Gamey Recon Technique?

[Guest tero]

>A) IRL (note: In Real Life), Resources are finite, in the game they are "infinite", if you lose a unit right here , right now, it doesnt matter to the next QB or PBEM.

True. But what is the point ? I should treat my troops with decorum and respect the individual needs and rights of each and every trooper in my virtual force ? Since the mouse does not give me 240 every time a man gets killed under my command I feel there should be no restriction imposed on the utilization of the force as the commander sees fit other than those imposed by the game engine, such as morale. Unless we are talking about using historical OB's.

>"Recce is what is all about", yes, but with these unrealistic tactics you could only recce for one (small) battle, the next battle a click down the road, you'll have nothing, but the game doesn't reflect that (yeah yeah I know operations blah blah, the ratio of QB's and scenarios vs operations is huge). If you did this during an operation it would be somewhat less gamey because those forces would be unavailable to you in the next battle. So what I am saying is that you are taking advantage of the "slice in time" that the game is being played in, while the people on defense don't have that advantage because they have less forces than you and don't need gamey recon because you have to expose your forces to come after them anyways.

If the game is set up using historical OB's the recce units should be followed by mostly light armour (M5's, M8 GMC's) and infantry. Perhaps one way to avoid the snares of gamey recce is to impose these kind of historical OB restrictions on the forces. You can get X jeeps but you must leave out the heavies. If you ran into tons of Panthers, well, tough titties, pal.

> The unrealstic spotting (necessitated by the game engine) makes the value of the jeep recon outweigh it's actual point value.

Agreed. Fixing the spotting would make the jeep recce less attractive.

>C) The "terrain factor" , terrain is very smooth in CM which allows for great speeds of wheeled vehicles, IRL this is not the case, a smooth looking field is anything but driving over it. IMHO jeeps rockin at 40mph across the terrain is unrealistic, the guys would bounce out of their seats. Try taking a vehicle across a field of "open ground" and see how fast you can go.

Agreed (again). Crosscountry speeds for wheeled vehicles are far too great.

>as I said before, yes it is VERY effective, but it is so effective because it takes "advantage" of the game engine not being able to model RL.

As I said before the Germans did use similar recce tactics in RL to flush out defences.

>I think the "jeep tactic" is for people who can't handle the challenge. Just MHO.

Or is it the other way around ? People who can not counter unexpected moves made by their opponents call it gamey to get the moral high ground.

On a related note: I find it gamey the opponent spots my units dug in deep in the forest at 400+ meters.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Tero,

If you think those vehicles were lost by running them around willy nilly in known enemy hot spots, for the sole purpose of spotting units until death, you are totally and utterly wrong.

Casualties for recon units were high. That is a fact. They were given some of the most dangerous jobs in the war. That is a fact. But they weren't sent on totally inconceivable missions with the explicit purpose of spotting one more squad or mortar before dying. That is also fact.

Here is something to better explain the high casualties for recon units that did NOT involve gamey tactics...

I just finished playing a medium sized PBEM game. I had 4x250/1 halftracks for recon and transportation purposes. They were allocated carefully across my front line. They moved up so that they were only slightly ahead of the follow up infantry. I would drive them (using MOVE not FAST) and stop them. Pretty much one turn of movement and one of sitting and waiting for the infantry to catch up. Throughout the course of 10 turns of initial contact with the enemy I lost all 4 HTs. How? As follows:

HT#1 - knocked out by a handgrenade by the first squad spotted on the entire battlefield. In other words, I had no idea where his front line was, and unfortunately this unit found it.

HT#2 - knocked out by a Bazooka while providing covering fire for a pinned down platoon of infantry. The unit was concealed in a house and the HT was not moving and within 10 meters of friendly infantry on either side of it.

HT#3 - knocked out when it stumbled upon a concealed 57mm AT gun. The range was about 400m and the AT gun got off a lucky first shot.

HT#4 - after providing about 10 turns worth of covering fire, the enemy player snuck a bazooka around and knocked it out with one shot. The bazooka team was eliminated.

So... I lost 100% of my armored recon force, but not one of them was engaged in gamey tactics. So you can quote casualty figures all you like, but you are drawing the wrong conclusions from it. See my previous post about what would have really happened if a commander did what some people here are suggesting.

Henri, if it is one Jeep or 20, the tactic is still gamey if the player KNOWINGLY purchases and deploys something like this for the explicit purpose of running it around as some sort of quick and easy means of spotting enemy units in an unrealistic way. As for the "straw man" argument, I think you should look back a few pages to where someone pointed out that this had in fact happened to him.

As for house rules... I think there should be some created. I have no problem with people playing their games like this, but I do have a VERY hard time with anybody trying to justify it as a legitimate WWII tactic. It is not, therefore it is GAMEY. As one of the game designers I can tell you for sure that no matter how effective it is in CM it is not realistic. And in the future we hope to have more things in place to reduce its effectiveness even more.

Steve

[Banshee]

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

As I said before the Germans did use similar recce tactics in RL to flush out defences.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never heard of germans doing anything like this. I've read of them drawing driving out of treelines to be intentionally spotted and hoping to draw fire. But usually they still limited exposure quite a bit. With the jeeps speed you can be exposed quite a bit but still can't be tracked and shot at because of the high rate of speed.

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

Or is it the other way around ? People who can not counter unexpected moves made by their opponents call it gamey to get the moral high ground.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That comment didn't come out as intended but I'll respond to this anyways. With the way jeeps are modeled now I believe that there is no effective counter tactic. If there is any significant amount of open ground the jeep simply wizzes by without getting hit. Like I said I used this tactic in QB's before and saw it's effectiveness. 90% of the time units were firing on it they simply couldnt hit it, when jeeps were lost it was because they had to slow to turn because they hit the edge of the map. I could just plot a course out staying generally out the way of any major obstacles and I was impervious. It was like paying 19pts (or 38 or 57) to turn off FOW, no problem I'd pay it every time. The jeep tactic isn't some brilliant strategy, everyone here stumbled on to the fact that it could be done. It is a gamey tactic that takes advantage of the game engine. It may be just a point that you and I differ I think.

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Grognerd_Fogman]

O my God, I posted near the beginning of this thread but haven't checked in for a bit. Wow, what a verbose one this turned out to be. I just have a couple of things or three to add.

1. For CM2 could there be a new category for the recon vehicles? Allow only a few points for this type of unit so someone can't amass a killer jeep "gamey" scouting force.

2. I still can't understand why people won't hide their forces from early "gamey" recon by not setting lotsa ambush markers close up so they won't open up on em.

3. This is probably not a direct parallel but if I remember correctly the Japanese used kamikaze dudes that beforehand, knowing they would die, willingly crashed into our Pacific fleet. Some even knowing that the war was most likely lost! Now I realize that US/ALLY military guys might disobey orders 99.9% of the time in this type of situation but there were people that did do extreme things like this. So I wonder what would be acceptable if instead of plane crashing to kill themselves for the motherland, they utilized kamikaze jeep drivers on the islands. Hmmm, probably sounds better on your tombstone to have gone head-in an whacked a US battleship then to say I found a battalion in the woods with my jeep and used my breast pocket parakeet to warn HQ just before I croaked... LOL...just kidding guys, I just wanted to liven up this thread.

4. I guess I just had a beef with how people described "gamey" tactics that were not bugs or obvious flaws in program design. It seemed to be in the negative tense. Like if you do anything remotely suspicious of this behavior, it's kinda like holding an unfair advantage. I realize that the majority of commanders in their right mind would never do this but this recon thing is not nowhere near as bad as some other games out there. Like certain RTS games that use "tank rush" tactics knowing full well that the other side absolutely cannot stop it due to non-balanced game design issues. I just don't feel this is a big deal in CM due to the fact both sides can employ similar tactics without one side or the other getting an advantage. I guess people have to agree before they start a game. Nothing wrong with that. Maybe agree to only so many units of that type. Having to end up with recon units within so many meters of trees or else he has to be marched back to the rear and not used again or else default the game.

5. Lastly I would like to throw this hypothetical question out for thought to the non-gamey types out there:

It's the last turn of an important ladder/tournament PBEM match and you find that you only have a couple of non-MG jeeps left that could possibly reach the last two enemy held victory locations that you do not occupy whatsoever. You will lose if you don't at least halve them with the enemy. You do know for sure that there is at least one shreck squad at each location. If you thought your two unarmed jeeps could get there at the last second before time ran out on the last turn and win the game for you, would you gamily rush and plant them there even knowing they had a great chance to be smacked? I say gamily because I don't think many jeeps in this situation would rush locations such as this to help halve a flag...

Have a cool day all!...

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

Thanks for Athskin!

[Guest Big Time Software]

As far as the High Horse thing... if someone tries to justify exploiting game limitations as being acceptable WWII tactics, that I take major issue with. I also think that if someone doesn't want to play with unrealistic tactics they shouldn't have to employ unrealistic counter tactics, because that means they have to play the same type of unrealistic game. And therefore, I fully support the notion that gamey tactics should only be used when both sides agree that their battle is going to be without any rules. Otherwise, by default, people should avoid exploiting bugs/design limiations in any game they play.

BTW, the Tank Rush problem in RTS games is largely do the the fact that control of units is next to impossible. Their internal AIs stink and the real time nature discourages carefully thought out tactics (I know, since I play RTS games too!). But Combat Mission *doesn't* encourage thoughtless behavior. It can still be done in some circumstances, but it is neither necessary nor the intention of the game as a whole to promote this.

And that is why when a "non-gamey" person is hit by a "gamey" tactic they get ticked off. This is the reason why it is best to have some ground rules so both sides know what the are getting into. If I *know* the other player is going to use gamey tactics, I can either not play the person or do so knowing that I could possibly be at a disadvantage if I don't play the same way.

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Smoker1]

Real life tactics have been mentioned on this thread many times. I haven't a clue about real life WWII tactics. I'm probably learning them by playing the game to a certain extent. I like to play CM under the delusion that I can invent new, better, more effective tactics than were really used by the various armies. However, any tactic I invent (more likely re-invent) I want to be plausible. I started this thread because the jeep recon dash just didn't seem right to me after I used it a couple times. I wanted to bounce the tactic off the CM community.

I really think Valdor has the best reason for it being a gamey tactic. There's no way a 4 wheeled vehicle can race around off-road at high speed for any length of time in western Europe. Clear terrain is full of objects, bumps, stumps, etc. that would cause the jeep to slow drastically, stop or crash. Slow movement means death. To me the tactic is gamey because the jeeps never have to slow down for any reason in CM as long as they stay in clear terrain.

The spotting issue is one thing but I'm really curious what speed jeeps and scout cars are travelling in CM. What speed is simulated? I think maybe these vehicles are moving too fast considering the "jeep traps" that are everywhere in what CM depicts as clear terrain.

I would say an average speed of 25 mph would be moving right along off road. This speed seems like it would be dangerously slow to me, without even considering the further frequent slow downs to negotiate some obstacle. Perhaps the speed of jeeps in CM is correct. It just "feels" fast to me.

As far as what the Russians would do as opposed to the Americans I don't care. If it could physically be done in the real physical world then it's a legit tactic IMO. Whether the mission is suicidal or not

has no relevance. I'll bet you could find a 20 year old soldier under your command to volunteer for just about anything short of self inflicted suicide. If they'll charge a machine gun they'll do almost anything you ask. If there's a chance to come out alive someone would volunteer.

I submit that the jeep recon tactic is gamey because it is physically impossible in the real world (at least in western Europe)and because of the spotting issues already addressed in this thread.

Smoker out.

[This message has been edited by Smoker1 (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Aussie Smith]

Steve

I gotta ask this:-

Would it be considered "Gamey" to purchase 6 MG jeeps to allow bussing of a platoon of inf to a spot that I consider highly important in the game (say a hill that provides an overall view of the battlefield)? If the hill is deep in no mans land it would also provide what I call "a deep probe or recon in depth" and this force is designed to hold that point at all costs till reinforcements arrive as I consider it strategically important to the outcome of the battle – deprive the enemy of intelligence and half the battle is won.

WE use this tactic all the time in the Army with our FAV’s (Fast Attack Vehicles – in our case Landrovers). It just reads that in the theme of this thread this may be construed as “Gamey”.

Craig

[Mannheim Tanker]

G Fogman: To answer your question (would I use a mad rush to grab a flag on the last turn in a tourney). No. How I place in the ladders is irrelevant to me since once a game is completed, it's forgotten and I move on to the next. If I need to "cheat" to win, then I don't deserve to win that game. You might find that tough to swallow/believe, but that's just how I play.

[Henri]

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

I just finished playing a medium sized PBEM game. I had 4x250/1 halftracks for recon and transportation purposes. They were allocated carefully across my front line. They moved up so that they were only slightly ahead of the follow up infantry. I would drive them (using MOVE not FAST) and stop them. Pretty much one turn of movement and one of sitting and waiting for the infantry to catch up. Throughout the course of 10 turns of initial contact with the enemy I lost all 4 HTs.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve, I'm not trying to play with words, and correct me if I'm wrong, but what you seem to be implying is that it's OK to sacrifice halftracks by moving them slowly until they collide with the enemy and are killed, but it is gamey to make them go fast and zigzag (assuming of course that the terrain favors it) to try to avoid enemy fire

What I debate here is the statement by some (maybe not you) that the purpose of sending a fast vehicle zigzagging through enemy territory is tantamount to ordering the unit to go get killed by drawing enemy fire. In fact, it is preferable in this circumstance if my fast-moving unit is not fired on AT ALL, because then it will gather information for free, but it is not up to me to decide if the enemy will fire at my unit.

Although I don't have documentation to back it up, I feel fairly sure that if a commander in WW2 believed that a vehicle had a better chance of survival by zooming through open terrain than by advancing cautiously, the commander would have used the former. If a player is stupid enough to use one when the other is more efficient, that is another problem...

Most of the opponents of fast recon use the argument that the INTENTION is to sacrifice units to gather information, but the intention is instead to gather information, so unless one is able to read his opponent's mind, his opponent's intentions are not for him to judge.

In sum, I feel that the two main arguments against fast recon, that it is ahistorical and that it is originates from criminal intentions rest on shaky ground.

henri

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

The point is that they were engaged in as safe a way as is possible on a battlefield. The fact that I was unlucky enough to loose all 4 does not mean that I was using them unrealistically. They were used realistically but a combo of bad luck and decent deployment of enemy forces caused them to be knocked out.

Using speed was intended to extract the unit from danger, not to rush around gathering information. The first thing a recon vehicle was supposed to do when it encountered opposition was to turn tail and run. Armored vehicles, when used in conjunction with infantry, also had the role of supporting fire.

Again... anybody that thinks that rushing around something like a Jeep, in an area known to be full of enemy units, with the explicit purpose of spotting as many enemy units as possible before getting kocked out is unrealistic, and therefore "gamey". It was never done and never will be done because of the real life issues discussed above (including someone that has been in a recon force).

Craig... moving forces from A to B is not gamey. Using top speed is also part of this. But, would you guys run your Land Rovers through known enemy positions in a blind rush to get to a certain location? In general, I would assume not as this is akin to gambling with REALLY good odds of death as a norm.

Steve

[Banshee]

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

In sum, I feel that the two main arguments against fast recon, that it is ahistorical and that it is originates from criminal intentions rest on shaky ground.

henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think there is many more than 2 arguments against this, but anywho let me reply.

A) Ahistorical: never have I heard of, seen, or seen suggested in any book anywhere that a movement to contact / attack / assault against prepared defensive positions was made by a bunch of jeeps rushing (ok zig zagging) towards the defensive positions. But in many many places have I heard of recon platoons using overwatch and bounded movements. But I am no way an authority on ww2, tactics, and the like, and I know absence of proof does not proove my point, I would just like to see a few anecdotes about it.

Where I have heard of "fast recon" is after a force breaks through the front lines and rushes into the rear, many , many times recon forces would be spread out looking for an open route, possible counterattack forces, etc. But this is after the defenses in depth have been breached. This would fall into the "meeting engagement" part of CM.

Also it's unrealistic because of the completely advantageous way that spotting is made. IRL that unit would have had almost zero effect on the battle because it was lost behind enemy lines out of communication, so it's basic effect on spotting would be nil.

Criminal Intentions: Well that term is a little harsh. But I do believe people send their jeeps deep into enemy territory with the belief that they will die, but hope that they might make it back (so they can do it again). For example , in a QB I have plotted a course that runs a jeep through enemy lines across their backfield and out the other side. Now I could argue that I have every intention of that jeep coming back alive since I plotted a course back, but in reality it is highly unlikely. But before it goes I bet it will expose a signficant percentage of the enemies combat power (esp vehicles and AT guns).

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Aussie Smith]

Steve

No - we would move to point of contact but sometimes the objective may need the banner "acceptable risk" placed on it. But yes, I see what you mean...

I guess in the end its a judgement call - unfortunately in the game the parameters of the flanks are clearly defined by map edge which makes this type of tactic easy to undertake knowing safety from fire from 1 flank at least is safe...that makes this option "gamey" in that regard but understandable why people would take the opportunity to do it.

Say - after you finish defeating Kwazy - you want to go toe to toe with another Aussie?

Craig

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think this is another good point to focus on...

EVEN IF running a Jeep around in the rear is realistic (I don't buy that ), the results that it yields very much is. In other words, the instant spotting info transmitted from this renagade is in no way shape or form realistic. So, no matter what anybody might think about the use of the vehicles themselves, there can be *NO* argument about the information it yields. And therefore, the tactic is gamey

Criag, Kwazy is already gone the road of the Tazmanian Devil Unfortunately, I can't take on any new games for the next couple of weeks. Shoot me an email in about 2 weeks and I will see if all Aussies are fun to drive over

Steve

[:USERNAME:]

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

Lewis,

Philistine posted this little bit that you haven't responded to:

This is oh so true. The TacAI would take over and largely negate any limitations imposed on the player during the Orders Phase. In fact, the incentive for the player to not issue targeting orders during the Orders Phase would increase, thus allowing the TacAI even more flexibility.

Even if there were NO problems putting relative spotting into just the Orders Phase and not the game as a whole (which is actually not the case, but whatever...) it would be practically useless. It would also be a bastardized, half implemented system that would not address the fundamental realism issue. Again, you have the luxury of coming up with ideas that work perfectly in your head, we do not.

We made a good call for CM1 but would obviously like to do things differently in the future. But I can assure you it won't be halfassed...

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Lets use an example:

10 squads are facing 10 enemy squads. The situation is such that all 10 enemy squads are 'spotted' because at least one friendly squad can spot an enemy squad. Therefore they are all spotted. The human then notices that one of the enemy squads all the way on one side presents an inordinate amount of danger. He decides to target all his friendly units onto said enemy squad so as to give him a mad minute.

Is this realistic? Of course not. Its telepathic and some other stuff. If the Human player could only target what each individual friendly unit could see, well, it would change the above situation. He would probably target units that posed the greatest threat to the friendly unit. Wow, seems realistic to me.

As for philly, he is making more of a comment on the TAC AI than on what I am proposing. If the TAC AI was done correctly, it would compensate for the omniscient units own decisions by weighting self preservation heavily and forcing targetting of the nearest threats (under the abstraction that they SHOULD be spotted). I would even have thrown in a LOS check once a unit decides to fire on a target. It would check LOS and if not good would force a next target. The 'hit' for this would have been longer waits for the turn resolution. I believe that is the price thats paid. Nothings as impossible as someone is letting on. As for NOT giving orders, get real. A human could outplay the TacAI even then.

I didnt ignore philly , I didnt see it and I am glad steve based his response on it.

Lewis

PS Lets all hope its fully-assed.

[This message has been edited by :USERNAME: (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Henri]

OK, let's consider the following situation: when blitzkrieg forces broke through enemy lines and rushed into unknown enemy territory, did their recon units move at a walking pace? Of course not, they would then fall behind the armor. When mechanized forces moved 100 miles a day, as often happened in WW2, their recon forces had to move at that pace or faster.

And I believe that professional soldiers here can confirm that recon forces generally had to be FAR ahead of the main force. And no one will deny (I hope) that the purpose of recon forces is to get as much information about enemy dispositions as possible.

Now because of the size of battles in CM, it is not feasible to have a realistic WW2-size recon force, and it is not feasible to have maps 60 miles long. I am not complaining nor criticizing the game, but this places a lot of unrealistic contraints upon game play. That the player is sometimes constrained to use allegedly unrealistic gameplay once in a while is therefore not surprising. How many battles in WW2 do you know of where the commander was told that if he didn't take the objective in 20 minutes, he would lose the battle?

Henri

[Banshee]

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

OK, let's consider the following situation: when blitzkrieg forces broke through enemy lines and rushed into unknown enemy territory, did their recon units move at a walking pace? Of course not, they would then fall behind the armor. When mechanized forces moved 100 miles a day, as often happened in WW2, their recon forces had to move at that pace or faster. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Compare this too my previous comment:

"Where I have heard of "fast recon" is after a force breaks through the front lines and rushes into the rear, many , many times recon forces would be spread out looking for an open route, possible counterattack forces, etc. But this is after the defenses in depth have been breached. This would fall into the "meeting engagement" part of CM."

I think this is a fundamental flaw in you're logic, movement to contact against prepared defenses is much different that running around behind enemy lines after the lines have been breached. Hans Von Luck's autobiography has a nice section on this when he is storming through france, avoiding contact, and when he gets near the objective (a port on the coast of france) he deploys his forces.

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

And I believe that professional soldiers here can confirm that recon forces generally had to be FAR ahead of the main force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again after they broke through.

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

Now because of the size of battles in CM, it is not feasible to have a realistic WW2-size recon force, and it is not feasible to have maps 60 miles long. I am not complaining nor criticizing the game, but this places a lot of unrealistic contraints upon game play. That the player is sometimes constrained to use allegedly unrealistic gameplay once in a while is therefore not surprising. How many battles in WW2 do you know of where the commander was told that if he didn't take the objective in 20 minutes, he would lose the battle?

Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is why I suggest you do a movement to contact operation with recon elements, it might give you a better feel of what our side of the argument is, I've never tried "A day in the life of the cav" in the operations part of CM but it sounds promising. you're looking at the WHOLE battlefield while CM is usually looking at small slices of the battle

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

Veni, vidi, panzerschrecki

[Vanir]

I'm going to say something that I'm really surprised no one has said before by now. I hinted at it earlier in this thread but it was ignored so maybe I'm full of crap, but here it goes:

Going by the definitions of gamey given here, there is no such thing as non-gamey recon in CM. Period.

BS you say? Think about it. One of the main reasons the fast jeep zigzag tactic is labled gamey is that it is sure suicide for the jeep. The dirty little secret that nobody here is talking about is the fact that all recon in CM is suicidal regardless of the tactics used. At least when it comes to vehicles. Whether or not your recce is going to die is not in question. They almost always do. The only question is will they expose enough of the enemy's positions before they die to make the expenditure of points worth it.

Has anyone read Fionn's latest AAR on MadMats site? For those who have not, in it Fionn dedicates 2 platoons of infantry and 3 Lynxes to recon. He does so explicitly stating that he fully expects them to be destoyed. And they are. His 3 Lynxes are dead by turn 3 and his 2 platoons largely decimated by turn 10. But he doesn't care because they've done their job. They have explosed the enemy and allowed him to bring superior firepower to bear upon them. Under the definitions given here this was quite gamey of him because he knew they were going to die, and if this had been a real battle the men would surely have known it as well and perhaps refused. (Note to Fionn if your reading: I don't think it was at all gamey I'm just using it as an example to prove a point).

In Steve's earlier post he says he was unlucky to have lost all 4 of his halftracks. Although I didn't watch the game, from his description of it I would disagree. I would argue that the loss of the halftracks was to be expected and probably unavoidable barring some real good luck. Thin skinned recon vehicles aren't made to survive extended combat. Thats why they make tanks. The question is, does Steve feel he got his 180 or so points worth from the HTs before they bought the farm? How many posts have I seen from people asking "how the heck do I keep my recon alive?" A lot. The usual answer given: you don't. In CM, they do their job and then die unless they are just plain lucky.

What is the role of recon? Experts correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was to move ahead of an advancing force on the march to discover if:

a: There is an enemy force up ahead.

b: If so it's general size, composition and position.

Problem: When a game of CM begins at turn 1 the player already knows all this. He knows where the other guy has set up within a few hundered meters at worst. If its a QB he knows the general size and composition of the force (number of points spent, ratio of armor to infantry, ect.) Recon's job is done. It's time to get out of the way and let the heavy battalions assault the enemy.

Sure you don't know the exact location of every unit. How could you? The recon could find it but they would surely die in the process. Yet that is basicly the only thing left for recon to do in CM. What else is there to do? Moving to contact at the foreward edge of your attack IMO isn't really recon per se in the historical sence, its participating in the attack itself, sacrificing themselves so that the following more valuable units don't have to. Sounds kind of gamey to me...

If someone can describe in detail how to use dedicated recon vehicles in CM in a non-gamey maner, in a way that they can carry out their mission effectively while at the same time having at least a half decent expectation to survive I would REALLY like to see it. And I'm sure I'm not the only one. As far as I'm concerned, as it stands right now, any use of dedicated recon vehicles in CM is inherently gamey. Move fast, move slow, duck in and out of cover or not, it doesn't matter. We all know they're dead meat. The best you can do is delay the inevitable. The only question is: will they give you enough before they kick off to the great motor pool in the sky to justify you purchasing them in the first place?

CM is a game and therefore there are some aspects of it that are unavoidably gamey as a result. If vehicles move too fast over open terrain, then why can't BTS tweak that?

For those people who think ordering your guys to certain death to gain info is gamey I can only say that in order to remain true to yourselves you should never buy dedicated recon vehicles in CM. Use the points to bolster your main assault force and rest easy with a clear conscience at night

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

No, there will be no sequels. Charles and Steve have given up wargame design in disgust and have gone off to Jamaica to invest their new-found wealth in the drug trade. -Michael emrys

[This message has been edited by Vanir (edited 09-19-2000).]

[Guest Big Time Software]

Henri,

You are confusing strategic rates of advance with tactical. The Germans didn't line up their forces at 5am in the morning, yell "Schnell" and have them drive to the end of the evening at top speed when the sun set. Recon units would probe enemy positions carefully and methodically, and withdraw if the resistance was organized in depth. Recon units were not to be wasted doing stuff the rest of the division was designed to do.

As for comments from people that has done this for a living, check above. They have commented. Also, I have no idea what has lead you to belive that it was SOP to drive around within meters of known, and organized, resistance. This is not something that was done. Period.

As I just stated above, even if this were the case (and it isn't) the information gained is absolutely unrealistic. So no matter what, the tactic is gamey. Period.

Lewis, realtive spotting has to be done during the Resolution Phase. I mean, how is it that units are supposed to know what it is they can and can't see in the Orders Phase? Magic? The concept of relative spotting is not in question here as we have stated many times it is desirable. But as I have stated many times, it wasn't practical to get into CM1 and will not likely be put in any time soon.

Steve

[Philistine]

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

{snip}As for philly, he is making more of a comment on the AI than what I am proposing. If the AI was done correctly, it would compensate for the omniscient

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, no. I was commenting on what you were proposing. My point was that it would not make sense to have relative spotting only in the orders phase.

Instead of your hypothetical of the player having 10 squads targetting 1 ultra-dangerous squad, even though it could only be seen by 1, you would just have a player not give targetting commands, trusting that the Tac AI will then target the greatest threat.

Putting in relative spotting in only one phase would cause its own distortions and problems.

Saying that if the AI is done "right" it would work is easy to say, but a little difficult to visualize. Essentially, you'd have to increase target stickyness well beyond the point at which everyone else would be screaming.

Why introduce potential new problems into the system when you're only going to half-fix the problem? Personally, I'd prefer to see relative spotting done right somewhere down the road, than incremental attempts which don't address the real issue and are just band-aids.

Just my $.02

--Philistine

[:USERNAME:]

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

Henri,

Lewis, realtive spotting has to be done during the Resolution Phase. I mean, how is it that units are supposed to know what it is they can and can't see in the Orders Phase? Magic? The concept of relative spotting is not in question here as we have stated many times it is desirable. But as I have stated many times, it wasn't practical to get into CM1 and will not likely be put in any time soon.

Steve<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Steve

During the orders phase, when you select a unit, the computer, figures out the enemy units seen from that friendly units perspective. It must do this somewhat as the game is now. How do you figure out spotted enemy units?

When you hit GO, the game would figure out the spotted units as before and decide actions for units without orders, etc as always (please reread my post above that I amended).

Lewis

[:USERNAME:]

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

Instead of your hypothetical of the player having 10 squads targetting 1 ultra-dangerous squad, even though it could only be seen by 1, you would just have a player not give targetting commands, trusting that the Tac AI will then target the greatest threat.

Why introduce potential new problems into the system when you're only going to half-fix the problem? Personally, I'd prefer to see relative spotting done right somewhere down the road, than incremental attempts which don't address the real issue and are just band-aids.

Just my $.02

--Philistine<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

reread the post. I hit submit before it was done.

Not being negative here but I believe the solution to what Steve wants is major work. The game is loaded with abstractions. Good ones help game play and generally come off realistic. Bad ones. well they are bad.

I guess its up to BTS to decide where to fight its battles.

Lewis

[Guest Big Time Software]

Vanir,

As for the halftrack deaths, three were due to not being cautious enough. I kept one too close to enemy held buildings for 2 turns and allowed it to be toasted. The 3rd one to buy it was totally avoidable and was the result of a tactical mistake. That was to try and close some ground with a just revealed "light gun" in the hopes of getting it in the side and pinning it down for my advancing infantry to get. The bastard got the drop on me at 400m and boom with one shot. The last HT to buy it was really my fault. Ignoring all my usual safeguards, I left it stationary with an unknown friendly/foe patch of woods to its left, well within bazooka range. And guess what happened?

In the end, halftracks were not mean to be up front with the infantry in a CM style battle. They are supposed to hang back. I made the mistake of not hanging back enough and paid for it. The one that got whacked by hand grenades was the only one that was lost in a "recon" role, the other three were lost in "support" roles.

As you point out... recon, as defined by most people, has no place in a CM battle. As you say, they were supposed to find where the enemy was and to figure out rough positions, size, and composition. They were also used as combat formations, but only after doing their normal recon job themselves. So yes, anybody that is trying to do operational level recon in CM battles is missing a vital point about their real life role. Operations is a different story

Steve

[Philistine]

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

reread the post. I hit submit before it

was done.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Reread it. Sorry I missed it before. There, you said:

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

If the TAC AI was done correctly, it would compensate for the omniscient units own decisions by weighting self preservation heavily and forcing targetting of the nearest threats (under the abstraction that they SHOULD be spotted)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't see this as a solution. As I understand the way it works now, targets are essentially rated on a "threat" basis which does take proximity into account.

By making proximity the sole (or major) determinative of what the AI will target, you're just introducing new problems without addressing the actual relative spotting issue.

Your system will have the closeset unit fired on despite a much greater threat a short distance away regardless of whether the unit can see both (or even either of the two units).

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree here

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Not being negative here but I believe the solution to what Steve wants is major work. The game is loaded with abstractions. Good ones help game play and generally come off realistic. Bad ones. well they are bad.

I guess its up to BTS to decide where to fight its battles.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well of course it'll take work. That's what Steve has said. He's also indicated that it's not technically freasible at this time but is something they'll be trying to include in the future.

What more can he say?

--Philistine

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Vanir:

You can see the difference between Fionn's movement orders and a jeep rush right? Instead of looking for similarities, lets focus on the differences real quick.

1) Concern for own safety Jeep 0 , Fionn 1

2) Explotation of absolute spotting Jeep 0, Fionn 1

3) Exploitation of unrealistic vehicle speed Jeep 0, Fionn 1

Now if you wanted to use Jeeps the way Fionn used his recon force, that's fine. Their combat behavior is what is important.

[Guest Big Time Software]

Lewis,

Spotting is done on a partial second basis during the resolution part of the game. In the Orders Phase this information is already known, i.e. that x unit is spotted. There is no code in the game that tracks who spotted who. What you are talking about is pure LOS, which is already in the game. In other words, you can not figure out who spotted what during the Orders Phase unless it was done on the fly during the resolution process. And that is where the major recoding effort lies. All other issues about gameplay effects and user interface impact still remain on top of this.

Relative spotting WILL happen at some point. But it can not be hacked into the game quickly or easily. One reason why CM is what it is now has to do with our resistance to slap stuff into the game without carefull planning, execution, and testing. This is a huge and fundamental change for the game and therefore needs to be done right or not done at all. For the moment it will not be done at all since we do not have the time to do it propperly.

Steve