to try modeling it in a company-sized operation in CM:BN! .... sending your scout team over to the next line of bocage ... having them pause for a second ... and then run off at full speed!!!

I don't think the BF team will be too keen to code that in!

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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...