Bullethead Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 Michael emrys said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>That is true so far as it goes. As has been stated many times on this forum, in a typical CM battle, either attack or assault, all the preliminary reconnaissance would have been done. If that were the case, the attacker would have a pretty good notion (within some margin of error) of what kind of forces he was facing and their distribution on the battlefield. In CM, the attacking player knows little of this aside from (perhaps) which service the enemy troops are drawn from and by looking at the map and noting the location of the victory flags and tactical effects of terrain. This counter-balances the effects of borg spotting to some extent. Therefore, the attacking player must to some degree take matters into his own hands to restore the balance of battlefield intelligence. All this applies to the case of deliberate attacks against planned defenses.....<hr></blockquote> In real life, there are basically 2 kinds of attacks: deliberate and hasty. The main difference between the 2 is the amount of time invested in pre-attack recon and planning. Deliberate attacks are preferred because they have a better chance of success. However, the main reason one method is chosen over another is the time available before the position has to be taken, which is a function of larger-scale events taking place outside the confines of the CM battlefield. If the position has to fall RIGHT NOW, then you have to go in blind and hope for the best, knowing you're probably going to take more casualties than you would if you had time for proper recon and planning. This is just one of the terrible things that makes war Hell for battlefield leaders. For this reason, I disagree that "the attacking player must to some degree take matters into his own hands to restore the balance of battlefield intelligence." Simply put, there is no balance that needs restoring. The amount of pre-battle intel available to the attacking player is dependent on whether this is a deliberate or hasty attack, and that is a scenario design issue. Deliberate attacks can only be modeled with pre-made scenarios where the briefings can give the player the required pre-battle recon info. And I'm talking fairly accurate, fairly detailed info on the opposing force. Numbers, types, and locations of a goodly portion of the enemy forces. Info that's of critical importance to the commander on the ground. The type of stuff that would be known after the failure of previous attacks and/or adequate time spent patrolling. A simple overview of the situation, especially just the high-level strategic stuff, doesn't cut it. Unfortunately, this is an area where most scenario designers could stand to improve their art. The fact remains, however, that you are either doing a doing a deliberate attack or a hasty attack. If you have briefing info as outlined above, then you are doing a deliberate attack. If you don't have that info, then you are doing a hasty attack. Period. And the word "hasty" means just what it says. Your mission is to take the assigned objectives RIGHT NOW due to the pressure of events in the larger context beyond the map edges. So here is where it becomes inescapably and completely gamey to do any form of systematic battlefield recon in a CM battle. If you are in a hasty attack situation, then in real life you have zero time for further recon and the planning based on it. Just point your guys in what you hope is the right directions and go for it. Thus, delaying your attack while you scout the map with a few units is totally unrealistic. You don't have time for that in real life so shouldn't be doing it in CM. And scouting becomes doubly unrealistic and gamey besides when you add in the Borg spotting system and the pauses between turns. When your scouts find something, you can take all the time you want between turns thinking over what to do, then give appropriate orders to your troops immediately. The scouting info is instantly available to the player, he uses zero gametime to make his plans, requires zero gametime to brief his troops on the new plan, and only has to wait the normal command delay time before the new plan goes into effect. This isn't right under any set of circumstances. And it's utterly gamey when the context of the situation denies the player time for scouting in the first place. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>there is another case that needs looking into with increasing urgency as the release of CM:BB approaches. That is the case of a pursuing force running up more or less unexpectedly on a hastily organized defense, a roadblock, a defended village, or temporary stop line. In this case, there has been little or no preliminary reconnaissance. Indeed, the player may using a reconnaisance force.<hr></blockquote> I don't see this as being anything new for CM2. The same situations existed on the Western Front at times and are already modeled in scenarios. What you're talking about above is what the Russians called a "meeting engagement". They used this term differently than CM does. In CM, a meeting engagement is a type of scenario where neither side is dug-in and both are attacking centrally located flags. In real life, a "meeting engagement" is an engagement that takes place in the depth of the battlefield after the main lines have been breached. The engagement can be of any type, however, in terms of which side or sides is "attacking" locally. IOW, a real life "meeting engagement" could (and often did) involve an assault on a dug-in enemy, some of which could be of the deliberate attack type. Also, the side on the strategic or operational offensive often has to beat off counterattacks at a lower, more localized level. In any case, the Russians had powerful "forward detachments" in front of their main bodies to win such "meeting engagements". So basically, the possible types of attacks at the CM scale are the same as before. Say the forward detachment of a tank army (usually an independent tank brigade) would itself have some advanced guard like a tank battalion and an infantry company. The forward detachment's mission is to clear the road at once for the main body, to maintain the momentum of the whole offensive. So say its point formation runs into a blocking force. It has to do a hasty attack, no questions asked--that's its whole job. If it fails, the rest of the forward detachment will arrive in the interim and conduct a deliberate attack based on info learned during the failed hasty attack. Anyway, the only time I think it's within realistic boundaries to do battlefield recon in CM is during an operation. Basically, you periodically use a battle simply to gain info on the enemy without making any effort to advance your main body. This removes the realtime vs. gametime constraints because you won't be using the info until the next battle, usually several gamehours later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 Vanir Ausf B said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Would you also say that using half-squads as scouts on the attack is also gamey? The reason I ask is that they are at least as expendable as sharpshooters (18 pts for a sharpshooter vs. ~16 for a half-squad), and Steve has stated that half-squads were put into the game specifically to be used as semi-expendable scouts.<hr></blockquote> Price isn't the issue. The issue is game mechanics (Borg spotting) in combination with the disjunction between gametime and realtime caused by the pauses between turns. Systematic battlefield recon in CM, by any type of unit, is inescapably gamey because it allows for information to flow back from scouts to the commander, the commander to make plans based on this info, and then send the info down to his subordinates, in what is effectively zero gametime. In reality, especially with WW2 communications assets, this should all take far longer than a whole CM battle lasts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiborhead Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> <hr></blockquote>The best way to use sharpshooters is to position them in advance of your MLR with a good LOS over a likely enemy AOA. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr> <hr></blockquote> That's a great use of acronyms. Hmm, I'll try to top it... "I'll make you KIA ASAP U SOB!" How does that sound? Bah, I sound like a 13 year old girl on ICQ!? But enough of that, the issue is sharpshooters and their uses. Before when I would use them, they always seemed to get spoted right away. Then I learned that it is best to let them engage their own targets, rather than giving them specific orders. Since I statred doing that, I've had relativly good success with them harrassing crews and such. I don't really have much experience with them as tank shockers, but I know I've been on the receiving end of that quite often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: Systematic battlefield recon in CM, by any type of unit, is inescapably gamey because it allows for information to flow back from scouts to the commander, the commander to make plans based on this info, and then send the info down to his subordinates, in what is effectively zero gametime.<hr></blockquote> I wonder if there is not some misunderstanding about what actually constitutes "scouting" in CM. When most people talk about using scouts in a CM game, what they are refering to is sending out a forward screen about 50-150 meters in front of their main body. The main body then advances behind this screen, springing ambushes and revealing enemy positions. I'm not sure if this really is scouting, or if it's just being smart. In fact, doing it any other way seems like inviting your main force to get bushwhacked and annihilated. How do you prevent this? <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Your mission is to take the assigned objectives RIGHT NOW due to the pressure of events in the larger context beyond the map edges.<hr></blockquote> I don't agree with the premise. Every scenario or QB has a set time limit. Whatever that is, is the time you have to complete your assigned objectives. If you really want to simulate a situation where you must take the objectives RIGHT NOW, then the time limit should be set so that the attacker has no option but to throw all his forces headlong from turn one. Most games have a time limit of 25-35 turns. That does not correlate to "right now" in my book. It means you have 25-35 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iron Chef Sakai Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 sometimes i use them, someitmes i don't. the first time i used a sniper, i was playing a friend and i bought a veteren waffen ss sharpshooter. he shocked two tanks wihtin a round of each other. i havent shocked a tank since that time, but they have other uses, dont expect the offensive output from them as an assault gun, but to me they provide a chance to disrupt my enemies forces so i will usaly take a couple. i don't see them as a necessity to have. if i have ot attack a tank with ground units, i would prefer a panzer shrek team or piat or bazzoka then a sniper Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bullethead Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 Vanir Ausf B said: <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>I wonder if there is not some misunderstanding about what actually constitutes "scouting" in CM. When most people talk about using scouts in a CM game, what they are refering to is sending out a forward screen about 50-150 meters in front of their main body. The main body then advances behind this screen, springing ambushes and revealing enemy positions. I'm not sure if this really is scouting, or if it's just being smart.<hr></blockquote> I have no problem with using a point element at this sort of distance in front of your main body. As you say, that's simply a good and realistic tactic to avoid walking into an ambush. And the point is close enough to the main body that info can come back pretty quick. But I disagree that that's what most people mean when they say scouting and recon. To me, these terms mean having your main body basically camp out for a number of turns while you send a few units out as far as possible to spot as many enemies as they can. Then you only move once you have learned as much as possible about the enemy dispositions. The difference between these 2 methods is pretty fundamental. With the former, you basically commit yourself to a plan of attack in the set-up phase, based on the info you have available at the time. You then start to carry it out with no further input. This is pretty much how it's done in real life. With the latter method, however, the player is keeping his options open until he can take advantage of the Borg spotting and zero time for giving complex orders. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Most games have a time limit of 25-35 turns. That does not correlate to "right now" in my book. It means you have 25-35 minutes.<hr></blockquote> Well, consider this a philosophical difference. To me, taking an objective doesn't mean just having the flag change color. It means securing the objective. Take the objective, set up a good perimeter around it, and then clear any areas nearby that the enemy might counterattack from. All that has to be accomplished by the end of the game, meaning that you have to get to the objective with plenty of time to spare. I suppose this is just a matter of taste. However, it does provide some useful effects. If I try to do this, I am at less risk of being accused of last-turn flag charges . It also makes me feel like I really did accomplish my mission and precludes post-battle "yeah, but next turn I'd have run your depleted platoon off that hill" arguments. Finally, if I do in fact get to the objectives early enough, I provide my opponent with the opportunity to counterattack and myself the opportunity to beat that off. This makes the game more interesting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 28, 2001 Share Posted October 28, 2001 <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Bullethead: posted 10-28-2001 02:29 AM ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Vanir Ausf B said: quote: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I wonder if there is not some misunderstanding about what actually constitutes "scouting" in CM. When most people talk about using scouts in a CM game, what they are refering to is sending out a forward screen about 50-150 meters in front of their main body. The main body then advances behind this screen, springing ambushes and revealing enemy positions. I'm not sure if this really is scouting, or if it's just being smart. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I have no problem with using a point element at this sort of distance in front of your main body. As you say, that's simply a good and realistic tactic to avoid walking into an ambush. And the point is close enough to the main body that info can come back pretty quick.<hr></blockquote> This is pretty much what I do too. I try to keep a platoon within 150-100 meters of a scout to give it covering fire in case it does flush something. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>But I disagree that that's what most people mean when they say scouting and recon. To me, these terms mean having your main body basically camp out for a number of turns while you send a few units out as far as possible to spot as many enemies as they can. Then you only move once you have learned as much as possible about the enemy dispositions.<hr></blockquote> Sorry if I gave that impression, but that is not what I meant. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>The difference between these 2 methods is pretty fundamental. With the former, you basically commit yourself to a plan of attack in the set-up phase, based on the info you have available at the time. You then start to carry it out with no further input. This is pretty much how it's done in real life.<hr></blockquote> And this is pretty much how I do it. I figure out what my basic strategy will be at the outset of the set up phase and place my units to pursue that strategy. I may well make on-the-fly adjustments depending on what the early turns reveal about the enemy's dispositions or as a consequence of the first exchanges of fire. That is to say, I may shift a platoon over to support another, or send in a reserve platoon to take over the task of one that has gotten badly shot up or is getting low on ammo. But I don't wait until that point to determine my overall plan of attack. Neither, however, do I like to commit my armor until I have some notion of where his AT guns are and have brought them under artillery and mortar fire. But I usually commit them where I intended to all along. <blockquote>quote:</font><hr>To me, taking an objective doesn't mean just having the flag change color. It means securing the objective. Take the objective, set up a good perimeter around it, and then clear any areas nearby that the enemy might counterattack from. All that has to be accomplished by the end of the game, meaning that you have to get to the objective with plenty of time to spare.<hr></blockquote> How I play too. BTW, it's great having you back on the Forum, Bullethead, even if you were arguing with me. You've been missed! Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts