Being sneaky

[eltorrente]

I was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts/strategies about being sneaky and stealthy with infantry.

In PBEM matches, I'm always very concerned about my troops being seen or heard before I want them to. I'm struck by how many icons start popping up all over the place before i actually see my opponent, and I'm curious if he's seeing my guys, too.

Does using hunt keep my guys less visible, as compared to normal "move"? I assume it's quieter, is that accurate?

Is "hunting" across a wheat field better than "moving" - in terms of detecting me from a distance? Obviously I'd use it when combat is imminent, but I'm talking about a couple hundred yards away.

I guess what I'm trying to get my head around is how noisy are my guys? It seems like I get sound contacts from my opponents so easily, and I'm wondering if a normal "move" command means that soldiers are singing and whistling, playing bagpipes, kicking rocks around and not caring much about noise.

When I'm moving a platoon around for a flank attack, out of LOS, I always feel like my opponent has an idea that I'm over there, and has several icons popping up all over his screen.

Anyone know the typical, average distances that soldiers hear other soldiers? I know the larger the group, the easier it is, but still I was wondering if anyone has tested this?

What types of things do you guys do to be sneaky and keep your troops undetected while you move them in position before springing an attack?

[John Kettler]

el torrente,

Welcome aboard!

Simply put, Move gets your guys from from one place to another, but with no particular emphasis on stealth. Hunt is like stalking a deer, is much slower and is all about stealth. It also burns a lot of energy, therefore tires your troops faster than does Move. But, as Elmer Fudd used to say in the old Bugs Bunny cartoons, "Be vewwy vewwy quiet. We's hunting wabbits!"

Regards,

John Kettler

[JonS]

Be aware that Kettler has only played the demo a few times, doesn't understand it, and is repeatedly beaten by the AI. He refuses to buy the full game. You'd be well advised to treat pretty much anything he says very sceptically. It might be correct, or it might not. The problem is you've no reliable way of knowing when he's just making stuff up.

[eltorrente]

I should note that I've been playing since Combat Mission first came out, and have played every version - so I'm not a rookie. I'm just the type of player that gets really into planning my moves, looking at angles, watching the replay from all sorts of angles, and that sort of thing.

I'm always trying to figure out ways to approach unseen, or shifting troops around in the rear/flanks and trying to be as quick as I can while still being quiet. I wonder if sometimes when I'm on the opposite side of a decent sized forest, if I can "move" or even go "quick", and still be unheard. If I think there's some troops in a position 100-200yards away, is a "quick" command going to announce my presence to them?

Another thing I wonder, is about how distance and movement speed affects visual sighting. Obviously "slow" is the best way to stay hidden, but that's for short distances - but how about the affect of move/hunt/quick when approaching through a forest, toward a suspected position. I wonder how far from the edge of the forest could I expect to be seen, or would I hear it?

I guess I could create some scenario and do a bunch of testing, but I'd like to get some of your thoughts and observations on this.

It's also interesting to read posts about actual tactics and strategies that people use. Those are the most interesting threads, IMO.

[sburke]

I should note that I've been playing since Combat Mission first came out, and have played every version - so I'm not a rookie. I'm just the type of player that gets really into planning my moves, looking at angles, watching the replay from all sorts of angles, and that sort of thing.

I'm always trying to figure out ways to approach unseen, or shifting troops around in the rear/flanks and trying to be as quick as I can while still being quiet. I wonder if sometimes when I'm on the opposite side of a decent sized forest, if I can "move" or even go "quick", and still be unheard. If I think there's some troops in a position 100-200yards away, is a "quick" command going to announce my presence to them?

Another thing I wonder, is about how distance and movement speed affects visual sighting. Obviously "slow" is the best way to stay hidden, but that's for short distances - but how about the affect of move/hunt/quick when approaching through a forest, toward a suspected position. I wonder how far from the edge of the forest could I expect to be seen, or would I hear it?

I guess I could create some scenario and do a bunch of testing, but I'd like to get some of your thoughts and observations on this.

It's also interesting to read posts about actual tactics and strategies that people use. Those are the most interesting threads, IMO.

LOL I expect EVERYONE on this forum is wondering the same thing as you to some degree or another no matter how long they have been playing.

Personally here are a few things I have found. Or at least I think I have found.

Use cover as much as possible. Wheatfields are surprisingly good and ideal for ambushing armor. Hedgerows, walls, buildings - anything that will unquestionably block los you want between you and as much of your opponents force as possible when you are moving. spotting icons (the questionable sightings, not the hard ones) can be totally misleading. I have seen one unit create several icons and unless you are paying attention you don't realize it is showing you some characteristsics of that units speed of movement and direction and instead assume it is several units.

I vary my movement based on situation

Quick when I feel I have reasonable concealment

Hunt when I want my guys to stop as soon as they sense something. Also typically use as I am approaching a position I want them to use as an OP

Slow I use rarely. It will exhaust a unit rather quickly but is extremely useful in certain circumstances particularly if you are using a wall for cover. I have seen in AARs a couple people do this really well. I can only say once that I felt I used it very effectively, but a nice option in your toolkit.

Smoke is your friend, also harassment artillery fire. If you can obscure the route you are sending a scout through or cause any potential opposition to keep their heads down you lower your opponents ability to spot.

In answer to your specific questions there are a great many variables, probably too many to give a definitive answer. Quality of enemy troops, your troop quality, other activity going on (like can you drop a few mortar rounds on the area you suspect your opponent is at to suppress them a bit) will all affect enemy spotting. Are they even looking the correct direction?

To be honest it is why I like CMBN so much. There is simply too much going on to expect a specific reaction to a given set of circumstances. I am like you, I love getting in to the minutiae of planning my movements. What did this guy hear, "Did you see that?" LOL I always wonder is all the chatter from my pixeltruppen heard by my opponent. Especially the guy yelling, let's get some noice discipline here!

The best advice- go slow. Not the specific movement option, just in general. Your guys will spot better and be harder to spot. It is that simple. As someone else said on this forum, likely more than once -Don't feel the need to do something every turn. If you do you are probably moving too quick. It is okay to stay still a couple turns. Your troops will be better rested and spot better.

I'll bet almost none of this is news to you, however I find in battle I need to repeat these to myself, it is too easy to forget in the rush of the moment.

[Michael Emrys]

I guess I could create some scenario and do a bunch of testing...

I think that would be an excellent idea. How about setting up a QB in hotseat mode? That way, you can give one side the movement order you want to test in the terrain you want to test and then switch to the other side to see how soon the first side's units get detected.

Michael

[eltorrente]

Yeah I really enjoy trying to maximize my stealth, yet I'm wanting to push it by moving as fast as I can get away with.

I was just in a pbem match and I was moving through a wheat field toward a line a trees that I knew had a tank and some infantry. I was going slow at first, then I started using hunt, as it was probably 100yards to the tree line, but I was imagining icons popping up and alerting my opponent. I think he did hear me, since I started seeing icons shifting around in the trees, seemingly to face me. All of a sudden I didn't know what to do, got scared, and just hid.

I also like veteran or better troops, since I imagine they are a little better at being quiet and spotting.

I guess even though I try to go slow, I could always go slower. Maybe start "hunting" a little sooner w/reduced arcs. Usually even though I typically go slow to the objective, the fighting still starts within 10 minutes, and taking even 5 more minutes to get there would probably be a good thing.

Mechanized infantry is another story I think - in a meeting engagement with mechanized troops I just speed a platoon to the objective as quick as I can, but for the most part I like to go slow and steady with most of my infantry.

[John Kettler]

JonS,

You are neither being polite nor truthful. Big shock! I am perfectly willing to share what I know about the matter inquired about and am willing to enter the intellectual lists to do so. I HAVE played the CMBN Demo enough to know full well what the difference is between the two commands. That I got some pixeltruppen killed as part of my learning process is entirely to be expected, especially since I had never played ANY CMx2 game before I got the Demo.

The untruth is that I REFUSE to buy CMBN, when, in fact, I plan to. I have recently moved and thus get to go through the same approval process with Social Security (on SSI) that I did at the other place. If everything isn't exactly as my case worker requires it to be, I will get slammed with a 1/3 cut in my meager monthly benefit, which would be disastrous. I imagine even you would find that a 1/3 cut would put a crimp in your economy? And it took me months to get my full benefits in the first place!

So, kindly shut your ignorant gob, stop telling lies about me and let the rest of us use the Forums for what they're meant, rather than as your private target range--with me as the target! Back off!

el torrente,

I stand by what I said.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

What I have concluded about movement modes for footsloggers:

• Never use "Move" (if you've got the option of Quick). It's slower on average than moving the same distance by Quick and then waiting til the pTruppen have caught their breath. Quick has the added advantage of the pTruppen getting some time at their destination (or, probably better, at intermediate waypoints where they pause for a few seconds) to observe, while they're catching their breath. "Move"ing troops have little or no situational awareness and will wander into ambushes without returning fire.
  
• Fast should be used very judiciously. If you've got a long way to go, starting with a Fast and then allowing the default "Quick" of Tired troops to get them the rest of the way won't get them there very much sooner, and it'll take much longer for them to catch their breath. Their priority is getting where you sent them, and they'll not often return fire if fired upon and even less often engage targets of opportunity.
  
• Movement gets detected. If you want to stay stealthy, Slow is about your only option.
  
• Hunting troops stop at the slightest provocation, and get tired really quickly.
  
• The only important fatigue threshold is "Tired". So long as your troops have got enough left in them for an emergency dash, it doesn't matter whether they're Rested, Ready or Tiring. If they're so tired they can't even Quick, they're already in trouble.
  

Not all are directly relevant, but they might inform your decisions, 'specially if you've got any hangovers about what the movement modes mean, based on CMx1 experience.

[SgtKopanos]

I was just in a pbem match and I was moving through a wheat field toward a line a trees that I knew had a tank and some infantry. I was going slow at first, then I started using hunt, as it was probably 100yards to the tree line, but I was imagining icons popping up and alerting my opponent. I think he did hear me, since I started seeing icons shifting around in the trees, seemingly to face me. All of a sudden I didn't know what to do, got scared, and just hid.

Alright, bear with me here, I might take this a bit off-topic but I'm not judging here, I'm interested only in debating tactics...

So, what would be the purpose of trying to sneak your infantry up against a well concealed, known tank position, supported by dug-in infantry, in the first place? Unless you got an ATG, or tank, or both, of your own covering the infantry advance ready to knock out anyone the inf draws fire from...

Anyway, sneaking up on a known enemy position might work better if you distract them from a direction other than the one you plan to sneak up on them from, I believe.

Say, you're planning a platoon sized attack on the target you described earlier.

Take two squads(an MG and mortars would be fine two) and have them move up the target as obviously as possible with the purpose of frontally engaging the enemy as soon as they spot them, or as soon as they're spotted. When you successfully manage to tie the enemy down in a firefight from one direction, you can try to sneak the third squad behind the enemy and have them assault from that direction for maximum effect.

Personally, I'll try to use the ground to my best advantage, and use hunt till I'm a short distance off the launching point. I'll then slow to the launching point which is as close as possible to the enemy and then I'll break into the assault from there. I have noticed that more experienced units will generally handle all aspects of such a mission much better than greener ones, for sure.

Another thing is, I almost always assign a 1m circular target arc to the unit that does the sneaking part exactly because I don't want them to engage anyone or anything prematurely.

[John Kettler]

eltorrente,

Slow is stealthy, but it sucks the energy out of your troops even worse than Hunt. I highly recommend it, though, for bringing FO teams into position once there's a perceived likelihood of being seen. I earned this the hard way when I Fast moved an FO team into position at the fringe of the woods (entered from the far side) and got shot up from something like 700 meters away by HMG-42s on a ridge. Was lucky I could still request fires after that gaffe (radio wasn't hit, but one of the team members was).

womble,

Very nice summary!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Sgt Schultz]

Conversely, one can also use a "Rommel/Desert Fox" type of play.

Run trucks and ammo bearers etc laterally around your rear areas, just in view of suspected enemy, creating a storm of question marks.

Then add a little smoke and noise from a few mortar rounds, as stated above.

The more racket you create farther away, the better chance your close-in troops may have of sneaking in.

It may be sound and fury, signifying nothing... but it will not be a tale told by an idiot if it works.

[womble]

Slow is stealthy, but it sucks the energy out of your troops...

Yep, and it truly is Sloowwww too.

...recommend it, though, for bringing FO teams into position...

It's best for the last AS or two of cover, when you're trying to get any team from "out of LOS" of the enemy into a place where hopefully they'll be concealed but have LOS on enemy locations.

[slysniper]

Plenty of good suggestions here. I agree with most of them.

I feel exactly as Womble does as for using movement, for me it is either quick, hunt or slow for most situations.

Fast and move have hardly any use in the game for me.

Fast is used if I know I am going to take fire and I am just trying to get to cover that will hide me as soon as possible. I feel time is my enemy; it is giving the enemy more chances to kill me. So fast is used when I have real problems.

Move is used when I have troop’s way far away; I am not in a hurry to get them into place and am lazy to want to watch over them. I know I can give them that command and they will not get tired and will be in good shape when I do need to give them other commands. So basically for behind the battle front line troops that need movement to get to a start off point to the front lines.

Now onto the question, like most said, no sure answers.

I prefer to be stealthy on defense, that is where I know I can be sure the enemy does not know where I am. If I want new locations, I move to spots away from the enemy, not closer if I want to know for sure I am not being seen.

But on offence, even though the game now does give us the ability to move without being noticed. I never count on it. I plan offensive moves expecting the enemy will figure it out and be able to counter. If by chance they do not spot me, they then have hell to pay, which has happened a few times in games now and is just fantastic from my end of play. Anyway with this attitude I am moving the amount of units it will take to get the job done no matter what. Why would I move troops that will get their heads handed to them if they by chance get spotted. (Only troops I do that with are scouts- and even then I normally have over watch ready to exact revenge on any fool that opens up on my scouts. Very, very seldom do I see a good use of moving units into enemy lines in an intended stealth mode other than to do guerrilla like tactics and to cause delays to the enemy or gather data as to what the enemy is doing. All of which is possible now in the game. Nothing like getting a few men behind the enemy front line now in the game and for him not to know it. It is one of the best features I like about how the game plays now.

As one person pointed out, nothing replaces good tactics. Trying to move in and ambush an enemy tank with likely infantry support is not good tactics if you are only sending in a AT team.

But the game now has so many options; there are always chances to try crazy stuff.

Let me share one of my latest plays.

Playing on defense I have stopped my opponents advance as he appears to be regrouping and trying to decide where my front line troops are since the last arty strike. I have ambushed his forward infantry units and he has lost 2 tanks to pin hole located defensive guns. So he is unwilling to push his attack again until he gets more information as to where my units are placed.

So I prep for his next likely moves but as I do so. I start to see that he has two tanks sitting behind his front lines ready to be added to his attack when he is ready. The thing is, I have an avenue to these tanks thru wheat fields with bocage edges and none of my spotting units have seen any enemy activity there for a while. I decide he has taken enough losses. I bet he is shifting his infantry from this sector to likely the place where he has made progress to try and help support his limited success there. So is it worth risking a team to sneak in there and see if they do not get spotted and manage to take maybe a shot on a tank and get a cheap kill and frustrate my opponent to no end. Of course I decide to go for it, since He is putting me to sleep anyway with his preparations for his next move.

To my surprise and relief, I manage to move to the 20 meter location behind a bocage showing me the flank of his Sherman and I prepare my unit to make a Faust attack with about 20 seconds left in a turn. They fire, hit then watch in disbelief as the Sherman somehow is not destroyed in the attack. Return fire is almost immediate from multiple sources and the Sherman immediately also reverses out of range.

Though close to being pinned, I manage to end the turn not harmed. Next turn I manage to run the troops for safety. They only make a few yards before being pinned, but far enough away that all the incoming is hitting where they were instead of where they are at. They are alive, lucky little bas*****.

A few turns later I manage to start crawling them to what I figure is the location the enemy will come to make sure I am dead or to verify I am dead. To my surprise not only do I see infantry coming, but the other Sherman that I know is there. He figures I might have more going on and wants to place his infantry as a fire line and flank the area with the Sherman to put to waste what he finds. But he would never bring that Sherman in to close, knowing I have AT capability. So I decide where he thinks he is going to get that thing flanking me and be safe. So I run the troops as fast as I can to that opening location which was a good 150 yards away. And somehow do it without being spotted. Boy do I love this game. A little time passes, he is shooting the field with area fire, I am sure thinking he is keeping whatever unit I have pinned. Is sending troops to the area I was and brings this tank to watch he figures is an over watch area. Kaboom!!! Victory, not only did I bag the tank and crew as they bailed. But just the mind freak I just placed on my opponent had to be great, plus the delays it has already caused him, plus likely will make him even less aggressive as to wanting to push his attack.

I just recalled why I am so addicted to this game.

[eltorrente]

Alright, bear with me here, I might take this a bit off-topic but I'm not judging here, I'm interested only in debating tactics...

So, what would be the purpose of trying to sneak your infantry up against a well concealed, known tank position, supported by dug-in infantry, in the first place? Unless you got an ATG, or tank, or both, of your own covering the infantry advance ready to knock out anyone the inf draws fire from...

Anyway, sneaking up on a known enemy position might work better if you distract them from a direction other than the one you plan to sneak up on them from, I believe.

Say, you're planning a platoon sized attack on the target you described earlier.

Take two squads(an MG and mortars would be fine two) and have them move up the target as obviously as possible with the purpose of frontally engaging the enemy as soon as they spot them, or as soon as they're spotted. When you successfully manage to tie the enemy down in a firefight from one direction, you can try to sneak the third squad behind the enemy and have them assault from that direction for maximum effect.

Personally, I'll try to use the ground to my best advantage, and use hunt till I'm a short distance off the launching point. I'll then slow to the launching point which is as close as possible to the enemy and then I'll break into the assault from there. I have noticed that more experienced units will generally handle all aspects of such a mission much better than greener ones, for sure.

Another thing is, I almost always assign a 1m circular target arc to the unit that does the sneaking part exactly because I don't want them to engage anyone or anything prematurely.

The reason I was doing it was because they were on his flank, oriented toward the main battle off in the distance, not iniitially looking my way. The tree line was an L shape, and I was coming from the side they weren't on originally.

I was moving a Crack platoon with MGs, a mortar, a sniper, and two anti tank teams (one faust and one schrek). If I could have gotten up to the trees undetected, I would have had a great chance to wipe them out. His Sherman was just sitting there waiting for a faust up the butt.

It wasn't a frontal assault or anything. I thought his FO was there, and at least a couple groups of infantry of one type or another. He had a jeep there, too.

[sburke]

But the game now has so many options; there are always chances to try crazy stuff.

Let me share one of my latest plays.

Playing on defense I have stopped my opponents advance as he appears to be regrouping and trying to decide where my front line troops are since the last arty strike. I have ambushed his forward infantry units and he has lost 2 tanks to pin hole located defensive guns. So he is unwilling to push his attack again until he gets more information as to where my units are placed.

So I prep for his next likely moves but as I do so. I start to see that he has two tanks sitting behind his front lines ready to be added to his attack when he is ready. The thing is, I have an avenue to these tanks thru wheat fields with bocage edges and none of my spotting units have seen any enemy activity there for a while. I decide he has taken enough losses. I bet he is shifting his infantry from this sector to likely the place where he has made progress to try and help support his limited success there. So is it worth risking a team to sneak in there and see if they do not get spotted and manage to take maybe a shot on a tank and get a cheap kill and frustrate my opponent to no end. Of course I decide to go for it, since He is putting me to sleep anyway with his preparations for his next move.

To my surprise and relief, I manage to move to the 20 meter location behind a bocage showing me the flank of his Sherman and I prepare my unit to make a Faust attack with about 20 seconds left in a turn. They fire, hit then watch in disbelief as the Sherman somehow is not destroyed in the attack. Return fire is almost immediate from multiple sources and the Sherman immediately also reverses out of range.

Though close to being pinned, I manage to end the turn not harmed. Next turn I manage to run the troops for safety. They only make a few yards before being pinned, but far enough away that all the incoming is hitting where they were instead of where they are at. They are alive, lucky little bas*****.

A few turns later I manage to start crawling them to what I figure is the location the enemy will come to make sure I am dead or to verify I am dead. To my surprise not only do I see infantry coming, but the other Sherman that I know is there. He figures I might have more going on and wants to place his infantry as a fire line and flank the area with the Sherman to put to waste what he finds. But he would never bring that Sherman in to close, knowing I have AT capability. So I decide where he thinks he is going to get that thing flanking me and be safe. So I run the troops as fast as I can to that opening location which was a good 150 yards away. And somehow do it without being spotted. Boy do I love this game. A little time passes, he is shooting the field with area fire, I am sure thinking he is keeping whatever unit I have pinned. Is sending troops to the area I was and brings this tank to watch he figures is an over watch area. Kaboom!!! Victory, not only did I bag the tank and crew as they bailed. But just the mind freak I just placed on my opponent had to be great, plus the delays it has already caused him, plus likely will make him even less aggressive as to wanting to push his attack.

I just recalled why I am so addicted to this game.

+1 on that and thanks for the action report, I love this sort of stuff. Also to BF, this sort of thing is truly the meat of CM for I think pretty much all of us, the confusion and chaos of battle. I think this is why we continuously hear requests and criticisms of the information we get on spotting. It may be something difficult to code, but in terms of return in playability I personally feel it would add more than almost anything else you could do. Having information be more vague would add so much to the game for single players, HTH folks whether they play WeGo or RT.

I may go over and post this in the wish list but this kind of thing would be cool

Green units find it harder to ID more experienced units

More experienced units would get more information quickly against green units

The thinking here, green commanders do stupid s**t that makes them stand out, have less appreciation of cover etc. Experienced units would do things to make it difficult to know who is the leader, not have the radio guy running around too visibly etc.

This would then add more to the psychology of battle as you wouldn't immediately know - hey that guy is a platoon commander- okay I pretty much know I am not facing a squad, where are the rest of them?

[sburke]

The reason I was doing it was because they were on his flank, oriented toward the main battle off in the distance, not iniitially looking my way. The tree line was an L shape, and I was coming from the side they weren't on originally.

I was moving a Crack platoon with MGs, a mortar, a sniper, and two anti tank teams (one faust and one schrek). If I could have gotten up to the trees undetected, I would have had a great chance to wipe them out. His Sherman was just sitting there waiting for a faust up the butt.

It wasn't a frontal assault or anything. I thought his FO was there, and at least a couple groups of infantry of one type or another. He had a jeep there, too.

BTW, Thanks for starting this thread. I think we can all pretty much say we'd rather have discussions like this then rant at one another over stuff that isn't going to change anyway.

[ridethe415]

Conversely, one can also use a "Rommel/Desert Fox" type of play.

Run trucks and ammo bearers etc laterally around your rear areas, just in view of suspected enemy, creating a storm of question marks.

The more racket you create farther away, the better chance your close-in troops may have of sneaking in.

It may be sound and fury, signifying nothing... but it will not be a tale told by an idiot if it works.

I love this type of misinformation. Would only work versus a human opponent I imagine, but I like this kind of thinking.

[KeBrAnTo]

I was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts/strategies about being sneaky and stealthy with infantry.

In PBEM matches, I'm always very concerned about my troops being seen or heard before I want them to. I'm struck by how many icons start popping up all over the place before i actually see my opponent, and I'm curious if he's seeing my guys, too.

Hi mate

I think you do not need to worry about they way you move your troops, you can be sure you were pretty sneaky in our last game, I only saw your units when on direct LOS.

I must tell you that in our ME I had to guess and anticipate most of your infantry movements as bocage and forests were all over. The only thing I could do was that, and, according to the situation I had to set a layered defense on the easiest places to defend where I thought your troops would try to get.

I'm eager to start the rematch

[eltorrente]

Hi mate

I think you do not need to worry about they way you move your troops, you can be sure you were pretty sneaky in our last game, I only saw your units when on direct LOS.

I must tell you that in our ME I had to guess and anticipate most of your infantry movements as bocage and forests were all over. The only thing I could do was that, and, according to the situation I had to set a layered defense on the easiest places to defend where I thought your troops would try to get.

I'm eager to start the rematch

Hah - didn't even realize you posted in here. I got the setup and just finished selecting forces. This map is going to make for a different type of battle, that's for sure. Lot of lanes of approach and good LOS spots all over the place - I look forward to this one.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

+1 on that and thanks for the action report, I love this sort of stuff. Also to BF, this sort of thing is truly the meat of CM for I think pretty much all of us, the confusion and chaos of battle. I think this is why we continuously hear requests and criticisms of the information we get on spotting. It may be something difficult to code, but in terms of return in playability I personally feel it would add more than almost anything else you could do. Having information be more vague would add so much to the game for single players, HTH folks whether they play WeGo or RT.

I may go over and post this in the wish list but this kind of thing would be cool

Green units find it harder to ID more experienced units

More experienced units would get more information quickly against green units

The thinking here, green commanders do stupid s**t that makes them stand out, have less appreciation of cover etc. Experienced units would do things to make it difficult to know who is the leader, not have the radio guy running around too visibly etc.

This would then add more to the psychology of battle as you wouldn't immediately know - hey that guy is a platoon commander- okay I pretty much know I am not facing a squad, where are the rest of them?

I really like your idea, and it is exactly why the Russians put their best and brightest troops (who aren't rocket scientists or mathematicians) into the reconnaissance troops--at all levels. They see, hear, smell and report what other, lesser quality, troops would miss, and that most definitely includes things like poor camouflage, defective noise or light discipline, the clean smell of men newly arrived from the rear, and so much more. They would, as you say, have an information superiority over a unit of lesser quality, and be able to collect the essential information and get out without even being detected.

In turn, if the code supports it, we might be able to run real recon and combat patrols, especially if we're given a graphic overlay of the map. Omega Games, run by a retired Army colonel with a PH.D. in Military History, (Don Alexander?) used to have a map game which simulated Ranger ops at the individual man and equipment level. You had to go in, find things, smash things, snatch prisoners and the like. If we're not there yet, we soon will be.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

sburke,

I really like your idea, and it is exactly why the Russians put their best and brightest troops (who aren't rocket scientists or mathematicians) into the reconnaissance troops--at all levels. They see, hear, smell and report what other, lesser quality, troops would miss, and that most definitely includes things like poor camouflage, defective noise or light discipline, the clean smell of men newly arrived from the rear, and so much more. They would, as you say, have an information superiority over a unit of lesser quality, and be able to collect the essential information and get out without even being detected.

In turn, if the code supports it, we might be able to run real recon and combat patrols, especially if we're given a graphic overlay of the map. Omega Games, run by a retired Army colonel with a PH.D. in Military History, (Don Alexander?) used to have a map game which simulated Ranger ops at the individual man and equipment level. You had to go in, find things, smash things, snatch prisoners and the like. If we're not there yet, we soon will be.

Regards,

John Kettler

Funny cause I have been second guessing myself on this since writing that. The number of incidents I am running across during MG where American Paratroop unit leaders at company level did stupid s**t like walking around with binocs or nice big officer rank emblems showing was fairly surprising and they paid the price. One was documented in BoB where the company CO was walking out on the road checking out the village ahead when he got shot in the throat (he survived). I was frankly surprised to see that much of it in veteran outfits.

I like the idea, I am just not sure that it is really appropriate. :confused: