Recon Units and Scouting

[Montana Grizz]

I like these scouting ideas, but agree with Chuck in regard to yet another option.

I don't want to have to spend 2-3 weeks agreeing upon options, especially when it comes to something like a 3x3 team game. Lord knows it can be somewhat of the lengthy process as is.

Pat

[Hawk Kriegsman]

To the no more optional rules people.

I hear you but this community has clearly demonstrated on more than one occasion on its unhappiness with having a change / rule forced upon it.

As a community we have a few choices:

A: no game inovations and it stays the way it is
B: game inovations added but with much angst
C: Make stuff optional to cater to as many people as possible

Generally like minded folks will have the same options anyways.

And if you don't. Will it hurt any of you to play a game with the other guy's preferred options?

I recently had a game where I stated my usual options
(All on no VarVis)

I got the first turn with no EA on. I did my turn and sent it back with a question. My opponent explained (rather well too) his reasons.

No sweat.....game on.

I would think if we could all learn to compromise a bit this community would be a better place.

Thanx!

Hawk

[Herr Straße Laufer]

As a community we have a few choices:

A: no game inovations and it stays the way it is
B: game inovations added but with much angst
C: Make stuff optional to cater to as many people as possible

To be honest I think that only additions that change every former "classic" scenario should be made optional.

I think that scouting is a fundamental activity on the battle field. It should be part of the game. But remember, in this scale, that most scouting and planning was done way prior to the actual playing of the scenario?

That said, I do believe that the scout/patrol, snipers, foot ATR platoons/squads, etc. should have a more enhanced ability to stay hidden when moving.
I'm not so sure that the recon tanks, like Linx and Stuarts should be given the same abilities as foot scouts. But, a reduced AP movement cost to remain hidden at range would be interesting?
Terrain obviously would be a huge factor for scout cars and recon tanks. Most scouting was not done by the men sitting in the vehicle. They would drive to a location and then dismount to scout more forward on foot. (Not that I would want dismountable scouts in the scout cars, the concept could be abstracted).

I'd like to see Jason advance this. As a part of the game engine, not an option.



RR

[Mike Abberton]

I would include myself in the group that would like a more robust recon model/option. My thoughts/preferences would include two components:

1) Recon during the turn - Like others have mentioned, having a "recon during turn" command is an important component. It would function much like the pre-turn recon scan for unmoved, non-fired units with the same randomness. I would probably limit it to once or twice per turn per recon unit, if possible, to reduce its effect on turn sequencing (i.e. searching repeatedly for a whole turn to the benefit of units that haven't moved yet). Maybe a cost of something like 35 APs or so.

2) Hidden movement - Unlike what I think the others on the thread are posting ("extra" movement for recon units), I think a more expensive hidden movement mode would simulate those final few meters of creeping into the good recon position. I am thinking of something like double-time mode in reverse. You lose 25 APs to go to Hidden Mode, but all moves in hidden mode have either no-chance of triggering op-fire or a greatly reduced chance.

For gameplay purposes, I would limit hidden movement to designated recon units. The difference between creeping into a firing position and creeping into a recon position are exactly what Ed mentioned below. The recon unit is typically dismounting and sending a few guys crawling ahead, not trying to move 20-30 men or multiple vehicles into a firing position.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

Mike

[Steelrain60]

I've always believed that recon units were more useful in the real world than in CS. I, too, would support common sense efforts to make recon units in CS more useful. I actually would prefer to see the rules apply universally, as opposed to creating another option upon which opponents would have to agree.

[Gordons HQ]

I don't PBEM very often these days and this is a personel choice not on account of anyone here.
I simply have one or two issues with the reality of the game, I therefore prefer to play against the AI setting my own house rules and which I believe gives me in my view alone, a more realistic game.
However I believe what is proposed here re recon is a step in the right direction.
So good luck to all those who wish to advance the game.

Cheers
Gordon

[Hawk Kriegsman]

However I believe what is proposed here re recon is a step in the right direction.
So good luck to all those who wish to advance the game.

Cheers
Gordon

Hello Gordons HQ,

Thanks for the input!

Cheers to you too!



Hawk

[Cole]

The extra scouting features would be good but probably would be best suited for very large scenarios.

My thought is that during WW2 there was not a continuous front line such as WW1. Even in the Winter of 1944 there was probably a few sectors, lonely roads, fields, etc that were only lightly guarded or not at all. The job of the recon was to find these neglected areas and push through. The problem for our little recon guys that keep getting killed in CS is that our scenarios pretty much depict when both sides are going to engage. The recon phase is mostly over and now it's time to fight it out. Don't get me wrong there's still room to explore the battle field but once there's intel of enemy panzers I don't think the little jeep guys would be scurrying down the road just as fast.

All for the new hidden scouting features and more improvements such as AT guns able to fire without being spotted. My thought is that these improvements will be the same as the extreme assault. It will make the game more realistic but will tend to mess up the earliest designed scenarios.

My 2c.