CM and Reconnaissance

[Blackhorse]

I originally posted this in the Thin Vehicle Recon thread.

Reconnaissance in CM is a challenge, make no mistake about it. I've been giving the concept some thought and I believe a way to create scouts in the context of CM is to use platoon HQ units as the scouts. Mind you, I'm not talking about taking an infantry platoon's HQ, but rather having scenario designers place independent platoon HQ units as the scout elements. These independent platoon HQs would have no subordinates.

This concept accomplishes several things.

First, it provides a scout unit with its own inherent morale and would make the scouts' morale more durable.

Second, it would make the scout units smaller than a half squad and would give scouts special sighting and call for fire abilities that half-squads do not have. This would replicate the special training a scout unit receives.

Third, it allows some of the smaller vehicles to transport the scout unit.

Granted, it is an abstraction, but in the context of CM it just may be the way to go.

Thoughts?

[Berlichtingen]

Ok, what's wrong with half squads? A US scout platoon would be 3 M8 ACs with a platoon of infantry (broken into half squads) transported in 7 jeeps.

A plt HQ has no FO capability unless the mortars are within command anyway

[This message has been edited by Berlichtingen (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

Ok, what's wrong with half squads? A US scout platoon would be 3 M8 ACs with a platoon of infantry (broken into half squads) transported in 7 jeeps.

A plt HQ has no FO capability unless the mortars are within command anyway

[This message has been edited by Berlichtingen (edited 03-13-2001).]

Half-squads are what many, myself included, currently use for scouting.

This suggestion is merely designed to provide an alternative scout unit with a more durable morale than the half-squad. Additionally, there are some smaller vehicles that won't take half-squads, but will take HQ units (can't think of the exact ones off the top of my head).

As for the FO role, the mortars being in command radius of the plt hq is what I was referring to.

Bottom line, this is intended to replicate a trained scout unit as opposed to a half squad thrown into a recon role.

[Guest Pillar]

Doesn't it depend entirely on the doctrine you are trying to mimic?

After all, there is no law of nature about who can be called a "scout", nor how many people should be designated in the "recon role" etc. It's all up to individual tastes and doctrine.

Surely not every army on earth must use a series of 4 man elite teams to do scouting jobs...right?

[Simon Fox]

Geez Pillar stop using that dirty language round here. I don't want to see any more of that 'doctrine' talk, y'hear?

I actually use this technique a fair bit since I try not to play QBs but prefer the pick your own sides scenario type battle. One thing that differentiates between half-squads and HQ is that the latter spot better. The reason is that HQ are presumed to have binoculars.

[Ksak]

CM already has a unit that is coded with above average qualities of fire discipline, stealth, and observation. It's called "Sharpshooter." Too bad the designation is not Scout/Sharpshooter or some other such thing to avoid the flames that inevitably follow its use in that role.

[Simon Fox]

Would a "sharpshooter" be expected to be in radio contact with the rest of his unit?

At least with a Plt-HQ you would have the moral satisfaction of knowing you weren't being "gamey"

[Bullethead]

Blackhorse:

In a QB, you can't have independent HQ units because you can't delete their subordinate troops. You can only do that in pre-made scenarios.

Speaking of which, has anybody ever tried a real recon scenario specifically built to put recon into it's proper context? I've been thinking about this for some time, because it sounds like fun to me, but CM's victory conditions don't work well for it. Hence, you have to make some external systems to handle victory here.

For example, say you have a scenario where the attacker is in command of a specialized recon force gathering intel for the division's G2 in preparation for a major attack coming soon. The recon force has the following missions: 1) to go snoop out as much about the enemy as possible; 2) get this info back home; and 3) preserve your force for future recon missions. Capturing an enemy or 2 would be very nice. However, the attacker is going in and out, not taking ground. Furthermore, the attacker wants to minimize fighting because if the enemy knows his positions have been spotted, he's going to move so the expected barrage doesn't get him, thus making the intel acquired by the recon unit worthless.

Meanwhile, the defender has a normal "line-type" force dug in defending the area in expectation of the coming major attack. He has the somewhat conflicting goals of foiling all the attacker's missions without revealing very much about himself, and without abandoning his prepared positions needlessly.

Obviously, if the players of such a scenario rely on CM's victory conditions, the defender is always going to have a major victory. He will control all the flags and have relatively few losses, even if the attacker knows everything about him. Thus, the players have to agree on alternate victory conditions in advance.

My proposal is that the attacker player must write an intel report just like his real life counterpart would do, relating the intel collected. The attacker would write this report and send it to his opponent between the last turn of the scenario and looking at the AAR map. Then the map is revealed and the attacker wins if his report matches the defender's deployments to some agree-upon level. Further enhancements are possible, such as only counting things spotted by the surviving attacking units.

Anyway, how does this all sound?

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

-Bullethead

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there is bacteria.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

Blackhorse:

In a QB, you can't have independent HQ units because you can't delete their subordinate troops. You can only do that in pre-made scenarios.

Yeah, I know.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Bullethead:

My proposal is that the attacker player must write an intel report just like his real life counterpart would do, relating the intel collected. The attacker would write this report and send it to his opponent between the last turn of the scenario and looking at the AAR map. Then the map is revealed and the attacker wins if his report matches the defender's deployments to some agree-upon level. Further enhancements are possible, such as only counting things spotted by the surviving attacking units.

Anyway, how does this all sound?

it sounds interesting.

[Simon Fox]

But if you trust your opponent not to look at your force you can make pseudo QBs using the editor. Or alternatively you can get a neutral third party to set up a scenario using player selected forces. Seems to work well.

[JoePrivate]

I don't know how 'real' it is but a short while ago there was a scenario released called "Recon by Stealth" by Matt Hyra. Without giving anything away you use *scouts* for the first half of the game to gather info on the enemy position and strength. After that, based on your intel, you select from several groups of reinforcements the force needed to best accomplish the mission. It's explained clearly in the briefing, but I found it very interesting. I learned a few things playing

[citizen]

JoePrivate is right (and I'm glad you liked it ). I have designed a whole series of scenarios featuring REAL RECON and unique methods of bringing on reinforcements. They were designed to be played against the AI, but certainly could be played PBEM as long as both sides "played fair." Like no anticipatory retaliatory strikes.

The scenario that JoePrivate refers to is called Recon By Stealth. This method of recon is achieved by giving the Brits 6 Crack Sharpshooters... each with NO AMMO.

They scout ahead for 30 turns, find good avenues of attack, seek out enemy positions, but don't expose themselves by shooting.

The reinforcement angle is unique in that, based on your recon, you "call back" for the reinforcements you need to beat the enemy. Each slot of reinforcements is slightly stronger than the previous, but the more stuff you "call back" for, the longer they take to show up. You then hide the 4 rein slots that you didn't choose.

I had the scenario posted on the Depot, but that has gone away, so if anyone wants to give it a try, send me a direct email and I'll send it to you (don't ask for it here). It's a Coy sized engagement and takes an short evening at most. The 30 turns of recon go by quickly.

Thanks, Matt Hyra

loyalcitizen@home.com

[jasoncawley@ameritech.net]

I ran a pair of scenarios something like this in my CM campaign. The German AI has an established battery position on a ridge, with field fortifications in front, etc. The first mission on that map is recon, but not dedicated scouts like in the other fellow's, just the infantry platoons of the player's usual force (which varies through the campaign depending on his losses, etc), and a few supporting cav. vehicles. Also 81mm mortars.

The briefing explains that it is a recon, and what is already known. The player will get any mortar ammo he doesn't use, in the later main fight. If he loses men in the recon phase then he doesn't have more. Then, before the second fight, the player chooses the reinforcement type he wants, but with some randomness included. He also gets some set reinforcements that do not change with his decision.

Then he is to go in and take the position, in a seperate longer scenario. Key is that how hard to "press", or whether to really engage at all in the morning "battle", is up to the player. A few got sucked in and over-committed. One cracked the defense in one place in the course of his "recon", and elected to immediately follow up with the forces available, and a shoestring reinforcement, less than others got. (He did quite well, in the event).

Of course with seperate scenarios, the players can't hit "map" after the first one, or they spoil the limited info nature of the case. A few people did that without realising it was not intended, but most played it straight. 3 commanders did the recon with 2-4 men hit, and the information gathered was good in almost all cases.

One fellow mentioned for his HQ scout idea (which is good, I hadn't thought of the binocs point), that you can't buy them alone in QBs. This is true. But e.g. if you buy a company, you might use the weapons HQ for this role, parcelling out the weapons themselves to the line platoon, or putting them under the company commander. The company commander can also "borrow" squads from platoon, so if you want a platoon with fewer men in it, that is easy to arrange. These tricks only work for a team working ahead of a full company, though.

[ScoutPL]

Hey fellas, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but do you suppose since its so hard to realistically portray scouts and scout operations in CM that maybe its a little beyond the scope of the game?

[TankDawg]

Originally posted by ScoutPL:

Hey fellas, not to beat a dead horse or anything, but do you suppose since its so hard to realistically portray scouts and scout operations in CM that maybe its a little beyond the scope of the game?

I don't think it is really that tough to portray scouts in CM. We are all using some sort of scouting in just about every CM Scenario that we play.

Why not just make it a little more accurate? I mean if we have "Security Squads," why not scout teams?

Very, very limited firepower with great morale and no command radius needed.

Just give me 4 teams in the average scenario and it would be great.

I would love to see it in CM2.

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

Jeff Newell

TankDawg

[ScoutPL]

"I would love to see it in CM2."

My entire point being its not in CM1. And its alot more complex then force structure. Realistically portraying scout operations is alot more then just sneaking forward and finding the enemy. The whole "spotting" rules would have to be revamped, probably to the point you would be playing a first person game, which takes away the focus of CM.

[Guest Pillar]

Blackhorse,

What about using regularly trained infantrymen to conduct reconaissance? It may not be as "stealthy" as having specialized teams but it does the same job in my experience. They are also much hardier and can handle small, unwanted scraps. A conventional recon team would be forced back in such conditions.

Also, what about reconaissance during the battle? I get the impression most people think of reconaissance as taking place in a sort of seperate "recon battle before the battle". Why that dichotomy?

My appologies Simon Fox if my first post sounded negative. I was attempting to articulate that in order to simulate reconaissance in CM, you must first have an idea which "type" or "style" you are mimicing. Some "styles" may not be well simulated by small, elite 4 man hq teams. Some might want the flexibility to use regular soldiers, and so forth. Although CM is focused on the Americans/British and Germans, there is still room for experimentation and creativity. There's also Soviet 'historical' practises to look at, which are an interesting topic in themselves.

Interesting thread.

[Blackhorse]

Originally posted by Pillar:

What about using regularly trained infantrymen to conduct reconaissance? It may not be as "stealthy" as having specialized teams but it does the same job in my experience. They are also much hardier and can handle small, unwanted scraps. A conventional recon team would be forced back in such conditions.

That's how it's currently modeled. The only drawback with it is a full up squad is too large to transport on the majority of vehicles used by reconnaissance units. Break that squad down into half squads to fit on the vehicles and the squad takes the corresponding morale hit.

Originally posted by Pillar:

Also, what about reconaissance during the battle? I get the impression most people think of reconaissance as taking place in a sort of seperate "recon battle before the battle". Why that dichotomy?

Reconnaissance is on-going. However in larger operations and some of the GM run campaigns seperate reconnaissance battles like you describe can and will occur.

[Ksak]

I say, I say again. There is a unit presently modeled in CM1 with "special" fire discipline, stealth, and powers of observation. Why not just change the name?

[Guest Pillar]

Originally posted by Blackhorse:

That's how it's currently modeled. The only drawback with it is a full up squad is too large to transport on the majority of vehicles used by reconnaissance units. Break that squad down into half squads to fit on the vehicles and the squad takes the corresponding morale hit.

Reconnaissance is on-going. However in larger operations and some of the GM run campaigns seperate reconnaissance battles like you describe can and will occur.

What about simply not using reconaissance vehicles? Load the men on trucks, and bring an 81mm mortar battery along as well. This should take no more than 5 trucks (IRL), am I correct?

Dismount the men as soon as they reach the terrain to be checked out. Likewise, reconaissance in this form can take the role of men on foot a few hundred meters (more/less depending on the situation) ahead of the first section of the main body.

Options.

As it stands, I think sharpshooters best (in game terms) simulate the sort of "stealth" recon, since they have decent spotting ability and are very hard to see. You could use generous groupings of them in a scenario design (say, 18 crack sharpshooters total for the battalion) to simulate a decent recon platoon.

Any word from BTS on the inclusion of "scout" infantry in CM2?

[Eric Alkema]

It is my understanding that the defender would use observation posts, patrols etc. out in front of his lines to give warning of an attack and also to prevent scouts from observing his lines. How about a scenario using appropriate small, light units (you decide what CM units fit the role best) and have the objective be to exit those units off the defender's map edge? The idea being, if you get past the screen, you would be relatively free to observe the enemy lines and you have accomplished your objective.

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

Eric

[Guest Pillar]

Eric, that would be a very prudent exercise. I'd say do it with regular infantry too, not fancy sharpshooters. If you can do it with ordinary men you'll be fit as a fiddle for reconaissance on the battlefield, whether you are using elite scout units (sharpshooters, modified platoon hq's, etc.) or not.

This whole idea is especially fun when you do a brigade level exercise and where getting through the enemy SRE is for a real battle

Warren Mirron is the man.