Tris Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 I will repeat what has already been posted to this forum: if you follow the link http://mapage.cybercable.fr/deanco/tactics%20guide.htm you will find an extemely informative (and ably written) tactical treatise by one Todd C. Justice. I printed this document last night and pored over it, and let me tell you it represents a worthwhile investment of any wargamer's time. Good show! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 I can not recommend strongly enough that scenario designers follow his guidance for scenario introductions. It will lead to much more accurate battles. ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 That's a really good job DeanCo! Is it possible that you package the pages into a doc, so that we can download and study at ease? I just wish all intel briefings were like the suggested one. Then we wouldn't have to debate scouting at all on this forum... ------------------ My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Speaking as a former Infantry Squad leader;that, gentlemen (and ladies)is how it's done.Excellent tutorial Cpt. Justice,and thanks for bringing it to us DeanCo! ------------------ Nicht Schiessen!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 8, 2000 Author Share Posted November 8, 2000 Re the use of scouts: while I appreciate Justice's evaluation as far as it implies to CMBO scenarios I think his view is somewhat limited insofar as it could impact the scope and variety of said constructions. Why is it not possible to design an interesting scenario in which available intelligence is nowhere satifactory and/or reliable? Why would this kind of scenario necessarily be less worthwhile to game than one which more closely conformed to what Justice seems to view as this game system's optimum? Do you suppose each and every action in WWII at the level which this game wants to simulate came gift-wrapped for the respective combatants with perfect overview? Read widely but think for yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>From DeanCo's site: I encourage all scenario designers to include in their scenario briefs a good intelligence estimate that in real world would be based on prior combat patrols, aerial reconnaissance, radio intercepts, etc. This would negate the feeling players have in needing to “look around” before committing to a plan of action. With a good initial brief a player can look at the ground, pick out the key terrain, suspected and known enemy positions, and develop a plan of action that will kick off as soon as he hits turn one.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> DeanCo, excuse me for quoting the key of this debate without asking permission. If that is a problem I shall remove it. TankDawg, I would like to respectfully disagree with you. While for certain types of scenarios this advise is very sound, I believe that it is unnecessarily restrictive for others, and that there is no silver bullet to a briefing. Examples where it would not fit would be: 1. Recon scenarios (obviously) where the aim is to simulate a reconnaissance action 2. Scenarios based around a fast advance (e.g. into Germany in March 1945 or later, read 'Roll me over' or 'Company Commander' for situations where little to no intel was available) or a fast retreat (e.g. Falaise - I bet the Germans were very surprised to find the Poles on the 'Mace'. 3. 'Bad surprise' scenarios. You are in a set-piece attack, but your intel officer is a useless git and gave you false information. Now you have to deal with it. Tough. Those are very interesting basic scenario ideas, and in these you just will not get the amount of info you would like. I would be worried about things getting too prescriptive, and I think if somebody goes to the length of designing a scenario and thinking a lot about it, it should be up to them to decide what to put into the briefing. In my scenarios so far, I have kept things deliberately vague. I think that is more realistic from what I have read about the sort of situations that are being simulated in them, and I don't see that as a fault in my design, but as a conscious decision aimed to enhance the player's enjoyment. YMMV. ------------------ 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 11-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disaster@work Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 I must agree with the previous two posters about 'surprise' elements. Of course from the standpoint of the infantry commander they want the best intel possible. However, from a gaming standpoint, I want to be surprised and challenged. In the same way that I don't want a complete summary of a book or movie before I see it, I don't want every element spoiled in a scenario before I play it. I do think that the briefings should be informative about the general layout of the play area but not specific about defenses or possible enemy troop locations. I don't want the 'satellite view'; I want the 'patrol running up breathless report'. I don't think the defender has the total advantage in this, either. If the map is designed well, the attack could come from one or more directions utilizing the attacker's imagination. This debate is similar to one we were having in the Scenario forum about historical vs fictional scenarios. I squarely fall on the side of the 'fun' and 'gamey' scenarios. ------------------ ---- To download my scenarios: go to http://www3.telus.net/pop_n_fresh/combatmiss/index.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted November 8, 2000 Share Posted November 8, 2000 Advice about scouting: While I was very impressed with this tactical guide by Todd Justice, I was somewhat disapointed by his hard stance against scouting in Combat Mission. Please understand that I reqard his training and combat experience very highly, but I have to disagree strongly with the "no scouting" recommendation. Scouting is extremly valuable in CM. For very little resouces used you can know a heck of a lot about the enemy by using cheap scouts(sniper, bazooka, half-squad). Would you rather a sniper or a platoon walk into an ambush? Would you still bring that Sherman around the corner knowing that a King Tiger sits on the other side? Justice suggests that scenario designers write their briefings so that it includes the scouting reports. His reason being that the scouting would have been done prior to the main battle. I agree to this, but the hard facts are that scouting reports are usually wrong to some degree. For example, the 4 MkIV tanks that the scouting plane spotted from the air may just as easily been Tigers. Big difference. But let's suppose that the scouting report is correct and the enemy does have 4 MkI4 tanks. Sending scouts ahead of your troops can help determine where those MkIV tanks are on the map. I can now make informed decisions based on what my scouts see. Also, based on lots of 1st person accounts that I have read about WW2 small unit actions, there is almost always a scout team or a point man ahead of the main group. Specific Examples can be found in Webster's "Parachute Infantry" and Donald Burgett's book "Seven Roads to Hell". Information is extremely valuable in any combat situation and the commander that has the most has an advantage over his enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 8, 2000 Author Share Posted November 8, 2000 I wonder if Mr. Justice simply views the best role of CMBO from the special perspective of his personal military experience--which draws exclusively from our present "high-tech" age of warfare--or if he meant, rather, to suggest that scenarios employed solely as a training exercises might be better off to provide the level of intelligence he alluded to. Afterall, this author comes across as anything other than a dimwit; further, I imagine any professional soldier with combat duty under his belt would not be fast to deny the real-world value of hard intelligence data gathered just as close as possible to the time of his unit's jump-off. Even today, a satellite image taken twelve hours ago is one thing and a first-hand report from, say, a SEAL team on the spot just an hour before another. Yes? Unless Justice chooses to reply we shall never know what this gentleman's thinking was when he made his recommendation re the value of scouts in CMBO. Meanwhile, I encourage authors of scenarios to make their little creations as interesting for (and demanding of) gamers as they can. As for historical vs. fictional scenarios: both enjoy their proper place, surely. I currently slave over my first design, which is wholly fictional yet promises, as far as I can determine, to provide one whale of a fight from either side of the line. And is this not the most important thing? [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deanco Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Hi gang, coralsaw : Mmmm... yes the original doc came in rtf format...i could stick the pics in it... yeah, I can do it. Gimme a couple days, OK? Germanboy : I have no problem at all with this, I am just the "publisher" if you like. I read it to make sure there is nothing objectionable in it and judge if it could be of use to other CM players, format it and put it up on the site. It would be Todd the author who might have a prob but really I doubt it. My 2c : I agree with y'all, I think scouting is one of the most fun parts of playing the game. And I agree that it would make a good scenario to say in the briefing, "the enemy has this much force and is in positions X, Y, and Z, according to our reports" and have that report be wrong to a certain degree. Anything that makes the game more fun, I'm for, and that sounds like it could be fun if done correctly, as the player is not prepared. Tris : I believe you may have hit the nail on the head. Todd states in the article, "I am schooled in 1990’s infantry tactics, not 1940’s tactics." This MAY explain his attitude towards recon in CM. Well, I'll mail Todd and tell him about this thread. DeanCo-- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chupacabra Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by deanco: Well, I'll mail Todd and tell him about this thread. DeanCo-- <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I suspect he'd want to stay out of it. Check out the "who uses scouts" thread. ------------------ Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Thanks DeanCo, that's great! Scouting debated again. Weeell, still, for a change, I'd like to play a scenario or two where your scouts give you an idea about enemy strongpoints, best avenues of approach etc, as described in the article. Anybody knows a scen with this sort of detailed intel? ------------------ My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TankDawg Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Good points by all. If scouting is to have occurred before the battle, I request briefings like Todd recommends. If not, fine, but give us actual scouts then (not split squads). By coincidence, I am doing a PBEM with Todd and have been unable to reach him for a while, so I am not sure that he is aware of this thread. (he could just be hiding from me) ------------------ Jeff Newell TankDawg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pak40 Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Deanco, "I believe you may have hit the nail on the head. Todd states in the article, "I am schooled in 1990’s infantry tactics, not 1940’s tactics." This MAY explain his attitude towards recon in CM." I believe you are correct about the modern infantry tactics and that's what I suspected as I read his article. Modern scouting techniques are so much more advanced than in the 1940's with the use of satellite, infared, helicopters and so on. It's not as hard for a company commander to get an accurate report within minutes or even seconds from the acutual enemy sighting. However, it would seem logical that the US Army would have their officers study and read past tactics as well. I remember bumping into an old friend of mine a few years ago, he was a platoon leader in the reserves at the time. He told me that he was required to read "Company Commander" by Charles McDonald, a book that I had already read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Thanks for all the great comments and suggestions guys, let me make a couple points. My tutorial starts out with the following intro: This is by no means meant to serve as the final word on infantry tactics. The intent of this essay is simply to serve as a primer for the beginner. It will discuss infantry tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP’s) at their most basic level. The most basic, straight forward attack is what we call the deliberate attack. Traditionally these attacks are conducted against objectives that a lot of info has been collected on. Substantial planning/prep time is made available, as well as more then usual assets and support. That is why I chose this type of mission to use for my tutorial. Other types of attack, movement to contact, hasty, etc. are examples of offensive operations that I think alot of you are saying you want to engage in. The tactics, movement formations and techniques are very different for these types of operations. Movement is much slower and more deliberate, forward elements (what people keep referring to as "scouts") are further out front then in a deliberate attack. But even for the most "on the fly" offensive action a plan must be in place even if its just a series of battle drills (well practiced, team "plays" for given situations). An objective must be designated and the commanders intent must be clear and understood by all. In most cases when intel is lacking this will be based on terrain, knowledge of how the enemy fights and some lucky guesses at his disposition. I obviously need to do a movement to contact tutorial to make this stuff a lot clearer and will get to work on that as soon as I finish up the defense. As far as modern vs. WWII scouting goes: Most of the technical assets alluded to here are used by the operational commands, Brigade on up. For the air assaults in Panama we were given one set of photographs for the entire battalion. I dont think anyone under the company commanders even saw them. I got to see them because I was the battlaion commanders radioman. For the Gulf War intel was much better (talk about a deliberate attack!) until day two or so when the situation became super fluid and the trickle down intel dried up. As a scout PL I was often given a mission to recon an objective for a battalion deliberate attack. Since the push was always to get my guys on the ground as soon as possible I would often leave the battalion CP with nothing more then a grid coordinate and the best wishes of the battalion commander. I would brief the platoon as a group while we were resupplying and within an hour or so we'd be in a truck or chopper headed into bad guy territory. After an all night walk we'd get into position and observe the objective for as long as possible before the battalion started movement. I know all about moving toward the unkown. It takes time and deliberateness that I dont think can really be simulated in CM. The biggest difference between modern scouting and WWII scouting is that in modern times we have an idea of where the enemy is massed. In other words we have a good idea of whats on the other side of the hill before we have to walk over there. WWII commanders had no such luxury. I think they dealt with it by doing a lot of fumbling around in the bushes. I've never read an account of the day to day fighting that really did a good job of laying out how a battalion advanced from day to day. If anyone knows of one let me know. Some might suggest Company Commander but I think's that too much of a personal account to be much use if I remember correctly. He doesnt go much into the use of reconnaissance and prebattle planning. Anyway, hopes this helps answer some of your questions. I welcome any and all comments. Unless you're coming in to rehash the argument on Pillars thread. I can do without anymore of that. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hook Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Thanks ScoutPL for your extremely helpful and clearly written tutorial. I eagerly look forward to your movement to contact tutorial and any others you would like to write. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GriffinCheng+ Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Hello people! I have converted the 3-pages tutorial into MS Word 2K format (but the images are hyperlinked I think) If anyone wants one, please drop me a msg. I am trying to make it in RTP later. Griffin. ------------------ "+" is just the beginning. Expect to see "GriffinCheng76", "GriffinCheng(105)" or "GriffinChengA3E8" more should Forum problems occur again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 9, 2000 Author Share Posted November 9, 2000 Same here. I eagerly await your next tutorial, Todd. Re "time," in my OP scenario I've given the Allied player the maximum 30 turns during night hours, with four snipers to work with should he choose, in order to accomplish his requisite reconnaisance. Unfortunately, that still does not quite measure up to the demands from the Allied side of this particular scenario, but that is a design issue at another level and one which I am powerless to affect. This is a very good game system, but it has many large (and some curious) holes in it. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-08-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Just a thought for all the scouting fans. My "inflexibility" as some one put it has been based on the fact that I'm a realism player, from the very beginning. Scouting, as many advocate it on this board is simply too unrealistic to be platable for me. For example, just the issue of commo brings the whole thing to a grinding halt (when looked at from the reality standpoint). Are we to beleive that each of those "scout" half squads is carrying a radio? In WWII? When hardly anybody under the company commanders carried radios? How else does the info get back to the commander? Carrier Pigeon? Battlefield sounds and smells? Star clusters? I couldn't even do this in todays army. Our squad leaders all carry radios with a range of under 1 klick in rough terrain. Still not enough radios for the "scout screen." We have individual headsets now for squad members to use to chat among themselves but they are line of sight only and have extremely limited range. I just cant see using this tactic. Call me a grognard, call me hard headed, whatever. It just doent fit into my gaming style. No hard feelings for anyone over the last few days debates but thats my story and I'm sticking to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 9, 2000 Author Share Posted November 9, 2000 Good point re communications, Todd, an item I thought about several times last night as I watched all four of my snipers buy it, one right after the other. (The last kill was funny! He'd finally made it all the way to the nearside road hedge, but I was not patient enough when I gave him his command and ordered this poor solder to crawl right through the hedge instead of sneaking up to it and then hiding, where he might have heard anything on the far side before barging through. So through he goes, and sure enough, what has the wacky AI done? but to order one its platoons to march down the road in pitch dark, to where is anyone's guess, and sure enough one of the squads, or perhaps the leader, my level of intel wasn't high enough to know for sure, waxed him.) Anyway, two things: First, let's examine your position a bit further because it seems to have inherent logical flaws, to include 1) while we could hardly expect our men to always be radio equipped (though in some cases a walkie-talkie--I've always loved that terminology) might be appropriate--depending) would it not be possible for these soldiers to gather the intelligence and get their reports, physically, back to HQ? Isn't this what we would have expected from our WWII GI's? 2) if we can have no useful intelligence from these modest (dysfunctional, as you might have it) assets, then where would "yours" supposedly come from? In my scenario, we speak to a battalion ordered to attack a couple of villages some ways away. Now at battalion level I would expect that formation to assume responsibility for its own reconnaisance, certainly all of a local nature. Regiment isn't going to tell battalion what's out there a few hundred meters to its front, isnt this so? From where, then, does battalion's intel come? My second deal: 1) I think I might have an issue with the way snipers are modeled in terms visibility vis-a-vis the enemy. All of mine last night were crawling along and stopping at judicious intervals (except for the gross mistake I committed at the road hedge, already confessed), and each duly discovered foxholes (most of them empty--more on that in a sec) and waited to see what was up, etc. Well, finally I ordered them to proceed to see what might happen, and like I said they all were turned into lonely dog tags. I wondered about this beforehand and so took the liberty of making these snipers 1 Elite, 1 Crack and 2 Veteran, just for purposes of my test. (I want this scenario to play well, from both sides, and it's rather large and demanding and without reasonable intel I'm gonna have to make some changes.) Based on what happened last night I'd have to say that unless my sample is too small to gauge from (and it well could be), snipers just aren't up to their work as scouts. Please understand that the ground started off dry, but I arranged for "Bad" weather and so it conveniently rained the first turn (remember, this is night), a circumstance which ought to have helped to diminish everyone's visibility and hearing and thus abetted my snipers' efforts, yet all I had to show for their exercise were those four dog tags. Not a good sign, I'm sure everyone will agree. 2) I have a very large problem with what I discovered about the TacAI, namely that on the first turn of a scenario, at night, with the Germans designated as the defender, no less than four German platoons were ordered to desert their foxholes and walk around aimlessly in the night air, headed God-only-knows where. What's with that? I have noticed previously that foxholes would be discovered with no one in them, but this is the first clue I've had that these have not necessarily been evacuated for intelligent reasons but rather solely because the TacAI hasn't a good clue. Where were those Germans headed, southbound down the road from Prairie du Chien, last night? Why were the foxholes discovered by my other three snipers all empty as well? What's going on here? Is this an old issue, and if so what has BTS had to say about this? P.S. I took snapshots of the action (I use HyperSnap) but I do not know how to post these to the boards. If someone would give me the answer I'd be happy to post the most relevant of these--they show a lot. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobbaro Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Scout, your points on your namesakes are of course well based. How does setting up point elements square in your thinking with much of what is done with what folks around here call "scouts"? One problem which has been discussed in other threads and which you allude to is the problem with the player obtaining "radio" intell from each and every element he has on the field. Without getting into that issue itself, you are recommending, at least for yourself, a restraint of sorts to eliminate the gamey intrusion this represents and the temptations of exploiting it by using "scouting". Another example of this sort of restraining is utilizing only very low level and very high level views in play. Planning can be sometimes thought of as a necessary evil. Very necessary. Evil because too often the assumptions upon which planning is based fall too far short of the current situation, whether due to misinformation, misinterpretation, poor communications, impossibility of update maintenance or just plain stupidity and incompetence. Necessary, because at a minimum planning enables an organized force to hang on to at least a thread of organization that enables the force to continue to work together as necessity requires replanning on the fly. Static forces sometimes have trouble keeping up with the current situation, and moving forces obviously have a much harder time of it. At least one unit has some idea of what its neighboring units intend to do and furnishes some kind of a line upon which to expect them to be if not the exact position at a particular time- due to knowing a plan. If you do not have a plan then improvisation has no starting point and all is confusion. School Solutions are equally capable of taking or saving lives. The problem is when they are ignored; and, when they are blindly followed. Especially for green troopers, the School Solution is the best that can be done for getting started on a foot with a any hope for attaining an objective and with minimizing casualties. Every new war provides causes for cursing the Old Solution and creating a bloodied, New Veteran's Solution. Yet, a close inspection often reveals hiding underneath, most of the elements of the old reborn in an altered form, like a uniform tailored for the new recruit. A huge failure of the Japanese forces in WWII was the extreme reluctance they had to deviate from a plan once drawn and committed. This can happen on a smaller scale as individuals cling to their talent for learning a plan, ignoring the reality flowing about them. The best plans contain elements of built in flexibility for obvious contingencies. But, nothing can take the place on the spot responsiveness in the face of the unforeseen. So, while one may not really scout out the CM battlefield with proper patrolling etc., there is a comfort is using adequate outposting and point elements as one moves into the zone of any thing is possible. In moving infantry forward in bounds, I like to run a smaller element forward first, using larger elements in overwatch and in readiness for reinforcing the point or covering its withdrawal. Call it scouting if you will, I just think of it as forward security. It does not always work, but that is battle. It seems to me to work more often than not. But this is not a hard and fast rule for every move. Often, I move two squads forwards in cover that has been cleared for nearby threats. Hitting an outpost squad or confronting a clearing ahead is then done with sufficient authority to make a good showing against the enemy. Your V formation I believe. Otherwise, I tend to send over a point element with overwatch if possible. Where it is not possible it, is a good idea to arrive at the end of the turn to enable the players's assistance in simulating a "standing order" response, to wit, get the hell out of there as indicated. Looking forward to seeing your "Advance to Contact" tutorial. I thought your attack was splendid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterNZer Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 Tris you use FOUR snipers as scouts? My goodness, that is so incredibly gamey. I'd be so pissed off if an oponent did that to me.. PeterNZ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tris Posted November 9, 2000 Author Share Posted November 9, 2000 Let me get this straight, Peter. You just can't fathom four (count them with me, please: one, two, three, four) soldiers in a full (actually, reinforced counting the armor and extra artillery assets) battalion with "sniper" or "scout" capabilities? I can. Easily. Now if you have some other point, or if I'm putting words in your mouth somehow, I will gladly stand corrected. Otherwise, all I can see is that you seem to want to extend the silliness from the "other" thread over to this one. I'm not up for that. I would love to discuss CMBO intelligently with anyone who has that interest. I respect the simulation at that level. I have no interest in telling you, or in you telling me, what is and what is not "gamey." And if you must engage in that then at least come to the table with your dubious duff in order. [This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutPL Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 No mans land (the space between opposing forces) is generally out of sight, sound and small arms range. Quite often its just inside arty range so that opposing forces can shell the other guys front lines but his own rear areas will stay relatively untouched. When one side decides to attack the other they move across no mans land, engage the enemy and attempt to cause him to fall back and give up ground. I realize this is an oversimplification but it'll do to make my point. The CM game space covers the last few hundred meters of no mans land. A unit, company, battalion whatever, wouldnt advance into no mans land for 500-600 meters and then stop and send scouting parties forward. Particularly if they had to sit there and wait for the scouting parties to return to deliver their intel. Thats just assuming too much risk. CM wasnt designed to simulate that particular aspect of warfare. When little information is known about the enemy, a commander simply uses formations and movememnt techniques that allow him the most security and the most flexibility. Security so he isnt surprised or bumps into a much larger force by mistake, and flexibility so that he can handle whatever he does bump into. He pushes his forward elements out farther, whether they be a squad for a company or a platoon for a battalion. He ensures that whenever these forward elements bump into something he has ample reserves available, close by, to come forward and deal with it. Movement to contacts (quick battles) are inevitably terrain based. Since you know little about the enemy you want to strike immediately for the areas where he is most likely to be, i.e. victory locations. So what if he's spread out all over the map. There's no need to find every single unit. Grab for the victory locations and he'll come out of the wood work to stop you. As long as you manitain surprise through deception, use of cover and concealment, and rapid maneuver, you should be able to maintain enough mass to deal with whatever he throws at you. If done properly by the end of the game you will either have carried out an attack against a well defended main objective or he will have committed his forces piece meal against your strong forces resulting in his defeat, either way. The entire point of CM is to close with and destroy the enemy through fire and maneuver. Not to avoid contact as much as possible in some machiavellian "scouting" attempt so that you pull off the greatest flanking maneuver since Chancellorsville. Alot of the principles that the scouting advocates are basing their tactics on are operational concepts anyway. Small unit tactics deal mostly with how to close with the enemy and hurt him real bad. Security is maintained by putting distance between your forward elements and the main body, in an attempt to make contact with the smallest possible element. Not by running all over the map looking for every single gap and surface. Gaps and surfaces are operational terms, not tactical ones. Just as penetrationa and exploitation are operational ones. Assault, support by fire, breach, overwatch, obscuration, prepatory fires, these are all tactical terms and they all belong on the CM battlefield. If you define scouting to be pushing a few elements forward to clear the route of your main body as it advances then you are using sound tactics. If you define scouting as moving a bunch of small units forward to find the enemy before you even committ to a plan of attack then you are playing the game, not simulating combat at the tactical level. Which ever you do is up to you and is fine with me. But you shouldnt try to sell them to anyone as legitimate tactics. PS. If you insist on carying out reconnaissance then you need to play a game with at least a battalion on a large map with an enormous number of turns. Your scouts would go out, conduct their reconnaissance and return, then you could launch your attack. This is a legitimate,doctrinal use of scouts. Other wise a commander relys on the security inherent to his selection of formations and movement techniques and the amount of firepower at his fingertips. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coralsaw Posted November 9, 2000 Share Posted November 9, 2000 ScoutPL, Your last post is excellent. Thanks for putting things in perspective. The refreshing thing about this forum is that, fun aside, one learns things. Unlike some other fora, best left unnamed... I hope your second tutorial is as good as the first one. Regards ------------------ My squads are regular, must be the fibre in the musli... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts