Two questions about spotting

[Battlefront.com]

it is modelled well.

Always nice to have a professional say so

Yes indeed - my record is two weeks in the same OP. without leaving, without a fire, very improvised toilets - hot days, cold nights. nothing to be seen from the outside until the enemy column finally moves into the field of vision ... and then ...

There is a very sad example of this in the Hürtgen Forest. Some higher officer (IIRC the Regimental CO) had the bright idea to help morale by having a Battalion assemble for turkey (I can't remember if it was Christmas or Thanksgiving). The Battalion CO argued against it saying that this would not go unobserved by the Germans. The higher up CO ignored him and the orders went out. While the Americans were lined up for their food a massive artillery barrage came in right on top of them and caused massive casualties. If they had stayed in their foxholes the Germans probably wouldn't have known where more than a platoon or so was for sure.

Best time is the morning - if the troops are not well trained and disciplined they will go for a pee.

Or a pot of coffee

But then you would use armor/heavy AC and panzergrenadiers to do so. That's why the German Panzeraufklärungsabteilung sometimes had a armored company (panzergrenadier) and the heavy ACs.

Exactly. This is why US Armored Cavalry units, which are designed to fight for intel, use the M2 Bradley as their primary recon vehicle for heavy engagements. Abrams can be brought in very easily as well since they are organically available. But no... they try not to fight for intel using lightly armored Humvees!

Looking at the Recon elements in CM is really interesting when you think about doctrine. Comparing them against each other also shows which ones are better suited for fighting for information vs. more passive actions such as probing or remote observation. Taking a Jeep heavy US recon Troop and expecting it to be able to fight it's way into a town shows some bad thinking on the player's part

Steve

[winkelried]

I agree it's modeled well in game...but we don't have hours to sit and wait and watch etc...thats why I wish recon was already done in scenarios to a point...not fully but enough for a little help.

Also in this particular scenario it's a surprise attack...so recon with Pumas for 5 mins before my attacking forces even get on the map and then have to move into posistion...and if spotted is it still a surprise attack?

one approach to this issue is to use deception. don't just probe your main axis of attack. use additional scouting units in other areas to give your adversary a wrong impression where your attack will come. you may use scouts, infantry and artillery to achieve this.

Anyway I have to say what they are good at is telling you when the coast is clear rather than spotting the enemy first. I started playing this scenario and due to the scouting I knew I could travel a fair way upto my assault jumping off point with out encountering the enemy.

perfect result.

In the end though the game models it so realistically that at times I feel there isn't enough time to do it effectively.

that's one of the core issues in this type of game - there is never enough time to do long-term scouting. so you will get quickly to some form of aggressive recon.

[winkelried]

I agree that night battles are a different sort of animal. However, I still use the same technique. I much prefer to have 2 recon guys go down at night rather than half my platoon cos the whole lot of them stumble into a trap.

everybody has his little twist in doctrine.

One of my favorite tricks in defense was to have a light screen to figure out the enemy approach and then have a large nasty ambush force waiting. So long as they fired first, the attacker was mincemeat. Then retreat before the numerically superior attacker could mass more troops. Rinse and repeat.

as far as i remember this was established tactical behaviour for the germans on the eastern front. as the russian artillery was extremely powerful, but not very flexible in shifting fire and german resources got thin and thinner they set up advanced outposts (LMG teams) as a trip wire and then kept their forces in strong points a bit more behind.

this worked as long as the soviets got stuck in fighting for these strong points. after 1943 as i remember they started to do the same thing the germans did in their blitzkrieg tactics: they used mobile force for penetration and left the strong points to follow up infantry to clear up.

[winkelried]

Taking a Jeep heavy US recon Troop and expecting it to be able to fight it's way into a town shows some bad thinking on the player's part

light vehicles should be used after the breakthrough during exploitation phase running on minor roads which are less likely to be protected by enemy roadblocks. something which is a bit out of scope with the usual CM scenarios. but with large maps and less force density you can have scenarios where this kind of scouting gets possible.

btw as allied there is not much choice - i think a lot of these cavalry squadrons were used to protect flanks or less important sectors (in the battle of the bulge a part of the initial U.S. front was "held" by cavalry) usually reinforced with armor and tank destroyers.

[winkelried]

Exactly. This is why US Armored Cavalry units, which are designed to fight for intel, use the M2 Bradley as their primary recon vehicle for heavy engagements. Abrams can be brought in very easily as well since they are organically available. But no... they try not to fight for intel using lightly armored Humvees!

that's today - as the americans have finally understood guderian (as a contemporary german general put it once in his analysis of the second iraq war). other countries like france have realised this much earlier the need for heavy punch with the panhard AML-90 or the AMX-10 RC or the british with the FV101 scorpion. the germans - even after the war the ones closest to guderians thinking - had leopards and marders in their contemporary armored recon batallions - these batallions were also called the "division commander's fist".

[Battlefront.com]

btw as allied there is not much choice - i think a lot of these cavalry squadrons were used to protect flanks or less important sectors (in the battle of the bulge a part of the initial U.S. front was "held" by cavalry) usually reinforced with armor and tank destroyers.

Screening flanks and covering for withdrawals were primary roles for the cav as were probing actions and deep exploitation.

One of the things that player complain about, whether it be CMx1, CMx2 Modern, or CMx2 WW2, is the limited role that light vehicles have to play. In real life they are extremely important for logistics, lines of communication, shuttling of key personnel around, etc. Especially when on the offensive and conducting deep exploitation. Supporting recon and screening actions are also important in real life.

The problem is that in CM we have a pitched battle as the primary focus of the game. Even though CMx2 is a lot better about simulating recon (thanks in large part to Relative Spotting), recon is still mostly limited to short range "feelers" because both players already know there is an active enemy AND they always know roughly where the enemy is at a given period of time. They might even know roughly what the enemy has for forces. And with CMx2's options for showing "intel" on enemy positions at the start of the game, it could even be more than that.

With that said, CMx2 does simulate recon quite well. It's just that for most battles, most of the time, it's role is limited compared to the broad role it has in real life. Players need to keep this in mind and adjust tactics accordingly.

Steve

[winkelried]

The problem is that in CM we have a pitched battle as the primary focus of the game.

this then gets certain expectations from the players - which then in turn (understandably) have a bit of an issue with a "boring" recon mission as seen above.

what certainly helps is low force density - so playing with large/huge maps with limited forces: with the 4 hour limit there is a lot of time/room for recon, scouting and maneuver. and the bigger we can make the map the better (at least for this reason).

the light vehicle question also touches the halftrack discussion we already had several times on the board (even back at CMx1).

in the end it's also a challenge for the scenario designers to handle this. i work on a campaign where in one historical battle elements of a reinforced panzer aufklärungs abteilung fight against a reinforced U.S. cavalry troop - lots of light vehicles here. we'll see where this goes.

[Battlefront.com]

Exactly. The first mission in the Marines Campaign in CM:SF was just that. The player has a very small, light force which is tasked with spotting the enemy, not killing them. There's Victory Conditions that were purposefully put into CMx2 for just this sort of thing. In CMx1, by contrast, a player did not receive credit for spotting enemy units. Only destroying them. Therefore, it wasn't possible for someone to play a CMx1 game and win unless destroying stuff or capturing flags (which inevitably would require combat).

It's the sort of battle that appeals to some, doesn't appeal to others. Great thing is... CMx2 can do, or not do, either or both as a player wishes.

Steve

[TheVulture]

Exactly. The first mission in the Marines Campaign in CM:SF was just that. The player has a very small, light force which is tasked with spotting the enemy, not killing them. There's Victory Conditions that were purposefully put into CMx2 for just this sort of thing. In CMx1, by contrast, a player did not receive credit for spotting enemy units. Only destroying them. Therefore, it wasn't possible for someone to play a CMx1 game and win unless destroying stuff or capturing flags (which inevitably would require combat).

It's the sort of battle that appeals to some, doesn't appeal to others. Great thing is... CMx2 can do, or not do, either or both as a player wishes.

Steve

And just to be ornery, the curse is that since the game can support varied types of missions, there is a temptation for scenario designers to put in the whole range of mission type within a campaign, which can lead to campaigns where everyone is guaranteed to love at least one mission and hate at least one mission (to the point of never finishing the campaign) depending on what they personally find fun

[winkelried]

And just to be ornery, the curse is that since the game can support varied types of missions, there is a temptation for scenario designers to put in the whole range of mission type within a campaign, which can lead to campaigns where everyone is guaranteed to love at least one mission and hate at least one mission (to the point of never finishing the campaign) depending on what they personally find fun

maybe we should open a thread "My most hated mission type"?

[Erwin]

That is what makes Campaigns so much better that individual scenarios imo. You can get to do the recon mission in the first one or two missions and then get to more major combat in the remaining missions.

I especially liked the first German Campaign (I forget the name) where the results of your recon affected the 2nd mission.

[TheVulture]

That is what makes Campaigns so much better that individual scenarios imo. You can get to do the recon mission in the first one or two missions and then get to more major combat in the remaining missions.

I especially liked the first German Campaign (I forget the name) where the results of your recon affected the 2nd mission.

Panzer Marsch? I never finished that campaign because aside from the attack on "Le Desert", every mission annoyed me. I stuck with it for a while, but when I got to the scenario after Le Desert and it was once again of a sort I didn't remotely enjoy I ditched the whole thing. Some people will love it; for me it just wasn't the sort of scenarios I want to play. To each their own.

[Pak40]

maybe we should open a thread "My most hated mission type"?

The worst mission was the final mission in the Panzer Marsh Campaign (if you lost any of the previous missions). **SPOILER** Honestly it was a pointless mission where you had retreat, i.e. an attempt to exit as many as your troops off the other side of the map before they are slaughtered in the open. The Americans are closing in on them from four corners and have the high ground, lots of preregistered artillery that will kill half your force or disable their transportation within the first two or three turns. You basically have no choice but to die - it's a pointless and depressing battle.

[winkelried]

checked the recon implementation a bit. built a battle with a similar setup as in Panzer Marsch's 1st battle (11/7/44, 00:50, Cool, Wet, Clear).

OP1 from across the road 20-30m.

OP2 flanking across one single bocage 50-60m.

All german units cover arc in direction of US position.

US position occupied by 1/2 squad. 1/2 squad approaching as a relieve.

Hotseat / Elite.

1. US 1/2 squad in foxholes behind the bocage not moving - OP1: 20 m no contact / OP2: 50 m no contact each after 5 mins.
   
2. US 1/2 squad approaching with Hunt - OP1: no contact / OP2: ?@70m ID@60m
   
3. US 1/2 squad approaching with Quick - OP1: ?@40m / OP2: ?@120m ID@60m
   
4. US 1/2 squad approaching with Fast - OP1: ?@50m / OP2: ?@130m ID@110m
   

distance vary a bit. ?@ = identified as question mark. ID@ = unit identified.

[A Canadian Cat]

checked the recon implementation a bit. built a battle with a similar setup as in Panzer Marsch's 1st battle (11/7/44, 00:50, Cool, Wet, Clear).

OP1 from across the road 20-30m.

OP2 flanking across one single bocage 50-60m.

Sounds interesting. I am having trouble picturing what you mean. I am assuming you built a scenario. If so could you share the scenario file?

[winkelried]

Sounds interesting. I am having trouble picturing what you mean. I am assuming you built a scenario. If so could you share the scenario file?

put it in the attachment.

run in hotseat against yourself. just give the germans cover arcs so that they don't fire. if the germans don't move, the americans will not see them. then move american 1/2 squads in from the left. watch.

_Recon Test.zip

[Erwin]

I agree that the last Panzer Marsch mission (IF you got a draw or worse in the PREVIOUS MISSION) was horrible. However, there was an alternative last mission (St. Jean de Daye) that required a Minor Victory or better in the prior scenario that we would have played had we done better earlier. So, the horrible Kesselschlacht last mission was akin to the slaughter of "School of Hard Knocks."

[Mad Mike]

That is what makes Campaigns so much better that individual scenarios imo. You can get to do the recon mission in the first one or two missions and then get to more major combat in the remaining missions.

I especially liked the first German Campaign (I forget the name) where the results of your recon affected the 2nd mission.

In theory, it should work like that. Unfortunately, the second mission of the german campaign "Panzers Marsch!" does not have the parameter "Early Intel" set to "Axis". Checking in the editor, "Intel Strength" is set to "20%" for the mission of "Stand to" which you will be playing if you got a win in the first mission. But this intel (usually "?"-marks showing the location of some of the enemies units) will not show because "Early Intel" has not been set.

I guess it is probably just an oversight, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the first recon mission (and should have been picked up during playtesting of the cmpaign?!).

[TheVulture]

In theory, it should work like that. Unfortunately, the second mission of the german campaign "Panzers Marsch!" does not have the parameter "Early Intel" set to "Axis". Checking in the editor, "Intel Strength" is set to "20%" for the mission of "Stand to" which you will be playing if you got a win in the first mission. But this intel (usually "?"-marks showing the location of some of the enemies units) will not show because "Early Intel" has not been set.

I guess it is probably just an oversight, but it kind of defeats the purpose of the first recon mission (and should have been picked up during playtesting of the cmpaign?!).

But you have the actual intel that you gained during the first mission to guide you. I 'failed' the first mission (didn't know I had to exit the troops off the map to get a victory), but conversely found out a lot about the enemy dispositions. Come the main attack in the next battle, despite the lack of in-game intel, I still dropped a metric tone of artillery on the enemy, flanked them, and won a total victory with IIRC 1 casualty. (I then proceeded to get most of my tanks needlessly toasted in one of the later missions, but I digress...). So I just assumed that the intel benefit was whatever you actually managed to find out for yourself, not getting pre-battle intel in the next mission.

[Erwin]

"So I just assumed that the intel benefit was whatever you actually managed to find out for yourself, not getting pre-battle intel in the next mission."

That's what I thought and I liked the way it worked. One was rewarded for a good recon mission..

[Mad Mike]

"So I just assumed that the intel benefit was whatever you actually managed to find out for yourself, not getting pre-battle intel in the next mission."

That's what I thought and I liked the way it worked. One was rewarded for a good recon mission..

Maybe my wording "defeats the purpose of the first recon mission" was a little bit strong because, as both of you have pointed out, you will still have some information in your head (that is, if you play the battle following the recon battle immediately or without too much delay).

My observations were more about the campaign and scenario mechanisms and the fact that recon and the resulting effects (early intel) are directly supported by the engine, but that does not happen in the example used (first two scenarios of the "Panzer Marsch!" campaign). I still think that this is more due to oversight and that it was intented to show up, but somehow the important "early intel" flag was not set in the scenario. Only the campaign/scenario creator could clarify this, it would be nice to know.

Otherwise, I have to agree that the player will still benefit from playing the first mission. But this would be true for any game which can use two similar maps for consecutive scenarios. Nothing special really, the special thing about scenarios / campaigns in CMx2 is that it can be used to reflect recon results with the means of the engine itself, without having to rely on the players memory.

I assume it was the intention to use the engine feature in "Panzer Marsch!" (with the players memory always coming on top, but not being a precisely predictable factor).

[Erwin]

Hmm. Having played that scenario several times as it was almost my first experience with CMBN I do recall having a lot more enemy unit symbols on the map for the 2nd attack mission when I had a better recon mission in the first recon mission.

[Mad Mike]

Erwin,

I just had a look at the mission, here is what I found:

1. Original mission, as contained in the campaign, setting for "Early Intel" = "Neither" and "Intel Strength" = "20%".

This is what the mission looks like in the setup phase:

2. Modified original mission, setting "Early Intel" to "Axis" and keeping "Intel Strength" at the original 20%.

Again, this is the view of the scenario during setup:

I think the difference between the two is quite clear and speaks for itself. I distinctly remember from my playthrough of this campaign (also a couple of months ago) that when starting the second mission I thought "So what, no recon results showing? Strange...". And I did think so because I was aware back then that the early intel feature was in CMBN.

Anyway, no big deal at all.

Cheers,

Mad Mike

[Erwin]

Am confused a bit.

Do we agree that success in scenario 1 leads to better intel at the start of scenario 2 (which is my recollection), or...?

And more importantly why are you not using Lt Smash's xnt WW2 floating icons??!!!

[Mad Mike]

Am confused a bit.

Do we agree that success in scenario 1 leads to better intel at the start of scenario 2 (which is my recollection), or...?

No, we do not agree. I tried to point out that better intel does not show up in the second mission automatically, because a certain flag had not been set when the scenario/campaign was created. This is what I tried to show in the two screenshots in my previous post, the first showing the start of the second scenario as it is included in the release of CMBN. The second screenshot is a version I modified as described (using my Scenario Organisor tool to get all the individual battles in the campaigns), showing the effect of what I believe would be proper use of the "early intel" feature of CMx2.

But like I said, it is not a big deal and if you're satisfied with keeping stuff like this in your head, I won't argue against it.

And more importantly why are you not using Lt Smash's xnt WW2 floating icons??!!!

I'm quite content with the original icons ..