Who uses scouts? Everyone except me?

[Dervulf]

The last time i checked, the USMC's official designation for there sharpshooter's was....

Scout/Sniper.

Notice that the Scout part came first?

Thats what sharpshooters are there for, Intelligence gathering with the added ability to terrorize the enemy's personell with harrassing fire.

[Vanir]

Bah! Everything in CM is gamey. Cuz it's a game.

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

Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". Thus, the Medium Tank M4 Sherman would be the "Model #4" Medium tank. This is incorrect. The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. - Bullethead

[Smoker1]

Very interesting Dervulf. Do the USMC Scout/snipers carry radios? How far from friendly forces do they operate?

If they don't have radios and do operate out of LOS of friendlies then they must move back after sighting something in order to report it. In CM this is not the case.

If the USMC scout/snipers do have radios then they are not comparable to WWII sharpshooters which I don't think had radios.

Even if Marine scout/snipers in WWII had radios there are no Marines in CM.

The problem is absolute spotting. What one unit sees, you as the commander also see. In reality this would not be the case except for units with radios or those operating within LOS of a radio (hand signals). Sharpshooters in CM can communicate with headquarters telepathically.

They can take advantage of the game's limitations. That's why some people think that a whole squad of sharpshooters is gamey. Smoker out.

[Guest MantaRay]

Sorry, but with the small maps, it IMO is a wasted tactic almost all of the time.

Sharpshooters, or snipers if you will, in WWII, WERE NOT SCOUTS or RECON units. I can see how people would call this gamey, but I wouldnt mind if a sniper came looking for my ambush points. Even if he does do his job, I usually have pull back points, so bring on those high value units so I can pump some lead in them muhahaha.

Ray

[ScoutPL]

Reality Check:

Scouting the last few hundred meters of an engagement (which is the whole focal point of a tactical game like CM) is a waste of assets and very gamey.

I've posted this argument just about every time this issue comes up, but since this is a game, people are going to play it the way they want to. But follow this logic if you will. Pillar, et al. state that they are willing to sacrifice soldiers for information. There are a number of things wrong with this. Since any attempt at a realistice simulation is lost as soon as a player makes such a decision, lets look at it from a logical standpoint. Realworld tactics say we should hit the enemy in a weak spot with mass. We use fire and maneuver in order to get into position to do this. The problem is when we play a QB, absolutely nothing is known about the enemy. All we have are a few victory locations we have to secure. So a good player will start with his terrain analysis. Identify key terrain, avenues of approach, and likely enemy concentrations. Then you develop a plan and you hit the enemy hard and fast. Provide obscuration and suppression for your assaulting force and go with it. Sure you will loose some units due to lack of information about the precise location of enemy units but thats frontline combat, guys!! Besides, the scouting enthusiasts are loosing guys before they can even effect their opponent anyway. Scouting will also telegraph their intentions, where as showing up on the edge of the village with a company of infantry is always alot better then a half squad. Want to get around the scouting thing? Limit your games to 20 turns or less when playing with around 1000 points. My bet is the scouters always want to play games that are 30+ turns. By keeping it short you limit their available time and you stick to a much more accurate time frame for an engagement in the CM scale.

[Samhain]

Scouts don't always telegraph your direct intentions, since they can be just as useful in a deceptive role. You're not only finding info, but when the enemy spots a scout(ing group), they will quite possibly assume you'll be immediately sending a larger force to that area, which of course you needn't do. You could circle well around, head for a different suspected location, etc.

The key is not to defeat the enemy but to get him to defeat himself by encouraging him to come to you on your terms, by deceiving him, by letting his impatience or over-aggression master his better judgement, and so forth.

As a hopefully related aside, one trap I think people fall into, myself sadly included, is getting fixated on the enemy and letting them determine your course of action. Enemy units? Must be time to attack! Not necessarily, of course. Armor used to really have that effect on me: there's some magnetic force that used to draw me into long-range ping-pong battles with tanks (and still does in my weaker moments ). It's also easier to focus on these single, very powerful units, while temporarily ignoring infantry squads, who of course need to work in conjunction with armor and other assets for all to be effective.

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

Hope you got your things together,

Hope you are quite prepared to die. --CCR

[This message has been edited by Samhain (edited 11-02-2000).]

[gezeder]

ScoutPL,

you stated i believe three main lines of reasoning as to why scouting (i assume you mean in regard to snipers & half squads) is a bad idea:

i hope you don't mind me paraphrasing you a little here for clarity in my counter-arguments

It's Gamey - well... you didn't raise any specific points in regard to this in your post, so i don't feel the need to rebutt the comment - perhaps you could tell me the link to the other posts you refered to in your above post so i can reas them and see your thinking?

It's a Waste of Assets - well, this is definatly a matter of opinion - while you may lose troops doing it... information is vital. knowing what the enemy has and possibly where it is (even just an idea) is a Fantastic advantage! just think how annoyed you'd be if you were playing a double blind scenario, and your oppenent loaded it up himself to see what you had!... it would definatly give him an edge. As does scouting. you spend troops to get the info.

It gives away your intentions - nah! i scout all over the place, regardless of whether i'm attacking there or not - always pays to spot possible counter attacks in advance too!

i suppose if you considered it gamey and we were PBEM oppenents this would cause friction, but like always, if your oppenent doesn't mind it's no big deal, yes?

as to the other 2 main points, if it's such a bad idea to scout i guess that just gives you a huge advantage over all us fools eh?

IMO - scouting is good.... when used in moderation

[coralsaw]

I find that scouting is useful only:

- In long scenarios, where time is available

- To discover ambushes before the armor gets there

- To understand where the enemy is NOT, so that you can deploy your main force, and mobile reserve, as close to the front as possible

Scouting can be done with armored cars, with light armor, jeeps, squads, sharpsooters or half squads, whatever is available.

I prefer scouts to be good quality troops, as they spot faster, hit the dirt faster, and more important, are less likely to panic and surrender.

My .02.

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

My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli...

[Olle Petersson]

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

Most people assume that the M in US vehicle designations means "Model". The M actually stands for "Mortality" and the number represents the life expectancy of the vehicle in minutes. - Bullethead

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You'd better sell out on those M60s and

replace them with M1s then

Cheers

Olle

[Splinty]

One quick point,in modern TO&E's the sniper is a part of the infantry line platoon not the scout platoon,which makes them (snipers)a company level asset not a battalion asset,which the scout platoon is.I believe it was the same in WWII.

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

Nicht Schiessen!!

[Guest Germanboy]

ScoutPL - are you a vet by any chance? Just wondering.

I think you have got it about right. I never use scouts. I have a plan, and carry it out, and the enemy usually does not get to interfere a lot when I am on the attack. As ScoutPL said, identify the terrain, likely defense points (i.e. where would you anchor your defense) start artying these points for suppression while moving against them. Go there, shoot them up. Works most of the time (about 4 out of 5, which is good enough for me). The same approach is taken by me in meeting engagements, but I credit the enemy with more flexibility and more surprises. And it only works 50% of the time.

(Please note, actual figures can vary, past performance is not necessarily a guide to future performance and if it does not work for you, you are obviously a much more crappy player than I am so don't come crying to me about it. Not regulated by the Combat Mission Tactics Authority, you may loose house and hide following any advice)

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Chupacabra]

How are we defining scouts, btw? Are they anything that ranges ahead of your main body, or are we just referring to long-range stuff?

What I call my 'scouts' are a half-squad which I typically keep moving about 25-50 meters in front of a moving platoon. In a rifle platoon, I'll split one squad, have the rest of the platoon put area fire into whereever I'm sending the half-squad, and run the half-squad in. Works for me. Guess you could call it a pointman, if that works better...

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

Soy super bien, soy super super bien, soy bien bien super bien bien bien super super.

[Mark IV]

'Tis often a fine line between "scouting" and an "infantry screen". Oh well, if everyone plays the same way this would get boring quickly, which it hasn't.

I no longer listen to board arguments about gaminess. I like historical OOBs, but I think most so-called gamey tactics have their own unique consequences, and I refuse to worry about some nebulous authorities in the subjective sky. I wish my enemies would purchase expensive platoons of snipers. This is why they make artillery, to blow up expensive soft things.

There is no need to scout against Germanboy, by the way, just follow the artilery back to its source.

[robo]

Weren't scouting teams often led by an officer? I read a story from WWI where a 2nd lieutenant would usually lead a 2 man team and it sounded like this was standard practice. I used a platoon command unit with a good command radius to scout in my last game with 2 60mm mortars not far behind. He spotted the enemy foxholes (not the enemy itself) and was able to call effective mortar strikes.

As for split squads, I think it's best to split Green squads since they rout so easily. I really hate it how when two split squads (one with a ! mark the other without) rejoin the ! mark carries over to the entire squad, especially since you can't control when split squads rejoin when they are relatively close to each other.

[Mr. Clark]

I honestly cannot think of anything more idiotic than running into the battle blind.

Scouting WAS a fact of life in WWII, so how could it possibly be Gamey?

Fionn (who I would never call "gamey") seems to refer to scouts in almost ALL of his CM tactics articles and AAR's.

Scouting is just as important as holding a reserve.

[Croda]

A reserve? What's a reserve? Should I use one? (You think I'm joking, don't you?)

One of my biggest faults is lack of a reserve. I like to keep platoons together, with all units in C&C, and if I only have a company then I have a scout platoon, a reserve platoon and, a platoon to use as the main infantry force. It's tough to have all elements in a small QB. In battalion sized engagements, sure, you can have foragers, reporters, battle photographers, people to hassle the locals, the works. But in a small QB it isn't always feasible, nor beneficial to disect your forces this way, at least IMHO.

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

"Nuts!"

[Guest Pillar]

First of all, let's keep the "Gamey" talk in another thread. There have been dozens of threads on these issues beforehand.

I'll answer some of the questions raised and clarify my view of the value of scouting below.

The scouts job is to find the enemy within the context of the map. If you are playing on a huge map, you need more men. Very small maps can often represent scouting forces in themselves. I normally try to play games with larger force sizes, as "recon-commander" isn't my fancy.

However, there are some general purposes to having scouts. Most importantly, they tell you where the enemy weakpoint is so you can commit your main thrust there. The argument that sending a platoon of half-squads forward is detriment due to the lack of that platoon for the main thrust does NOT hold water. If you are committing your main thrust at the right section of the map, you won't NEED that extra platoon. You get higher kill ratios and avoid the enemy strongpoints. You avoid ambushes, minefields, barbed wire, bunkers (that can't be dealt with), etc. End result - you end up with far more FIREPOWER than you would have had making a blind thrust (unless you got VERY lucky, and I don't like to rely on luck.)

Against a bad player, a blind thrust will work. I think that's why so many people have come to discredit scouts... they think "Ah hell, one more platoon for the mass" and away they go. A good player will exploit this and counterattack you. They also will bless you for freeing up their spare units so they can bring them to bare on your main thrust. I LOVE a player who doesn't use scouts. More points for the ladder.

"1. How many men do you use for scouts? Or how many (on average) squads do you split?"

It completely depends on the map. Very small maps usually mean you ARE the recon force, so no splitting is required. I don't particularly enjoy this sort of match as I pointed out before. On larger maps, I like to dedicate at least a platoon of split squads to recon duty. Finding the right amount of scouts is simply a matter of LOS capabilities and coverage. Try not to leave any area of the map unsearched as you advance -- that could be where the gap is.

"2. When you initially setup (depending on map size & terrain) do you have the main body of your force "hang back" until the "scouting report" is in? "

I have a mobile reserve which usually constitutes the bulk of my FIREPOWER (it is important to note the difference between firepower and manpower). I only commit this force once I've found the weak spot of the enemy. Once I have, I poke through it with this force. This has the advantage of

A) Getting me in his rear and flanks where his defence is not prepared

He'll have to commit reserves or shift forces in order to stay in the game, at which point I'll be facing them in a meeting engagement and not in their defensive positions.

"Pillar, don't you feel the obligation as a commander to give your units the best chance of survival possible without losing your chance of securing your objective? "

Sure, but that's not always possible. Where the choice is between getting some men killed and loosing the fight or giving up the initiative, the recon platoon has to sacrifice.

I always try to have support weapons behind the recon element. As soon as they make contact with the enemy, pre-ordered light artillery and onboard mortar support is adjusted and firesupport is provided almost immediately. This pins the enemy while my recon reestablishes itself with other split squads which converge on the location and offer support. More pinning. Then if the opportunity is there I break through the pocket and recon again. If I can't break through, a defensive position is established.

My split recon squads are not simply walking targets. They organize, attack, defend, and support each other just like the main body. The difference is they are much weaker and their supporting artillery is much smaller. They aren't decisive, nor are they meant to be. They are simply meant to localize the enemy and keep him busy on contact, while always attempting to penetrate as deeply as possible.

---------

Picture water falling down a river, it moves around and through the rocks while creating a bubbling foam at the big ones.

(Edited to make more readable)

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-02-2000).]

[Jackson]

Dammit Pillar, you stole my thunder!

I tend to agree with Fionn’s tactics as demonstrated in his more recent AARs. Scouting with teams, even in relatively small engagements, is crucial. I’ve come up with a rather unique method of accomplishing this when on the attack, and it seems to work very well. Briefly, it goes something like this:

In every battle as Americans I purchase one veteran rifle platoon (as Germans I would make it a panzer grenadier “motorized” platoon, 10 men per squad). Everybody else is regular. The veteran platoon is completely split up into six teams and a platoon leader. I do not split up my assault platoons, as it compromises their effectiveness, and leaves them very vulnerable. Veteran teams out of C&C can still act as independent units, having only a 20 sec. command delay. Veteran teams also have an improved ability to spot the enemy as compared to regulars.

These teams get spread out along the front, and are accompanied by bazooka teams. They move quickly, cover a lot of ground, and never “hide.” My assault platoons follow two or three turns behind them. These teams identify enemy positions and strong points, locate enemy armor, and locate good lines of sight for artillery FOs and heavy weapons. They are very good at sniffing out ambushes, finding AP minefields, and deceiving the enemy as to your actual intentions.

Once your avenues of approach are cleared, you can move your artillery observers into position and execute your plan of attack.

Similarly, I always get three or four HTs or scout cars to precede my tanks and tank destroyers. I think it was Pillar who said that once you’ve designated these units as scouts, they are expendable. That’s pretty much what Fionn said also in his AARs. ScoutPL was absolutely right when he said that such scouting requires extra time (+30 turns), and would not work in a 20 turn QB.

All I can say is, give it a try. You’ll find that once you’ve scouted the avenues of approach, your assault platoons and support weapons/armor can move forward very quickly.

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

"One lesson I have learned in combat is 'there is no fox hole better than the one you are in'." Staff Sergeant H.F. Muschamp, 133rd Inf., Italy 1943

[Guest Pillar]

Just a note:

Scouting doesn't take much time. They should move up pretty fast, bounding from cover to cover.

You can scout, commit your thrust, and sometimes even have a decisive outcome in under 20 turns.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-02-2000).]

[virtualfreak]

I beleive that when you use a platoon as scout you should treat that platoon as if it were your last platoon. Move one squad of men forward at a time using the other squads as a reserve. When your lead squad is attacked you can then ambush the enemy by using the other squads you had in the platoon.

It's slow but it does work to a degree.

[ScoutPL]

OK, here we go around the mulberry bush again. What we have here is the same old quandry. The guys who play this game because they like to model realworld doctrine and tactics and the guys who just like to play the game and put more notches on their mouse.

I dont mean to sound offensive but I think this difference in philosophies is the root of most of the "debates" that come up on this forum. As you can probably guess I play to simulate the tactics and doctrine I have used for the last seven years as an infantryman in the US Army. Interestingly enough I have only about a 50% success rate. I mark this up to bad luck most of the time, but every now and then I play a guy who has no formal training and gets lucky with his amateur setup and assault/defence. An example: I lost three shermans early on in a scenario recently to an AT gun/Pillbox set up all by its lonesome on a hill overwatching most of the game board. Pretty snazzy right? Well in actuality no realworld defending commander is going to set such a valuable asset all by itself on any piece of terrain. It would most certainly be accompanied by an obstacle belt and supporting infantry. Also, such a dominant piece of terrain would have been spotted from miles away and pounded and shelled into dust long before my tanks rolled within 400 meters of it. Gamey? IMO, yes. In order to properly support that pillbox my opponent would have to have spent the majority of his 1000 points buying assets to integrate it into his defence. Plus my armor was extremely vulnerable as soon as turn one began. And yes they started in the low terrain, out of sight, but it did little good once I had to move forward. Was he successful? At stripping away my armor, yes. I'll have to get back to you on the outcome of the scenario. We're into week three of a 25 round PBEM (joy, joy). But I think this illustrates my point. I'm all for running into friction on the battlefield and when I play against one of these guys its there to the max, so I'm not complaining. What I am trying to point out is a difference in philosophies.

CM covers the last few hundred meters of combat. It portrays the down and dirty, take the house, clear the barn, assault the bunker, kill that tank kinda fight that occurred on a daily basis in WWII. It doesnt portray the battalion on up level of battlefield prep that includes reconnaissance, as the proponents of the its use in this game are arguing for. The biggest problem with this is the QB, I think. Basically the QB puts you, as the commander, in the worst possible position. You know what you have for assets, you know what the terrain looks like, and you know where you have to be in thirty minutes. Unfortunately, you dont know anything about the enemy. Now as a company commander I would refuse to advance without more intel or the time to conduct a leaders recon of my objective. But to do it properly takes hours, not minutes. When I say properly, I mean going out there, finding the enemy and coming back. Not going out there, bumping into him and loosing half a squad of guys for some "intel." (Once again the fundamental difference between the simulation guys and the "its just a game" guys.) Now how do I approach the above situation in CM? I do my terrain analysis, develop my plan and advance cautiously. This means I send a squad out ahead but still within eyes and ears of the rest of their platoon (Traveling Overwatch, is the official term). The rest of the company follows close behind. This way I make contact with my smallest element but I still have the mass of my assets at hand to deal with anything that flares up. I try to stick to my plan, but its always a loose plan anyway, so it can change as the situation changes. When I hit a surface I either bust it open or look for a gap. My focus remains on my objective (which may or may not be a victory location) and I push toward that end. A commander on the scale of CM should have a good idea of whats in front of him from the minute he steps foot on that little 1000m x 1000m square of ground. Unfortunately, in a QB that's impossible, so you're at a massive disadvantage from the very start.

I am more interested in playing CM to get a better understanding of how the tactics and doctrine that I have learned actually come together when the randomness of combat is thrown in the mix. I dont necessarily care that much about winning every scenario. Perhaps that is why I call reconning the last 300 or 400 hundred meters before closing with the enemy "gamey." In the realworld it just doesnt happen. Understand also that by reconning I mean sending small groups forward to look around and locate the enemy before launching your assault. As a scout platoon leader in the US Army, I often kept an objective under surveillance for many hours (usually 12-36) before the battalion attacked it. (And yes, in the US Army at least, snipers are a battlion asset, maintained by the scout platoon, not the companies as some one suggested earlier.) Actually, a QB comes close to simulating a movement to contact. A movement to contact is basically an attack that is focused on seizing terrain when there is very little known about the enemy. Know what my scout platoon did on a movement to contact? Sometimes we were inserted forward to check out a piece of key terrain or the battalions march objective. Usually we were on the sidelines, guarding the battalion's flank with a screen. Sounds exciting huh? Great use of scouts, right? Well look at the reality guys. Is my 18 man scout platoon going to be able to look at every square inch of a sector that's 12 klicks long and 5 wide, all in under 12 hours? Definately not. So how does a company commander advance in the face of the enemy? He does it through good planning, good terrain analysis and the knowledge that what ever the enemy thows at him, he and his men have the ability and professionalism to deal with it. I know this is like greek to someone who hasnt experienced it but I hope this will help explain why I came down so hard on reconning in CM. I welcome any comments or questions.

[Pham911]

So, ScoutPL, are you saying that instead of scouting that I should be moving certain units to certain points(like move 2 platoons to hill x, or move Company A to valley to the SE of town and Company B to the valley to the SW of town) and basing these decisions not on where the enemy is, as I don't know that, but on terrain?

My extent of knowledge on tactics has been from A)CM, and B)what I've read. Scouting always seemed fairly common sense until that last post of yours where I got that "ohhhhhh" sensation and something clicked. Now I'm kinda confused.

Also, off topic, in the real world, does advancing a company of infantry in waves of platoons instead of as one large force towards a specific objective make sense? Wondering as it's a new thing I'm trying in a PBEM to...

[ScoutPL]

The entire movement to contact form of attack is extrememly difficult for the professionals to pull off successfully. It is the least favorite type of attack and so gets praticed alot. Your questions are understandable and I'll dabble a little here to try to make things clearer.

So here's the situation: You have a company of infantry and a platoon of tanks, supported by artillery. The most common combined arms team on the battlefield of WWII. You can buy all the Tigers, Jumbos, and elite SS squads you want but when it comes down to it, the basics are the basics and a good commander can seize terrain and destroy the enemy with regular leg infantry and mediocre armor.

You know the terrain intimately, much better then your real world counterpart would have by the way, but you dont know where the enemy is. Your battalion commander has given you thirty minutes to advance 1000m, clear the area of enemy and seize a church in a small village.

Here is your checklist:

1. Identify key terrain. In CM this includes two story buildings and hills mostly.

2. Identify avenues of approach. Covered and concealed routes for your infantry and routes that allow good standoff for your armor. Now look for a couple routes where the two arms can move relatively together and support one another.

3. Now turn the map around and pretend your the other guy, withthe same assets. From this new perspective how would you advance? What are your likely supporting positions? Your avenues of approach?

4. Having identified likely enemy routes and positions, go back to your side and choose the route that avoids the most suspected enemy concentrations.

5. Devlop two contingency plans. One should lay out how you want to attack the victory location (march objective) if it is controlled by the enemy. The second should lay out how you want to defend the march objective if the enemy isnt there. Either way you will be massed to handle either contingency.

Now setup your forces. Put your company in a column formation. One platoon behind the other. With the lead platoon at least two or three lengths out in front. Put your lead squad two to three squad lengths out in front of this platoon. You may not have room to do this in setup but as they move out get the spacing right. Be sure to set up all of your units out of sight of your enemy.

After that it up to you. Move forward. As the lead element makes contact decide whether to commit to a fight or bypas the resistance. This may entail having the lead platoon suppress the enemy while the second platoon in the order of march moves left or right and goes around the enemy. UNles you want to destroy this particular enemy unit, Continue moving toward your objective. The engaged platoon can take out the enemy in a few turns then fall in on the rear of your column. Once you're in the vicinity of your objective follow one of your contingency's to attack or defend.

This is pretty short and sweet but hopefully you get the idea.

[Guest Pillar]

Scout,

I play CM not to mimic historic tactics, but to demonstrate my own ideas new and old. I don't think there is anything shameful in finding a new way of doing things apart from the way "it's always been done."

I guess you are a more conservative player than I am, which is fine by me. But I wouldn't label my own position as "it's just a game" but rather "here is a game that mimics reality, let's see how my own tactical ideas work out".

So far I've liked the results. Maybe one day I'll get a chance to try them on a real battlefield (wargames) and see just how different/similar the results are.

PS -- You have an ironic nickname considering the subject of this thread and the nature of your position.

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-02-2000).]

[gezeder]

Scout,

but.... if you believe (ie. guess) the enemy has set up here, at point A, but is actually at point B 250 m infront of point A,

wouldn't that make advancing to point A with your entire infantry company (let's say, 60-70% of your assets) a little risky?

I can understand your position of Recon by death - but what's wrong with having a few half-squads out say 50-400 metres out in front (depending on terrain, likelyhood of contact, etc etc) to spot threats, take cover, & pull back if neccessary?

or even recon in force, say, a few recon vehicles, or mabye a platoon out say half a kilometre ahead (for big maps)

i agree, spending a day or two figuring out where the enemy is would be ideal, but... if you don't know his plan, where he is, or even what he has, and you Have to advance within the next ten minutes.... wouldn't it make sense to check out the position a little, carefully, with some small groups of hard to spot men?

instead of approaching in large groups (admiteddly, in strength, but more vulnerable too) and possibly walking straight into an enemy ambush?