no scout...next best?

[Patgarret]

If u have no scouts...what's best next to do the reconing and avoid surprises? Snipers?

[Baneman]

I assume you mean "No scout teams".

Snipers make good scouts, but you can also split off a Scout team from a squad.

[c3k]

Split a squad. Or, at worst, use a whole squad.

Ninja'd by Baneman.

[Baneman]

When you hear a noise and you look and you don't see anything ... that was me

[MOS:96B2P]

If u have no scouts...what's best next to do the reconing and avoid surprises? Snipers?

For recon in front of an advancing squad (If I don’t have a specialized three man scout team) I break a scout team off from the squad and put it out front at point. For general intelligence gathering I like any specialized teams with binoculars, especially sniper teams. I try to set up a sniper net of three to five different sniper teams (depending on the size of the map) across the map in observation/listening posts (OP/LPs) to spot OPFOR units and feed the information to the rest of my force. I put them in positions that offer good line of site and/or line of site to an area of interest like a ford across a river, an avenue of approach, key terrain etc. I also make sure they are set on short target arcs and alternate having them on the hide command every few minutes or when I think an OPFOR unit might be able to spot them. I have the most success with this sniper net tactic on defense when the OPFOR is moving into my area. It still works on the offense but can be a little more problematic since sometimes a team will need to advance to a new OP/LP and be exposed to all the dangers of moving on the battlefield.

[Andrew H.]

If u have no scouts...what's best next to do the reconing and avoid surprises? Snipers?

In case you don't know, the option to split squads is on the "administrative" tab - you can split a squad (well, most squads) into 2 or three fireteams, or you can break off an AT unit or scout unit) from the squad.

[Patgarret]

Thanks guys...Funny thing, when I split a scout team the binoculars remains with tha main team...it makes no sense...

[agusto]

I guess the binoculars remain with the squad leader, wich makes sense since theys are part of his personal gear.

[fry30]

I try to keep them within earshot or at least basic C&C so that they can relay their info back to a Commander, ideally one with a radio set.

[sburke]

Thanks guys...Funny thing, when I split a scout team the binoculars remains with tha main team...it makes no sense...

He is a scout, not a long range recon dude. His job is to go check out that house and see if anyone is there, not look into that valley and see if you see any fortifications. If (when) he gets shot, you really want to lose your binoculars?

[poesel]

What would be a really nice addition if we could designate teams as being a 'scout' (a toggle like 'hide') and they would automatically behave like scouts (stop on contact, no shooting).

[A Canadian Cat]

You mean like using the hunt command and a 40m circular cover arc?

[tankgeezer]

Use the Hunt Command plus the Small Circular Cover Arc plus the Hide Command. When your team makes contact they will go to ground at any point in the movement path. Works for me.

[poesel]

Usually when I use hide and come/are in contact with the enemy that is usually the end of my men as they keep their heads down while chances are that the enemy already had spotted them.

tankgeezer - what is your experience?

[Erwin]

Re scout units, it's surprising that apparently they have no special scout/spotting abilities.

In the Russian campaign one is told to not attrite the scout units as they don't get replaced (easily) as opposed to the "expendable" regular infantry which get replaced close to 100% between missions.

Trying to play "realistically" I used my scouts as... well... scouts. However, usually the way they discover an enemy unit is when a scout is shot. So, it's hard to keep the scouts intact.

Logically, in the game, it makes more sense to use split infantry squads and use their expendable two and three man teams for scouting and save the actual scout units and their valuable SMG's for assaults or close range support. But, that just feels wrong/gamey.

Wouldn't it be more realistic to give scout units some spotting advantage in the game so that they had a real value as scouts?

An easy fix is to make all specialized units like scouts, engineers, snipers etc at least one experience level better than the regular infantry. That would given them a little advantage to represent the additional training they would have.

[JasonC]

The binocs remain with the team expected to stay farther from the enemy. To infantry, a scout team is a group told to *go first*, not a group told to sit still and watch things. You don't have to tell infantry to sit still and watch things - it is the default behavior of men who would rather not get killed, in a combat zone.

[Erwin]

But, then why have dedicated scout platoons? As I mentioned, in the Soviet Campaign we are told to not lose too many scouts as they are not easily replaceable.

If scouts are simply regular infantry "told to go first", then expendability should not be an issue.

The briefing seems to imply that the scouts have a greater value than the regular infantry. But, in game terms they appear to have no advantage. Hence my concern that the logical tactic, would be to keep the valuable scout/infantry safe in the rear while the expendable regular inf does the scouting and dying.

It doesn't seem to make sense.

Simply making the scouts more experienced would at least give them some useful advantage. Ideally, in the game they should have better spotting or somesuch abilities that would justify their existence and they added value. Otherwise, why bother with scout units in the game at all?

[Michael Emrys]

When you hear a noise and you look and you don't see anything ... that was me

When you don't hear anything but only feel the cold steel entering your back, that was me.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

I guess the binoculars remain with the squad leader, wich makes sense since theys are part of his personal gear.

And a point team is considered expendable but you wouldn't want to lose the binocs.

Michael

[Michael Emrys]

But, then why have dedicated scout platoons?

The problem here is you are using one word to name two very different types of units with two different missions. The ordinary two man teams you split off from a squad are just point men for that squad. They have ordinary equipment and training and are more or less considered expendable. One can be careful in their employment, but recon by death is part of their job description.

Specialized Scout teams on the other had have specialized equipment (binocs) and training. Their job is not to draw fire but to find good spotting locations and simply observe without being observed. Stealth is an essential part of their technique, same as snipers.

Michael

[Holman]

Use the Hunt Command plus the Small Circular Cover Arc plus the Hide Command. When your team makes contact they will go to ground at any point in the movement path. Works for me.

If I understand how it works, this actually won't.

A target arc with a Hunt command tells the unit to *ignore* (for stopping and hiding purposes) units detected outside of the arc. If you want scouts to keep low when they detect an enemy, give them Hunt and Hide orders but no target arc. Hide will keep them from firing anyway, so the small arc is of no use.

Of course the arc *is* useful if you want them to ignore units outside of a certain range or angle. For instance, if they can see a harmless truck 500m to the right, give them a 450m arc or one that excludes the truck's location, then use Hunt and Hide orders. That way the truck won't trigger the Hide and cancel their movement before it begins.

[JasonC]

Russian rifle recon was a separate arm within their force, and a specialist one. Their job was not going first right in front of an infantry body to discover enemy forces by walking onto them and drawing fire - that task was performed by elements of the infantry main body itself.

Instead, the dedicated recon guys had a normal mission of *night infiltration* followed by extended period surviving inside the German rear areas gathering intel. They would pick a dark night, in poor weather if possible, and a portion of the front line that was lightly held or regarded as impassible for terrain reasons, at least for major forces - a swamp, deep forest without roads, steep relief, that kind of thing. Then sneak through the German lines, avoiding all contact, between full night and pre dawn, moving as slowly as they needed to in order to avoid discovery in that period, while still making it through. They would move in narrow files, not wide fronts - they were not trying to find the enemy, they were trying to avoid any of the enemy seeing them.

Once in the German rear, they would go to ground all day, remaining motionless, camou'ed, and just listening. By night they would reposition. They usually didn't even have radios to report back their intel immediately --- and German radio detection and finding, used to pinpoint HQs and artillery batteries --- was very good and might compromise them anyway, even if they had been able to haul a set with sufficient range with them, which was doubtful. Instead they just gathered intel for several days. They might try to take a few prisoners --- "tongues" they called them --- to get additional intel, especially right before they pulled out. That would mean a night raid on an isolated outpost or snatching a sentry, at most ambushing a small patrol.

Then they infiltrated back to the Russian side of the lines and reported in. They delivered their prisoners, reported everything they had seen in the way of enemy units, vehicle activity in the area, etc, to the higher commanders, who correlated such reports with air reconnaissance, force IDs made in the front line fighting by units overrun or bodies left, document recoveries in the combat zone, and the like. All pieced together a picture of German units present in the area, their strength, stance, detailed position etc.

These recon guys reported to the intel officers on staffs and worked for them. They didn't work for the line commanders of infantry units of similar size - they were attached much higher in the command tree for their own scale --- a recon platoon for a regiment, a recon company for a division e.g.

Historically, that is the mission and branch of service that grew into the Russian spetnaz after the war. They are more like the Brandenbergers in the German army than a detached 2 man scout team.

Now, they could and did sometimes get missions besides that main recon one. They might be called upon to act as pathfinders for a major attack, checking a route the attack was supposed to use the night before the attack itself and reporting on minefields or obstacles, locations of enemy outposts and the like. They might "blind" a portion of those outposts with small scale surprise attacks on them right before the main event. Equally, they might be called on to act as commandos during one of their infiltrations, blowing a bridge or a rail line or smuggling weapons to partisans --- though normally the Russians preferred air drops farther from the front lines for that purpose.

None of that, however, is 2 men told off to go first to see what was ahead of the rifle platoon. That was not a recon branch of service task. It was an ordinary rifle formation task, and the men detailed to do it would just be rotated to share the risk it entailed.

I hope this helps understand what infantry "recon" as a branch means in the WW II Russian army...

(Note that all the above applies to the Rifle majority of the army - the mech forces had their own types of recon, who were motorcycle mounted and worked with light armor, with an entirely different method of operation. Those would work as an "advanced detachment" with a "recon in force" mission, also just flooding every branching path through the road network, screening areas where the main body didn't go etc. They were meant to be the wide net of "eyes" to guide the tanks, which stayed concentrated and picked promising routes out of the many alternatives the recon guys had checked and reported back on).

[Erwin]

Mike and Jason... YES. "...rifle recon was a separate arm within their force, and a specialist one."

But, in CM2 they are NOT specialists. In CM2, "Recon Units" behave and have the same capabilities like any other infantry unit. In CM2 Recon units are as poor/good at recon as any other non-specialist infantry grunt.

That's my point.

Ideally, any specialist unit (sniper, FO, Recon, Engineer etc) should have special capabilities. (IIRC FO's can "see" a little further than ordinary units... or is that only onmap mortars - I forget).

If it's too hard programming-wise to give them enhanced specialized abilities, then at least designers should make them at least one level more experienced so we can use them as valuable assets. Otherwise, in the game, Recon units are no better than regular infantry. And if that is intended, then why have dedicated Recon units in CM2 at all?

In the example I gave of the Russian Campaign... since we are instructed to not let Recon unit take casualties. It makes tactical sense to keep the recon units in the rear and use expendable grunt infantry for recon since they get replaced almost 100% between every mission. But, as I said, that feels gamey and wrong.

Does that clarify what I said earlier? Has anyone actually played the Soviet Campaign so they understand the issue?

[Holman]

Mike and Jason... YES. "...rifle recon was a separate arm within their force, and a specialist one."

But, in CM2 they are NOT specialists. In CM2, "Recon Units" behave and have the same capabilities like any other infantry unit. In CM2 Recon units are as poor/good at recon as any other non-specialist infantry grunt.

That's my point.

Ideally, any specialist unit (sniper, FO, Recon, Engineer etc) should have special capabilities. (IIRC FO's can "see" a little further than ordinary units... or is that only onmap mortars - I forget).

If it's too hard programming-wise to give them enhanced specialized abilities, then at least designers should make them at least one level more experienced so we can use them as valuable assets. Otherwise, in the game, Recon units are no better than regular infantry. And if that is intended, then why have dedicated Recon units in CM2 at all?

In the example I gave of the Russian Campaign... since we are instructed to not let Recon unit take casualties. It makes tactical sense to keep the recon units in the rear and use expendable grunt infantry for recon since they get replaced almost 100% between every mission. But, as I said, that feels gamey and wrong.

Does that clarify what I said earlier? Has anyone actually played the Soviet Campaign so they understand the issue?

Perhaps we're being asked to do a bit of role-playing. Your commander wants you to keep these men alive because they are better trained and not easily replaced. You should play as if that's the case. The fact that the engine doesn't enforce the choice is part of suspension of disbelief.

It's a bit like playing any non-campaign scenario: in the final turns there will be a temptation to spend men recklessly to grab an objective. Few real commanders would do so, but then they have more battles to fight the next day; for your troops, there is only this battle. The game might not hugely punish you for playing this way, but you have to decide whether that's the way to play.

I disagree that special units should have special abilities other than those reflected in their soft factors. FO's cannot see farther (except insofar as they have binoculars), Guards infantry can not shoot or survive damage better than identically-rated regulars, etc. This is as it should be.

[JasonC]

Recon infantry don't have any magical ability to spot better. They would be more likely to be crack quality, and quality can help spotting, but that's it. Their best use would be at night. They have to actually be used differently to have their essential and different battlefield effect. You would not send them first on an ordinary infantry probe it daylight, because it would be a waste. If the mission is a infantry probe in daylight, they would either screen an inactive sector, thinly, or form a reserve. And no that isn't gamey, it is realistic.