3B^2 said:
This is one of the few major gripes I have with most ground combat games,
especially large-scale. Recon units are not as useful because you have
to assume some level of recce or intel has already occurred in order to
justify having both forces on the same table. Makes it hard to recreate a need
for scouting forces.
[Tomb]
Hmmm. If you can't think of scenarios involving scouts, I dunno if you're
trying very hard. Here's a quick one off the top of my head.
SG2: Scout the Route. (Or, in a Rocky and Bullwinkle Voice, "This Town Ain't
Big Enough For The Both Of Us")
A cavalry scout force is sent to recce a route - their orders are to
recce a route across the board for possible later follow on of main force
elements. Force uses a few CFVs, some scout fireteam sized scout dismounts.
Perhaps one of the CFVs really bears an engineering team.
Maybe one IFV contains Intel/Translator types.
Enemy force is concealed partisans backed up after the battle is joined by
enemy mech infantry forces that enter to cut off retreat of the
scouts. Partisans are in town 2/3rds of the way across the board.
Some innocents scattered around in clusters, especially in the town (scouting
force can't just shoot everything it sees).
Cavalry can call for some arty (maybe mortars, maybe light guns) to lay MAK,
HE or smoke.
Objective (scout force): Scout the route. Determine any mobility issues
(perhaps examine a bridge near the town and survey the town for occupancy,
check out the area for mines. If encounter enemy force, recce the enemy to
determine force levels, get instructions from higher up. Support requests
handled as support assets are available. Medevac available.
Objective (partisans): Kill the enemy scouts and maybe the enemy won't come to
your town in force.
Objective (enemy force): You've worked a deal with the partisans. You've got
an observer unit in town (small fireteam) to tell you what the enemy is doing
and when the attack is launched. Your goal is to come in
cross-country behind the scouts and cut off their escape (perhaps at the
aforementioned bridge). You then want to push in and sandwich them while the
Partisans give them grief from the town. With the partisans, you should have
about a 1.5 or 2:1 advantage and be able to overrun the scouts. You probably
want to close reasonably quickly, because once they spot you, you want to be
close enough so as to not be succeptible to arty the scouts can call! (Your
own arty is busy elsewhere since the enemy is on the offensive....)
Forces: Scouts: 4 x CFV, 4 scout fireteams (one of which is designated
engineers), 1 2-man intel team which may be attached to any fireteam
(Mostly Regular, maybe a vet)
Partisans: About 3 teams of 5-7 partisans, with older rifles and
improvised AT weapons (satchel charges, molotovs, etc). (2 teams green, one
team blue), three mine counters (mixed or AP) plus 8 dummies. (or
use hidden placement) + 1 sniper with conventional sniper rifle
(veteran) (not a sniper per se, just a marksman)
Enemy Force: 4 x IFV, 4 x infantry squads of 6-8 men (1 green, 3 blue)
That's a partisan force that won't be operating very long! If a scout force
disappears any military worth worrying about is going to react very strongly.
On the other hand it might be a good way to set up a a trap, so the reaction
force should be careful on the way in.
> Tomb wrote:
> Objective (partisans): Kill the enemy scouts and maybe the enemy won't
Tomb said:
> Hmmm. If you can't think of scenarios involving scouts, I dunno if
Oh, I can think of PLENTY of scenarios INVOLVING scouting forces. Most of them
are similar in one way or another to the one you suggest. But all of them are
based on situations where the scouting force has already
made/is
abvout to make contact with the enemy. What I was referring to is a way of
reflecting a scouting force's ability to go out an cover lots of ground in
order to better give their side a picture of what's out there. In some (Not
ALL, as I'm sure the real warriors will point out, but definitely in MANY)
situations, a scouting force will want to AVOId combat - they want to
find the enemy, ID him, and report back. This is interesting in a historical
context, but hard and boring to recreate in a game.
3B^2
Alan E Brain said:
> To see the value of a recon force, you really need an umpire, a map,
*SNIP*
> This can lead to a min-campaign, several "delaying actions" by
And this kind of e-mail can lead to all sorts of neat campaign ideas in
my head. Thanks.
3B^2
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> Next thing you do is to leave the attackers a choice
Why not? US forces now frequently use satellite imagery with a UTM gridline
superimposed. Accuracy is
pretty much a given with modern mapping methods and/or
even a handful of recon satellites.
> have no idea where the enemy
Again, both sat recon and UAVs in plenty make things a bit more precise.
> John Atkinson wrote:
I think the idea is to make the scenario more interesting. You can always find
some excuse for making things more muddled than they'd really
be....
> > have no idea where the enemy
But not as fun for fiction..... ;-)
3B^2
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> the enemy, ID him, and report back. This is
Nonsense. I've won scenarios with scout platoons. Or at least, decisively
engaged the enemy with indirect fire and caused so much damage that he spent a
LOT of effort tracking down the scouts, which caused him to loose the game.
The scenario called for a hasty attack with the emphasis on haste. Oh, and he
lost all his recon assets and more than a couple tanks in the process.
> --- Tomb <tomb@dreammechanics.com> wrote:
> A cavalry scout force is sent to recce a route -
Probably the Engineers would be attached additional to the scouts. Depends on
your force structures. But the US Army is playing around a lot with Engineer
scouts because 19Ds are too stupid to do proper obstacle recon. Perhaps a jeep
accompanying the CFVs? (Which is how my current BN does it).
> Objective (scout force): Scout the route. Determine
Just to make things fun, give 'em an ROE! No shooting civillians until they
take fire, no targeting civillian buildings until you verify military use.
> Objective (partisans): Kill the enemy scouts and
Yes, they will. But the partisans probably aren't native to this villiage so
they don't care.:)
> improvised AT weapons (satchel charges, molotovs,
Treat as IAVR, close range band only?
This scenario depends a lot on what your CFVs are and your doctrine. NRE, this
would be closest to a scout platoon out of the Regimental Recon Troop. Their
orders would be to break contact and drop indirect all over the place to cover
it. Oh, and they'd bring the Light Tank section along with it. It might also
be
interesting to run this with a BN Scout platoon--6
jeeps, 6 teams of infantry, and 8 gravbikes.
> John Atkinson wrote:
> > the enemy, ID him, and report back. This is
I didn't say impossible, just hard - at least for me. We all have our
weaknesses. :-)
3B^2
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:31:58 -0800, "Brian Bilderback"
<bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> John Atkinson wrote:
Isn't there a book by Stirling? Drake, maybe? ...in which hi-tech
insurgents kick off the fun by knocking out the government's recon
satellites? _Go Tell
the Spartans_, I think.
For more fun, electronic warfare: the enemy has hacked into the system and is
scrambling your satellite view. You're seeing things as they were yesterday,
or seeing an entirely different area altogether.
Knocking them out entirely is more efficient...but less entertaining.
> --- Brian Bilderback <bbilderback@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Nonsense. I've won scenarios with scout platoons.
Well, the other guy made it pretty easy. He forgot what he showed up on the
table to do. I had an intergrated fire plan, my scout platoon was dismounted
elements scattered singly on hills in forests, I had a number of dummy
counters out, and he was short on dismounted units.
Memo: NEVER take a Russian Tank Batallion into a fight in a city. One attached
MRC ain't enough if you
lead with two armor-pure companies.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Isn't there a book by Stirling? Drake, maybe?
Uh... your maps are hardcopy (even now that we're digital, we have hardcopy
maps also). You can blow up all the satellites you want, but the data ain't
going anywhere.
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:53:25 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
Paper! Bah! In the future, there is no paper! Only mysterious seashells. And
all restaraunts are Taco Bell.
Less giddily.... You've got your hardcopies, but no real-time view.
Still gives a reason for the scouts to be out there, well, scouting.
(And actually, feeding false images to the recon sats might be a good
lead-in to a scenario in and of itself. What appeared to be nothing
more than one man on a bicycle is revealed to be the entire Imperial Army,
hell bent for leather and thirsty for blood. Or beer. Actually, they'd
probably prefer the beer.)
> 3B^2 said:
To see the value of a recon force, you really need an umpire, a map, and a lot
of removable terrain.
First thing you do with the defenders is give them a realistic amount of
ground to cover. This means there is no way on God's Earth they will have
enough to defend everywhere.
Next thing you do is to leave the attackers a choice of routes to travel. BUT
their maps are not completely accurate, and they have no idea where the enemy
is, apart from "somewhere over this line. We think."
This can be greatly simplified by having, say, 3 or 4 roads that the attackers
can travel up, to either of 2 possible objectives. Attacking scouts should be
used to get some idea of where resistance is, and either a) by-pass it
or b) neutralise it depending on what the mission is. Defending scouts
(listening posts et al) should be used to determine the main axis of attack,
frustrate the ability of attacking scouts to find out the strength of
defenders, and if OUDF or other sneaky bastards, infiltrate behind the
attackers and take out divisional artillery, hqs, engineering vehicle parks,
logistics etc.
Once the two forces have clashed, then set up the wargames table with
appropriate forces, defenders who haven't been revealed by scouting efforts
omitted until they reveal themselves.
This can lead to a min-campaign, several "delaying actions" by defending
recon
I recently heard part of an interview on NPR about ANACONDA where an allied
Afghan major was saying (and I am paraphrasing) that the U.S. forces had their
laptops and their 3D maps, but we told them that they needed us and that they
were going too far ahead and the enemy was in the "wrong" place. This was in
reference to the Chinook that got downed.
I bet there will always be situations were good scout reports will have some
role.
How about a scenario where half of the defenders units are hidden - the
rest marked via sat and UAV. Then a scout detachment gets several turns to ID
any additional units before the main assault. Could be a good way to build
tension and alter plans of action.
[quoted original message omitted]
> their maps are not completely accurate
Satellite Data is only as good as your last pass. If we're talking current
technology, then decent cloud cover can bolix up most sats. And you may have
data several hours or even days old. If you're using new technology, reconsats
will be a
prime target for super-stingers (the ones that can reach LEO).
UAVs are another matter: but require the opposition not to have air defences
capable of KOing them. This is pretty much a given today, but may not be so in
future.
In an ideal world, every map would be the latest, everyone would have the
right map in their mapcase, everyone's GPS system would be working, everyone
would have enough sleep, there would be one UAV tasked every 5 minutes for
every squad,
the weather would permit missions 24/7... and there'd be no more war.
But... the reason why the maps aren't accurate is to simulate the other things
that go wrong. The bombardier who keys in the position of the spotter rather
than the target for a GPS-guided blue-on-blue. "Charge for the Guns!".
"No,
your OTHER left!". The GPS being on the fritz. The wrong map CDs being
downloaded. A clueless Lieutenant
who's a first-class leader but is functionally illiterate when it comes
to cartography. A first sergeant who's still drunk after the wake for his best
mate last night. The captain who got a "Dear Joan" letter last night and
hasn't quite got her mind totally on the job.
And of course, Murphy.
NSTRH story:
In the recent little fracas in East Timor, there was a clash between
Australian regulars and Indonesian Police on the border. The Indonesians
thought the Australians were invading: the Australians thought the Indonesians
were attacking. Unfortunately
> --- Alan E Brain <aebrain@webone.com.au> wrote:
> Satellite Data is only as good as your last pass. If
Which ain't gonna change the fact that your maps will still be perfectly good.
> UAVs are another matter: but require the opposition
You throw a bunch of drones up, flying real low and hope for the best.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> (And actually, feeding false images to the recon
Retsina, actually...:)
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 15:53:25 -0800 (PST) John Atkinson
> <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> writes:
John,
Literally yesterday's news. I was not there (at Metro Hispanic Employment
Program Council meeting) but NIMA does no maps after three to
5 years - no more Cartographers except as contractors.
Yeah, me too. Even though I am no longer a Carto but a freaking "Regional
Analyst"...
Gracias,
On Wed, 20 Mar 2002 17:32:44 -0800 (PST), John Atkinson
<johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
> Which ain't gonna change the fact that your maps will
.unless someone hacked into your mapping agency's computers and changed things
before they went to press. And it's unlikely your printed copy has kept up
with the new roads built in the last 2 (or even 12) months. Or the new
buildings.
John, you're an Engineer. Your activities give map-makers fits. You make
new bridges, and take down old ones. You alter the terrain in small but
important
ways. And sometimes not-so-small ones.
<Sarcasm>Of course, you *always* instantly update all maps of the area in the
US Army's inventory every time you lay a hasty minefield, don't you?. Or if
not, *everybody* always gets the word, don't they? There's always perfect and
seamless co-operation between the US Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines
too.
And of course, your UAV is good enough to judge the carrying capacity of that
bridge, whether 20 tonnes or 100 tonnes. Could make quite a difference to your
MBTs. (It's marked on your map as "estimated 50 tonnes", but that was by some
expert back in the CONUS, and anyway some idiot drove a 170 tonne load over it
last week and it's now marked on enemy maps as "unstable, 5 tonne
limit"**).
The UAV also carries sensors that show that the bottom nearby is suitable for
fording due to clay below the mud, but that the banks nearby will require
beaucoup PSP to stabilise them due to hollows caused by local wildlife, right?
You always have access to the most timely Intel too, it only takes seconds to
relay it from the theatre to Langley, get it all analysed, and get it
reticulated to everyone who needs it.
**Apart from the enemy map you captured last week, which was deliberate
disinformation.***
*** Or just hadn't been updated. The enemy makes mistakes too.
</Sarcasm>
I've had great fun as a referee in the past with such things.
New short roads that make T-junctions into crossroads. New multistorey
buildings that become unmistakeable landmarks. Bridges that exist where none
are marked, or that are unsuitable for vehicular traffic where they are.
This was pre-GPS, so the opportunities for people to get lost were
greater. But SNAFUs will still occur. The only reason why the defender doesn't
get the same problems is because they've taken the time to recon their own
terrain before the battle starts. But they have their own problems: keeping
enough of a screen
> --- John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com> wrote:
.....
> Memo: NEVER take a Russian Tank Batallion into a
Another Memo; MEVER defend a tree line with dismounted
infantery when the enemy has 30mm HE auto cannon and a
will to use them. Or to put it bluntly... Do you have any idea what 30mm HE
cannom will do to trees, and what the splinters will do the infantry( even if
in foxholes.).
bye for now,
> Hmmm. If you can't think of scenarios involving scouts, I dunno if
Nice work, Mr Barclay! Sounds like a good one. I'll give it a whirl when I get
back.
John - Nice input about the ROE. I hadn't really thought about
introducing ROEs into a scenario, but it sounds like a good idea. Now I can
share that feeling of frustration with my fellow gamers...
-Ted
Well Drake wrote something similar in _Rolling Hot_.
The insurgents weren't high-tech, but they did kick
off a big operation by knocking down the Government
satellites used by the Slammers -- and then getting
theirs knocked down in return. The Slammer unit in the story relied mostly on
UAV's for recon and bouncing comms off of meteorite trails to stay in contact
with other units.
> --- John Crimmins <johncrim@voicenet.com> wrote:
John Crimmins wrote:
> > Retsina, actually. . . :)
Hmmmmm..... Scares a whiskey drinker, huh? I'll have to look into
this...
retsina..... although my favorites will still have a tendency towards
names beginnig in 'glen'. ;-)
3B^2
> --- "nated@naxera.com" <nated@naxera.com> wrote:
> John - Nice input about the ROE. I hadn't really
I always run with some sort of ROEs. Especially when there are going to be
COBs[1]. Of course, it helps
that I mostly play with either Mil or ex-mil guys so
it's the first thing we think of.
> -----Original Message-----
Or maybe the 19Ds are just not trained to do it properly. Does not make them
stupid.
> --- Bob Makowsky <rmakowsky@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > the US Army is playing around a lot with Engineer
> Or maybe the 19Ds are just not trained to do it
OK, here's the problem with 19Ds.
They think a spot report with an estimated
center-of-mass grid done through hi-power optics from
4 km off is a good obstacle recon. We[1] tried explaining that you have to get
close enough to
identify the nature of the minefield (buried/surface
laid, AT/AP/Mixed, all 4 corner grids, PRECISELY, type
of fencing, bypass or not). They don't grasp this.
My squad leader tells me of being attached to 19Ds who absolutely could not
comprehend the fact that you cannot determine classification of bridges
without getting under them.
In short, they don't want to get close enough to get useful information. Maybe
it's stupidity. Maybe it's cowardice. But it's one or the other and cowardice
is the more insulting of the choices.
From: "John Leary" <john_t_leary@yahoo.com>
> Another Memo; MEVER defend a tree line with dismounted
Actually I would put that down to a leadership and motivation problem, not
cowardice or stupidity.
More likely they are so task saturated that they can only spend the minimum on
each task. This would make their spot reports less than useful for the
engineers.
That is where the leadership comes in, give them the time to do the tasks that
are most important.
Motivation and discipline to get out there near the mines and under those
bridges.
Bob Makowsky
> -----Original Message-----