Recon Units and Spotting

[Kazom]

My question concerns recon units like scout cars and such and their abilities.

Every wargame I have played so far - they are useless except to draw fire on themselves and get killed. They never survive more than a few turns in a senario battle. Players always use them to drive down that forest road or across that field of fire knowing they are going to unselfishly take that first enemy shot to reveal enemy positions and bravely lose their lives so the rest of the column containing the more valuable assets such as tanks and troop carriers can traverse more safely. This seems a little unrealistic to me. I am sure recon units took very heavy losses, more than your average unit, but not 100% everytime you play a battle. How does CM model recon handle recon units?

It seems to me that the problem in all other wargames is that an enemy unit remains hidden until it moves or fires. Thus the only way to flush them out is by drawing fire upon your less valuable units like scoutcars and such, and those non armored vehicles never stand a chance even at long range.

I think it would be nice to somehow give those scouts a better chance to survive a battle and use their unique abilities. This means giving them a chance to spot out hidden enemy units that havent fired or moved if they watch a position for several turns, or making them harder to hit at long range due to their small size and fast speed. I would like to know what you guys think.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi there!

Well, we have had a few discussions about this very issue in the past. Everybody agrees that recon vehicles basically have zero value in other games other than to flush out the one thing that killed 'em The main problem is that scout vehicles were not supposed to do anything but run away when they found something that could harm them. But this is hard to do in game terms.

CM tries to make scouting vehicles, and all thin skinned vehicles, more realistic by simply telling you to go to Hell when your orders are not conducive to survival. Unfortunately, this means the vehicle has to survive the first contact. Not necessarily an easy thing to do. The problem here is that the game can't read the player's mind to determine intent, and it is far to hard to program in enough smarts for vehicles to be suspicious and cautious about things they can't see or hear. So we still have to depend on the player being reasonable to some extent.

As far as information gathering goes, you can actually spot units by sound. In other words, if your troops hear something the suspected source of the sound will be displayed as a symbol on the map. This can help keep your vehicles intact by simply being more cautious.

And the destruction of recon units, even armored one,s was, as you suspect, pretty common. I have some pics of part of the 2nd Pz Division's light armored car company (most likely) of the Recon Battalion. They were caught by surprise and at least 5xSPW 250s were brewed up (could be more, but that is all I can count in the pics). Once these vehicles came into enemy AT contact, they were dead.

Steve

[Moon]

I'd like to add one thing in regard to "scout" vehicles - since CM has a real-time execution phase, the speed of a vehicle DOES count for more than just define how many hexes a unit can travel. That means that a "scout" vehicle can withdraw VERY fast after it spots (or has been fired upon once) by an enemy unit - something which a slow moving tank will find difficult to do. In the current game against Fionn, he has simply raced a Puma past my Sherman. In a traditional hex and turn based game, I would have simply gotten an opportunity fire and most likely knocked that thing out. In CM, the Puma raced past before my tank could acquire the target.

So in a way, CM models the behaviour of "scout" vehicles in a very realistic way, without using artificial bonus systems.

[Brian Rock]

Survivability of recon units is a problem in real life.

A similar discussion came up on the TacOps list recently. A few people noted that in the game scouts major activity was recon by blowing up. A few of the cav guys said the same thing tends to happen in the field (eg at the NTC) - the first time you spot the enemy is when they shoot at you, and they don't tend to shoot unless they expect to hit.

Not my idea of a good job.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Brian,

Unfortunately for scouting units, the "wait for a good shot" logic is very, very good

I did forget about the real world speed issue (thanks Moon!!). Since CM's targeting and firging routines use shot velocity, turret rotation, vehcile speed, directions, etc. a fast vehicle has a MUCH greater chance of surviving on the CM battlefield. Fionn's Puma drove at top speed, was in Sherman LOS for about 2-3 seconds, and was gone behind a hill. The Sherman didn't even manage to snap a shot off! Now, try that in a traditional wargame

Steve

[Los]

Well, here I go again.

I was an infantry scout for most of the infantryman portion of my career. We used to have gun jeeps back then which were a hoot to rat patrol around on (No armor though)

I think what needs to be addressed in a program to capture the spirit of recon is that they have superior spotting ablilities, can make better use of terrain while moving, and are of a higher quality than their normal counterparts.

Soldiers for a the battalion recon platoon are normally hand picked from the line companies (in some armies there are specialist courses (There was in the US for ahwile an MOS called 11D infantrys cout and I believe still is 19D cavalry Scout).

For a lieutenant, the most prestigious position in the whole battalion is to have been selected to lead the scout platoon and that always goes to your best junior officers, normally after they have been given a go at running a regular infantry platoon. I suspect it's much the same in Armor. Scouts in all armies are general considered better troops due to the nature of the work (Remember LRRPs in Vietnam?) and to be in a Divisional or Corps level LRRC (Long Range Recon Company) is a big deal. There is never any shortage of volunteers for the scouts regardless of its hazards.

As far as equipment goes, when I was doing it (before NODs were in general use), we always had teh best equipment, starlight scopes, NVGs and even huge bipod and tripod mounted thermal detectors and viewers. There were ground surveillance radars and sensor teams attached. ALl this is obviously after teh fact but it goes to show the emphasis put into recon.

Clearly the Germans made heavy use of their divisional recon forces as spearheading assaults, fire brigades and other uses which shows you the emphasis tehy put on teh quality of their recon unts. It was a plum assignment for them too (read Kurt Meyer's book caleld Grenadiers or von Lucks' Panzer Commanders. Both were recon commanders for a lot of their careers until they were promoted up to bn or regt command.)

It's dangerous work, but but not as dangerous as it is in most computer or war games. Becasue the designers usually don't understand the capabilities and qualities of recon units Thys just look at the hardware they drive around in.

Los

[This message has been edited by Los (edited 09-13-99).]

[Pak40]

Martin or Steve,

Isn't there a 'recon' order that is givin to units? In other words, a command that tells a unit to proceed until 'dangerous' enemy contact is made. When the unit comes into contact with an ememy that is capable of killing it, it will withdraw to a safer place.

I remember Martin and Fionn talking about the 'hunt' command which tells a unit to proceed until a target is found, then kill it. But this wouldn't be suitable for recon.

I'm sure all of this has been covered before in a thread, do you know which words to search the forum for this topic?

[Lee]

I think LOS makes a good point. It would seem

logical that units specially trained as scouts

would get a bonus when doing spotting checks for

enemy units. That is, after all, what their main

job is; skillfully sneaking about and finding out

where the enemy is hiding and reporting back what

they see. I would think they might even get a bit

of a bonus added to their ability to hide well,

and thus avoid detection by enemy units. I would

like to see scout units be known for more than

riding around in unusual vehicles. I think their

special training and abilities should be modeled,

as well.

Los, as far as your point about the scouts being

better fighters than an average infantry (or light

armored) unit, I suspect you may be right about

that. But that is easy to simulate in CM, just

up the unit's troop quality level in the scenario

designer and you're all set (well trained scouts

ready to go ).

[This message has been edited by Lee (edited 09-14-99).]

[Fionn]

Lee is right...

What I would suggest is that every regular battalion with recon elements attached would have those recon elements be veteran or crack.

That way they do get the spotting, firing etc bonuses you are talking about. I think this would be one of those occasions where its best left to the scenario designer on a scenario to scenario basis.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest Big Time Software]

CM does not have specialized recon troops. So far as we can tell, they were outfitted the same as their counterpart unit they were serving (this mostly pertains to German formations as Allied were fairly uniform). The difference would be in their quality. As LOS says, these guys would be better than whoever they were scouting for. Easy to understand, as who would want to follow a path laid down by an idiot? I would notch the recon guys up one above the rest of fellow units. If the units are Regular, make the recon guys Veteran. Veteran, make 'em crack. Green, make 'em Regular. etc..

Each experience level treats things like spotting, breaking, returning fire, etc. differently. So you can get the kind of things LOS talked about by bumping them up a notch. More than that would probably be too much though.

There is no special "Recon" order. We had this on the back burner in case it was needed, but the existing orders and behavior allow units to act and react the way Recon should.

The Hunt order makes the unit stop when it sees a fire opportunity. However, if it is the enemy that has the opportunity, it will take evasive action (like popping smoke, or high tailing it out of there). Infantry units will settle down and exchange fire or take cover instead of blindly going into an enemy kill zone. Since each turn is only 60 seconds, there is plenty of opportunity to withdraw your men the following turn. If they are Vets you won't have to worry about them still being around (unless they REALLY got in a bad spot!!).

But when it comes down to it, the player is still responsible for conducting good recon. Fionn learned this the hard way when he rushed a HT too soon and his infantry hadn't swept the woods yet. End result was a dead HT that didn't have to be knocked out. His infantry was only meters away from finding that bazooka too...

Steve

[Sten]

I think the 'Recon'-command is a good idea.

It could work just like the 'Hunt'-command but with a greater tendency to get away rather than open fire and a slight bonus to spotting (by sight OR sound). Such a command would probably quickly be adopted by all players as the preferred means by which to spearhead an attack.

Not to mention that it would be a step up in realism.

Increasing the quality of a given troop might be a way around all this, but it seems a bit 'gamey' since in real life much scouting is done by non-specialist troops. Being a scout is more a matter of attitude and behaviour than pure quality.

Sten

[This message has been edited by Sten (edited 09-14-99).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Sten,

In reagards to increasing unit experience, I think we are talking about two different things. If you want to simulate specialized Recon troops (like Panzer Aufklärung units), then it is arguable that they would be BETTER trained and experienced than others. Therefore, a bump up in experience isn't gamey, but rather realistic.

As for proceeding along with your average joe unit, trying to spot the bad guys, that is what units do all the time in a combat zone. There should be NO special bonus for this. If you want to proceed cautiously so as to increase spotting, but decrease other unit attributes (mostly speed, but also desire to shoot), then use the sneak or crawl commands for troops or Hunt for vehicles. 1/2 squads and weak vehicles will tend to withdraw rather than fight it out.

Again, keep in mind that a turn is ONLY 60 seconds long. So at worst the guys are out of your direct control for only 60 seconds. As far as ducking and withdrawing from pending doom within seconds, ALL UNITS do this to some extent or orther. The extent depends on the action the unit is performing. Give a vehicle unit a Fast order and they won't stop for hardly anything, but in hunt they will stop for practically everything. Also, the nature of the confrontation is important too. A M8 Armored Car finding a Panzerschreck team within its range won't hesitiate to back the heck up and shoot at the team in self defense. If it were just a harmless unit at a harmless range the M8 unit would most likely ignore it unless it was very inviting (like a truck or something). You can also do recon the way real troops do by moving and STOPPING the unit so that it can observe what is around it. Units at full halt, not being shot at, are assumed to be looking and listening to the max.

In short, it is all in there but without a special "Recon" order. If we started sticking in orders for specific behavior we would have an unplayable game due to a orders menu the length of my arm Just imagine having to issue orders like "Fight Hand to Hand", "Duck if Artillery starts landing nearby", "Toss Grenades", "Assault", "Be Carefull", etc. The limiting factor for the propper use of recon is the human player, not the game system.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-14-99).]

[Moon]

I strongly favor no special skills and bonuses for "scouts". In modern warfare, they might have better equipment than regular soldiers which would justify a "spotting" bonus, but during WWII they had no more than a pair of binoculars. And units with binos (and magnifying gun sights) are already modeled in CM.

The problem with recon is IMO largely a lack of understanding of how recon works by the player. There are three levels of recon - operational (conducted miles and miles in front of your units, mostly by airplanes), strategic (where the Recce troops come in, look for the enemy and quickly withdraw after having been spotted), and "battlefield recon", which is done by everyone and all the time who is in the front lines.

The first two are out of CMs scope, except when a scenario designers maybe wants to show what can happen to one of those recce troops that run into an ambush (slaughter). Most scenarios and campaigns in CM will be about the main contact with the enemy, hours after the recce troops have retreated. You KNOW that the enemy is 2000 meters in front of you, and you might or might not hahve also a slight idea of what he has. Light recon vehicles have little to do here and are best kept behind the main line.

Recon at this stage is best done by small infantry teams, that sneak forward and keep an eye out for gun positions and enemy infantry. This is how it has been done during WWII. It is plain suicidal to move a recon vehicle forward KNOWING that the enemy is here somewhere.

[guachi]

Given my limited understanding of WWII recon, I'll agree with Martin.

You don't really need to use recon units to see if an enemy is there. It wouldn't be much of a scenario if he wasn't.

For any CM scenario I'm likely to play, I'll just assume the enemy is out there on the map somewhere. Although I assume a sneaky scenario designer could have every enemy unit arrive as a reinforcement or something.

Jason

[Guest Big Time Software]

Yes, pretty much a CM battle is something where all units would be on FULL alert. Assume that EVERY bush has someone behind it (we cn do that now that we have Brush terrain ) So as stated above, all units will basically be conducting recon almost all the time.

Units moving up from the rear will have the benefit of knowing that the coast is clear (or should be!!), so you can move them quicker. Moving things more quickly means they spot less, which automatically simulates reduced recon.

Steve

[tss]

Steve wrote:

Yes, pretty much a CM battle is something where all units would be on FULL alert.

Is it possible to design scenarios where troops of one side of the battle are not alert? Of course, this is not so relevant to the West Front warfare, but I think it would be quite difficult to model partisan warfare of East Front without this possibility.

I vision a scenario where the defender has to set his forces up in a village or in a couple of adjacent villages. He would could then set a given number of half-squads to guard duty. Some of the guards would have to stay in place but of them units might be guard patrols. In the beginning of the scenario the defender could move only the guard patrols until an alarm is given (firefight, patrol spots enemy and rises alarm somehow, etc.)

The attacker then would try to advance as close as possible without alerting the guards.

Also, it would be neat if there were two completely disconnected maps in the scenario or campaign and the attacker had objective to destroy, for example, a given percentage of buildings of the two maps and he could allocate his troops as he saw fit. The defender would also have to split his forces between the maps without knowing where the main attack is coming.

- Tommi

[Fionn]

In CM you can set up scenarios with "dynamic victory locations".

E.g. The designer makes 4 VLs. The attacking player only needs to select one or two at the beginning of the game as his VLs.

End result: The defender has to defend all 4 while the attacker only needs to take two. This forces the defender to dipose his forces properly across the map whilst allowing the attacker to concentrate on only chosen locations.

This gets to simulate on ONE map what you are takling about Tommi.

Martin and I tried this out and it works really, really well. I was the defender that time and I had to defend everything just in case.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Guest kip anderson]

Hi,

there seem to be two schools of though on this one, recon units should have special or unique abilities on the one hand and on the other that it is how you choose to command the units that makes them recon. I tend to the view that it is how you command a unit that makes it recon rather than any unique ability. If a recon unit are given a higher than normal quality rating and then you crawl them forward with plenty of long stops I feel this would be a good representation of the real world. It is worth remembering that in WW2 nine out of ten engagements were not meeting engagements but some form of assault.Ken Tout in his book Tank! makes the point that on a WW2 battlefield you know that in those woods, in those buildings , in those hedges there are Germans but you can't see them until they open up. To get round this there was a lot of recon by fire, tanks would open up on buildings before the Germans got the first shot off because you belived there were Germans in there.

I also think it worht remembering that many engagements took many hours and if you want to do recon properly it may take thirty game turns just for the recon phase of your assault, from my reading this would be nearer the real thing.

From all i have read I am confident I will be able to fight truely realistic WW2 battles with CM including the recon phase of an engagement. The important thing is that the spotting rules are real world, if they are then a slow advance followed be a number of turns spotting will do the job. That way you should learn " there are Germans in those building, in those woods" but not how many. A bit of recon by fire would also be a sound move.

All the best,

Kip.

------------------

[Moon]

Oh yeah, recon by fire can be very effective. In a small ad-hoc scenario I created to show hedgerow tactics, I had a Sherman fire some HE into "suspected" enemy positions (in CM you can target anything - if you target something else than en enemy unit, the fire order is considered to be area fire automatically). Although the Germans were hiding, the incoming fire made them return fire. This resulted in the US spotting them and opening up with aimed fire, which again broke the enemy.

Playing CM more and more I am realising how important this tactics actually are. Never have seen them (especially recon by fire) modelled in any other game to this extent.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Kip,

One of the problems with recon is, as you say, its consumption of time. Gamers tend to want to ATTACK!!!!!!!! instead of doing some good recon first. I am thinking of making up a scenario about 60 turns long where the initial forces are simply a few squads and some sort of recon vehicle. Then have the main force come in around Turn 20 or so. This will FORCE the attacking player to actually do some real recon and not go rushing the main force into battle. The latter did happen more often than not though

Steve

[cannon]

A big problem I always had with recon was not being able to take the crew out of a recon vehicle and sneak them over a hill. It seems to me this would be a pretty common thing to do. Walk to the top of a ridge and check out the area as opposed to driving up and exposing a big easily spotted vehicle. Any chance of something like this in CM? Does it make sense at this level?

Robert

[Lee]

I think Steve has it right. By increasing the quality of the scout units in the editor,

you get scouts that not only fight better than an average unit but get all those

bonuses we have been discussing. Things like spotting and reactingly cooly and smartly

if they run into the enemy unexpectedly, all these things come along for the ride when you

increase troop quality for that scout unit. This very nicely simulates the extra training

that a scout unit might receive.

[Los]

Whoa all the sudden a lot of crazy ideas. (some good, some bad) Let's think about some of these...

First off I think Steve's point that specialized recon elements just being a notch better quality or experience than average troops on your side will fit the bill just right without adding complexity or added coding. This will make them better at spotting and terrain utilization. However it is true that there is more to recon than just the troops that do it. Recon has to be seperately palnend for and executed just as counter recon.

"Los, as far as your point about the scouts being better fighters than an average infantry (or light armored) unit, I suspect you may be right about that."

It's not that they're better fighters, they're better scouts. It's not their job to fight. (Unless they have too) And when you have scouts on OP the last thing you wnat them to do is opern fire at enemy when they see them or when the enemy pops some rounds in their direction.

"In modern warfare, they might have better equipment than regular soldiers which would justify a "spotting" bonus, but during WWII

they had no more than a pair of binoculars. And units with binos (and magnifying gun sights) are already modeled in CM."

For chrissakes there's a hell of a lot more to proper and skillfull recon than just peering through binoculars! (this has nothing to do with modern times or beinga scout in the 1870s on the high plains) Though at this hour I don't feel like launching into a another diatribe about the ins and out of aufsklarung (or recon.) Maybe some other time.

BTW keep in mind that there will be plenty of times particularly in company or smaller level games, where you won't even have specialized scouts or any recon but teh point squad.

Also you do not have to crawl about on your belly to be an effective scout, there's more to it than that. While a scout element might move slower, (vehicular units by bournds or whatever) we're not talking about your dirty dozen type of snoop and poop or even long range surveillance type scouting, which is assumed to have happened well in advance.

"It is worth remembering that in WW2 nine out of ten engagements were not meeting engagements but some form of assault."

That's BS. What you mean is that nine out of ten engaements that you see on TV documentaries or read about in books about great battles are some form or assault. Combat units spend the majority of their time not fighting in set piece battles but in actions like meeting enagegements or other such activities or just suitting around.

"Oh yeah, recon by fire can be very effective."

In real life and real history , recon by fire makes the firer feel good but accomplishes much less than you would think. In anything but poorly trained or inexperienced troops in defense they will not jump up like scared rabitts or return fire just becasue someone is shooting in their direction. Units will try and probe by fire in an attempt to specifically cause you to shoot back and give away your position. Trained or experienced units are not stupid, know that this is exactly what the enemy is trying to do and do not just shoot back and give away their positions until you have walked into whatever killbox or killzone they have prearranged for you.

"Yes, pretty much a CM battle is something where all units would be on FULL alert."

Again that's what you would think, but it may not always be the case. Full blown battles usually take a lot of time to develop. WHile something is happening over there five miles away (or one) you are sitting around dead tired probbaly sleeping or dreaming about food. Then the word comes to move out. Everybody sets off (say on foot). For the first few minutes youa re carrying your rifle at the ready finger on the trigger looking around up and down like they taught you in infantry school. Then the heat and teh 60-80 lbs of **** on your back and the blisters on your feet begin to reassert themselves as your main priority. Supposdely somebody up front is watching out anyway right?

Or there you are in your sherman tank. The tank is stopped, one of the guys is on alert while the rest doze. The hum of the engine lulls you to sleep which you haven't had more than two hours of in a week. Stress can actually be a great fatiguer. It's why you see so many guys with a non chalant look about them on combat footage. It's not that they aren't scared, they're just too tired and have been around it too long to give a ****.

SO the word comes to move out. Everyone is alert for a while but after a half hour of creeping along with nothing everyone's senses are dulled again.

Until the tank in front of you blows up. And the one behind you.

Now you ARE awake!!!

Cheers...

Los

[Guest Bobb]

Steve, I love that sneaky scenario you have conjured up for the future. In scenario design evaluation I have observed a very strong bias in favor of slam bam thank you ma'm examples where the role of infantry is largely ignored. A lot of people seem to be inclined to dislike any thing like reality in their confrontations. Just so long as it offers sweeping manuever and fast action. Engage adrenilin, disengage brain. I very much favor scenarios that include the elements of find, fix and destroy (among others such as very boring interludes as has apperared to some at least in the demo game being played) I envision even a single half squad being emplaced initially to merely hold up the flag for the oppositon while the other side moves in takes up positions and prepares for whatever, which the scenario then proceeds to provide. Should put the fear of Mars into careless handling. What a rich field to test the metal of monitor fixed warriors filled with bad battlefield habits instilled in play with less realistic games.

[Ken Talley]

Thanks LOS. I think that needed to be said. I think ever point you made was on the dot. However at the same time, I am not sure how recce unit capabilities can be reflected w/i CM outside of better observation capabilities and morale. Greater training status can reflect those characteristics now. What other capabilities of recce are needed w/i CM to reflect the unique nature of recce? Less chance of a recce unit being spotted due to their superior use of terrain?

[This message has been edited by Ken Talley (edited 09-14-99).]