Recon action victory conditions

[CMplayer]

I'm interested in learning about

practical recon, within the context

of the CM engine. So I have been

playing some quick battles against

the AI where I take fast motorized

forces and simply try to locate and

identify as much of the enemy as

possibly. Of course I then have to

set my own personal victory conditions

and not worry about what the after action

screen says. Basically, I try to compile

a list of the enemy forces, in as much

detail as possible, as well as mark

the locations of defensive positions,

guns, etc. After the battle, I go through

the map and compare my list to what

the enemy actually had, to see how

well I succeeded.

What I'm curious about is the 'real life'

value of the tradeoff between intelligence

and casualaties. In order to find out

what is there, I have to 'make contact'

and hold it for a while, and my guys

don't come out unscathed. What scale

of losses is acceptable for succesful

recon?

In particular I'm wondering if I should

weight the value of my vehicles (halftracks

and Armoured cars) more heavily than

their QB point value.

Here's a more specific description of such

an operation. An 'attack' in relatively

covered terrain where as the attacker I

take a crack motorized platoon of rifles

(in halftracks) a FO and and armoured car

with some punch. The defenders are not of

high quality but they have a 100% or so

force bonus, to keep me on my toes, give

me lots to do, and encourage me to break

off, when the time comes. They might

very well have armor, which is yikes for

my vehicles, but important to discover.

Should I be doing everything in my power

to prevent my HT's from getting knocked

out? (which would mean dismounting and

advancing on foot) Is an even trade in

casualties favourable or unfavourable

for me, if this was a recon operation?

How can I balance the value of identified

enemy troops against the value of my

losses? 1-1, 2-1 etc? Should vehicles

and guns be weighted more heavily? If

I overcome FOW and identify infantry

to the point of distinquishing type of

unit and/experience level how much more

valuable is that, etc?

I guess my question is pretty clear now

even if I'm formualting it a bit fuzzily.

I'm curious about whatever ideas people

might have about these issues.

I've found that playing this way has

forced my to try out new tactics, so

it has been quite a learning experience.

It's not enough for my units to be crack,

I have to squeeze the most out of them

with my understanding of the game engine.

But since I don't know what level of

skill is reasonable to expect in 'real

life' WWII, I'm having trouble evaluating

my performance. (I tend to end up with

about 80% knowledge, a lot of body bags,

and half my survivors having to walk home.

I think maybe I close range too much for

recon, but in the wooded terrain it's hard

to do anything else)

thx for any help,

regards,

--Rett

[CMplayer]

I'm bumping my question of a few days

ago since a similar discussion has

come up on another thread. Hope someone

has some input on my question.

--Rett

[Michael Dorosh]

The rulebook for Cresendo of Doom reprinted what they called "an old Army saying" -

A good scout is a dead scout.

Discuss!

I am glad I'm not the only one who has resorted to "personal" victory conditions in scenario design. I like your concept - if you want to try it out vs a human opponent via PBEM, I am game - I'll take whatever side/nationality you wish.

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

EDIT - In actual matter of fact, I would prefer to defend - would be an interesting challenge trying to push back an "attacker" without revealing what I am pushing you away with!

http://wargames.freehosting.net/cmbits.htm

[This message has been edited by Michael Dorosh (edited 02-06-2001).]