Pre-battle Recces

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

One point that has come out of the funnies thread and I never realised how much it does annoy me is that I, as a commander am unable to survey the battlefield before a battle commences.

This is perhaps OK for a meeting engagement but in a defence/attack scenario, its obvious both sides will have some time in which to carry out a recce of the battlefield.

In doing so, a commander would then be able to make the best decisions as to forces, FUP, routes, etc. and not simply be pitched blind into a situation in a very artificial manner.

One wonders if future editions of CM will change the present system whereas a commander is literally, groping in the dark.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

What's the need for such complicated recce system, that's the whole point of the scenario briefing - Recce is outside of the realm of the "commander" that you represent, so it is OK to have it outside the game system as well...

You may have a point for QB battles though, as those have no briefing. But there's more useful things to do with QBs before including recce (ie allowing to choose forces over a premade map, variable scenario duration, ...). When playing against a human you can agree to give some info to each others about the troop types (armored, infantry...) and number (company-sized, ...).

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Pascal DI FOLCO ]

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

Take two of these and don't call BTS in the morning:

The Delaunay-Belleville Recon Car model 1915 and the Austin Armoured Car Type 1916 (late).

[edgars]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> Take two of these and don't call BTS in the morning: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, for Gods sake, don't forget this thingie:

[Fairbairn-Sykes]

I've got screenshots (exclusive to this thread) of some new mods I've been tweaking for proper recces...

[dfgardner]

I would suggest a thorough map recon during the setup phase of any battle.

IMHO CM commanders have a much better feel for terrain since we can view the entire battlefield, actually surveying various approaches from near ground level.

Not that any of the above helps me though

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

In doing so, a commander would then be able to make the best decisions as to forces, FUP, routes, etc. and not simply be pitched blind into a situation in a very artificial manner.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No he wouldn't. A company or battalion commander, which is what the CM player actually is, would not get to "choose" his forces. He is given whatever support is available. You get to do your recce - a detailed one - in the setup phase, as has been noted already.

How many real life company commanders could look at an objective and decide they want to command a company of engineers instead of a company of paratroops? Or snap their fingers and summon up three Tiger IIs?

[Rifle1860]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

In doing so, a commander would then be able to make the best decisions as to forces, FUP, routes, etc. and not simply be pitched blind into a situation in a very artificial manner.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is an interesting point and one that I have been confronted with as well. I must admit that I don't see how it could be incorporated.

Are you suggesting that a player could make some limited purchasing decisions based upon the ground?

There are some decisions that can be made at the company or battalion level that may be impacted by a study of the ground. For Example the Commander may decide to enter his infantry dismounted rather than in vehicles. He may decide whether he wants his MG in a SF role or not. He may decide thast he needs more smoke than he has. Lots of other variables. He may also decide that he does not have sufficient forces and wants to phase his operation. This could drive him to want to change the composition, location and time of reinforcements.

If, based upon the ground and his plan, the commander decides on any of these or other changes, and if a way could be devised to allow hime to save and expend points in this way, I think that it could be useful and would add another dimension to the game.

[xerxes]

I personally prefer mutually agreed force restrictions to prevent bizarre unit selections that are tuned to the situation.

Also, I think bizzare unit selections are a significant part of the "attacker advantage" in CM.

The defender should be able to "walk the field" during setup. Heck, that's what the defending commanders actually did. I don't think the attacker should be able to.

-marc

[Rifle1860]

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

I personally prefer mutually agreed force restrictions to prevent bizarre unit selections that are tuned to the situation.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just so that we are clear, I am not suggesting that bizarre unit selections should be allowed. Nor am I suggesting that this type of a mechanism is appropriate for "historical" games. These games, as much as possible, contain those units that actually fought in the battle and should not be modified.

Instead, I am refering to the types of choices that a commander could make. All changes should be made within the existing unit types in the organization his troops belong to and within the existing point ratio for the situation.

A short example:

In a given scenario, an attacker is told that a dismounted infantry element is defending the area. When he looks at the map, he finds that the terrain is hilly with clumps of woods with lots of open terrain between. One hill may look like a good fire base to support the attack.

Based upon this information, he may make some of the following decisions.

- take fewer PIATs and take more infantry sections

- take fewer carriers except for the firebase element(if he had them in the first place)

- change the reinforcement area from the right side to the left to conform with his flanking choice.

- If he can see some natural obstacle areas, take more pioneers (a battalion resource)

- take all 2" mortars loaded with smoke vice HE to cover movement over the open areas

- Bring the MMGs in later, mounted rather that early, dismounted.

- Add more ammo points to the FOO etc.

Again, I have no idea how this could work but wouldn't it be nice.

[MrSpkr]

I think a pre-battle recess would be a great idea. The troops could play baseball and dodgeball and just enjoy the great outdoors. Why, they could get an opportunity to exercise and . . .

What's that?

Oh, recces, not recess.

Never mind.

[M Hofbauer]

Nothing beats the Bob Semple. WW II would've been lost to the axis if it hadn't been for the ANZAC's Bob Semple.

[Rifle1860]

OK, so I have to ask ... who is Bob Semple?

[Peter Svensson]

I'd like to go a bit farther and say that the attacker should have some knowledge of the location of the defender's forces.

In most cases, a real-life attacker will have had enemy positions under observation for a while before attacking, and will have probed them with night patrols etc. Certainly, some bunkers etc. will have been discovered.

The lack of pre-battle recon is what leads me and others to employ the "gamey" tactic of using light AFVs to probe the enemy while the engagement is actually going on. Some defend this practice as an appropriate and historical way to use light AFVs. It's true that vehicles like this were designed and used for reconnaissance, but I believe they were employed on the divisional and regimental level for operational reconnaissance, not for driving up to enemy positions to draw AT fire. I wonder how real-life scout car crews would feel about constantly getting orders like "Drive over that hill. When they bust your car, run back and tell us where their guns are, OK?"

Of course, if the attacker was more knowledgable about the defenders, it would make the already too easy attack even easier.

[Slapdragon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rifle1860:

OK, so I have to ask ... who is Bob Semple?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bob Semple was a labor politico in New Zealand. During the darkest days of the war in the Pacific, the NZ armed forces designed an armored pillbox based on a farm tractor and named it after this man. None were used in combat, half of the main production of 4 machines tipped over. Although 81 conversions were planned, they sucked so bad and people hated them so much the 4 were all that were ever made. They were more dangerous to their 8 man crews than to the enemy.

[Grisha]

I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence.

In non-operation games, this can be simulated by both limiting setup areas, then labeling those areas as "German postion," "MG nest," or "Bunker."

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]

[The Commissar]

I'll have to agree with those calling for more knowledge of the defender's positions in an attack game. I was trying to think of some reason this was not done, but can't think of any. Maybe it was purely game balance, or BTS simply didn't think it could be made to work well?

At the moment, many people say it is too hard to defend. This is mostly because the game does not model such things as ambushes and proper MG grazing fire. In CMBB, this will all be fixed, so defending will be more realistic and easier to accomplish. Thus, attacking should be more realistic as well.

Hey, maybe someone should start a new thread exclusively to discuss this topic? It might not get noticed under the current title.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: The Commissar ]

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

No he wouldn't. A company or battalion commander, which is what the CM player actually is, would not get to "choose" his forces. He is given whatever support is available. You get to do your recce - a detailed one - in the setup phase, as has been noted already.

How many real life company commanders could look at an objective and decide they want to command a company of engineers instead of a company of paratroops? Or snap their fingers and summon up three Tiger IIs?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then, I take it your proposing an end to the system of "purchasing" one's forces?

In reality, what is being simulated is the role and function of a "higher command" (say at Brigade or above) which determines the forces to be employed on a particular operation or battle.

In reality, that command would be provided with at least a map, showing at least semi-accurately the terrain and the approach routes to an objective.

In all likelihood, they'd also have aerial photos, even perhaps a light observation aircraft with which a recce could be undertaken and so on. At that level, considerable resources are brought to bear through the Division/Brigade staff to plan an attack.

Yet, in CMBO, all that happens is that you get a chance to purchase you forces, completely unaware of what the actual terrain will be or no intelligence reports of what your opponent has.

At that level, the ability to choose forces to undertake a mission is what is being simulated. Then, effectively the player switches hat, becomes his own subordinate and accepts the forces chosen for him and plays the game with them.

Problem is, BTS for some reason decided that players, when simulating the higher command function would operate blind, in a vaccuum.

What I'd propose would be that each player, before purchasing their forces, would be provided with a map showing the major terrain features of the gameboard. Exactly what a commander would have in real life. It would be as detailed as the gameboard but it would provide sufficient information to allow a commander to choose the right sort of forces for the terrain facing him. Flat, wide open spaces? Lots of armour. Close, confined terrain? Lots of infantry.

On the map, might be marked such generalised features of FEOT and say, 50-75% of known, fixed, enemy positions. Indeed, to "discover" such positions, it might be possible to allocate a certain level of resources to the pre-battle recce - the more points given over to it, the great likelihood each fixed position would be known.

I've seen this simulated in several sets of figure gaming rules under the heading of "reconniassance" and "camouflage discipline".

However, you might decide thats being a tad too realistic and prefer to simply "abstract" it to the point of saying period+resources-enemy's camouflage reputation+experience of enemy troops=x number of positions discovered.

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Kim Beazley MP Ma ]

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

[QB]

Then, I take it your proposing an end to the system of "purchasing" one's forces?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds good to me. Seriously. If you want to discuss reality, why discuss "purchase"?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, what is being simulated is the role and function of a "higher command" (say at Brigade or above) which determines the forces to be employed on a particular operation or battle. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Horse****. The Brigadier doesn't tell his squads were to go during a battle, does he? The player does. The CM player is a company/battalion commander. Full stop.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In reality, that command would be provided with at least a map, showing at least semi-accurately the terrain and the approach routes to an objective.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant. You're the battalion CO.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>In all likelihood, they'd also have aerial photos, even perhaps a light observation aircraft with which a recce could be undertaken and so on. At that level, considerable resources are brought to bear through the Division/Brigade staff to plan an attack.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Irrelevant.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yet, in CMBO, all that happens is that you get a chance to purchase you forces, completely unaware of what the actual terrain will be or no intelligence reports of what your opponent has. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I suggest premade scenarios if this bothers you. Do all the purchasing you want and even design the map.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>What I'd propose would be that each player, before purchasing their forces, would be provided with a map showing the major terrain features of the gameboard. Exactly what a commander would have in real life.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are mixing up the concept of brigade/division level command with battalion/company. The current system in CM is fine; the rarity factor for purchases will be even better in CM2, but for now, there is no reason to allow your troops to see the map beforehand.

[Michael Dorosh]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kim Beazley MP Ma:

Flat, wide open spaces? Lots of armour. Close, confined terrain? Lots of infantry.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

More nonsense. The majority of divisions employed in WW II were infantry only. Most infantry battalions would LOVE to have been able to conjure up tank support for themselves, based on the terrain. Didn't happen.

I hope the CM2 rarity factors reflect the fact that tanks were pretty rare in WW II combat from an infantryman's perspective, outside the armoured divisions.

[Peter Svensson]

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

I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence.

In non-operation games, this can be simulated by both limiting setup areas, then labeling those areas as "German postion," "MG nest," or "Bunker."

[ 09-17-2001: Message edited by: Grisha ]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent idea.

[Kim Beazley MP Ma]

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

Bob Semple was a labor politico in New Zealand. During the darkest days of the war in the Pacific, the NZ armed forces designed an armored pillbox based on a farm tractor and named it after this man. None were used in combat, half of the main production of 4 machines tipped over. Although 81 conversions were planned, they sucked so bad and people hated them so much the 4 were all that were ever made. They were more dangerous to their 8 man crews than to the enemy.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not quite. Bob Semple was the Minister of Defence. The reason why the "tank" named after him was abandoned was more because of the sudden influx of both American troops and American AFV's. Whilst the "tank" was unstable, desperate times dictate desperate measures. It was directly comparable to other such developments in the UK in 1940, the USSR in 1941 and Australia in 1941.

[Herr Kruger]

I agree with Michael Dorosh on these points.... I like coming to the map not knowing what it's gonna look like... I've even wondered about Fog of War extending to terrain you can't see hehe..

[Vanir Ausf B]

From a non-historical, 100% gameplay perspective, I would be very much against allowing players to see the map before purchasing in QBs. Being able to customize your force to the specific terrain features on the map would take min/max to a whole new level.

Personally, I hope CM2 has a random terrain feature for QBs.

[Vanir Ausf B]

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

I agree with Peter Svensson in that many cases some sense of enemy positions and emplacement types would be known before battle. The only time this might not be are during meeting engagements, breakthroughs, or recon in force. Also, city fighting might be added as well. But, along an established front with entrenchments, enemy positions would be known, including things like MG nests, bunkers, etc. That was the whole point of tactical intelligence.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This exact idea was debated at some length a month or 2 ago, so I'll repeat what I said there.

At the beginning of the game the players already have quite a lot of intel. They know the general size of the opposing force, its general position, and a 100% accurate terrain map. IMO, the small unit tactical intel such as the exact position of enemy units is something the player should have to do for himself. He shouldn't get it for free. Being on the defence is very hard already in CM. Showing some of the defender's units at the beginning of the game, at no cost to the attacker, would make it that much more difficult. It doesn't hurt the attacker as much, as he has to show his units first anyway.