Gamey Recon Technique?

[gashford]

My five pennies worth on what I have found a Jeep useful for. In a game I have made, called Surrounded! An American force has been surrounded in a crossroads by an Aggresive German force intent upon capturing the crossroads for supply.

Anyway, a church stands in the main town with a two storey barn a building collection to the north. I have one .50 calibre machine gun for the defense (among other units) knowing the punch of the .50 cal I set it up in the church overlooking one possible line of attack from the germans. Unfortunatly my enemy has come from the north, so using the jeep I had ready for redeplying the .50 cal, I jump him aboard and drive as fast as possible to redeploy the .50 cal just n time to cause a Wespe to be abandoned.

In reality I would imagine the Jeep woul dbe for the TC, but in a case like this I would not imagine he would mind the reallocation?

Hope this helps

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

BUT the problem remains that no matter how you tweak spotting with regard to this issue, (fast jeep recon), once one unit (any unit) "sees" or spots or knows something, there is and instantaneous telepathic borg like transmission of this intel info to ALL other units. Now the issue here is exactly to WHAT DEGREE will CM players take advantage of this absolute spotting "loophole"

...

Well I have no doubt it is not at all a realistic recon tactic, BUT my point is the absolute spotting rules are not really realistic to begin with (Again not in any way a critscsm of absolute spotting) so why should we not play the game to gain avery possible advantage the system will offer? It is now clear to me this way of thinking is called "gamey" and is offensive to those would would prefer to believe the game accurately models WWII terrain, tactics, vehicles and infantry units.

As stated above, it is a game, within that game, keen players will seek to find ways like Smoker1 did to minimize the risk incured to maximze the benifits or payoffs of a particular tactic.

To my mind, there is no room for "gentlemen's agreements" in WWII combat simulation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't agree more. Apparently I have failed to make my position clear in an attempt to cover all aspects of the question including the limitations of the game, to the extent that I have been accused of being unable to understand the concept of bounding overwatch

So I wave the white flag and fall back upon YOUR position and withdraw to the rear with my tail between my legs, leaving the majority here with their illusion that CM is a close enough realistic simulation of WW2 combat that players need additional rules to keep it realistic

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 09-22-2000).]

[:USERNAME:]

Since units essentially share spotting knowledge, it really degrades hiding , ambushes, etc.

I dont see the place of recon in the game really. I reiterate that the game is Combat Mission not recon mission. So to make being in a truck/jeep/cycle really deadly makes sense to me IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS GAME.

The game either has you having complete control of your units during the orders phase (unless routed in which case its no control) or a spectator during the execution phase. Its a wierd dichotomy.

Its been suggested that orders menus be curtailed and met with the usual treatment. I think alot of people liked this semi-control.

Example: jeepster drives up road and gets the attention of a LMG. Turn ends. Human pops up menu for the jeepster and doesnt see fast move or move available. He can only order a withdrawl or retreat or something along those lines.

I think the game is getting like modern physics where peoples personalitys are becoming part of the process. Spooky I tell ya.

Lewis

[Los]

"I don't see the place of recon in the game really. I reiterate that the game is Combat Mission not recon mission."

I guess this qualifies for inane statement of the week?

Jarmo says...

"No, not really. But I do have minor gripes against reducing realism to get rid of gameyness."

Reducing spotting effectiveness while moving at fast speed is not a reduction in realism it is an increase in realism. Lets face it, once you spot somebody in CM you have their precise location, that kind of precise targeting info is normally not attainable at first glance while bouncing cross country at 30 mph under fire or imminent fire. (Unless the thing pops up right in front of you!) And throwing more guys in the back seat of your truck or vehicle doesn't help matters dramatically. They're all bouncing around holding on for dear life, (or in a tank trying to keep from smashing into a hard fixture or having something fall on your head, or having a hatch fall on your fingers.) We're not talking Abrams and Leopards here.

RE: John's (good) Ideas....

"Allow either a recon dismount element (assumes driver remains aboard, thus not triggering Abandoned logic in AI) or allow crew to dismount bodily, temporarily abandoning the vehicle, but using a vehicle functionality test to override the normal "no remount" provision."

I'd rather have the ability to purchase individual squads (or better yet fire teams/OPs) which can then be mounted and dismounted without having to come up with a potentially sticky programming solution. It accomplishes the same thing plus helps out in other areas (scenario design). It's also something we have talked about on the beta list and will get further discussion.

" Doing this would create one more vehicle

state between "hull down" and "fully exposed."

This I like and we had a rather extensive discussion on this a while back. The question some people came up with is "Hull down to what"? It's legitimate to some point since you could be in defilade to part of a long open area below you but not all of it. Or you could go hull down to all of the open area in front of you but that would create potential dead space in areas closer to your position. It's easier to go hull down with reference to a specific engagement area or tgt. This requires a two-part command to designate where to go hull down and what point to go hull down relative too. Also some TACAI improvements to add a little Hull down logic to the driver. Personally I'm against a player having to fiddle back and forth with his tank to go hull down, if I wanna do that I play Steel Beasts, as a company or even platoon commander I designate the engagement area and the crew figures out the particulars of hull down. But other people do want to have that level of control. It's got pitfalls either way.

Your idea number three (Intel degradation relative to movement) is being implemented. There should be varying levels of spotting effectiveness depending on whether you are stationary, moving tactically or moving fast. (Plus all the other usual variables)

Number four is a good idea too. Particularly if the vehicle killed is the only one to have seen the firer.

Cheers...

Los

[Jarmo]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

Jarmo says...

"No, not really. But I do have minor gripes against reducing realism to get rid of gameyness."

Reducing spotting effectiveness while moving at fast speed is not a reduction in realism it is an increase in realism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could be I was unclear again.

As I said, I have no problem with reducing spotting effectiveness

while moving. It's a good idea.

It's just that it won't solve the problem.

There are plenty

of cheap allied tracked vehicles, and you can still go top speed

at roads and pavement.

Hmm, will there be serious spotting difficulties

implemented for cars going fast on a paved road?

It's not that much bumpier than when just moving.

[Von Fauster]

Scouting is a necessity in any military endeavor, but it has its consequences. Chech out this screen shot from A Day in the Cav campaign:

http://members.fortunecity.com/efoster1/images/ouch.jpg

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by John Kettler:

Add some additional logic (useful for other vehicles too) which would allow the vehicle commander to expose only his head relative to an obstacle to his immediate front. In other words, add a new exposure rating in which only the commander's head could be seen and targeted. The rest of the vehicle would be in defilade from LOS and might or might not be hittable through the LOS block, depending upon what it was. Doing this would create one more vehicle state between "hull down" and "fully exposed." It would directly correspond to the "turret down" state which is familiar to any U.S. tankers here on the Forum. This is the ideal mounted position from which to scope out suspect areas with binoculars or conduct recon by fire with the MG, usually without exposing the vehicle to direct fire.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes a "turret down" option would be a great addition. It would allow a more effective use of assets.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

So what he is saying (I think ) is look how good this works? Is it fair or gamey?

Well currently the game as it is coded (in my opinion) encourages this kind of recon because it is cheap and it is fast and VERY effective, so why not use it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why not use it? This is the kind of thinking that "justified", before patch, using "the game as it is coded" to get unlimit arty by abusing the spotting round not being counted.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Well I have no doubt it is not at all a realistic recon tactic, BUT my point is the absolute spotting rules are not really realistic to begin with (Again not in any way a critscsm of absolute spotting) so why should we not play the game to gain avery possible advantage the system will offer? It is now clear to me this way of thinking is called "gamey" and is offensive to those would would prefer to believe the game accurately models WWII terrain, tactics, vehicles and infantry units.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is called "gamey" by those who wish to simulate a WWII battle and would expect an opponent not to take advantage of a game design to do things not likely to be found on the battlefield. It is these people who understand there are limits on what a game can simulate or effect and hope that others wouldn't "game" the game engine just because they can.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

To my mind, there is no room for "gentlemen's agreements" in WWII combat simulation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There will always be the need for these agreements as long as there are players who are willing to "game" the game engine.

Cav

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

...leaving the majority here with their illusion that CM is a close enough realistic simulation of WW2 combat that players need additional rules to keep it realistic

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are confused once again.

The debate about "gamey" tactics/methods is not because the game [CM] is "close enough realistic simulation", we have it because it is as "close as we are now to a simulation". It is because it is NOT entirely realistic that this discussion is even going on. If CM was a "realistic sumulation" there would be no truly "gamey" tactics. The game would force a player to use realism. This is not the case and this is why we discuss "gamey" methods and tactics in the game. It is because we know the game is not "close enough" to realism that many feel that the player should use common sense and realistic methods instead of finding what can be abused because of the game engine itself.

Cav

[Guest Big Time Software]

Jarmo wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>No, not really. But I do have minor gripes against reducing realism to get rid of gameyness.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a contradiction in terms Gameyness is, but definition, the distortion (or perverion if you will ) of reality. The more gamey something is, the more it distorts reality. So as long as the preventative measure isn't MORE of a distraction from reality than the problem it seeks to address, then on balance the game is MORE realistic as a result. And why on Earth would we make something less realistic on balance? It defeats the entire purpose.

As for the crews, this has been something discussed far too often IMHO. The weapons bailed out crews have IS REALISTIC. Have you ever seen how an SMG is strapped into an AFV? If you have 5 seconds to escape a hit tank, how many of those precious seconds would you spend unstrapping the gun and grabbing the ammo, which would also make exiting more difficult?

I mention the above to simply illustrate a point, not to open up the crew debate again. It is as old as it is boring

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So I wave the white flag and fall back upon YOUR position and withdraw to the rear with my tail between my legs, leaving the majority here with their illusion that CM is a close enough realistic simulation of WW2 combat that players need additional rules to keep it realistic<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm sorry to put this so very bluntly... but what a bunch of nonsense. Combat Mission is not reality, it is a bunch of rules. The game isn't something that just is, but something that was built from nothing to simulate reality. Sometimes there are flaws in these rules and they need to be fixed. This recon thing is one of them. Like I asked before Henri, if we told you we found a problem with the "rules" that prevented all German Armored Cars from targeting American Armored Cars, would you be so resistant to us fixing it because you object to "players need[ing] additional rules to keep it realistic"??

The fact is that you are totally, and utterly, wrong in your concept of what recon is at this level. Several veterans, who have done this for a living, have told you so. Documentation has told you so. Others with military history experience have told you so. Nobody has come to challenge any of this except for you (not even Tom has challenged this really), yet you still insist that you are right and that we are somehow screwing up reality. Poppycock

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

This might be a first, but...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Lewis: I dont see the place of recon in the game really. I reiterate that the game is Combat Mission not recon mission. So to make being in a truck/jeep/cycle really deadly makes sense to me IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS GAME.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I totally, and utterly, agree with Lewis here without any reservations or sarcasim of any sort. When you are talking an individual battle in CM, you are talking about a clash of forces that more-or-less expect to meet each other.

There is, however, room for recon in Operations. In fact, a couple of our Ops are designed with Recon in mind. The attacker gets a recon force for the first battle, but doesn't get his main combat force until, say, the 3rd battle. This is a situation that DOES allow for realistic recon since the player spends something like at least one battle (30-40 turns or so) just probing the enemy positions.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Its been suggested that orders menus be curtailed and met with the usual treatment. I think alot of people liked this semi-control.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting suggestion and honestly can't remember seeing it suggested before. However, it would be very difficult to know when a unit should have orders curtailed and when it shouldn't. Remember, it is infinately easier for a human to look at something and make a decision like this. Programming judgement calls based on complex and context sensitive situations is not easy to do.

Steve

[Los]

Jarmo, the reduction of effectiveness for spotting while fast is for all vehicles not just jeeps.

Los

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi John,

Some good suggestions. Here are my thoughts...

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>1. Allow either a recon dismount element<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If CM were more geared towards being a game about recon, I would agree. But for the vast and overwhelming majority of battles, this feature really wouldn't accomplish much. Even if used, and used correctly, it would most likely be under circumstances that would make people wonder why they bought the vehicle in the first place. Also, you can already sorta do this. If you buy a Jeep and put a Bazooka team in it you get the same functionality.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>2. Add some additional logic (useful for other vehicles too) which would allow the vehicle commander to expose only his head relative to an obstacle to his immediate front.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This runs into a much, much larger problem; LOS calculations. As desirable as this is, currently we do not feel the hardware could handle the impact of such a design change. LOS calculations is probably the most CPU intensive part of CM. Adding functionality like this would cause a fairly large increase in CPU load. Someday we can do this for sure, but we don't know when exactly. It is certainly desirable to add.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>3. Implement an intel degrade subroutine for all spotting against targets in cover from fast moving vehicles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is already in the game. However, the "absolute" spotting system we have now undermines its effectiveness. Say the fast moving Jeep spots a unit hiding, which other friendly units can draw LOS to. Now the power of observation has been transferred onto units that are not vehicles and/or are not moving fast. Making CM have a "relative" spotting system would inherently fix this problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>4. Aside from reducing the chance of spotting from fast moving vehicles... consider blocking sighting for one turn.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In theory, this might sound like a good. However... there are serious problems with this concept. First of all, why penalize JUST fast moving vehicles? In theory, this logic should apply to every unit in the game, regardless of speed or stance. What you are suggesting here is simulating some sort of C&C type reporting system. However, this applies equally to all units.

Say for example you move a 1/2 squad in Tall Pines 50m ahead of the rest of the platoon. It gets ambushed and gets wiped out after a rather quick (say 90 second) firefight. In that time it acquired more information than just a "sound contact". This information is reported to the player when in reality the rest of the platoon would only have, at best, a "sound contact" idea about the enemy unit. In fact, it wouldn't even know that the friendly unit was wiped out, which in itself is something that gives you recon information about the enemy unit (i.e. it is powerful enough to kill the known friendly unit).

There is also the problem of the game system allowing the fast moving vehicle to take evasive and counter measures (i.e. shooting back) if the target is in fact not spotted. The game system can not shoot at something it hasn't spotted. There is no code to support a unit seeing something that the player can not. Relative spotting is needed here.

My point here is that penalizing JUST fast moving vehicles in this way is inconsistent with the rest of the way the game works. It is the sort of slippery slope that we don't want to go down until we have a comprehensive, and consistent, system in place to put into place.

-------

To sum up... perhaps people are starting to understand how difficult this entire problem is. It touches on so many different aspects of the game, player interaction, and even hardware limitations. Anything short of a comprehensive system will leave things pretty much the way they are now. However, in the case of the two future changes to fast moving vehicles is concerned... they are more or less a correction of oversight on our part involving the existing system of checks and balances. In other words, it should have been like this with 1.0 but nobody caught the problem until now.

Thanks,

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-22-2000).]

[CavScout]

I think recon units have a place in <u>Comabat Mission</u>. Their mission may just not be recon in in the context of the battle. The recon units would likely be used in a supporting role such as holding an objective after it has been taken or maybe, in the case of M8s, providing infantry with some fire support. They could be used to secure the flanks [against edge creep ].

If at company level recon units may not be around as much but at the battalion level I would think they would at least be present.

Cav

[R-Man]

Fast movement is a relative thing. I do not want to see my Sherman's spotting ability reduced just because it is lumbering along at 20 mph in "fast" mode.

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software:

I'm sorry to put this so very bluntly... but what a bunch of nonsense.

...

The fact is that you are totally, and utterly, wrong in your concept of what recon is at this level... Nobody has come to challenge any of this except for you (not even Tom has challenged this really), yet you still insist that you are right and that we are somehow screwing up reality. Poppycock

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was intending to bow of of this gracefully, but since yhou insist on kicking me in the ass while I'm doing it, here is a piece of my mind.

I did not give a "concept" of what recon was, all I did was state that there were instances where a fast-moving vehicle was safer than a slow-moving one, and insist on the difficulty in the game of applying real-life recon techniques, and reiterated my objection to adding rules that are not in the game. Apparently you interpreted this as an attack upon yourself and the game.Where I DID give specific examples of my own use of fast recon (using armored cars), I was told by the experts that they did not consider this gamey, so the question was and still is, where is the boundary?

So why don't you drop the insult mode and recognize that it is possible for people to have different opinions and stop trying to discourage opinions that show up the limitations of this excellent game?

No wonder you and Fionn have so much difficulty getting along!...

Henri

And from now on, I intend to apply the principle that it is better to remain silent and pass for an idiot than to speak up and to memove all doubt (well, at least until tomorrow, then we will see... )

[Guest Big Time Software]

Cav, this is correct. The recon vehicles themselves have a place in the game. How many battles, for example, do you know of where a Panzer Division recon battalion was basically left on its own to defend/take an objective? Plenty 'o times in Normandy in particular.

R-Man... true, but this change doesn't affect heavy armor vehicles with dedicated drivers and commanders. Plus... have you ever seen how smooth a ride you get at 20mph in a WWII tracked vehicle? Not good, I can promise you that from 1st hand experience. I get up to 15mph in mine and I think my life might end at any second Ah, but then the screams from the people in the back brings me a smile and I find the strength to carry on

Steve

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

You took what I said in a way that it was not intended. I, and others, have spent a LOT of time explaining the way things work and the reasons behind various aspects of real recon and its interaction with the game. Unfortunately, you keep missing the point and arguing from a mistaken PoV. I am not alone in this assessment (got 2 emails asking me why I am "wasting my time" even).

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So why don't you drop the insult mode and recognize that it is possible for people to have different opinions and stop trying to discourage opinions that show up the limitations of this excellent game? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite the contrary. *I* am point out more limitations in the game than you are. In fact, you are actively arguing AGAINST our admissions that there are problems and things need to be fixed. So how in the world can it be said that we are "discourage opinions that show up the limitations of this excellent game" when we are in fact highlighting these problems and even admitting that we can't fix them?

Sheesh...

Steve

[DanE]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Big Time Software: Ah, but then the screams from the people in the back brings me a smile and I find the strength to carry on

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What?!? Steve is letting the common folk ride in the Weasel? What is the world coming to?

[:USERNAME:]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by R-Man:

Fast movement is a relative thing. I do not want to see my Sherman's spotting ability reduced just because it is lumbering along at 20 mph in "fast" mode.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ever been on an armored tracked vehicle doing 20mph? Even on a road it shakes you so that your vision becomes blurry.

Lewis

[Los]

Recon is a continual process. The size of the battle (or even whether you are playing CC, CM, Talonsoft, or any other type of game with hidden units) has no relevance to this fact. Whether you are in a large game or meeting engagement and you deliberately purchase recon assetts or you are playing a small dittie like Wild Bill's "Ramelle-SPR" battle, and you are just moving your guys forward to "see what happens" either way you are performing recon. Unless you play with FOW turned off you must consider recon.

Note: That this has nothing to do with acquiring or maintaining recon specific units in the game. But unless you know exactly where every enemy unit is in the game you must consider how and when you will acquire that information since it impacts where and how specifically you employ your own forces.

In short, recon, in CM terms, is the physical act of using your units to employ CM's spotting/LOS routines to get you the info you need. You do it unconsciously while you are playing even if you do not say to yourself out loud: "I am doing recon". The fact of whether you are using dedicated recon elements like Scour cars or 232s is irrelevant.

CAV scout, whether recon units are around is a simple matter of whether or not there are dedicated recon assets in a given units OB. If there are no recon assetts in a company OB then there are not recon assetts in a CM company OB (However we both now that all company commanders detach their own scouts when moving out, this can be done easily enough in CM using the split comand.) HOwever as stated before there is also a lot of scouting and recon that has been conducted on behalf the player before the typical CM batle ever starts. Consider the fact that one knows and can review the exact lay out of the terrain before you to be one of those side effects.

As for having recon units with special abilities in CM, Steve I know, remembers that we had long and detailed discussions over this before release amongst the beta testers. Now recon vehicles, in and of themselves confer no added advantage to spotting. Likewise the OB of a recon unit (there are recon unit OBs available in the editor. What differentiates dedicated recon assetts as being useful for recon is not what kind of weapons they carry or what kind of vehicles they drive, though some equipment is more suited to the task than others. NOTE: were talking WW2 here not today where a scout or recon OB/TOE will include specialist equipment)

What differentiates recon units particularly in CM terms for he effectiveness in spotting is their quality/experience. ALl of this right now is in the hands of the scenario designer or the player in QB. If you are playing/designing a game with a large enough (I.e. bn or regt where OB recon assetts would be present or TF would contain dedicated recon assetts)-level focus or specific enough focus (say Grabner's unit attacking the bridge at Arnhem), then you have the ability to differntiate the quality of reocn assetts already. I think this is the best way to handle it.

If you are playing a smaller game without dedicated OB assetts (Say you are the germans in the Ramelle scenario), then it you have no scout specialists available. It behooves you not to do what the germans did in the movie and go marching down the street with no scouts out, but to either detach sqauds to act as point (Whch is in fact scouting) or manuever through bounding overwatch towards your objective (which can be in fact another form of recon).

Either way we come back to the detailed discusions around the spotting/LOS rules within the game and how accurate they are what can be changedd now if needed, what must wait till CM2, (and what will never change) in order to attain the desired mix of pausibility and attainability.

And finally Henri:

"all I did was state that there were instances where a fast-moving vehicle was safer than a slow-moving one, and insist on the difficulty in the game of applying real-life recon techniques..."

There certainly is no doubt that there are circumstances where speed is a form of security, (that is minimizing exposure time to dangoius areas by crossing them quickly). And we employ this when necessary. What we DON't do and cannot do, as scouts or whatnot is expect that while we are moving at top speed across an area because we want to get through it fast, that we can still perform any meaningful scouting. That simpy is just not the case. (Meaningful scouting is more than just seeing the target or the puff of smoke, it's getting the exact location and make up of the tgt and passing that forward so others can make use of the information.) That's why the guys in the platoon hat are not currently speeding across a danger area are providing security and overwatch. They do the spotting. When we get to et otehr side, then we stop and return the favor for them. SO in short don't mix up driving fast, which you do for safety reason at times, with effective scouting. they are in fact normally mutually exclusive.

(Apologies in advance if I'm misinterpreting you).

Cheers...

Los

[aka_tom_w]

Steve Says:

"The fact is that you are totally, and utterly, wrong in your concept of what recon is at this level. Several veterans, who have done this for a living, have told you so. Documentation

has told you so. Others with military history experience have told you so. Nobody has

come to challenge any of this except for you (not even Tom has challenged this really), yet

you still insist that you are right and that we are somehow screwing up reality. Poppycock

Steve"

I just wanted to clarify my position and withdraw the suggestion that the "drone jeep" with the dummies in it could be realistically observed from a safe distance when shot at by the enemy.

I enjoy playing CM, I really really do, I enjoy beating the AI and watching to see if it uses any gamey tactics? (usually it does not, occasionally a bailed go might " go postal " and become fanatic and try to kill something but I don't really hold that against it.)

The point "not even Tom has challenged this really" seemed worthy of comment because I don't think I ever suggested that the deep fast jeep recon would have actually worked in reality I was just (at first) a little put off by how it was labeled gamey and how come this "gamey" thing was so offensive to so many here. I have now learned that (heaven forbid) I am a gamey player who tries to win at games like combat mission by understanding all the rules so well I can see the loopholes and weakness and plan tactics to take advantage of them. I think we have all agreed that is what Smoker1 was refering to when he started this thread.

To defend this position I would like to say that from the point of view of sound military tactics, the concept of learing EVERYTHING you can about your enemy and determining all its/his/her/their strengths and weakness, and then focusing your attack on to take advantage of those weaknesses, is to my mind the oldest and most fundamental and time tested tactic in the book.

Now in this case Steve Charles and Combat Mission are not the enemy AT ALL but the theory still goes the same for trying to find ways to win while playing CM. My biggest problem is the concept of house rules or gentleman's agreements in grey area's like recon. For instance why is it ok to run a half squad of infantry in a suicide rush to the same spot you would send that suicide jeep recon joy ride?

I DON'T like grey areas in house rules and gentlemen's aggreements and so I prefer to play completely by the rules (Black and white) and within the rules (irrespective of their accurate modeling of reality).

The more the rules are changed to limit and minimize things that have been up until now "house rules" and the more the rules make the game model recon in a more realistic way the happier I will be as then (hopefully) no informal "house rules" will have to be added on top the Combat Mission code (and it is WONDERFUL code by the way!) so I can get down to playing by the seat of my pants and use creative and devilish tactics that I hope will out wit and completly surprise my opponent.

And yes, I'm not 16 anymore but I still love to play like a kid !

I fully support all attempts to make the recon spotting rules more realistic so I can get back to playing CM and not be labeled a gamey player by attempting to exploit the way I understand how absolute spotting is modeled in the game.

And YES this is still a great disccusion, but no, I never really ever (I don't think) suggested the fast deep suicide jeep recon joy ride would work in Real Life, but unlike so many others here, I really don't care if it would or wouldn't I just want to know if it is an effective tactic to win battles in CM, and guess what, YES it is a very effective tactic and either everybody should use it (NOT going to happen!) or it is a programing over sight and it should be fixed. Well I'm thrilled to know it will be fixed and then we can all go back to finding other loopholes to exploit

I know you all think I'm just another gamey weasle Min/Max player that you hated to play board games against, actually I'm not but I grew up playing board games against a VERY good one (gamey weasle) and learned all his sneakey weasely tricks

Its Nice to see this thread so active, I'm very Gald to see Steve and Charles have taken this issue so seriously.

I welcome all the proposed changes in the next patch and I CAN'T wait for TCP/IP

-tom w

[Mannheim Tanker]

I really appreciate you playing Devil's advocate, Tom. I'd never even THOUGHT of trying to exploit this part of the game engine. We need gamey guys like you to find all of these loopholes! LOL! Seriously, thanks for the balanced, well-thought-out discussion. Maybe we can try a PBEM sometime - AFTER we close all of these loopholes

[Los]

"You ever been on an armored tracked vehicle doing 20mph? Even on a road it shakes you so that your vision becomes blurry."

Sorry for the digression but this reminds me of the time when as a buck private I was assigned as OPFOR for a scout platoon ambush drill. I sat in the back of a duece and a half which drove across the desert (actually on a trail or dirt road) plodding along at maybe ten-twenty MPH tops and experience a bone jarring six hour ride that left me in a mood to brutally murder the driver even though he was trying to be as careful as possible. Never had I ever experiecned such an unleasant experience. It left such a mark on me that a few years later when I was sent for my duece license, I deliberately flunked the etest because I never wanted anyone to be as pissed at me as I was at that driver. Funny stuff. Military vehicles were certainly not designed for a smooth ride, at least back then.

Los

[CavScout]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Los:

CAV scout, whether recon units are around is a simple matter of whether or not there are dedicated recon assets in a given units OB. If there are no recon assetts in a company OB then there are not recon assetts in a CM company OB (However we both now that all company commanders detach their own scouts when moving out, this can be done easily enough in CM using the split comand.) HOwever as stated before there is also a lot of scouting and recon that has been conducted on behalf the player before the typical CM batle ever starts. Consider the fact that one knows and can review the exact lay out of the terrain before you to be one of those side effects.

Los<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was refering to recon specific units. A company commander would likely be using dismounted infantry or the like for his own local recon. And even this would not be conducted in the manner that started this thread.