Good Recon Practices

[Dietrich]

jnt62006,

I'm very interested in reading what you would write up about recon assets and such. Thanks, too, for your CMSF War Chest blog, which I've enjoyed reading and found very informative.

[Erwin]

+ 1 to that.

"I take issue with the claim of some that CM1 some how better simulates combat than CMSF."

+1 to that as well. I keep emphasizing that I am looking at CM1 and CM2 as GAMES and not as accurate portrayals of RL. CM1 had much more variety of units and within unit categories than CM2 and that makes it a more fun GAME for me (and many other fans who still play it a lot).

What interests me is VERISIMILITUDE - the ILLUSION that one is playing a "realistic" game. So, I do like it to be "realistic." But, when I see an opportunity to make a game more ENTERTAINING while maintaining verisimilitude, my policy is to say "to hell with realism at that point."

There are at least 2 major POV's represented in these forums who are big fans of the game. We will never agree on the above, but there is plenty of room for alternative scenarios that make both audiences happy - obviously just not the same version of a scenario at the same time.

Group hug?

[gibsonm]

No thanks.

[stikkypixie]

Erwin,

I of course fall in line with Gibsonm's opinion/attitude about recon in CMSF. But if you or anyone is interested, I could spend some time writing up a break down of how recon assets and an intelligence staff work together to develop a picture of the enemy and terrain from a RL/doctrinal perspective. It might make it clearer as to why the professional military guys are so opposed to what you advocate in the game. I realize, of course, that it is a game and should be enjoyed in whatever manner the player desires. But if you ask a question that seems to beg for a doctrinal answer then one should expect that sort of answer.

Also, as an aside, I take issue with the claim of some that CM1 some how better simulates combat than CMSF. CMSF certainly has some shortfalls (no real obstacle or engineer play, no real ADA/CAS/CCA play) but it is just a good simulation as CM1 was. I have played hours upon hours of them both. I think what some folks may be confusing with a "better" system is really just a simpler era. Every weapon system was direct fire with relatively short ranges, making for very straight forward tactics and play. Throw in some good ole nostalgia and I think it would be easy to confuse the two. The modern battlefield is extremely deadly and complex. I think CMSF does a great job simulating that.

This would be great, as my recon guys are getting tired of stumbling into the enemy lines and getting slaughtered. Can you focus on the case where you get some recon assets about 15min ahead of the main force?

What seems to work for me right now is to put them in a relatively safe place, where they can observe the battlefield. Leave them long enough and still start spotting vehicles. Is there are more "active" way of using them?

[stikkypixie]

+ 1 to that.

"I take issue with the claim of some that CM1 some how better simulates combat than CMSF."

+1 to that as well. I keep emphasizing that I am looking at CM1 and CM2 as GAMES and not as accurate portrayals of RL. CM1 had much more variety of units and within unit categories than CM2 and that makes it a more fun GAME for me (and many other fans who still play it a lot).

What interests me is VERISIMILITUDE - the ILLUSION that one is playing a "realistic" game. So, I do like it to be "realistic." But, when I see an opportunity to make a game more ENTERTAINING while maintaining verisimilitude, my policy is to say "to hell with realism at that point."

There are at least 2 major POV's represented in these forums who are big fans of the game. We will never agree on the above, but there is plenty of room for alternative scenarios that make both audiences happy - obviously just not the same version of a scenario at the same time.

Group hug?

Of course they are games and when deciding the rules BFC made rules as close as possible to what you can expect in real life. I personally like the subtlety of CMSF and CMx1 (recon units in CMx1 do not have spotting bonuses either), where you take advantage of the equipment and organization of squads to accomplish the task rather than having a straight-up rock-paper-scissors approach to each enemy.

[Hairy Pie]

I think that the quickest way to improve the recon capability of any unit would be to remove the clock, or at least double the time available.

I've had many a scenario ruined because I'd slowly made my way towards an objective clearing as I go, only to have my units leg it across the map into an ambush, just to beat the clock.

In fact, in campaign missions where there are multiple objectives I'll go for the biggest scoring one only, while trying to preserve as much of my forces as possible and destroying the enemy. If I do that I can hope for a minor victory or a draw at least!

Or how about: letting the clock run over, and then slowly deduct points for every five minutes extra used or so?

[jnt62006]

OK, recon 101 in a thousand words or so...

We seem to be mostly concerned with recon ops in offensive operations here so I will focus on those. Most CMSF scenarios and QBs are at the company level with a few at BN level. The infantry/tank company (in just about every TO&E that I am familiar with) has no internal recon assets of its own. Why? Because reconnaissance is doctinally a brigade and higher level function. Most BNs in the US Army have a reconnaissance platoon in their organization but their employment is limited to the first 5-10 km beyond the FLOT (forward line of troops) and is usually very specific to the BNs planned course of action. This is due to their small size (18 scouts) and reliance on external movement asssets.

It is important to keep in mind that alot of units in the Army are labeled reconnaissance or cavalry but their actual mission or doctrinal tasks are more along the lines of active combat operations then stealthy reconnaissance. For example, an armored cavalry squadron's purpose in life in to locate the enemy, but it does so by finding the enemy and fixing them so that other, stronger forces can come together and finish the fight. You dont conduct stealthy reconnaissance with Abrams tanks and Bradley CFVs.

A rifle company and often a BN commander will be armed with all the intelligence he is going to get before he crossed the Line of Departure (LD, the point where you actually enter "enemy territory" during an attack). This is because he and his staff have developed a plan prior to beginning the attack that is formulated around what is already known about the enemy and the terrain. Any reconnaissance after crossing the LD is simply made to confirm or deny assumptions or old facts that were known but could have changed. CMSF scenarios occur even further into the sequence of a deliberate attack. Most scenarios simulate what is known as "actions on the objective." This is the crossing of the last few hundred meters (or 500-600m depending on the terrain) to destroy enemy forces and/or seize terrain. The commander gets an "updated intel dump" when his support by fire element occupies their position and begins engaging the enemy. This will usually consist of, "Hey sir we started shooting at them and they are now shooting back... numbers, weapons, disposition, etc."

It is possible, I suppose, to simulate a reconnaissance operation at the BN or Brigade level. I dont know why you would want to do that since the primary skill of these units is stealth and avoidance of contact with enemy forces. But it RL it looks like this:

Lets take the Cain and Abel scenario as an example since I think most are at least familiar with it. The British BN receives the mission to seize OBJs Cain and Abel. A basic intel picture passed down from Brigade might look like this: Cain and Abel are both defended by company plus sized elements of dismounted infantry. Enemy BN assets include a Heavy Weapons company so it is possible they will have strong ATGM assets in their AO. There is also an indication that at least a tank platoon may be in the area. All of this would come from satellite, signal, or air reconnaissance assets, particularly in a fluid, maneuver type environment. The Bn S2 (intel officer) grabs his enemy Doctrine Template which shows him how the enemy is trained to fight a defense. He then lays that over the map (terrain) and creates the Situation Template which illustrates how he thinks the enemy will fight in a given area with the known or suspected forces and assets at the enemy commanders disposal. He sits down with the S3 (operations/planning officer) and, based on what the S3 has as a rough draft of a plan of attack, they develop a short list of things they need to know. For the Cain and Abel fight this might include the status of the brides across the canal, the disposition of enemy forces on Cain and Abel, and the location of the tank and ATGM assets.

The S2 then refines that list into actual locations on the map. The bridges and the OBJs are easy enough but he has to do some terrain analysis to figure out where the enemy commander might hide his tanks and where the ATGMs might be dug in. Chances are he will develop multiple possible locations for all of these. This all gets turned into a list of NAIs (Named Areas of Interest). The S2 then has to assign assets to collect intel on each of these NAIs. Some may be refined through overflights of aircraft or UAVs. Others (like the trafficability of the bridges and camouflaged locations of ATGMs positions) might require a physical, "eyes on" presence. These NAIs are assigned to the scout platoon leader. He develops a plan and assigns one or more of those NAIs to each of his three scout teams (dependant on time and distance, of course). The scout platoon then crosses the LD and begins their insertion into the objective area. The actual attack might be days away or as soon as 6-12 hours. The scouts will move by stealth into locations where they can observe the NAIs they have been assigned, reporting everything they see or hear along the way (a scouts ears are often their best intelligence gathering tool). Once in position they will observe the NAI for a predetermined amount of time and then move on to the next. The S2 and S3 will take all the intel gathered on the NAIs and refine the enemy picture and the BNs plan. Often, a plan has already been refined and given to the company commanders in a Operations Order. The incoming intel is simply passed on unless something changes the Sit Temp and the BN has to significantly alter the plan.

The point of all of this is that in RL, we dont just send the scouts forward and see who shoots at them. Everything is planned and coordinated with a specific purpose. I realize the frustrating thing about CMSF is that often the scenario designer gives the player the bare minimum intel before the game starts. This is done of course because the designer wants to give each opponent plenty of flexibility in setting up their forces and that makes a reliable intel brief almost impossible. Perhaps the "intel avaliable" setting in the Editor could help with this frustrating aspect. The better a sides intel gathering assets the more information they would have at the start of the game. I havent played much with this setting but I will.

[Erwin]

That's an interesting idea... having 3 or more levels of intel or briefing details.

Thanks for your summary of RL intel ops. However, as we all agree CMSF simply wasn't designed to simulate that aspect. Per your comments it's almost as if there really is no real world place in CMSF at all for Recon or Sniper units.

The point I am trying to make is for the portion of players who want to have the most interesting and entertaining GAME that uses all the features of the CM2 system, it would help to have specialized units have special skills that are actually useful - hence my request to designers to make Recon, Sniper and possibly Engineer units have higher quality than the regular inf. It simply "feels" right to have one's Recon and Sniper units be able to spot the enemy first and take appropriate action first.

My comments have little to do with the way RL is, cos 99% of the time we all know RL is boring, and this is an entertainment product. That does not mean to say that CMSF could not have useful training potential in very defined situations under instructor supervision.

There are at least two distinct markets here: MilPro and entertainment. Obviously they won't be in agreement. But, so what? It's just a matter of taste and there should be plenty of scenarios for each.

[jnt62006]

I suppose what erks me about trying to conduct recon on a playing "board" just a few kilometers square, at best, is not so much that it just isnt "real life" but that it goes against the art and science of tactics and denies the efficient use of fire and maneuver.

Yes you can play the game however you want. Knock yourself out. But the real core of warfighting is the ability to read terrain and know your enemy's capabilities well enough to look at an objective and say "ok, he's most likely going to have forces here because it commands this avenue of approach. He's going to have units in overwatch here because it allows him to control this terrain from a distance. His counterattacking force is most likely going to come from this direction." That is the science. Applying what you know about the terrain ("reading" it) and what you know about his weapon systems and from that developing a pretty close idea of how the enemy would like the battle to unfold.

The art is then being able to develop a plan of attack that, based on those semi accurate assumptions, knocks the enemy out of his comfort zone and forces him to then react to your moves. The art is seizing the initiative and maintaining it, which allows you to focus combat power where you want and win decisively.

In my opinion, conducting reconnaissance in a CMSF scenario denies the player the ability to really hone the planning and decision making process which is the key to warfighting. It short changes the player on exercising the art and science of tactics.

[Erik Springelkamp]

I suppose what erks me about trying to conduct recon on a playing "board" just a few kilometers square, at best, is not so much that it just isnt "real life" but that it goes against the art and science of tactics and denies the efficient use of fire and maneuver.

Yes you can play the game however you want. Knock yourself out. But the real core of warfighting is the ability to read terrain and know your enemy's capabilities well enough to look at an objective and say "ok, he's most likely going to have forces here because it commands this avenue of approach. He's going to have units in overwatch here because it allows him to control this terrain from a distance. His counterattacking force is most likely going to come from this direction." That is the science. Applying what you know about the terrain ("reading" it) and what you know about his weapon systems and from that developing a pretty close idea of how the enemy would like the battle to unfold.

The art is then being able to develop a plan of attack that, based on those semi accurate assumptions, knocks the enemy out of his comfort zone and forces him to then react to your moves. The art is seizing the initiative and maintaining it, which allows you to focus combat power where you want and win decisively.

In my opinion, conducting reconnaissance in a CMSF scenario denies the player the ability to really hone the planning and decision making process which is the key to warfighting. It short changes the player on exercising the art and science of tactics.

And the other side will do the same reasoning, and shift his defence to counter your attack strategy.

Then we enter game theory, which requires certain decision to be randomly chosen, at which point good recon becomes essential again.

[jnt62006]

Well, yeah... But that cycle occurs way above the focus of a CMSF scenario.

[Vinnart]

Here is how I use them when I get them. I think they are modeled well in the game, but if experience level (vet ect...), or whatever gives the greatest spotting ability it should always be given to those troops (Not sure if game does this or not). As far as the force I think they are just what they should be which is small, but with much fire power. Each squad has a HMG. I always put them on point with HUNT orders with HIDE. I want them to make contact, and avoid getting engaged. When they find something I bring up a rifle squad to assault what it ran into if it was infantry. While the rifle squad assaults I put the recon troops on overwatch. After engagement is over they leapfrog back on point. The key I think with them is not to be too aggressive. Their role is to run into something then, call in something heavier to attack what it ran into.

Recon guys should be better at stealth, and spotting (just like snipers), just like officers see stuff quickest in the game. Those troops are special trained for those things more than the average troop. I recall one time while training when I was helping out as an OPFOR they teamed me up with a ex Special Forces guy. He was teaching me all kinds of stuff like walking a certain way ect.. This dude was uncanny in blending in! We set up an ambush in positions about 25 meters apart. After awhile I looked over to see him, and it took me a second or two to spot him. He was sitting in such a way against a tree very still to blend as trunk roots with excellent camo techniques. I said why aren’t you down on the ground in cover? He said "We will have plenty of time, as they will sound like a heard of cows coming to me. They are amateurs". This dude was the ****! Recon troops are special trained, and I hope the game simulates this.

[Erwin]

Interesting insight in how you move your guys Vinnart. (Also interesting is the additional role you found for Recon units.)

In the game or RL, I always thought it best to leave the MG's in the rear for support, not on point. I worry that (assuming they are not Crack or Elite) that they'd spot the enemy at the same time they are spotted and they are not going to give a good account of themselves. But, since you find your tactic works (in CMSF at least) will try it...

[Erwin]

And for you serious guys out there, maybe this would be interesting:

http://paxsims.wordpress.com/2011/05/12/ndu-roundtable-on-strategic-gaming-245/

NDU Roundtable on Strategic Gaming (May 24)

The National Defense University’s Center for Applied Strategic Learning (CASL) is pleased to announce the seventh in its quarterly series of discussions with gaming practitioners on May 24. The Roundtable on Strategic Gaming will be held at the beautiful new United States Institute of Peace building at 2301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

The CASL roundtable brings together gamers from the research, policy, defense, and academic communities in order to generate a professional dialogue in our field about issues relating to game design, the use of games for analytical and teaching purposes, and interesting projects in the field. Each roundtable invites a few speakers to present short, informal talks on some aspect of strategic-level games to spark discussion among the group.

In the forthcoming session, speakers will discuss some of the ways in which gaming has been applied to peace and conflict issues. Peace and conflict studies often address areas (such as counterinsurgency, post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, humanitarian intervention, and crisis management) that are persistent challenges in the defense world as well. Given that, there will be something of interest/use to everyone in the gaming community in the presentations and the discussion that follows. In addition, we hope to use the roundtable discussion to gather input on what elements would be important to include in an introductory book on the development of games on peace and conflict issues. The book will be a project of USIP Press and represents a collaboration between USIP, NDU, and McGill University. Whether you are a longtime gamer or a newcomer to the field, your input on the book project will be extremely helpful.

Please note that attendance is by invitation only, and limited to those with professional interest in the issues to be explored. Email me for an invitation

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

Rex Brynen

Professor

Department of Political Science

McGill University

855 Sherbrooke Street

Montreal (Quebec) H3A 2T7

office: (514) 398-5075

home/office: (514) 457-9756

cell: (514) 575-7721

fax: (514) 457-8109

Skype: RexBrynen

department webpage: http://www.mcgill.ca/politicalscience/faculty/brynen/

ICAMES: http://www.mcgill.ca/icames

PRRN: http://www.prrn.org (Palestinian refugees)

PaxSims: http://paxsims.wordpress.com (conflict simulations)

[gibsonm]

Well I’m currently at ITEC a four day conference on “proper” simulation here in Cologne.

Fly back to Sydney tomorrow.

CMSF (or any other Battlefront products) haven’t rated a mention.

[Hairy Pie]

I disagree that CMSF is not a simulation but a game. It may not be a realistic simulation, but it definitely simulates mordern warfare. No one would claim C&C to be a simulation, even though being a RTS, it works in a similar way.

Look at MS Flight Simulator, everyone would agree that it is a simulation, but as a flyer I can tell you that it is not realistic.

Maybe if Battlefront put simulation in the title people would think of it that way?

Anyway, I'm drifting off topic and just thinking aloud.

[LongLeftFlank]

....In a largely empty room right now.

But the modern warfare folks will be back soon.

[Dietrich]

Thanks for the recon 101, jnt62006. =) From what I had read before I had gotten the idea that recon is rather deliberate, but your elucidation gives a better idea of the planning and purposefulness behind real-life recon.

I reckon a way to simulate the sort of deliberate and purposeful reconnaissance which would precede a modern combined-arms attack/assault would be to have recon units already sited in concealed positions at the scenario's start and have the initial intel set to show that the recon units had been actually reconnoitering the terrain beyond the FLOT. Does that sound reasonable to you?

You pointed out that one doesn't conduct stealthy reconnaissance with Bradley CFVs. In the case of a US Army HBCT battalion scout platoon, to what extent would said force (given the CFV's firepower) be expected to attack/drive off enemy recon units or other light resistance? Would it be more typical for the CFVs to be used, not for delivering direct fire on enemy forces (even ones which they could readily defeat) but for safely (albeit not stealthily) transporting the onboard scout teams to places from which they could sneak into position for reconnoitering?

footnote: Even though CMBN is imminent and I'll be playing it ravenously, I have several scenarios which I plan to finish up and release in the (hopefully) near future.

[LJFHutch]

....In a largely empty room right now.

But the modern warfare folks will be back soon.

Not all of us left

[Magpie_Oz]

Not all of us left

Yep, I am staying put pretty much too.

[jnt62006]

Yes, the Scout platoon for a bradley or combined arms battalion is designed to take offensive action if necessary and to fight a counter recon fight. It is much more robust than a light infantry scout platoon. Its three CFVs have enough protection and firepower to defeat most threat reconnaissance elements and it can destroy small OPs or screens that an enemy unit might have. Its "stealth" comes with the HMMWVs that are also in its TO&E. Manned with small scout teams and equipped with the LRAS these vehicles can move around the battlefield faster and quieter than the CFVs.

[gibsonm]

Agreed,

Hence my initial post on the first page that the TTP’s vary by nationality, equipment type and method of employment.

A bunch of CFVs tend to employed differently to 4 guys in a Land Rover (albeit on steroids), or some Weasels, etc.

[stikkypixie]

So what's the best use of recon teams in a typical CMSF scenario? Keep in the back for flank security? or use them as outposts?

[Magpie_Oz]

Spotting and probing the enemy defences, trying to draw fire etc

[Erik Springelkamp]

So what's the best use of recon teams in a typical CMSF scenario? Keep in the back for flank security? or use them as outposts?

For me it depends entirely on the situation.

If there are interesting observation points on the flanks, I send a team there.

If there is a ridge in front that seems unoccupied, I send a team there first to take a peek - dismounting just before the crest.

The Dutch teams can form a useful AT team with their Panzerfaust.

And I often even mix some Fenneks with a tank force. The tanks often prevent them from being a target, they spot exceptionally well, so they often see a threat before the tanks spot it, and their MG can be quite powerful as an additional suppression weapon.

I don't know if the latter use is gamey, but it has worked quite well for me.