Excellent tactical guide on DeanCo's site

[mikeadams]

I think this is a case where we can have our cake and eat it too. For scenarios where the designer feels that scouting information should be included, then it can be in the briefing (as much or little as he wants). On the other hand it would be perfectly possible to include false or misleading information in the briefing, which might provide some very interesting scenarios (at least the first time you play it)

[PeterNZer]

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

Difficult to understand passage. You're either being rhetorical and asking whether or not I understand the concept of a sharpshooter or whether or not I understand the concept of FOUR sharpshooters. In which case, of course I can. Or you're asking if the quantity of sharpshooters is what I object to. The quantity is irrelevant, the use isn't, however.

I can't fathom sharpshooters as scouts full stop. Actually, correction, I CAN fathom it, but I just don't approve of it. It's not playing the game with some kind of historical sense of how battles were fought, most would say it's not a particularly 'fair' way of playing due to the certain advantages the Sharpshooters have (more on that later). Hence, I call scouting forward with sharpshooters as 'gamey'.

If a player used ONE sharpshooter against me in such a fashion I would be slightly peeved, if someone used 4, I would call them a gamey little bastard and probably refuse to play them again, and advise others not to bother too.

And snide little comments about the Peng thread do nothing but provoke yawns here.

Exactly how pointing out that using sharpshooters as sacrificial scouts is gamey is somehow 'silliness' from the other thread that 'you won't put up with' I'm not entirely sure. But we'll leave that point for now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I would love to discuss CMBO intelligently with anyone who has that interest. I respect the simulation at that level. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

did I say anything unintelligible? I found my post pretty clear and to the point, whereas your second sentence, (quoted at top) almost incomprehensible. I doesn't bother me whether or not you care if I call the tactic gamey (O, and quite a few others would agree with me in describing the use of Sharpshooters as gamey, I wonder how many of your opponents have been too polite to point it out?) the fact is I am pointing it out to others that this is a gamey way to recon/scout and if they use it they might get a bad rep.

Gamey - as defined roughly by myself, (anyone care to add or adjust the definition?), as ahistorical use of units in order to gain an advantage over the other player. The kind of things -generally- considered gamey include jeep-rushes, sharpshooter scouting, using crews to scout/capture flags and so on.

Historically, sharpshooters weren't used as scouts, moving around in front of a force trying to get the enemy to show themselves, or even sneaking around spying on the enemy. They were placed in a nice little spot and used to provide harassing fire.

Scouting and recon parties were generally a handful of men sent out to locate the enemy, equipped with radios and so on.

By using sharpshooters as you do, you are taking advantage of their improved spotting powers over most other units and their cheap points value. Then utilizing them in a totally ahistoric way. Hence. Gamey.

Now, if you are only using them in a home-made scenario with some specific qualifications or setup described in the briefing or in game conditions, no problem. It's fun to stretch the game in scenarios. If however, this is a common tactic of yours in PBEM, well. 'nuff said.

PeterNZ

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

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." George W Bush -Saginaw, Mich.,

Sept. 29, 2000

[This message has been edited by PeterNZer (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Jeff Duquette]

Excellent work Mr. Justice! Now how about a treatise employing a tank heavy company task force

So presumably you feel there is some value to employing a game like CM as a training tool?

[Reno]

ScoutPL. Just wanted to pipe in and say thanks for your excellent tutorial and excellent post on fire and maneuver. I know that your efforts to bring real world tactical thinking to this forum have sometimes met with resistance. That has to be frustrating. I think your decision to divorce yourself from the occasional petty squabble was a wise one. Here's hoping you don't lose heart and that you continue to share your knowledge to make CM even better than it is. We're fortunate to have you here.

All the best,

Reno

[Pak40]

ScoutPL,

"Are we to beleive that each of those "scout" half squads is carrying a radio?"

I understand your point and mostly agree with you that these scouting techniques in CM arn't 100% realistic and maybe could be slightly gamey, but here's a reasonable justification for using scouts or pointmen:

The pointman's job is to scout the area ahead of the main group so that might discover an ambush or enemy's position before the main group does. It is true, in WWII, that these pointmen would not have radios to relay their findings, BUT, they would most likely either use hand signals (if in in LOS of his unit) or send a runner back. CM does not simulate either hand signals or runners so should I abandon scouting all together? I say no.

CM is a game, it is not 100% realistic by any means. The simple fact that you can see all of your units on the battlefield at any givin time makes this game less than realistic. I think that we have to play CM for what it is - a game. And if scouting is a good technique in this game then it should be used.

I am, however, against the suicidal scouting techniques such as sending a jeep behind enemy lines or sending a leg recon too far ahead of it's parent unit.

[dNorwood]

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

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. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This may not be what you need (in particular it doesn't discuss a battalion) but at:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usamhi/DL/chron.htm

there are a number of day-by-day narratives of a Cavalry Recon Squadron that I've been reading lately (and I imagine you already know about them, but what the heck).

[Tris]

Peter, my comment in reference to the other thread re scouts was not meant to be snide, it was meant to convey my preference to keep any thread in which I participate in entirely less contentious. I do not wish to set anyone up as "being in" one camp or the other re the use of the game's assets vis-a-vis the acquisition of meaningful intelligence data, I wish only to express my concern for this game's very real limitations in some respects, and my desire to employ this simulation in a manner which will afford me the best possible gaming experience.

Re my scenario: it's basically a battalion/battalion assault action (an operation) which takes place for 20 turns (30 moves each) and fought over topography 2960 tiles square with a river/three bridges to cross, three towns to negotiate and like that. In other words it is rather large, not one of these little "the enemy's over there in that village and you're here and you have 20 turns to bust him good" jobs.

For what it might be worth: I've yet to play anyone PBEM, Peter, and this scenario is my first serious effort with the editor. I might add that I've owned the game but a bare month and the only scenario I've played thus far in which snipers were afforded was the one where the Germans defend against Americans down the road from Carentan, whatever its name might be (oh, hell, let's just go look--okay, it's called precisely that, Carentan), and I believe I was given just one sniper there.

So, we have one battalion versus another, in effect (with additional assets, armor and artillery, thrown into the fray) meeting over the course of some three and a half days (I start it at night, with successive night turns falling every sixth battle), and if I must use sharpshooters (I believe "sniper" is actually a foreign term to this system) to effect the presence of reasonable intelligence assets then I will--split squads sure don't make it, with that you must agree, and I'm not about to commit a full battalion and then some to battle with next to zero effective intelligence of what that unit's getting in for. No way.

Now if the system is to blame for this "gamey" approach of mine, so be it. That's on the system's designers, not me, and if the community has a problem with my approach then it can either ignore me and/or my design efforts or petition BTS to change the game system--I would recommend the latter. I just can't see the wisdom of willingly restricting ourselves to known system limitations (faults, oversights, call it what you will) at the expense of both enjoyment and historicity. Similarly, why should I likewise limit my design to scenarios so tiny as to effectively negate reasonable use of intelligence assets? Is not that also "gamey" in its own context?

Todd, because of one of the game's limitations, that being the way it divvies up the map between battles of operations, I've decided to shrink no man's land to 0m so as to ameliorate as much as possible the somewhat disturbing and wholly unrealistic effect of that global magical line of demarcation which is imposed on users between battles straight across the entire breadth of the landscape. That irks me in a big way. Also, with the 0m imposition I negate the equally false effect of pushing the map either this way or that several hundred meters to allow for "possession" or whatever it was BTS wanted to achieve with this effect.

Finally: I respect your combat experience and there is wisdom in much of what you write, but this is not Panama and Desert Storm we model here but western Europe over half a century ago and the two are not the same, not by a long shot, most especially when it comes to the issue of intelligence assets and the gathering of same.

Meanwhile, please continue the great work. It's my opinion this game and its users benefit greatly from your presence.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]

[PeterNZer]

Thanks for the reasoned reply Tris, I was unaware you hadn't played any PBEM.

Running scenarios with snipers isn't really a problem, and on defence, snipers to the front is a reasonable and reasonably historic tactic.

I'd advise tho that if you do play and PBEM, don't scout with snipers or you will piss your opponent off.

This isn't necesary a limitation of the system, but more a 'fact of life' in a game. It is very difficult, (and would be very dull) to simulate a game where everything, down to who has a field radio is tested. That's essentially what happens, you see everything the sniper sees automatically.

Nevermind, i hope the scenario goes well and comes together in good form

PeterNZ

[ScoutPL]

I knew someone would latch on to the fact that i mentioned my combat experience and zero in on it. Go back another paragraph or two, Tris and you'll see where I say right out front that I know very little about small unit tactics in WWII. I also say that my tactics are based on the '90s military schooling I have. I never tried to sell my tactics as the true blue WWII answer.

I merely wanted to include my expereince to show that I wasnt a high school kid who'd read a couple books and thought he had all the answers. I used to be that guy, but not anymore.

[Tris]

Todd, you are a bright guy and so you ought to have caught on by now that far from any desire on my part to "zero in on" you or your thoughtful approach to this game I am, quite to the contrary, the person who went to the trouble of informing the CMBO community of your work over on DeanCo's site for the reason that after studying you I found much to be learned and so wished that as many players as possible might have the same opportunity. In other words, I am without a doubt one of your biggest supporters.

However.

I think for myself, I am no novice to wargames or war (yes, I served, a generation before you, as a humble leg, albeit) and I found your approach to intelligence gathering as it weds with this simulation to be somewhat rigid. That is not to say I necessarily disagree with your reasoning--that I find to be flawless. I do see the other side of that coin, though, and it is that position I argue here.

I like you--or rather I appreciate what you've offered to date and admire your clarity of thought, ability to present information, etc. I also respect your experience. I just think that this system is lacking in some very critical respects, and wish to work around these drawbacks as best I might.

Now I do not advocate the wholesale use of sharpshooters willy nilly to gather intelligence, as it's child's play to see the potential abuse of such practice--most notably for the reason that it's one see-all see with regard to this sort of data. (Another serious limitation to the simulation, one which the designers are well aware of.) Then again, in an action as large as the one I'm currently at I think it is reasonable to look for some way to simulate what any battalion commander in his right mind would wish to have: a reasonable notion of what lies directly in front of his lead platoons and armor assets. Wouldn't you want to know this?

There's also something else working in here, though I realize you do not fall into this crowd: it's the RTS syndrome, the "I want a bunch of Tigers versus your Shermans and just mix it up" approach to the simulation. This attitude I find to be more gamey than my present experiments with sharpshooters with the scenario in question, much more so--and quite less academic in spirit, I might add.

Along the same line, this RTS group-think seems to view "assets" as just that, numbers to be toyed with. I, on the other hand, try to put myself in the shoes of the fisherman, see my assets as boys from back home, some of whom I might even know, all of whom are human beings with futures . . . especially if I don't waste them on same crazed rush up the slopes of an unnamed hill in some forgotten corner of France. See what I mean? So while I can imagine with no difficulty scenarios where my micro approach to intelligence gathering, per se, would not fly, I can, too, see cases where it might--and if fact should be an intuitive approach.

I believe my scenario falls into the latter category. I know for sure I tried it your way the first couple of times and managed only to see a full company of good infantry chewed to bits, any number of halftracks, jeeps and Shermans blown to smitherreens, so certainly something isn't right with the "let's just push forward in V formation and take that hill" approach. At least in my scenario. Thus informed, I looked for an alternative.

Enter four sharpshooters stage left.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-09-2000).]

[Tris]

Good, Peter. You struck me as a hardy lad so I'm not surprised you came through this ordeal with me more or less unscathed.

The last New Zealander I met was kid in a pancho slouching outside a bar of parte vieja in San Sebastian, Spain. So I bought him a beer and he told me he'd been treking across Europe for the past year and half. When I raised my eyebrows he remarked, "Oh, that's fairly the norm where I come from. They boot us out of there right away!"

Is that true?

[Tris]

And yes, I appreciate the effort you made in your preamble to your tutorial re your limited experience with re to WWII field tactics, etc. I just assumed everyone would grant my knowledge of same as I grant theirs, since, as you note, this is all clearly spelled out.

Look. I'm direct. Always have been, always will be. You should have been so fortunate to have me in your squad long ago--at least you would have known always what you had.

[ScoutPL]

Tris, when you start messing around with battalion sized units and large maps the rules change. My tutorial is extremely limited in that it shows a company in a deliberate attack against a position that has been well reconned. My purpose was to show the basics of fire and maneuver, I think I did that.

But when you deal with mulitple companies in CM you can get beyond the scope of the game in my opinion. Battalion's MANEUVER companies. To get into a discourse in what this really means would take forever and I need to be getting to bed soon. But simply put you have two ways to go with a battalion level game in CM. You are either conducting a deliberate attack (like in my tutorial) with a battalion against one or two objectives or you are conducting a full scale operational level battle. What I mean by that is you're going to have to take the time to conduct your own careful recon, maybe a probe or two, get the feel for the enemy situation, develop a plan, get your forces into position to cross the line of departure, then conduct your attack. Otherwise you're going to run into the problems you did in your early games. Now I think its been pretty well argued that CM isnt set up to handle operational recon and maneuver, so therein lies the answer to your problem.

[Tris]

I have made every effort to give both sides the time for reconnaissance, Todd, and they should both, by all means, so avail themselves. I agree that it seems as if this game lends itself best to company-sized actions, but then I have spoken at length to its limitations and do not wish to come across as some neophyte hypercritical of an otherwise excellent model--hell, the best yet hands down. As for operational intelligence: that can easily be simulated by the scenario designer with his brief to both sides. Movement on an operational scale is a different issue, but until I tackle that in-game I won't be able say one way or the other. I suspect that this area, too, of the simulation is best modeled for smaller actions; we'll see soon enough.

I'll tell you one thing: I intend to explore this game's limits one way or the other.

[Guest Pillar]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>But when you deal with mulitple companies in CM you can get beyond the scope of the game in my opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't think CM handles Battalion operations well?

Why not?

Couldn't you make a large map and play it out like it would work in real life, with motorized recon units etc. involved?

I think it would be pretty neat to setup a really REALLY big map and start two players on different sides with HUGE forces. Have it like 200 turns and let it develop like a real battle. Wow...that would be cool indeed. Better than the operations imo.

(Have no fear, I'm honestly inquiring here, not looking for a debate)

[This message has been edited by Pillar (edited 11-10-2000).]

[ScoutPL]

Pillar, you could do that but it really opens up another aspect of battlefield tactics. CM isnt really setup to model stealthy reconnaissance, which you would need to get a good idea of how to proceed with your attack prior to launching it. Also it takes me forever jsut to get through a 20 turn PBEM. 200 turns could last for months.

[Tris]

Pillar, as it stands my scenario could theoretically stretch out to 600 turns, and the map is about as large as I dare given my computer--a mere PIII 450. (By the way, I've 256K RAM and it seems to make no difference--does anyone know if this game can utilize anything over 64K or thereabouts?) Anytime you're up for playtesting it give me a holler. I'm trying to wheedle Gene into this chore and there's always room for more. I want to be sure it's good to game from both sides, plus I could use feedback from others re the OOB, map, etc.

[Chupacabra]

I hope you mean 256 MB of RAM, rather than 256K

What sort of video card are you using? That seems to be the real kicker for performance. I'm running CM on a C433, 96 MB RAM, which isn't wonderful but isn't too shabby either. However, my video card is a woeful 2x AGP model with 8 MB VRAM. CM runs very choppily with that setup.

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

Grand Poobah of the fresh fire of Heh.

[Tris]

Pillar, you could do that but it really opens up another aspect of battlefield tactics. CM isnt really setup to model stealthy reconnaissance, which you would need to get a good idea of how to proceed with your attack prior to launching it.

That's been my result thus far. It was a bad sign how quickly my sharpshooters bought it, and rateed Elite/Crack/Crack/Veteran at that. Imagine how fast split squads would go down. Something needs to be done about this.

Also it takes me forever jsut to get through a 20 turn PBEM. 200 turns could last for months.

In a way this is a nonissue, depending on one's desires. What's the difference between playing many smaller scenarios for two motnhs or one larger scenario for the same period which unfolds slowly and brings with this effort all the benefits which continuity and "family togetherness" can bestow? I understand that a gamer might not wish to commit to a larger game, but I can also understand why another would. Besides, we're not talking two months here by your reckoning, rather more like six.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Tris]

Yes, I'm getting a bit groggy here as 0400 approaches on the wrong coast finally, too. Time to take Beamer across the street to the park, then to bed.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-10-2000).]

[Tris]

My card's a Diamond Viper V770 TNT2 w/32MB. I just downloaded the latest driver from NVIDIA to see if that will help matters. Can't hurt.

[Juardis]

Well, I'm beginning to feel left out, so I'll throw my hat into the ring as well .

ScoutPL, I enjoyed your tutorial and believe that it is but one of many ways to win a battle. I've experimented with scouting as Fionn described in one of his AARs. I had no success with that. I do have success in rapidly bringing as much firepower to bear on a target as I can achieve. To that end, your tactics are right on the money.

I do however sometimes leave a screen of half squads/sharpshooters on my flanks to warn of any attempted flanking manuevers. I realize this takes away from the main force, but it is sometimes a necessary thing given the terrain, the type of battle, and the plan of attack. I assume that since you were attacking you were not concerned about the enemy probing you?

One thing I did disagree with in your tutorial was the use of arty. I agree that if you cannot see the enemy then he is usually in parts of the map that you do not have a LOS to. However, they could just as easily be within LOS but they're just hiding. You will not spot a hidden unit in trees unless you 1) get close enough or 2) he moves and/or fires. Now, if your FO (or OP as you called it) does not have a LOS to the target, then targetting arty on that spot is a big waste IMHO. You may be targetting an area that has no troops (since you cannot see the target area). Also, you will be waiting longer for the shells to fall and the accuracy of the spread is horrendous. If there is anything in that area, then the chance of hitting anything is remote. It is a waste unless it's really big rounds where all you're trying to do is instill panic. It is much better to target areas w/in LOS for both the speed and accuracy that brings. So I would target suspected hiding locations rather than the woods in the depression that I can not see. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on this.

Looking forward to more tutorials.

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

Jeff Abbott

[This message has been edited by Juardis (edited 11-10-2000).]