Who uses scouts? Everyone except me?

[Vanir]

I originally brought this up in the huge jeep recon thread. I'm surprised it took this long to for it to become a major discussion.

Scout is correct, of course. Actuall recon as it was conducted in real life is outside of the scale of CM. Those who use CM as a simulator of real combat instead of a game based upon real combat should never use recon at all, or purchase dedicated recon units such as armored cars and .50 cal jeeps. To do so is always gamey in that context.

Having said that, this bothers me not at all. I always use recon myself and expect any opponent to do likewise. As Scout said, different philosophies.

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

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

[ScoutPL]

Pillar like I said, different philosophies. But if you ever make it to the real battlefield good luck getting any of your fire teams or squads to act as cannon fodder/guineapigs for you. The fact that I was a Scout platoon leader should tell you I might know a little about what I'm talking about. As a scout I avoided contact at all costs. In training whenever I made contact, 9 times out of 10, I died. When I survived I became totally useless since in order to survive I had to abandon all of my equipment and run. That included my radio so I was no longer any help to my commander. Good scouting requires enormous amounts of time, patience and well disciplined troops. Not walking out across the country side trying to get the bad guys to light you up.

Gezeder - you have to find some middle ground. To be honest with you, a company commander who spends 20 minutes to "look" around, getting in little fire fights along the way, just to fight a ten minute fight and seize 500 meters of ground would be considered overly cautious, wasteful of time and assets and a poor tactician/leader. When you develop your plan (like I described earlier) you assume some risk. You can counter balance that risk by having elements forward of your main body and have other elements in overwatch. Read my tutorial on infantry attacks at www.combat-mission.com for a graphical example of what I'm talking about.

What you guys need to realize is something I keep harping on. CM simulates the very last stages of a battle. The actual getting in there amongst the bad guys and weeding them out. A little metaphor. Everyone's seen Saving Private Ryan right? Well, CM portrays the last ten minutes of that movie. From the time they hear the tank treads til Tom Hanks buys it on the bridge. CM doesnt cover the search for ryan, or the little firefights in between, or even the establishing of the defence at the bridge. In realworld terms, by the time you hit the GO! button in CM, you are in the sh!t. All the prepping, the recon, the pre-combat inspections, the backbriefs, all of that is finished and now its time to fight. Reconning a CM battle is like going to change the oil in your car but using a tablespoon rather then an drop pan to catch the oil. I still dont think I've done a very good job of getting you to see my meaning but what the hell you'll probably never see it anyway.

A few quick clarifications. The tactics I described in the earlier post will only work in an area that is moderately or better vegetated. Infantry need concealment and cover to move effectively and if you're operating in a wide open area (very few of these in Europe by the way) you'll have to use different tactics. Slower, shorter moves, with plenty of overwatch. Also, if you're playing a huge 3000 pnt game on a map thats 5000 x 5000 meters then you should definately ask your opponent for an extra 20 turns or so to do some recon. But then in my opinion you're drifting away from what was CM's original purpose. You get a battalions worth of troops on the ground with room to maneuver and you open up a whole new can of tactical and operational worms. BUT, any recon that is done should be focused on key terrain and suspected enemy positions and should be done without contact with the enemy. Every contact relays your intentions to the enemy or costs you expensive, well trained soldiers. Scout units should be comprised of elite riflemen and sharpshooters since they are all stealthier. To really play it to the bone your scout units should have to return to your setup area before you leave it or assemble somewhere forward to exchange information since radios were pretty scarce in WWII (compared to today) and they would probably only have one or two in the scout platoon. This all presents a huge problem of course. Since you're opponent isnt going to be moving around much, digging in, or sitting on top of his foxhole cleaning his toenails (all of which real soldiers in a defense do) you're going to have an extremely hard time spotting his units without making contact. Which leads me back to my original point that CM is intended to simulate the actual attack and combat, not the prep before the fact.

Let me reitierate, all I've said is intended to explain the difference between playing a quality, realistic simulation and playing to "win the game." Readers have to look at the arguments and see which side of the fence they want to come down on. If you just want to win games and move up some "ladder" then follow Pillars tactics, they will probably work for you. But if you want to simulate realworld combat then read some books, listen to the guys who have done it for real for years, and learn to distinguish betwen real tried and true tactics and "game winning" tactics.

[joeski]

ScoutPL: While I agree with a lot you have said and Yes I do understand your point of view. To me it's a game. And just for the record I don't use scouts, but I am willing to learn. Reading your checklist I do a lot of the exact same things. But last night I tried a QB with scouts and found it to rather enlightening, as to what you can find out in 7 turns or less. Of course it was against the AI and the AI won't change course for fear that it's been "spotted" like a human player might. But finding scouts useful won't lead me to changing my over all strategy. Because every strategy is different for different situations. Every map is a different strategy! And that's what makes this game great. Take it easy.

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

"If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." - Jack Handey

[Chupacabra]

ScoutPL -

Question: in the type of battles CM represents, wouldn't the attacker already have fairly accurate reports on force composition, relative location, etc IRL?

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Jackson]

This is an outstanding thread, and I’m very glad that ScoutPL took the time to explain his tactics and overall position on the topic. I can’t wait to read his article. However, I believe Chupa’s question above is valid, and ScoutPL did admit that he wouldn’t charge his company into combat without decent intel on the opposing force and position.

From what I’ve read, a team of two or three scouts did precede the (American) company column in movement to contact. The team would normally consist of a platoon sergeant with an SCR 300 (?) radio and one or two experienced riflemen. They used stealth, and either radioed or ran back the information to the captain. CM can only model this type of recon with split squads, who are out of command and of no better quality than the overall company. Therefore, CM almost forces the player into using somewhat gamey tactics in order to simulate real life. That’s why I breakup a veteran platoon into teams, and assign at least one team to each advancing platoon to act as these scouts. These are not cannon fodder, and I seldom lose more than two men in the team, even in the worst circumstances (damn minefields!).

Another problem lies in trying to simulate a company advance. I’ve tried using the column advance, and found that the wide front in a standard CM map makes such a concentration of infantry extremely vulnerable. The lack of recon makes the armor even more vulnerable, thus ScoutPL’s loss of three tanks from a pillbox that could have been easily spotted using a few scout teams or M3A1s. From a “game” standpoint, it’s better to advance on a wide front, and reinforce contact after it’s made. The use of a mobile reserve of infantry and armor is practically mandatory.

CC3 (shudder) had one rather cool method of depicting these scout teams; the Scout Team. It consisted of three men, had better spotting ability, and cost 10 points. While the implications of adding such a team to the CM roster are horrendous, it would be nice if there was some way to better model scouting in CM without forcing gamey tactics.

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

"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

[John Hough]

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

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?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're advancing to a point A, when there's a point B 250 m in front that makes a good defensive position, then you've done your terrain analysis wrong. Really, there's only so many positions with good cover, even fewer with the somewhat restricted los you want on defense, and fewer still that support each other properly. So you can advance on each, as if you were advancing on a known enemy position, at very little cost. Positions you don't expect should be poor enough positions that you'll either spot the enemy first, or be able to take them out for little loss anyway.

If you walk into an ambush, so be it. Your point squad will get hit hard, but the rest of the company should be able to take out the ambushers. So you lose maybe a full squad and take out an enemy platoon. As opposed to losing a half squad just for the knowledge that the platoon is there.

And if you don't walk into an ambush, everything's cool, you can go on to the next point A.

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

Probably. The thing is, knowing the terrain, you should have a fairly good idea of where the enemy is. Not completely, of course, but it should be good enough that you can make good decisions about how to advance to contact in force, without sacrificing guys for recon.

-John

[Guest Big Time Software]

Scout has pretty much nailed it on the head. CM simulates the battle, not the recon aspects prior to the battle. Recon could take hours to do correctly, and even involve taking prisoners for information.

Chupacabra wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Question: in the type of battles CM represents, wouldn't the attacker already have fairly accurate reports on force composition, relative location, etc IRL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In some cases, yes. In other cases, no. And the degree of knowledge is widely different depending on the situation. It all depends on the type of engagement and the history of the two forces bumping into each other.

At the moment the only way to get pre-battle recon information is through the briefings in premade scenarios. If you look at something like "Valley of Trouble" in the demo the US player is given quite a lot of details about what to expect, as is the German player. No, each doesn't know where the other's stuff is (exactly) but the maps are small enough that the player can take a pretty good guess and/or use the type of recon Scout suggested to fill in the blanks.

Unfortunately, for Quick Battles there is no such thing as a briefing. However, you know what type of battle you are playing, the size, and the composition of the enemy's force. This is, in effect, recon information. In fact, it is probably a lot more than the local commander would have on the ground in real life.

Just some more food for though

Steve

[Snake Eyes]

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

CC3 (shudder) had one rather cool method of depicting these scout teams; the Scout Team. It consisted of three men, had better spotting ability, and cost 10 points. While the implications of adding such a team to the CM roster are horrendous, it would be nice if there was some way to better model scouting in CM without forcing gamey tactics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wouldn't the use of Sharpshooters accomplish the same thing?

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

It is easy to be brave from a safe distance. -Aesop

[Guest Big Time Software]

Oooo... just saw John's post above mine. He is very correct. Knowing the map is the key. And, as I said above, the player is already armed with more general recon information than most commanders would have. For example, in a QB each player knows the following:

1. That there is an enemy moving in to attack at this particular moment. Meaning that there is a defender and there is an attacker about to clash.

2. The direction of the attack and the general positional limitations of the defenses.

3. The objectives of the attacker.

4. The rough size and composition of the enemy force.

5. Every meter of terrain, including height information.

6. Maximum extent of legth and depth of defenses.

7. Pace of the attack (i.e. the time limitation).

8. At the moment, that there will be no additional forces introduced onto the battlefield beyond the initial forces.

All of this stuff combines to create one heck of a recon picture. Like I said, the real world commander would have little to none of this information. So even though the recon work in a Quick Battle is not in report form, the information is there for you to use if you know where to look and how to apply it.

Steve

[Jackson]

Snake Eyes,

I haven’t tried using sharpshooters as scouts, as I think they are too fragile, and too costly. Veteran teams are incredibly effective at spotting, they are fairly stealthy even when out of command, and they seem to hold their fire until they’re shot at. They defend themselves well, and don’t panic too quickly. If they run into a schreck team or a FO they can take them out single handedly, although, only the computer would place such units so far forward and without support. The real beauty of using the scout teams is in locating good positions for FOs and heavy weapons. I’m just not real good at scouring the map in camera angle one to find LOS.

As for Steve’s comments, as usual, he is absolutely right. Even in quick battles we do have a lot of intel going for us. We know approximately where the enemy is, in approximately what numbers, and approximately what assets we can expect to encounter. The question is; do I want to find the enemy the hard way or the easy way? With recon, I can get a good fix on the enemy before committing my forward platoons.

BTW, ScoutPL’s article is great. His tactics are sound, and he does demonstrate that a good plan can substitute for great recon. Highly recommended reading.

[Guest Pillar]

ScoutPL,

In my experience, having a screen as I described in my previous post accomplishes:

A) higher chance of victory

less causalties as a whole.

Without conscription, good luck getting anyone to vote for recon duty in a tactical environment I pointed out That I agree with you on.

[Guest Pillar]

BTS:

Can this thread be moved to the Tactics section?

It would be more appropriate there, and the tactics message board is getting a wee bit neglected due to too many tactical discussions taking place on the CM-General board.

Thanks.

[Guest Germanboy]

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

ScoutPL -

Question: in the type of battles CM represents, wouldn't the attacker already have fairly accurate reports on force composition, relative location, etc IRL?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Alex Bowlby recounts a story from the campaign in Italy. His Coy Co was told that he had to take some hill north of Firenze, which was defended by six man with a spandau, who had no supplies and were from Turkmenistan, so would not pick a fight anyway. The company found itself pinned on the hilltop by at least a company of unfriendlies, found large food stores and Bowlby's CO decided it was every man for himself to get take back for a word with the intel boys when German tanks showed up and started shelling his position. Ooops.

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

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 11-03-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

I think I have come to the conclusion that I need to stop playing QB's and become a prolific scenario editor. As some of the posts above have pointed out the only way to truly get the feel for a commander starting out in CM is to have a good brief on enemy forces and terrain prior to setup, for both sides. This isnt available in a QB. There is probably a reason BTS included the editor anyway. The QB is there to do what if's that usually would have never occurred in real life. Its up to all of us CM worshipper's out here to pick up the ball and widen the variety of scenarios available. I also think we can get away from the historically accurate models. I get much more enjoyment out of a scenario that is accurate in TO&E and balance but depicts anyday, August, 1944, then I do trying to break into Aachen for the thousandth time. Who's with me!!!???

[Guest Pillar]

Count me in.

The only thing that keeps me playing QB's is

A) The ability to choose a setup, either defensive of offensive as a real commander would have the ability to do.

The ability to choose one's troops. This isn't as important to me as A) however. Not nearly.

Scenarios that have the balance of a QB game (offensive or defensive, just use the same point modifiers) and allow each player to setup are the best experience!

I'll still be using them damn scouts though

[Guest Germanboy]

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

I also think we can get away from the historically accurate models. I get much more enjoyment out of a scenario that is accurate in TO&E and balance but depicts anyday, August, 1944, then I do trying to break into Aachen for the thousandth time. Who's with me!!!???<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I definitely am.

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

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 11-03-2000).]

[gezeder]

Hmmm, haven't had time to look at your tactics page yet Scout (but i will)

I suppose mabye i should re-think my strategies... though often my scouts don't range that far ahead anyway, mabye they could be called point squads instead of scouts?

For example, at the moment i'm playing an operation (i just Love realistic force mixes! ) and my 'scout squads' are crawling forward about 30-70 metres ahead of thier supporting platoons, and about 200 metres ahead of my light vehicles. (this is in dense terrain)

Would that be gamey? (or should i say, ahistorical) I am concerned about playing realistically as well as winning.

Or is this all explained on your page? (boy is my face red then!)

[Mark IV]

I can't agree with some of this. Perhaps we are losing something to semantics.

"Scouting" by a scout platoon in its strictest definition is what ScoutPL seems to be referring to. But CM does not have scout platoons, and even modern scout platoons are used in other roles, including area scouting and screening.

I refer often to FM 71-2, The Tank and Mechanized Infantry Battalion Task Force. The section on Movement to Contact is most applicable to CM Quick Battle meeting engagements.

Caveat: Both ScoutPL's observations above and FM 71-2 are based on several decades worth of improvement in weapons and tactics over those in CMs frame of reference. One shot-one kill weapons systems are now the norm (even if they don't always quite work out that way in practice). The range and lethality of modern weapons is vastly greater than those in WWII, and the prevalence of efficient radios, Ground Surveillance Radar, night vision, and other technologies has changed the nature of modern recon/scouting from CM.

Anyway, a quote from the FM: "Since movement to contact occurs as the first step of an attack, or as internal steps of other operations, the commander deploys his unit so as to perform the overall mission. But in any case, he deploys his unit so as to make initial contact with the minimum force possible, to maintain mutual support between company teams, and to lessen the vulnerabilities of the task force. He also uses reconnaissance to gain information and security for his unit." (emphasis mine)

In the true scouting role, the true scout platoon is not to engage in sustained combat, and is to conduct its operations by stealth. However, that kind of scouting is also part of the prelude to a CM battle, not the movement to contact ops our little 60 minutes or so are meant to represent. So perhaps what this thread began by referring to as "scouting", really refers to the lead elements of a force moving to contact. The Field Manual's ample diagrams and illustrations show the use of screening and advance units in the actual engagement, without regard for what the Red Army might consider gamey...

Thumbing through "Company Commander" I find that MacDonald often mentions squads and platoons forward of the main force, as they advance, to find the enemy positions. Much of his ire, in fact, is directed toward American commanders who push ahead without recon or arty prep, and without regard for the lives of soldiers which might be spared with a little forethought. These actions ARE in the context of CM-style engagements.

Lead, or forward, or screening elements (struggling to avoid the use of "scout") of an advance are not necessarily sacrificial lambs, anyway. You can Sneak to a woodline and learn a lot without taking fire, or at least taking serious casualties. What the hell, they're part of the attacking force- why is it wrong for them to share the same risk the "mass" of your attacking force is about to take? Deploy them in a manner where they can beat feet back to cover until you decide how you want your main force to deal with the situation.

In a 1500-point, 30-turn QB, a medium map may have several VLs and widely separated hills, LOS obstacles, or villages. The suggestion that I must pick one and dash hell-for-leather at it because recon has already been taken care of, is not one I am likely to take. It's still terra incognito as far as I am concerned. The more I regard my little polygons as little humans, the MORE likely I am to choose the most economical (in terms of casualties) approach to an objective.

I want to know the enemy disposition as accurately as possible while concealing my own for as long as possible- then strike with overwhelming force at the right time and place. 5-10 minutes of advance work is usually more than enough to establish this and is not unreasonable in the context of the above QB. The clock is ticking for both sides, so it's not as though I'm waiting to rush the VLs in the last 3 turns (I am probably more guilty of advancing too soon rather than too late).

Destruction of the enemy force is still what the war's about and I can't do that without knowing what and where he is. I reject the idea that "scouting" as used in the topic of this thread is gamey, unless conducted by inappropriate units (crews, bazookas, etc.), and even then I will just deal with it rather than squealing. No attack here on anyone else's style of play, just a defense of what I perceive to be both doctrine and common sense.

[Guest Pillar]

MarkIV,

Well said. My own doctrine is based on this exact logic, and it works (so far).

One thing I've noted is that in this "game vs. real world" comparison we are only comparing to standard western tactics, while not much attention has been paid to the east. Chinese and Russian military doctrine for example is much different than that of the US, just as Japanese was during WW2.

Perhaps if a comparison was done between my methods stated earlier or the logic in your post, we might find even further similarity to real world tactics in the east.

Good research, great post.

ScoutPL,

I reviewed your tactics article. I would have conducted the attack differently, and I'd like your comments on why you choose to directly assault the enemy prepared position.

I would have prefered an indirect approach bypassing the enemy prepared defences. See illustration.

You could have committed just about all your forces, since you have already done a reconaissance mission and determined the enemy layout. As you can see, there is only a very *small* open distance that has to be crossed (marked in light blue) is covered by a patch of trees relative to the village (marked in yellow). If the enemy has an outpost there serving as a flank guard, it can be suppressed from the initial cover point (first red crest) or with smoke/arty.

From this position, you cutoff the enemy retreat and get into his rear.

Why did you forgoe this option in favour of a frontal assault through prepared defences?

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-04-2000).]

[joeski]

Just thought I'd pop in and point out Page 54 of the CM game manual. On spilt squads 3rd paragraph.

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

"If you're in a war, instead of throwing a hand grenade at the enemy, throw one of those small pumpkins. Maybe it'll make everyone think how stupid war is, and while they are thinking, you can throw a real grenade at them." - Jack Handey

[Mark IV]

Well, yeah, there's that... good eye.

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Gezeder - you have to find some middle ground. To be honest with you, a company commander who spends 20 minutes to "look" around, getting in little fire fights along the way, just to fight a ten minute fight and seize 500 meters of ground would be considered overly cautious, wasteful of time and assets and a poor tactician/leader. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Having said I favour scouting/recon, I certainly wasn't suggesting 20 minutes of slinking around. In practice what I do is closer to "contact with the smallest element" than a true scout's job.

I wonder if some of this debate isn't semantic confusion.

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Brian Rock:

I wonder if some of this debate isn't semantic confusion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was beginning to wonder about that as well. Sending half-squads in overwatch is not scouting in my book, but a sensible advance, and it fulfills the FM requirements that Marked-for-something-horrible-in-our-PBEM quoted.

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

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 11-05-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

The semantic argument: Go back and read the posts at the beginning of this thread, especially you, Mark 4. You'll find that we are all saying pretty much the same things as far as putting our elements in traveling overwatch formation (units slightly ahead of the main body to make initial contact with enemy). But Pillar's starting comments about "sacrificial units," time consuming recon and unfocused "scouting" units advancing on a broad front are what prompted my comments.

Pillar, on my tutorial:

Reasons for choosing the routes I took (alot of this is explained in the text of the document):

1. Foremost, I wanted to demonstrate that a well supported attack using overwatch, cover and obscuration could succeed in an area that the enemy would consider his "strongest point."

2. By initiating with my SBF on the right (which is the most obvious route for an attacker by the way) I divert the enemy's attention away from my true assault element's position.

3. I avoid crossing any open areas that are right under my enemy's guns as I move into position. When I do eventually cross the open area on the left side, it is to advance right into the village. This way all of my assets (SBF, isolating arty fires, smoke, engineers) are focused on gaining entry into the town. I dont have to waste any of these assets just getting my assault element into their assault position, which I would have to do using your broad flanking maneuver.

4. I would also argue that your broad flanking maneuver offers very little flexibility. With my plan I could switch the roles of each element (assault/SBF) if I needed to.

5. The intel report also advises that an armor reserve is in the area. You are attacking right into the most likely laager for this reserve. I dont think the mostly infantry assault force would be able to handle this armor threat head to head without some desperate measures.

6. Take the time to read my coments about establishing footholds vis a vis the village for another reason why I attacked the way I did.

But as the Ranger Instructors used to say, "That's just a technique." As long as you're keeping to the principles, you dont unnecessarily endanger your men, and you're successful, it doesnt really matter what technique you use. But meeting those three criteria are extremely hard to achieve.

I welcome your comments and anyone else's about the tutorial. I've gotten a lot of positive email about it and any criticism helps me get better. Thanks

[Guest Pillar]

Excellent, thanks for taking the time to spell it out.

My comments?

Well, I would apply everything I've written in previous messages in this thread including a screen of broad front half-squads. Then I would have committed everything to the most successfull recon element, and the rest would consolidate their positions and call in the light artillery.

Having the scouts, I would have established where the enemy outposts were, where his main force is (inevitably some of my squads would bypass the outposts), and hopefully where his armour was *exactly*.

I think you are a strong adherent of western recon doctrine, which is something I happen to disagree with after my own reading and discussion with others. To each their own though.