What are considered legal recon techniques?

[Rebane]

Read the forum about gamey recon techniques.

But what are the totally legal and realistic recon practiced in WW 2 and can be used in CM?

Thank You

[ScoutPL]

The type of reconnaissance you are asking for a treatise on is really beyond the scope of this game. CM covers the last few hundred meters of a battle. Unless you're doing a meeting engagement all reconnaissance would already be complete, realworld. A good scenario designer would include any information gleaned from a reconnaissance in the scenario brief. In the US Army most reconnaissance is handled at the division level and is reliant on electronic means and air support. Most infantry battalions have recon assets but they are small and the commander has to have a good idea of the enemy situation before he employs them so he can focus their efforts. The germans take a much more aggressive look at things. Their abundant use of recon battalions, armed mostly with armored cars, serves as an example. The germans usually conducted reconnaissance expecting contact, actually looking for it. They would develop an idea of the enemy situation through these contacts. This actually went right along with their battle doctrine, which simply put, pushed them to find weak points and exploit them to get into the enemy's rear. (Sounds like the obvious thing to do right? Well it was pretty novel in 1940, even though the Germans had used the doctrine effectively during early 1918.) Recon units were expected to fight their way through weak enemy defenses if possible, and allow the armored units following them to bust through and exploit to the enemys rear.

As far as CM goes, "legal" recon should follow along with what a company or battlaion commander would really do. A recon plan developed by a battalion staff would be heavily reliant on the scenario brief and terrain analysis (Enemy's defending, so where are the most obvious places for AT assets, fortifications, obstacles). Its all guess work but then you develop a plan from that. Like I said in the beginning, CM covers the last few hundred meters of the battle so the only recon to a small unit leader at that point would be a sharpshooter sneaking up to some high ground or up to the edge of a woodline. Or split a squad and have one of its teams move forward to have a look around. This replicates what that battalion level scout platoon would be doing realworld but takes time and the scenario designer would have to allow for it. The point here is that by the time you get to the part of the battle covered by CM, you WANT to make contact with the enemy. Recon should be complete and the guys moving the pins on the map should have manipulated their forces, based on the reconnaissance, to give the attacker a numerical superiority in the little 1km x 1km battlespace portrayed in CM. As the commander of these forces you are expected to move forward aggressively and take the ground you've been ordered to take. You have to have faith in your chain of command that you have the forces needed to take the ground. It's usually a very successful system, though there are instances in history of units getting bad intel or moving too agressivly and getting their butts kicked. Bottom line: any recon in CM without time specifically set aside for it by the scenario designer is "gamey." Everything else would fall under the cap of "advancing to contact" (or Blunder into a Bullet). Which we should all be able to do successfully.

[aka_tom_w]

This is a VERY good question.

It is my sincere hope the AFTER the next patch is released ANYTHING will be 'legal'.

What is legal and what is gamey has been discussed at some length in the "gamey jeep recon" thread.

-tom w

[:USERNAME:]

If you read Burgetts "seven roads to hell" he mentions scout duty or rushing a couple of guys ahead of a company attack formation till they made contact with the enemy. That means seeing them and ignoring all arty/mortor fire on the way. This job was a take turns deal and Burgett had it during the Noville battle (he seems to advance to contact with a King Tiger tank).

This is different than a patrol recon where you might take a reinforced squad and set out to observe the enemy in front of your defensive position and get prisoners, etc.

Vehicular recon depends on the veehickles. Germans as well as US and others believed in fighting for info as well as plain old sightseeing till they shoot , then haul ass. The germans had their achtrads and other light armor and so did others. I personally believe this worked better in russia than in the west.

Theres even recon by fire where you suspect enemy positions and blast away in the hopes they will return fire and give themselves away. Certain weapons like the 50 cal will give off definite sparks when hitting armor. This was used to disclose hidden assault guns, tanks, shields, etc.

As I said in the other thread, since info is shared, recon be overly powerful and steve seems to agree that this isnt the best forum for recon.

Lewis

[aka_tom_w]

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

Theres even recon by fire where you suspect enemy positions and blast

away in the hopes they will return fire and give themselves away. Certain

weapons like the 50 cal will give off definite sparks when hitting armor.

This was used to disclose hidden assault guns, tanks, shields, etc.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that is the most interesting and informative thing Lewis has ever posted, NOW that would be nice to see modeled in the game, sparks flying off armour in woods you can't see.

I'm just kidding I think that would REALLY be beyond the scope of this game.

-tom w

[:USERNAME:]

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

I think that is the most interesting and informative thing Lewis has ever posted, NOW that would be nice to see modeled in the game, sparks flying off armour in woods you can't see.

I'm just kidding I think that would REALLY be beyond the scope of this game.

-tom w

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tom

You want anything goes? You think other things are beyond the scope of the game?

Make up your mind.

Lewis

[RobVarak]

If you run a search on recon by fire you'll find a discussion from way back started by a question I asked. After reading Doubler's book I asked if BTS was going to model recon by fire.

Steve's response (in a nutshell) is that it is modeled in the sense that even hiding or ambushing troops (particularly lower quality troops) will often reveal themselves when fired upon.

This isn't as detailed as seeing sparks, but I have found it an effective way to draw fire from infantry.

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

Rob Varak

Editor

Site on Sound: The Web's Premier Site For Musical Discussion

www.siteonsound.com

CM Recommended Reading List Moderator

www.siteonsound.com/CMReadingList.htm

[This message has been edited by RobVarak (edited 09-23-2000).]

[Bullethead]

To me, non-gamey recon is using some part of your historically based OOB to go see what's out there in a way that doesn't involve a bonzai charge to see how much fire you can draw before you die. I know this is a pretty unclear definition, but I think you know what I mean here.

IOW, when first creating your force, try to stick to real OOBs as much as possible. Don't buy a bunch of cheap vehicles that normally wouldn't be in support of the unit you are portraying.

Then, when playing the game, give realistic orders that have troop conservation in mind as much as possible. If you send out scouts, don't send them out beyond supporting distance of the main force. And have them move from cover to cover trying to stay alive.

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

-Bullethead

Visit the brand new Raider Operations message board at www.delphi.com/raiderops

Main site www.historicalgames.bizland.com/index.html

[Slapdragon]

Bullethead's response is the Wargamers attitude.

rarely did a commander say: OK you guys, drive these truck out until you get killed so we can see where the King Tiger is.

Now I have had trucks with infantry stumble on the enemy and get killed, but it was not recon, it was stupid.

[Guest Michael emrys]

Just for the sake of my own interest, I set up a couple of QBs several weeks ago to duplicate what I imagined to be typical recon scenarios. Probes against an infantry-type force using armored cars, armed jeeps, light armor, and some armored infantry. They were fun.

Michael

[Guest Pillar]

Just send half squads forward very fast until you run into something.

Then, reinforce the successful recon half-squads and forget the rest. There's your breakthrough.

The rest is just holding the main enemy force at bay in the front while getting your manouvre element at their AT and artillery.

[Bullethead]

Slapdragon said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Bullethead's response is the Wargamers attitude.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I prefer to think of it as the "simulationist position"

[Vanir]

My own personal "it's a game not a simulator" view is that it's not gamey unless it violates basic laws of physics. Under the current rules the jeep rush does that.

I have one exeption to this: Using unarmed vehicles (trucks, ect) for recon. That's going too far.

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

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

[Los]

I'll give you one piece of time tested valid advice. When striking out into the unknown, always make initial contact with your smallest element.

Los

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

My own personal "it's a game not a simulator" view is that it's not gamey unless it violates basic laws of physics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But in a game like CM, you have to take psychology into account too, since to some extent that is written into the game.

Michael

[aka_tom_w]

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

Tom

You want anything goes? You think other things are beyond the scope of the game?

Make up your mind.

Lewis<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Lewis

I prefer to play the "no holds barred, anything goes" as far as tactics are concerned when playing CM. I thought your suggestion for armour in the woods giving off sparks when fired at was a great idea!

What I meant was that I was highly doubtful that BTS would take the time and effort to attempt to model in CM, the opportunity or ability, of units to observe actual sparks flying off armour hinding in woods. BUT it would be COOL!. Like maybe instead of just seeing the German cross or allied bull's eye nationality symbol of an unknown unit we could see that same symbol with some little symbolized sparks flying off it (or the word "sparks" in brackets above it?) impliying our spotter thinks it is some kind of vehicle giving off sparks.

I like the way recon by fire is currently modeled, I have no real game expereince with this but apparently units that are hiding, if fired upon, or if arty is dropped down on them will reveal their positions.

I'm really not sure how much more we can really ask for?

-tom w

[Vanir]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael emrys:

But in a game like CM, you have to take psychology into account too, since to some extent that is written into the game.

Michael<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I actually take the opposite view. Psychology should be handled by the game and not by the players. This was gone over in the later part of the jeep recon thread, and the consensus was that labeling suicidal tactics as gamey is just too subjective. You almost have to be able to read your opponents mind to know if he's knowingly giving suicidal orders or if he's just having a brainfart.

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

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

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

I actually take the opposite view. Psychology should be handled by the game and not by the players. This was gone over in the later part of the jeep recon thread, and the consensus was that labeling suicidal tactics as gamey is just too subjective. You almost have to be able to read your opponents mind to know if he's knowingly giving suicidal orders or if he's just having a brainfart.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was referring not to the psychology of the players, but the psychological effects of various circumstances on the troops. This is already done extensively in the game. But at present it might be possible to get your troops to do something in the game that would not fly in real life. That is, by definition, "gamey".

Michael

[Slapdragon]

I have discovered a new one. Twice in two games I have had crews from dead tracks panic when fired on by a big tank. They take off running, intending to run to another clump of trees, but someone is in their, so they run more, revealing the posisition of a whole platoon. Then they die.

Now it was accidental, but there should be some penalty for cacking a crew.

[D Trooper]

Anyone who is interested in Cavalry Recon in WWII might enjoy my book "Mount up we're Moving Out!" available from Merriam Press, www.merriam-press.com. It's the daily story of D Troop, 94th Cav Recon Sqd.,14th Armored Div from the time they shipped out from a NY POE, staging in Marseille, then in combat from Alsace to Munich (November44 to May45) with about 50 pix and several maps. If nothing else it will answer a whole bunch of these questions....