no scout...next best?

[Apocal]

Sounds like a fun campaign, but its not a "Recon" campaign.

That's literally how the Soviets used their recon units.

[LukeFF]

Just picking out bits and pieces because I don't have a lot of time at the moment:

Considering the US didn't have a Sniper School until 10 years after the war finished, you certainly can't consider a US "Sniper" team to be of the quality that the Russians and Germans were producing during the war from their specialist schools.

What sniper training program did those US snipers get? It certainly didn't equip them for the battlefield in the same way the UK, German and Russian programmes did. Steve, when given the opportunity, avoided saying they were specially trained.

I picked up this tidbit from a post here: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?37701-American-snipers-of-WWII

Actually, some of the best info on WW2 U.S. sniper training is in an old FM 21-75 "INFANTRY SCOUTING, PATROLLING, AND SNIPING" dated 6 FEB 1944. Chapter 18 discusses training of snipers in stalking, field craft, shooting, hold off, zeroing and other areas of sniping. U.S. sniper training was way decentralized at that time. It is a great little manual that talks about all aspects of U.S. patrolling tactics, techniques and procedures during WW2.

But yes, in principle the American sniper training program(s) of WWII were nowhere near that of the USSR or Germany, so I agree with you on that.

And still: did German and Russian Sniper units deploy in close support of high mobility, high density combat formations where they couldn't use their patience and stealth and were vulnerable to stray fire and exposed to many eyes?

Yes, both firsthand accounts and the official Mosin M91/30 sniper rifle manual documentation confirm that Russian snipers could be expected to and were often deployed in the "thick of the fight," so to say.

[Apocal]

The Soviets in WW2 used the term "sniper" to cover both the specialized troops and what we currently call designated marksmen. I don't know if they underwent the same training.

[Erwin]

"I am playing the Soviet campaign and I have used the scouts appropriate: to reconnoiter unknown (difficult) terrain."

Ok that's good that we're facing the same challenges in the campaign and you know what I am talking about. However, I am finding that in the restricted terrain of some of the maps, there are limited avenues of approach, and the way my scouts locate the enemy is when one of them gets shot.

So, I ask again, what is the point of having scout formations (in the game) if they have no enhanced abilities or training (in the game)?

"A green sniper is basically an untrained soldier given a sniper weapon." Agreed. But, why would one do that? Unique/rare situations aside, wouldn't one normally give the sniper rifle to the best shot in the unit?

Again I am thinking about what makes for a fun game. One feature that I really liked about CM1 was that often each squad and/or leader in a formation was significantly different than others in terms of their experience level as well as the type of weapons they carried. That really helped in making them unique and one could select the best squad or HQ for the job.

In CM2, usually every unit is identical with exactly the same weapons. I know that one can mess around in the editor and change experience levels. (Presumably one can't change weapons carried.) But, for some reason designers very rarely mess with experience levels and leave the formations full of cookie-cutter identical units. I have wondered why.

My suggestion is that it would enhance the play enjoyment and player identification with units if one had units that were better at one job than another (as in specialized troops).

It seems appropriate that (in the majority of situations), specialized troops should be given at least one experience level higher than the line troops to reflect their extra training. Based on the comments earlier that concept seems to be controversial for some reason... again I don't understand why.

[Lethaface]

"I am playing the Soviet campaign and I have used the scouts appropriate: to reconnoiter unknown (difficult) terrain."

Ok that's good that we're facing the same challenges in the campaign and you know what I am talking about. However, I am finding that in the restricted terrain of some of the maps, there are limited avenues of approach, and the way my scouts locate the enemy is when one of them gets shot.

IIRC I only suffered 1 casualty among my scouts and I'm in the 3rd mission of the campaign. Perhaps you are moving them in such a way that gets them shot more easily. I try to move them as masked as possible, in slow fashion (hunt or move).

So, I ask again, what is the point of having scout formations (in the game) if they have no enhanced abilities or training (in the game)?

They DO have a special ability: their formation and equipment and available soft attributes. Apart from that even scouts can get shot .

"A green sniper is basically an untrained soldier given a sniper weapon." Agreed. But, why would one do that? Unique/rare situations aside, wouldn't one normally give the sniper rifle to the best shot in the unit?

This is how it works in the game (marksman/sniper is the best shot in a unit), although a scenario designer is free to decide to have a green sniper in a crack platoon. Why abolish that freedom?

Again I am thinking about what makes for a fun game. One feature that I really liked about CM1 was that often each squad and/or leader in a formation was significantly different than others in terms of their experience level as well as the type of weapons they carried. That really helped in making them unique and one could select the best squad or HQ for the job.

Scenario design decisions. Although I notice quite some differences within units in CMx2. Perhaps the Soviet forces in the campaign are a bit more uniform? I haven't really paid attention to individual squad attributes in the Soviet campaign, I'm too busy commanding about 2 battalions worth of troops to tinker around with details

In CM2, usually every unit is identical with exactly the same weapons. I know that one can mess around in the editor and change experience levels. (Presumably one can't change weapons carried.) But, for some reason designers very rarely mess with experience levels and leave the formations full of cookie-cutter identical units. I have wondered why.

This is not my experience, both German and Soviet squads have weapon differences. There are plenty of differences in Soviet squads, PPS43 vs PPSH, Mosin Nagant vs SVT, etc. If you want to have real rag tag type of formations you should try CM:A Mujahideen! Lee enfields mixed in with m16's, chinese machine guns and whatever they could get their hands on.

My suggestion is that it would enhance the play enjoyment and player identification with units if one had units that were better at one job than another (as in specialized troops).

It seems appropriate that (in the majority of situations), specialized troops should be given at least one experience level higher than the line troops to reflect their extra training. Based on the comments earlier that concept seems to be controversial for some reason... again I don't understand why.

I haven't actually registered anyone as being against the general idea that snipers/scouts should have higher average experience (and other soft factor) settings. However, this should be done at scenario design level, not in game design. The game design is imo good in this regard and that's where we differ (?) on opinions.

[Lethaface]

Just checked my scouts, busy scouting out forests on the mined side of the map in the 3rd mission of the Soviet campaign. One squad is veteran, HQ and other squad regular. All have +0 or +1 leadership. Motivation unknown to me. Normal rifle squads vary between green and veteran and -2 to +2 leadership. They are Guards so the average is on the plus side of leadership and quite a lot of veterans. At least, that is how I value the decisions.

[Lethaface]

And to add another post: currently playing the third missions and my snipers are really wreaking havoc upon dug in infantry!

My scout teams in the forest have spotted enemy mortar teams so I will position the HQ to call in fire support from my mortars. Meanwhile my guards rifle battalion is moving up through the village and taking casualties from enemy Mortars and distant MG's.

[Lethaface]

@Erwin, While playing and background thinking I came upon an argumentsupporting your position regarding scouting abilities: the fact that sappers/engineers are better at spotting mines.

[Erwin]

And I love CMA as well for those reasons.

You have to brief us on how you use scouts to get so few casualties, L. I find the time/clock is such in some of the Russian Campaign missions that there is little time for SLOW movement. Am on HUNT most of the time. But, the point scout team seems to regularly take a hit.

Having more time in a mission when we are expected to scout would be great. But, that's a different discussion.

[LukeFF]

The Soviets in WW2 used the term "sniper" to cover both the specialized troops and what we currently call designated marksmen.

Sorry, that's just not the case. A Soviet carrying a scoped rifle during WWII had been trained as a sniper and only as a sniper. DMs didn't come around until after the war.

[Lethaface]

And I love CMA as well for those reasons.

You have to brief us on how you use scouts to get so few casualties, L. I find the time/clock is such in some of the Russian Campaign missions that there is little time for SLOW movement. Am on HUNT most of the time. But, the point scout team seems to regularly take a hit.

Having more time in a mission when we are expected to scout would be great. But, that's a different discussion.

***Spoilers Soviet campaign***

Well if they were available in the first mission I probably didn't use them because it was basically a KM+ long assault along mined and fortified area's. In the second mission I used them on the right and left. Moving on hunt through the peat bogs they came under fire from long distance more than a few times. Helped spotting quite some enemy positions. No casualties (hunt and hide orders, followed up by covered arcs for spotting) until I encountered a large enemy position on the end of the left of the map, which I assaulted from the right flank (middle of the map). Because two scout squads were at around 200m distance from some of those enemy fortifications I used them for suppressive fire during which they took a casualty. On the right side peat bog they helped to mop up the small enemy resistance there, while they were retreating and captured the road/rail objective on that side of the map. In mission 3 I decided to go for a push through the town and while I moved my scouts on the left edge of the town it became obvious that the town was heavily defended so I moved them back to the forest on the right side in front of the mined area's. They haven't encountered any troops in the forests and, while observing from the edges of the forest, spotted enemy heavy weapons in the objective there (areaXX something, IIRC).

Nothing really spectacular imo, but that's how I used them.

[Erwin]

Interesting. In those 2 missions (#2 and #3) I felt quite rushed to get to the exit point. Didn't feel I had enuff time to just sit and observe - so was always hunting the recon forward until someone shot them (even tho' they were set to HIDE). Am still mopping up #3. But, I felt the need to use the SMG's of the recon for extra firepower and so took casualties.

I may just not be using the Russian units properly as I feel outgunned most of the time, so feel the need to send everybody in a mass assault. (Oh well, back to WitP...)

[Lethaface]

I may just not be using the Russian units properly as I feel outgunned most of the time, so feel the need to send everybody in a mass assault. (Oh well, back to WitP...)

Perhaps, whenever I stumble upon enemy positions I try to put them under fire from any heavy weapon team available. Than line infantry assaults. With a battalion+ of troops I didn't see the need to use my scouts for assaults.

[Erwin]

I understand what to do one an enemy unit/position is located. My "issue" is that I consistently lose scouts trying to locate an enemy position. I am in awe that you take so few recon casualties.

You (correctly) use a lot of SLOW and just sitting and watching/listening until the enemy reveals himself. I feel that I don't have enuff time in the missions to be that careful and am on HUNT most of the time. (I have loved the very few "recon-type" scenarios that have been made IIRC in CMBN that do give you a lot of time to crawl and sit and listen.)

Am wondering should I run/go quickly the first hundred meters or so on the assumption that there will be no enemy located for a while. That would eat up space so I'd have time to go slower later in the mission.

I tend to go on HUNT almost from the start as I have played occasional missions where you get ambushed with the first few meters of movement - but maybe I am being overly cautious at the start and then move too incautiously towards the middle and end.

Where do you find the time to be so careful??

[Lethaface]

Well I admit I had not so much time left in #2, but it sufficed. Have more than an hour left in #3. Since playing WeGo I generally don't worry or have to worry about time. I also use hunt mostly, quick when possible or move when in cover and over longer distances to prevent fatigue.

[Apocal]

Sorry, that's just not the case. A Soviet carrying a scoped rifle during WWII had been trained as a sniper and only as a sniper. DMs didn't come around until after the war.

I was saying the guys in rifle platoons carrying sniper rifles were referred to using the same term, in Russian, as the guys operating as higher level scouting/harassment assets.

[LukeFF]

I was saying the guys in rifle platoons carrying sniper rifles were referred to using the same term, in Russian, as the guys operating as higher level scouting/harassment assets.

The trouble with that is the Russians didn't issue sniper rifles to rifle platoons. Snipers were company-level & above assets - not platoon.

[Apocal]

The trouble with that is the Russians didn't issue sniper rifles to rifle platoons. Snipers were company-level & above assets - not platoon.

Regardless of TOE, first hand accounting consistently place them with rifle platoons, participating directly in activities you'd expect of members of a rifle platoon: attacks on fixed positions, standing watches on the defense, etc.