aka_tom_w

I hope Charles reads this, That sounds like a "reasonable" compromise because it only doubles the LOS checks. The idea seems quite simple. Do an LOS check, fire the round, calculate the in-flight time to the target, at the end of that time check LOS to the target again, if no LOS then the round must be calculated as a miss. BUT this means the determination of a hit or miss is NOT made at the time the round is fired but at the time after the inflight travel when it "should" hit or miss the intended target. Does this mean the chance to hit should be calculated for the target in the posture, position and cover that the target finds its self in AT the end of in-flight travel time of the incoming round??? This may not be anywhere near as simple to program as it may sound to us. I still think it is worth mentioning to Charles though. Any other comments on this one? I would like to suggest that with the new quicker minimum hardware standard for CM2, the extra time hit in the crunch and hit on the CPU cycles for this new "LOS check at the END of the inflight travel time" should (I HOPE) be offset by the faster CPU's leaving the crunch time about the same as it is now,but giving us the next level of almost real life inflight trajectory and collision detection calculation when determining the status of a hit or a miss. (As a side note, this suggestion will have no bearing on my now patented "hunt your tanks up to the building and shoot through the middle ("sweet spot") of the it" trick as there is LOS at the begining of the round in flight and at the end of the round inflight as well, my pics posted here highlite a different issue altogether, i.e. LOS through buildings when no movement is involved.) your comments? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

Hi If I may, I will attempt to summarize the answer BTS gave the last time this came up. The BTS response went something like this: They suggest that we (as gamers with consumer level computers at the minimum hardware standard for this game) would not be patient enough to wait for the "crunch" that would take perhaps up to ten times as long to do all the HARD math and collision detection and calculating of the real life trajectory of the round. I think they said they could implement this if they chose, but our cpu hardware to do the math involved would leave us with very long delays to "crunch" the turn in a big scenario as the results of the move were being calculated into the movie. In a big scenario now you might wait 2-3 minutes for the crunch, what if that was 20-30 minutes? This was said to be a "deal breaker" as it would severely detract from the flow and playability of the game. I believe there is a quote to this effect somewhere. (If I am mistaken I'm sure someone will correct me, if Steve and Charles believe I have not correctly stated the BTS position on this issue I am sure we can count on them posting to this thread ) hope that helps -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-16-2001).]

yup.. Thats my intention anyway Punch a hole thru both walls and then drive right on in. (basements don't seem to be a problem ) see the funniest thread ever "Tanks in the basement" http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/004082.html -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-15-2001).]

bump for the EST after dinner primetime crowd see the bottom of the page in this thread for my latest pics of LOS and LOF Directly through the middle of heavy buildings. http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/017277-2.html -tom w

Sorry to sound clueless does that mean every man needs 3 hours to dig a fox hole? Is an FM a Field Manual? Does that mean for a squad of 12 men if they all dig for 3 hours each will have their own Fox hole? 3 hours seems like a very long time to me? Thanks interesting stats -tom w

Perhaps I should have clairified my position. In the game as it stands now abandoned weapons can never be re-crewed. Steve and Charles have been adamant that they are not interesting in facilitating the "gamey" play that may result in the ability to re-crew weapons. So When I suggested I like the idea of an "abandon command" I would propose in the spirit of CM that it would be a last ditch one-way command meaning the weapon would be discarded and the crew would flee for their lives. As all other weapons in CM niether friendly or emeny forces would gain any benifit from any abandoned weapons as it would perhaps be assumed that the abandoning crew would disable or destroy what ever equipment they were abandoning before fleeing. I would really like to tell my tank crews to "GET the Hell outta There!" when their tank becomes disabled and they are about to be face the certainty of getting knocked out. I would strongly lobby for an abandon command that presumes the equipment left behind has been disabled and is useless to friend and foe alike. any other thoughts? -tom w

I agree with this one. I really like the idea, it is not really new but that doesn't matter, it should be looked at seriously. An abandon command in CM2 will be very useful and if may say so, "required" as the Russians were getting over run all the time in the early part of the war weren't they? We may not see the abandon command in CMBO but I would support a strong lobby campaign for it in CM2 -tom w

I like that idea! It would be nice to learn that it already was implemented? Maybe in CM2, the longer you are idle, (and/or hiding perhaps?) the better your cover and concealment factor? Great concept! -tom w

I'm not sure how long it would take? 30 minutes seems a little short to me but I have no personal experience so I really don't have a clue how long it should take. BUT I ask you this have you ever played even one game of CM where you could afford to have even ONE of your infantry units out of action and "idle" (diggin a foxhole) for a whole 30 minute period during the game? Anyone? can anybody answer yes to this quesiton. I have never had the luxuery of being "down" a squad for 30 minutes in this game while I thought they should be digging in. I like to keep a platoon in reserve in the backfield but I don't want them getting tired digging in, Hell No! they are my mobile reserve, hopefullly they will be keen and fresh in the end game and tip the scales in my favour . -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-15-2001).]

Its a matter of Time. This game is played in one minute turns. suppose you issue the command to dig in how long would it take? I have no idea how long it REALLY takes to dig in. (Under combat conditions on the front) Then what? during that period how combat ready or ineffective are those soldiers? For instance can they spot opfor units? Can they return fire? Can they abandon the dig-in command and go and do something else? At what point would they have actually "dug-in" to a better deffensive posture than they started with. Do they make more noise doing this? Are they easier to detect while doing this? If you have ALL the answers to these questions and research to back it up, perhaps BTS would listen as they design CM2. Maybe -tom w (then again Maybe not)

The luck factor is HUGE in this game. BUT it is really no different than rolling the dice in ASL, Panzer Leader, Tobruk or RISK! or any other board game. I would be interested to know if the random seed generator has anything to do with the clock or the time that the game is played? Suggesting perhaps that at some given times, you might actually be "luckier" than at other given times. I would really like to know a little bit more about the random number generator in the game. There are somthings in the game that pop up, that are coded as a 1% (1 in 100) chance of happening, like armour weak spot penetrations (maybe they are 2-3 %) that seem to come up alot more than 1%. I would like to know ALOT more about what the real odds are for certain random events (bogging? better yet Unbogging? or that KT gearstripping noise breakdown?), and what generates the random number result. But thats only because I'm just plain curious, no other good reason at all really. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-15-2001).]

Greatfully accepted I AM honoured, tom Takes a bow! (still trying to imagine what the statuete for the Gamey Player of the Year award looks like, can anyone out there with a better imagination than myself tell me what the award for the Gamey Player of the year looks like? ) Thank you Simon! "I was the one who is constantly applying for that mythical job at BTS of gamey loophole tester if you recall. (Posted in Good humour of course) For the record I like this "undocumented feature" just fine the way it is!" And I meant every word of it, I think that now that everyone knows that this is the way it works, (and you have no fear that your tank will fall into the basement of the house) I suspect we will see more gamers adopt this "somewhat" realistic tactic of hunting AVF's directly into the mid section of buildings to gain concelament and LOS thru the building. TRY it, YOU"LL LIKE IT!! I really do hope they don't patch this because it is sort of unpredictable and finding that "sweet spot" is about on the same level of frustration (maybe a little easier ) as getting the perfect hull down position. And now that I mention it, if I can hunt into a building and get in that nice hull down position at the same time, that would be GREAT. But houses are always on Flat ground so I have not figured out how and when to hunt into the ideal hull down posture AND be half way into the building for camoflauge at the same time but I am looking into it! -tom w

Why thanks Thats why I posted this the first time around " I was the one who is constantly applying for that mythical job at BTS of gamey loophole tester if you recall. (Posted in Good humour of course) For the record I like this "undocumented feature" just fine the way it is!" I agree that is not unrealistic, it is also not entirely predictable which makes it even better. Steve's description of this "feature" as a "sweet spot" in the center if the house is quite a good one. IT was my "secret weapon" but I guess the cat is out of the bag now. Oh well I should have just kept quiet in hind sight perhaps ? -tom w

http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los6.jpg http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los7.jpg http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los8.jpg http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los3.jpg The directory they are all in: http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/ This is the Scenario: http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/kingofthehill.cmb Here are some other pages: http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los3.html http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los6.html http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/los7.html I am not ranting or raving. (honest) But I do play this game to get my tanks into these positions knowing FULL well I can shoot straight thru buildings (ALL kinds of buildings) and get the first shot off. I hunt my tanks slowly and deliberatly into buildings and routinely shoot thru them as though I can see and acquire LOS right thru both walls. I am not claiming this is a bug. BUT I am saying these tanks in these pictures are NOT moving. They are getting LOS straight thru light and heavy buildings. So when the enemy AFV fires back I hope the building in front of me will "catch" some of the incoming rounds giving my AFV's a more defensive position. This does not in fact work all that well in the game though because once the incoming round "rolls the dice" after the enemy has LOS its just a matter of luck whether they hit my tanks or not. The scenario (unzipped, download as source I guess) is here: http://142.55.231.199/aka_tom/LOS/kingofthehill.cmb Thanks Steve for your insight and comments I hope you find this helpful. Until it is fixed I will continue to line my tanks up to aquire LOS directly through buildings hoping always to get that Lucky FIRST shot off without being detected. I was the one who is constantly applying for that mythical job at BTS of gamey loophole tester if you recall. (Posted in Good humour of course) For the record I like this "undocumented feature" just fine the way it is! -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-14-2001).] [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-15-2001).]

WHAT ?!! You don't carry the CMBO Disk AND Manual EVERYWHERE you go?! You should be banished from posting here! And you are an old Timer to Boot! (ok, I mean Seasoned veteran poster) (posted in the best of humour, of course) I have mine with me always, it is the most important document in by brief case (shows you how importmat MY job is HA!) page 102 gives some hints: Victory points are awarded for the following: -Control of Victory flags (100 or 300 points) -Casualties caused to the enemy -Captured enemy (counts DOUBLE that of casualties) -Exited units generally worth 2-3 times the units purchase value. (note: units eligible for exit that do not exit score points for the enemy) (??How many points? unspecified) -Any "bonus" set by the scenario Designer (what the hell is that?) Victory level Each Side scores points which generally add up to 100. The ratio determines the victory level displayed below, as follows: < 1.25 to 1 = draw (so to win you need a MORE than 1.25 to 1 ratio of kills to losses) <1.75 to 1 = Minor Victory <2.50 to 1 = Tactical Victory <5.0 to 1 = major Victory The above < should be Less than or EQUAL to but the symbol lookes like this when it comes up * > 5.00 to 1 = Total Victory that's about all the manual says on it page 102 of the ORIGINAL Mannual V1.0 -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-14-2001).]

OR it will become immbolized.Then thats that and you are STUCK with a pillbox! Sometimes it can take more than a few minutes to unbog (like 10 to 15) I have heard/read rumours of other players using other same size or Heavier AFV's to attempt to push the bogged vehicles out. It has been reported to work, (sounds quite intuitive actually) but I have never tried it. -tom w

Hi If this is a correct and accurate quote this a pretty good start? But Admittedly it does not address the answer of exit point for units that must exit the map at specific exit zones? " quote: You get full points for killing an obeserver regardless if he has any rounds left. Regarding killing units or holding flags, it depends (like everything else) . You can try counting the unit points and then compare them to the flag (100/300). But remember that the game is decided on the pointRATIO. Sometimes its worth it sometimes not. But its usually more satisfying to kill all your opponents troops, so thats what I usually do. Or at least try to do An example : 1000 ME with one 300point flag. Lets say you have lost one whole platoon which costed 100 ponits to purchase. That means your opponent have exactly 100 points. How many points you have is usually almost impssible to tell but lets say you have destroyed one whole platoon (150 points) and one tank with crew (150 points) for a total of 300 ponts. If there were no flag you would now be the winner (you 300, opponent 100) which means you get a scoore of 75 and your opponent 25, a 3:1 ratio. Which would mean a tactical (?). Lets count with the flag. Lets say its contested. You still have 300 points and your opponent has 100. BUT the 300 points for the flag belongs to noone. So there is 700 points, and 'the computer' gets 300 that means that in the endgamescreen your scoore plus your opponents wont add up to 100. You will get a scoore of 43 and your opponent gets 14. 3:1 ratio If the flag is in your opponents possession, then you still get 300 points while your opponent gets 400. Your scoore 43 and your opponents 57. A draw (?) If its in your possession, you now have 600 points while your opponent still has 100. Your scoore is 86 and opponents 14. A total vicory! Or maybe a major, I cant remember the exact ratios (age do that to you) So if you have the flag do you leave it to kill more units? The answer is of course a big NOOOOO! (that is,if you oly are interested in winning) You would have to kill units worth 300 points without loosing any yourself just to get even. But you just have to leave one little halfsquad behind to remain in possession of the flag. Then you can go and kill him. Especially the FOs. I hate them almost as much as I hate dwarfs in Myth! Does all this make any sense? I hope so. Otherwise you can try a few hotseats with yourself. /Kristian"

I am laughing I'm sure you meant that in good humour and I'm not chicken. I admit that I can find time to post to this board at work but sadly I have not been playing CM enough in the free time I don't have. OK OK I am NOT chicken, How about TCP/IP Thur night or Friday night EST? (or next Tues night EST Mar 20?). I would prefer a canned scenario that we both agree we have never seen before? I think the last time we tried this dance I agreed to the Allies, I'm still ok with this. Abbott if you are reading this MT and I have had this ongoing game on now for more than 6 months and not attended to it. Lets see if we can agree on a good ballanced scneario with lots armour that can both enjoy for the first time? Ok? -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-14-2001).]

I am in complete agreement. I the absense of any "gentleman's" agreement I presume the battle to be no-holds-barred do ANYTHING you can to win, anything goes. But I am always open to discussing any proposed ground rules or gentleman's agreements. comments? -tom w

Right on! "Every question deserves and answer from whom? Volunteers to whose labour you have no claim? Basically, we owe each other one thing: civility." !! Perfect! -tom w

ok just a bump "try harder next time" I'll Try -tom w

bump

That Pershing is shooting STRAIGHT thru a HEAVY building I have some more shots of this to post but I will have to wait until tomorrow. Tanks can and Do shoot straight thru buildings, I used to think it was ONLY light buildings but I did some more testing and they can shoot through heavy buildings and 2 story building too. I have some more screen shots to post tomorrow. -tom w

Hey CavScout Remember this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010574-10.html you posted extensively to it so did Steve and Henri and a bunch of early gamey experimenters. That was one helluva long thread about 22 pages I think. An Oldie but a Goodie -tom w

here's the Mother of ALL gamey threads to serve as a review of where we have been on this issue I would like to add two points to this thread It is a GAME Because Absolute spotting is the BEST we can techincally do at this point we have the dubious feature of one frindly unit spotting one opfor unit and thru the Magic of Borg like intel sharing all our friendly units know know everything the unit that spotted the opfor unit knows. This in and of itself is at the root of the use of the worf gamey. And what about LOS through live vehicles? OK so technically we can't do any better than that. But is it gamey to see a round follow a unit out of LOS around the corner of a building like a homing missile then hit it. OK we don't see the round go around the building but after the AFV moves out of sight the round travels through the building as the AFV moves out of LOS behind the building. I say Absolute Spotting and LOS Through live and dad AFV's and pillboxes is the root of all things gamey How much Real WWII combat reality can you actually expect to model with borg-like recon intel sharing and a ballistics model that allows for rounds to travel straight through AFV's and Pillboxes and the occaisional house? -tom w see the thread below for Steve's answers to these questions...... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/010574.html from that thread "What is real what is not? what is gamey what is not? I fully support all attempts to make the game rules and code model more realistic tactics and spotting.But I still like to play it like a game not a exact carbon copy reenactment of a WWII engagement. But that's just my choice. I'm not really sure which points Henri is defending anymore. I'm just defending my preference to play the game (with in the rules of the game as they are coded) any way I want, using ANY form of tactics I think will result in a victory, against folks who also play anyway they want, without regard for allegations of "gamey" tactics from either party. Its a game, it has some gamey things build right into it like absolute spotting and borg like recon intel to all members of my collective down there on the ground. So I am not really trying to make it a PERFECT WWII battle simulation mostly its is just a fun tactical excercise to try to out wit and out guess your oppenent. Now this is by NO means a cristiscm of the concept of Absolute spotting. This game handles spotting WAY better than any game out there and it is a joy to play, and I would never for a minute suggest that Relative spotting should have been perfected and included before CMBO was released, if that was the case we would all still be growing REALLY sick of those two Gold demo scearios and we would still be waiting for CM to ship. Its a great game but I play it for fun and I object to being told what are the "correct" tactics to use and what is and is not the "right" way to play the game. Since no one is actaully telling me that I have just agreed to play with folks that will enjoy the sameahistorical (my style is not always ahistorical, I just don't like being limited to only historically accurate,and realistic tactics) style I prefer. -tom w This was a VERY long thread IP: Logged :USERNAME: Member posted 09-21-2000 09:07 PM quote: Originally posted by Big Time Software: Hehe... Lewis, you are a real piece of work. Question... why are you wasting your precious game development time with our gamey modeling and poorly thought out abstractions? This must putting your game far behind schedule. And that means I have to wait longer to get my chance to get in a good laugh Steve Here at BigFront Battletime software, we dont ship product before its time. You wouldnt get a patch even if it did need it. IP: Logged Grognerd_Fogman Member posted 09-21-2000 09:08 PM quote: Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: There is a place and time for those vehicles in CM I think. Those jeeps and small vehicles are great for getting important teams from place to place in big battles... I don't make my Crack Sharpshooters walk! Perish the thought! They are chauferred to their positions in style! But in WWII did they really use jeeps an these class vehicles for shuttling around shreck teams, sharpshooters, small mortar teams, arty spotters, and flamethrowers from flank to flank or to fling them quickly foward alone by themselves to hide an ambush well away from the main force? These are the usual reasons I see for teams to be embarked as such during PBEM's. To me, in these type of battles about the only non-gamey useful use would really be to shuttle the company or battalion HQ's around to help with lost platoon leaders to help bolster their morale and killing and stuff. Can't really think of anything more. ------------------ Thanks for Athskin! IP: Logged *Captain Foobar* Member posted 09-21-2000 09:21 PM I would use a jeep to hide out somewhere on my flank, where I dont hae the manpower to put up a defense, and pull out of there when they start getting shot up. Its sucks to get snuck up on. They are also good for patrolling your "back country" to see if you have been infiltrated. Honestly, I never buy them. I would rather have an extra sharpshooter or something. But if a designed scenario gives me one, I will try to make him uselful in some non-frontline assault sort of way. (Also ggod for getting arty spotters to places with nice views..) IP: Logged Henri Member posted 09-21-2000 09:25 PM quote: Originally posted by Big Time Software: Recon, as described here and allowed by the curret set of rules in CM, is utterly unrealistic. Not one person here has been able to show that it is. Real life soliders have commented that it is totally unrealistic. If anybody wishes to challenge this point, kindly produce documentation that shows that Jeeps (or other fast vehicles) regullarly drove around INSIDE the kill zone of enemy lines spotting things left right and center and INSTANTLY reporting the EXACT location, makeup, and disposition of each unit spotted. I will gladly print out every page of this thread and eat the whole thing page by page if this can be shown to be true. Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 With respect to your text, note that the question of whether this was done REGULARLY or not is beside the point, since you are claiming that it should not be done at all. I hope that you won't use that word to avoid eating the thread (care for some salt?) BTW, CavScout, thanks for printing out the manual text spelling out the standard way of scouting.Unfortunately this manner of scouting is usually not feasible in CM scenarios and in the situations that we are discussing. I don't think that anyon wuld scout with a jeep or halftrack if he had armored cars (at least I wouldn't). As an aside, a few minutes ago where no enemy vehicles had yet been spotted, I lost a Puma when I gave it orders to move across a road a short distance up a hill then to reverse back down and across to shelter behind a rise. As he was about to reverse, the Puma was hit on the side by a Sherman on top of a distant hill. I am confident that if instead I had ordered the Puma to move fast, it would have had a better chance to avoid being hit. BTW, about "experts" and fast recon supporting your position, here is what Mannheim Tanker replied to the ORIGINAL QUESTION about whether fast zigzagging recon was gamey: "No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory." Henri [This message has been edited by Henri (edited 09-21-2000).] IP: Logged Grognerd_Fogman Member posted 09-21-2000 09:32 PM quote: Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: I would use a jeep to hide out somewhere on my flank, where I dont hae the manpower to put up a defense, and pull out of there when they start getting shot up. Its sucks to get snuck up on. They are also good for patrolling your "back country" to see if you have been infiltrated. Honestly, I never buy them. I would rather have an extra sharpshooter or something. But if a designed scenario gives me one, I will try to make him uselful in some non-frontline assault sort of way. (Also ggod for getting arty spotters to places with nice views..) Roger that Foo, thanx much for replying mate. I think I have been fully satisfied on this issue. Whew!, it feels good. Break out the Jim Beam an Pepsi!!!... ------------------ Thanks for Athskin! IP: Logged *Captain Foobar* Member posted 09-21-2000 09:40 PM Henri, Henri, Henri.... Of course there are situations where vehicles move fast into the unknown. But these excerpts, viewed without the context of the overall situation don't mean anything. Was this a breakthrough, what was the current condition of the enemy force? It sounds like the Stuart was doing the kinds of "recon" that happen outside the battle. It doesnt sound to me like he was driving into the no-mans-land/killzone on an established front line. Please try as hard as you can to re-examine why you hold this position. Read this thread again, and try to discern if what you are contending holds up to logic. (No insult intended, you just really need to think about it, instead of argue about it.) IP: Logged Los Member posted 09-21-2000 10:02 PM Apologies if I mimic what Cav Scout and a few others here who are in the know re: real life recon, but since I have no small amount of experience in this subject.... There is a fairly wide gap between what people here a sure happens for real and what does happen for real. Don't confuse for a minute what you can do in CM with what goes on for real and then try and quote it as a justification for whatever one is trying to pull in a game. Things like if I have LOS to the jeep that gets killed I should be able to spot the firer is for one, ridiculous. What you need is LOS to the firer (and the jeep) plus you have to assume that you were able to spot where the firing came from (usually very difficult unless the weapons signature is pronounced, close by or just happens to be right near you.) This whole concept about scouts accepting they are on suicide missions is pretty stupid also. Scouting (I was a scout, in gun jeeps, for 6 years before moving on to other endeavors...) is a deliberate and methodical process, not a joy ride or a "just go running over here and over there to see who kills you" type of mission. Though certainly there are times when the rubber meets the road and you have to haul off across a stretch of terrain under the cover of otehr freindlies. You put your best troops and leaders into recon units for a reason, because it is the most vital of tasks and it has to be done right, you go and get your guys wiped out in the first battle and then stick replacements in there and then you have hobbled you ability to fight effectively from here on out. And it's not like you are going to get new vehicles or trained seasoned veterans as replacements every time you blow one up. Who's going to do your recon tomorrow or the day after? New guys can't even walk straight without tripping on themselves, they're so scared and misoriented. That's why you have your quality people doing recon. So it isn't no suicide mission, unless you decide to send them off linked arm and arm ala Russian minefield clearing style, or zig zagging racing jeep style. Since there are no consequences for the player if he wakes up the next morning after his scenario and he's lost his key forces, then there is no real penalty for pulling ahistorical tactics. We as players don't live with the consequences, a fact of life in gaming. And no not every battle that's fought is the one that's going to save your nation from destruction so "this is the time boys to sacrifice your lives and be emblazoned for all eternity in the pantheon of heroes..." does not apply in most battles real or simulated. Do what you want in the game, but don't justify it with real life unless you know what your talking about. On to some specific comments (In no specific order): "Steve, at the risk of nitpicking, there is a flaw in your argument; if a player KNEW that he was inside the kill zone of enemy units, he wouldn't have to recon!" You have it backwards. You are trying to identify enemy positions first, though enemy killzones are important, however, knowing where a killzone is (Which we assume we are in as soon as we pass the FLOT) does not tell you exact locations of enemy positions. BTW recon is a continual process, a wiley opponent will first off have devised a detailed counter recon plan which entails destroying your recon or advanced guard from forward screening positions. he then pulls out back to the Main Line of resistance while you waste your artillery on the positions you assume are real. "How do you define a kill zone?" (snipped rest of paragraph) First off, I have one general observation that applies to how many people play CM particularly QBs against opponents in situations like meeting battles. Players first off have it in their minds that success is determined by killing every enemy unit off. That being mind they send out their recon forces (If they have even though to designate some) across the broad front of their map looking everywhere for the enemy.. What they should be doing is formulating a plan that will keep their forces concentrated and moving along a discrete axis. With that done the recon then supports their friendly plan, collecting info the player needs to execute one of the possible several courses of action he has cooked up in his head. Second, before a real battle, or say even one at NTC, the recon/screen fight usually starts at least full 24 hours before the maneuver units cross the LD. (Heck in the last NTC rotation we supported a few weeks ago I had eyes on the BDE Area or Interest/Area of Operation for four days before they even rolled out of the dustbowl.) In CM you are usually trying to compress 24+ hours of recon and intel gathering in the first five minutes of your 30 minute battle. All these things lead to a rather porked intel/recon situation. Now regarding how you define a kill zone. And really how do you guide your recon. There's three or four general factors, Your Mission, Enemy forces, Terrain, Friendly Troops and Time available or METT-T, (I know I'm a bit out of order...) First what thr heck is your mission, meeting engagement, assault defense? This guides your planning and recon plan since each ash some different requirements. Second you must understand doctrinally what the enemy normally does in a given situation (a problem in CM QBs) and understand the nature and capabilities of his weapons (Something easier to grasp in CM). Next you must understand what your own forces are out to accomplish and what kinds of organization, weapons, vehicles and skill level you have. If you are going to operate in the eastern side of a 4 km map, then why dedicate too many resources to the western side. Sure you must maintain security and screening but there's no reason to go poking around where you don't need to be. Save that for follow on. Anyway, point is you know what you're guys are doing and where your axis of advance wants to be and what kind of tools you have to do the job. Then you need to know how much time you have. If the mission is only going to last 15-20 turns then you have really very little time to get anything done. Personally I hate these kinds of scenarios because they leave little time for planning and movement something you almost always have time to do. Arguably, most important is your terrain analysis. Given where you want to go, it's not to difficult to look at the terrain and determine danger areas, and extrapolate from your danger areas and other avenues of approach, etc, where likely enemy firing positions would be. Now you have areas to focus your recon on. There's no point or reason to go tearing ass down the road (Something we NEVER did unless we were under fire and hauling ass or bounding under cover fire.) Set overwatch and move cautiously under cover or close to cover. If you could afford such hopefully you bough sufficient TRPS to either lay some down on suspected enemy positions for in areas where you can lay smoke to block LOS from suspected enemy positions to your desired axis of movement. TRPs will give you steel or smoke ion tgt very quickly, usually within the same turn you call it. This helps your recon too. I've left a ton out but that's the general type of thinking that goes into planning your recon. Henri writes.... "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." "Note the words "as fast as possible" That doesn't mean anything. As fast as possible does not translate to "Floor it". The two have nothing to do with each other having been in similar situations myself where we needed info quick that doesn't translate to run or high speed driving, though it might mean no coffee break or no rest tonight. As far as the second example, note that the friendlies emplaced overwatch before moving out, THEY are the guys what are spotting. If you think you can see anything from inside a Sherman going 30 mph cross country then you have never been inside an armored vehicle (Or a pick up for that matter). It's hard enough with a stabilized Bradley or Abrams. Again this goes back to the relative spotting parts of the discussions. If someone else can observe the firer when he takes a pot shot at the rabbit, then that's fine. But the hauling ass rabbit can do little to see precisely enough where the firing is coming from, plot location on the map and get that call out on the air to his own side in the few seconds before he gets popped. That is...IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES: your mileage may vary of course. And regarding Zig-zagging to avoid firing, the kind of minor zig zagging you do while moving is nothing like the zig zagging waypoints done in the CM tactic originally described. In any event that CM zig zagging is still a vehicle driving in a straight line from point A to point B and does nothing to throw off firing calculations. (BTW having seen plenty of tank battles at NTC/JRTC they don't do much if any zig zagging at all, the most important thing is holding formation and keeping a stable firing platform. (nor will you see much zig zagging in tank movement in WW2 combat footage either.) In summary. Whatever tactics a player uses to win at CM are limited only by what the game allows. While BTS should strive to cut down on the amount of ahistorical stuff that can be pulled off since it is in the spirit of their design philosophy, still it's not like there's anything wrong with players using said tactics to win f the game allows. The game will generally punish most ahistorical tactics given a half-competent opponent. Where I fall off the wagon is when people try to claim that these tactics are somehow valid due to historical or real world operational precedent when there is none, except in some Golan-Globus war movie or wherever else they get their "facts" from. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-21-2000).] IP: Logged Mikeydz Member posted 09-21-2000 10:21 PM quote: Originally posted by Henri: Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 Ok, but in CM, jeeps and light vehicles move faster than "is possible". That's why they will be given slowed speeds when moving over terrain instead of road. quote: BTW, CavScout, thanks for printing out the manual text spelling out the standard way of scouting.Unfortunately this manner of scouting is usually not feasible in CM scenarios and in the situations that we are discussing. I don't think that anyon wuld scout with a jeep or halftrack if he had armored cars (at least I wouldn't). I assume your saying here that if your only choice was to use a jeep for your mounted recon, then you would have to use the jeep? I have no problem with that, but the catch is this. in a QB, you do have the choice. You can spend a small amount to get the jeep to do your "recon", or you can spend more for better armed and armored halftracks or better yet ACs. But if your hold recon plan is to run him into the rear, with no expectation that the unit will survive, then you would chose to use the cheap jeep for the suicide recon, instead of the more expensive AC. quote: BTW, about "experts" and fast recon supporting your position, here is what Mannheim Tanker replied to the ORIGINAL QUESTION about whether fast zigzagging recon was gamey: "No. That's exactly what I was taught to do at Ft. Knox. Only idiots and those with death wishes take a straight-line, Sunday stroll into enemy territory." When under fire or moving in an area possibly covered by the enemy, you would of course do "erratic mauneuvers" since it complicates your enemies ability to put effective fire on you. That isn't the issue. Because the now famed jeep moves to fast, it's harder to kill in CM than it should be. When you couple that with the spotting issues in the game, the difficulty in enforcing fire disipline amongst your troops, ect... That's what causes this to be a gamey tactic. IP: Logged Mannheim Tanker Member posted 09-21-2000 10:27 PM LOL! Henri, when I first posted in this thread, I thought Smoker was asking about using cover, bounding (IE zig zagging), in short, using regulation cav tactics - I didn't realize at the time that he was referring to a blind sprint with the sole purpose to Borg intel back to the guys in the rear. You're really grasping now if you're trying to find inconsistencies in others' posts to back your position. I'm beginning to think you're just trolling...but I'm not going to bite IP: Logged Banshee Member posted 09-21-2000 10:37 PM quote: Originally posted by Henri: Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" You're quoting this person out of context, what is the context? If the person had just broke through enemy defenses then his action is correct. But I severly doubt some guy was sitting on the front line and just raced forward to find germans. The german army in france broke through the French in the Ardennes and then shot armor units through, the whole of france would be called "known enemy territory". This is different than being at the front lines going against fixed defenses. And I believe it is the fundamental flaw in your understanding. In CM with every scenario you know the enemy is very close to you, a few hundred meters, this presents a very very different situation. Since you KNOW units are in this confined area the "I'm seconds away from dying" attitude is in order. quote: "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 Again out of context, what is the whole context? To me it sounds like he knows where an enemy is already (approximately) and wants to jump from one spot to another to gain a better firing position. But I bet you dollar to donuts that he knows that firing position is he about to get to is safe. I often jump between spots to gain firing advantage on a known enemy, going full bore. But Im not counting on my spotting capability en route and I know my position is secured from counterfire once I get there. When I do get there I would hunt forward to get a shot. Again the point you are missing the most (and it is the fundamental basis of your arguments) is that the tactics you have seen and describe don't happen when you KNOW enemy forces are in close proximity (i.e. every scenario in CM). Another point that would clearly show you that people werent racing around on the battlefield , just thinking about how far you would go racing at 30 mph for 1 minute. I believe it's about a half a mile.. I'll bet you dollar to donuts that the rate of advance (per day) of the US army when attacking prepared defenses was at MOST this far. Just MHO. quote: With respect to your text, note that the question of whether this was done REGULARLY or not is beside the point, since you are claiming that it should not be done at all. I hope that you won't use that word to avoid eating the thread (care for some salt?) BTW, CavScout, thanks for printing out the manual text spelling out the standard way of scouting.Unfortunately this manner of scouting is usually not feasible in CM scenarios and in the situations that we are discussing. I don't think that anyon wuld scout with a jeep or halftrack if he had armored cars (at least I wouldn't). You said "If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes." And the MANUAL for the professional soldier says exactly this but you discount it because it calls for armored cars instead (nowhere does it mention the vehicle type, only the overwatch is required and dismounted infantry should be used when when at all possible if time and terrain permits)? I'll go get you the salt.. Also you are completely ignoring the spotting issues involved. quote: note that the question of whether this was done REGULARLY or not is beside the point Actually it isn't, but it is so tiring typing to someone whom I feel is missing the points of at least 150 of the last 200 posts. So I will just spend my energy elsewhere. [This message has been edited by Banshee (edited 09-21-2000).] IP: Logged grunto unregistered posted 09-21-2000 10:42 PM quote: I'm always hopefull that the ideal video wargame will be perfectly coded and programed so that there will be no need for "house rules" or gentle men's agreements regarding abstaining from certain known "gamey tactics" I would say CM, as it stands right now, Leads the video wargaming pack by a country mile in this area alone. i'll second that. for all of the jeep and t8 charging i've been doing, i've certainly gotten my share of bloody noses, for as well as it has worked some of the time. the gamiest thing i saw were the 14" naval guns which players could keep from depleting by moving the target. that's since been fixed so in my opinion it is now very tough to be 'gamey' in a way which affects the outcome of a battle. when that next patch comes out in over a month or so, with slower wheeled vehicles in open and less of an ability to site, it will be - dare i say - optimal. in other words yes it blows everything else on this level away. andy IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member posted 09-21-2000 11:02 PM Hey Henri I think we should fall back and re-group this looks like alot of heavy artillary dropping in here to me. I'm not sure what the point is anymore? What is real what is not? what is gamey what is not? I fully support all attempts to make the game rules and code model more realistic tactics and spotting. But I still like to play it like a game not a exact carbon copy reenactment of a WWII engagement. But that's just my choice. I'm not really sure which points Henri is defending anymore. I'm just defending my preference to play the game (with in the rules of the game as they are coded) any way I want, using ANY form of tactics I think will result in a victory, against folks who also play anyway they want, without regard for allegations of "gamey" tactics from either party. Its a game, it has some gamey things build right into it like absolute spotting and borg like recon intel to all members of my collective down there on the ground. So I am not really trying to make it a PERFECT WWII battle simulation mostly its is just a fun tactical excercise to try to out wit and out guess your oppenent. Now this is by NO means a cristiscm of the concept of Absolute spotting. This game handles spotting WAY better than any game out there and it is a joy to play, and I would never for a minute suggest that Relative spotting should have been perfected and included before CMBO was released, if that was the case we would all still be growing REALLY sick of those two Gold demo scearios and we would still be waiting for CM to ship. Its a great game but I play it for fun and I object to being told what are the "correct" tactics to use and what is and is not the "right" way to play the game. Since no one is actaully telling me that I have just agreed to play with folks that will enjoy the same ahistorical (my style is not always ahistorical, I just don't like being limited to only historically accurate, and realistic tactics) style I prefer. -tom w IP: Logged grunto unregistered posted 09-21-2000 11:15 PM quote: Originally posted by *Captain Foobar*: Henri, My recon vehicles.... have a chance to survive, regardless of what some people here have claimed. yes there's been more than one quick battle where i've loaded up with t8s, m8s of both types, and engineers. often they would simply shear an opponet's flank off, kill FOs from close range well before such FOs had ever had a chance to call in fire, and generally send entire enemy forces down in flames once the first flank had been waxed. you get a bunch of engineers with m1919s and .50 cals and you wing them around on fast vehicles, and such a force is potent if it catches an isolated section of the enemy at at close range. we're talking masses of dead german afvs and eliminated german platoons lying around. i don't know if it's entirely realistic but it's one of my favorite things in this game... along with stugs.... =g= if you want to try something as germans which might have your speed-addicted american opponent crying 'foul,' load up on 75mm infantry guns, and psw 234/3 armored cars. that's just flat out firepower man. the sdkfz7 can tow a gun and carry a half squad at the same time. the 75mm ig with the sdkfz 7 is 54 points if memory serves. also if memory serves the 234/3 is 67 points. another nasty little source of cheap firepower is the 75mm recoilless rifle. so even with 'juiced up' .50 cal jeeps a slew of german guns in a given area should stop a jeep charge cold. here is my list of the most survivable recon vehicles. i haven't played commonwealth so don't know what they bring to the table: 1: M8 HMC (75mm 'short' American) 2: PSW 234/3 (75mm 'short' German) 3: M8 Greyhound (37mm 'longlong' American) 4: T8 Recon (.50 cal American) if you haven't looked at the armored factors for light vehicles, take a gander at the T8 recon's armored stats. It's practically a tank!!.. with a .50 cal and very little ammo. Those buggers definitely have a tendency to survive until they're out of ammo, at which point (yes i'm a gamer, but hopefully not a gomer) they can be used as decoys or perhaps more realistically, 'ambulances.' that psw234/3 is a tough bugger because of its 30mm frontal armor... i find that the .50 cals have a tough time against that as opposed to the 15mm or so of frontal armor found on most halftracks and armored cars. the psw234/3 is my 'best buy' of german AFVs and the M8 HMC is the 'best buy' in the american category. But let's face it, whatever your taste in vehicles and tactics, you never get something for nothing, and every force composition can be employed properly in a given situation to exert maximum effect. This is all just up to us as commanders. So certain types of gaminess are good and it's also up to us to debate whether such tactics ever were used in real life. i really could picture 5 or 6 jeep .50s driving full-bore down a road, a couple of m8 greyhounds mixed in, engineers or 60mm mortars riding along. maybe this is different from the single jeep .50, going around and around in circles or something =laugh= andy IP: Logged CavScout Member posted 09-22-2000 12:33 AM quote: Originally posted by Banshee: You said "If you can get a professional soldier to tell me that the best real-life solution in this case is to send out the foot infantry instead of a recon vehicle, I will be puzzled but will have to admit that I am wrong. And if the thing to do is to send out a vehicle, it has a better chance of survival the faster it goes." And the MANUAL for the professional soldier says exactly this but you discount it because it calls for armored cars instead (nowhere does it mention the vehicle type, only the overwatch is required and dismounted infantry should be used when when at all possible if time and terrain permits)? I'll go get you the salt.. I have no idea where he got "armored cars" from. Scout platoons that the manual is written for may contain either M3s or HMMWVs. The majority of battalion level scouts use HMMWVs. Once the area has been cleared using visual means and/or dismounts, the scouts move across it. They use bounding overwatch because of the likelihood of enemy contact. If the open area is very large, the overwatch vehicle should only remain stationary until the bounding vehicle has moved a distance equal to half the effective range of the overwatching vehicle’s weapon system. When that point is reached, the overwatch vehicle must move out, even if the bounding vehicle has not yet reached a position of cover and concealment. The bounding vehicle MAY be moving at high speed but would do so while under overwatch. Cav IP: Logged Big Time Software Moderator posted 09-22-2000 12:35 AM My almost obligatory response to Lewisrantings™ quote: Here at BigFront Battletime software, we dont ship product before its time. You wouldnt get a patch even if it did need it. Oh yeah... that one really hurt. Ooof. Hey Lewis, we have patched CM 5 times so far, mostly because people have asked for improvements. How many times have you patched your personality? It is far more in need of patching than CM is. See, I can be as funny as Lewis if I try REALLLY hard Steve IP: Logged CavScout Member posted 09-22-2000 12:40 AM quote: Originally posted by Henri: Two examples of fast recon with a single vehicle (a Stuart in this case), one in unknown territory and the other in KNOWN enemy territory: "...I decided not to wait for reinforcements to come up, but to press on as fast as possible and to get some real information that would be of value to the commanders behind me. ...I gave my driver the order to advance, and told the crew to be ready for practically anything." (Major Robert Crisp, Brazen Chariots, p. 49) Note the words "as fast as possible" This quote is hardly indicitive of anything. Was he moving out "as fast as possible" to different covered positions? Did they, as you want to indicate, move "as fast as possible" to draw fire? quote: "...I signaled to my other tanks to stay where they were. I was going to make dead sure what those two vehicles were before attacking them. Telling Whaley to speed up, I rushed headlong toward them on a diagonal course at about 30 miles per hour. If they were jerry and they saw me, I would have plenty of speed to play with and my course would make me a difficult target". Brazen Chariots, p. 189 Again this quote is actually not relevent. The tank KNEW the positon, or vicinity, of the enemy and was moving to gain observation of them. Notice he is "moving" diagonal to the enemy. He is not rushing about "willy nilly" the battlefield to draw fire. He is in fact moving in a way to protect his move not find the enemy. And the other tanks, where they overwatching? Cav IP: Logged Big Time Software Moderator posted 09-22-2000 12:56 AM Henri, I suggest you REALLY read over what the vets have to say about this, reread the stuff Cav posted from the manuals, look at the other things informed people have had to say and then give it a good think for a while. It is clear to pretty much everybody here that you have a misunderstanding about what recon is and how it is conducted at CM's scale. In any case... the basic point remains. The way some people are using certain vehicles to obtain information is not realistic. Instead, it is exploiting limitations and oversights in the game system. The limitations are going to take more time to address, but the oversights will be fixed along with the next patch. Steve IP: Logged CavScout Member posted 09-22-2000 01:17 AM quote: Originally posted by Big Time Software: Henri, I suggest you REALLY read over what the vets have to say about this, reread the stuff Cav posted from the manuals, look at the other things informed people have had to say and then give it a good think for a while. It is clear to pretty much everybody here that you have a misunderstanding about what recon is and how it is conducted at CM's scale. In any case... the basic point remains. The way some people are using certain vehicles to obtain information is not realistic. Instead, it is exploiting limitations and oversights in the game system. The limitations are going to take more time to address, but the oversights will be fixed along with the next patch. Steve To read current scout doctrine check out http://155.217.58.58/atdls.htm and look up FM 17-98. Cav IP: Logged CavScout Member posted 09-22-2000 02:01 AM quote: Originally posted by grunto: --If someone can describe in detail how to use dedicated recon vehicles in CM in a non-gamey maner, in a way that they can carry out their mission effectively while at the same time having at least a half decent expectation to survive I would REALLY like to see it. -- From FM 71-1 TANK AND MECHANIZED INFANTRY COMPANY TEAM, 26 JAN 1998 Chapter 5 Other Tactical Operations Section 1 "Reconnaissance": Reconnaissance can be passive or active. Passive reconnaissance includes such techniques as map and photographic reconnaissance and surveillance. Active methods available to the company team include mounted and dismounted ground reconnaissance and reconnaissance by fire. Active reconnaissance operations are also classified as stealthy or aggressive, as discussed in the following paragraphs. Stealthy reconnaissance Stealthy reconnaissance emphasizes procedures and techniques that allow the unit to avoid detection and engagement by the enemy. It is more time-consuming than aggressive reconnaissance. To be effective, stealthy reconnaissance must rely primarily on dismounted elements that make maximum use of covered and concealed terrain. The company team’s primary assets for stealthy reconnaissance are its infantry squads. For a more detailed discussion of dismounted patrolling, refer to FM 7-10 or FM 17-98. Aggressive reconnaissance Aggressive reconnaissance is characterized by the speed and manner in which the reconnaissance element develops the situation once contact is made with an enemy force. A unit conducting aggressive reconnaissance uses both direct and indirect fires and movement to rapidly develop the situation. It uses primarily mounted reconnaissance and reconnaissance by fire. In conducting a mounted patrol, the unit employs the principles of tactical movement to maintain security. The patrolling element maximizes the use of cover and concealment and conducts bounding overwatch as necessary to avoid detection. For a more detailed discussion of tactical movement, refer to Chapter 3 of this manual. The discussion of direct fire control in Chapter 2 includes a description of reconnaissance by fire. RECONNAISSANCE BEFORE AND AFTER OPERATIONS To be most effective, reconnaissance must be continuous, conducted before, during, and after operations. Before an operation, the company team focuses its reconnaissance effort on filling gaps in its information about the enemy and terrain. After an operation, the team normally conducts reconnaissance to maintain contact with the enemy and collect information for upcoming operations. Situations in which the company team may conduct reconnaissance before or after an operation include the following: Reconnaissance by a quartering party of an assembly area and the associated route to it. Reconnaissance from the assembly area to the LD and in the vicinity of the LD before an offensive operation. Reconnaissance by infantry patrols to probe enemy positions for gaps prior to an attack or infiltration. Reconnaissance by infantry patrols to observe forward positions and guide mounted elements to key positions on the battlefield. Reconnaissance by dismounted patrols (normally infantry and engineers) to locate bypasses around obstacle belts or to determine the best locations and methods for breaching operations. Reconnaissance by infantry patrols of choke points or other danger areas in advance of the remainder of the company team. Reconnaissance by mounted patrols to observe forward positions or to clear a route to a forward position. Reconnaissance of defensive positions or engagement areas prior to the conduct of the defense. Reconnaissance by mounted or dismounted patrols as part of security operations to secure friendly obstacles, clear possible enemy OPs, or cover areas not observable by stationary OPs. Reconnaissance by mounted or dismounted patrols to maintain contact with adjacent units. Reconnaissance by mounted or dismounted patrols to maintain contact with enemy elements. RECONNAISSANCE DURING OPERATIONS During offensive operations, company team reconnaissance normally focuses on fighting for information about the enemy and the terrain, with the primary goal of gaining an advantage over the enemy. The company team conducts this type of reconnaissance during actions on contact. As the team develops the situation, the commander may dispatch mounted or dismounted patrols to identify positions of advantage or to acquire an enemy force. The information gained by the company team while in contact is critical not only to the success of its own mission but also to the success of its higher headquarters. Actions on contact are discussed in detail in Chapter 3 of this manual. Cav [This message has been edited by CavScout (edited 09-22-2000).] IP: Logged Compassion Member posted 09-22-2000 03:09 AM quote: Originally posted by Big Time Software: Cripes, I have even had people wanting us to add 50 different truck types, and of course motorcycles!, as well. GOOD LORD! Can you imagine how motorcycles would be used in CM Motorcycles, eh? Is the physics engine strong enough to let us set up jumps? Like Steve Mcqueen jumping the barbed wire? BORN TO BE WILD! IP: Logged Jarmo Member posted 09-22-2000 05:14 AM quote: Originally posted by aka_tom_w: I could be wrong, (again ) but I think the vast majority of folks posting here FULLY support any and ALL your efforts to change the code and tweak the game and specifically the role of recon spotters in fast moving vehicles to make the game MORE realistic. I'm really not sure who here is actually lobbying for the inclusion of loopholes that allow gamey tactics. Really? who is lobbying for that? /B] Me! Me! No, not really. But I do have minor gripes against reducing realism to get rid of gameyness. An example would be the "using crews". To reduce gamey behaviour, the crews don't have the kind of weaponry they historically had. I'm not entirely happy with that, although it's probably better this way. I hope the fast AC rush won't be stopped by some similar method. I'm absolutely OK with speed and spotting reductions BTW. Hmm, dare I mention the long campaign as a cure against gamey sacrificing of valuable assets. ------------------ Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir? IP: Logged John Kettler Member posted 09-22-2000 06:14 AM Having just read the entire thread straight through, it occurs to me that several changes might (if doable) make recon more viable in Combat Mission. 1. Allow either a recon dismount element (assumes driver remains aboard, thus not triggering Abandoned logic in AI) or allow crew to dismount bodily, temporarily abandoning the vehicle, but using a vehicle functionality test to override the normal "no remount" provision. 2. Add some additional logic (useful for other vehicles too) which would allow the vehicle commander to expose only his head relative to an obstacle to his immediate front. In other words, add a new exposure rating in which only the commander's head could be seen and targeted. The rest of the vehicle would be in defilade from LOS and might or might not be hittable through the LOS block, depending upon what it was. Doing this would create one more vehicle state between "hull down" and "fully exposed." It would directly correspond to the "turret down" state which is familiar to any U.S. tankers here on the Forum. This is the ideal mounted position from which to scope out suspect areas with binoculars or conduct recon by fire with the MG, usually without exposing the vehicle to direct fire. 3. Implement an intel degrade subroutine for all spotting against targets in cover from fast moving vehicles. In other words, something will be sighted, but it may or not be properly positioned on the map and it may or may not be properly identified. Proper target ID would be a function of both time observed and observer posture. I've seen this done before in naval wargames for aerial scouting reports, and it does a good job of modeling a real problem. Think of this one as normal FOW--on steroids. 4. Aside from reducing the chance of spotting from fast moving vehicles (with due considerations for suspension travel, tracks vs. wheels--fast HT NOT same as fast jeep, which is not the same as 8-wheel German AC), consider blocking sighting for one turn. If vehicle gets killed in turn of initial spot--no report. There are probably other things which could be done, but I believe using one or more of these would pretty much defang the matter under discussion and open up richer tactical possibilities as well. What say the troops and BTS? Regards, John Kettler IP: Logged aka_tom_w Member posted 09-22-2000 08:01 AM quote: Originally posted by John Kettler: Having just read the entire thread straight through, it occurs to me that several changes might (if doable) make recon more viable in Combat Mission....... I've seen this done before in naval wargames for aerial scouting reports, and it does a good job of modeling a real problem. Think of this one as normal FOW--on steroids. 4. Aside from reducing the chance of spotting from fast moving vehicles (with due considerations for suspension travel, tracks vs. wheels--fast HT NOT same as fast jeep, which is not the same as 8-wheel German AC), consider blocking sighting for one turn. If vehicle gets killed in turn of initial spot--no report. There are probably other things which could be done, but I believe using one or more of these would pretty much defang the matter under discussion and open up richer tactical possibilities as well. What say the troops and BTS? Regards, John Kettler Great post John! I think all your suggestions are good ones, I'm just not exactly sure which are actually doable for the next patch. But they are all good ideas. I would like to discuss what I believe is the ROOT cause of the problem of "gamey recon tactics" has they have been hi-lited here. Absolute spotting with its borg-like instant telepathic transmission of spotting info (in any recon tactic or spotting attempt) to all members of the collective on the ground is a gamey abstraction to begin with. NOW this is in NO way critiscm of the way absolute spotting has been implemented in the game, not at all in fact with 7 (?) different levels of spotting info and a really good form of Fog of War simulated here, this is a REALLY good game to play. BUT the problem remains that no matter how you tweak spotting with regard to this issue, (fast jeep recon), once one unit (any unit) "sees" or spots or knows something, there is and instantaneous telepathic borg like transmission of this intel info to ALL other units. Now the issue here is exactly to WHAT DEGREE will CM players take advantage of this absolute spotting "loophole" I prefer to abuse it to the max and assume and expect that my opponent is also keen enough and mercenary enough to do the same, this of course leads to allegations of "gamey recon tacitics" This thread opened (just a refresher here) with Smoker 1 stating: "How does the CM community feel about plotting extensive movement paths (several minutes of movement) for fast moving vehicles that weave all over the enemy side of the map? I've found that even an unarmed jeep can often survive for quite a spell and gather valuable information as to the whereabouts of enemy armor and vehicles as long as it does not suffer from the new orders delay while exposed. Is this a gamey tactic? Smoker out." So what he is saying (I think ) is look how good this works? Is it fair or gamey? Well currently the game as it is coded (in my opinion) encourages this kind of recon because it is cheap and it is fast and VERY effective, so why not use it? Well I have no doubt it is not at all a realistic recon tactic, BUT my point is the absolute spotting rules are not really realistic to begin with (Again not in any way a critscsm of absolute spotting) so why should we not play the game to gain avery possible advantage the system will offer? It is now clear to me this way of thinking is called "gamey" and is offensive to those would would prefer to believe the game accurately models WWII terrain, tactics, vehicles and infantry units. As stated above, it is a game, within that game, keen players will seek to find ways like Smoker1 did to minimize the risk incured to maximze the benifits or payoffs of a particular tactic. So as you all know by now, I my preference is to play against players who don't mind that I will use ANY effective tactic allowed by the game to conduct my units in any way, (including the odd suicide mission) that I think will give me the advantage to gain victory. I do indeed welcome more Fog of War and more realistic spotting rules/code for fast moving vehicles, then maybe we can all agree to play the game any way we want without house rules or grey area's of "gentlemen's" agreements attempting to regulate, some new gamey tactic. To my mind, there is no room for "gentlemen's agreements" in WWII combat simulation. -tom w [This message has been edited by aka_tom_w (edited 03-13-2001).]