View Full Version : Scouting and Recce
Wolfleader
11 Jan 05, 21:23
I'm wondering if anyone might have any suggestions on what's a good unit to use for recconoitering in CMAK or CMBB, particularly for spotting lurking AT guns. So far the only way I have for spotting AT guns is when one of my AFV's or inf squads starts drawing cannon fire from them for a few seconds, but is there any way for spotting these guns beforehand so either my snipers, FO's or mortars can deal with them?
Wow. That's a tough one. All I can suggest is to first examine the map from the enemy's perspective, but with an eye toward positions that would make your advance difficult.
Once that's done, there isn't much to be done unless the enemy reveals himself one way or another. Using Recon units helps because they can be inexpensive but hard to ignore. Advance scouting with split squads is also useful if you have the time.
It's also possible to spearhead your advance with heavy armor that will probably shrug off a few hits. I always like to do that one but it's risky and there are no guarantees.
Other than that, all I can suggest is to move infantry with armor so that when guns are revealed they get pinned down.
Yohajin :cool:
If your opponent is using an armored covered arc then I don't think infantry, or even light armor, will trigger a reaction. Unless they get too close. This is so much better then cmbo, where a gun will often automatically reveal itself to a puny inf unit 900 mtrs away. :nervous: A good tactic is to support hidden ATGs with MGs or inf in order to keep probing enemy inf recon at bay and allow the gun to stay hidden. :) But to answer your question, cheap light disposable armor in conjuction with half squads are best for flushing out ATGs. Supporting ATRs may also be useful in keeping ATGs hidden from light armor. Lots of room for creativity. :D
KG_AGCent
12 Jan 05, 12:31
A good tactic is to support hidden ATGs with MGs or inf in order to keep probing enemy inf recon at bay and allow the gun to stay hidden. :) But to answer your question, cheap light disposable armor in conjuction with half squads are best for flushing out ATGs. Supporting ATRs may also be useful in keeping ATGs hidden from light armor. Lots of room for creativity. :D
Finding a cheap piece of armor for the Germs can be tough. Marders... maybe but a hell of a good gun to be wasting on Recce. HTs... not cheap, 45 - 75 points that could be used to buy an AT gun of yer own. The best way i have found is, in the absence of intelligent enemy cover, aggressive infantry advances in front of methodical armor movement on suspected areas with HMGs playing overwatch and an 81mm ready to smoke a suspected position. If you can blind the AT gun you have a chance to regroup and lay proper DF/HE and perhaps some DF 81s and Arty. Snipers are great once an AT gun has revealed itself. A quick side-note; I had a sniper once earn 6 infantry casualties, 3 M-3 HT kills and an M-17. A quick AT gun solution in BB and AK is, from my experience, non-existent. Combined arms with intelligent movement is your best defense.
Cheap is a relative term. I'd rather potentially waste a light piece of armor at 50 points then expose a medium vet tank. Of course it depends what you have to hand. Is it a scenario, an auto pick QB, a small engagement? If it's a larger battle then selecting some cheap light armor recon is a possibility, particularly if you can afford a handful of snipers.
A combined arms advance certainly has it's merits, but I'm assuming that's what the defense was prepared for and that the loss of a tank or two is highly possible. From the original question it seemed he didn't want to risk such tank losses blindly.
KG_AGCent
12 Jan 05, 14:19
Cheap is a relative term. I'd rather potentially waste a light piece of armor at 50 points then expose a medium vet tank. Absolutely right. I have found thaty a 251/1 buttoned up and running hot can actually do a good job at this. I wish the Luchs was available earlier. It is one thing that is seriously lacking in the German arsenal. The Ami's and Brits have the Stuart, the Ruskies have the T-70. The Puma just isn't as good in these rolls and it is expensive (relatively).
Of course it depends what you have to hand. Is it a scenario, an auto pick QB, a small engagement? If it's a larger battle then selecting some cheap light armor recon is a possibility, particularly if you can afford a handful of snipers.
A combined arms advance certainly has it's merits, but I'm assuming that's what the defense was prepared for and that the loss of a tank or two is highly possible. From the original question it seemed he didn't want to risk such tank losses blindly.
So hard to tell without the battle specs. being posted.
...the Ruskies have the T-70. Right. Also those dirt cheap little armored cars (BT-70?). Those are great for racing around and probing in dark spaces where their noses aren't appreciated. :)
Wolfleader
13 Jan 05, 13:26
I've decided to play hotseat against myself to test some ideas I have on dealing with hidden AT guns. You guys are right, there's no way to discover lurking AT guns, even if they rotate themselves, only if they fire or move (in the case of the mobile ones)can they be spotted.
What I found might be an effective tactic to use though was to move 2 to 3 snipers in a perimeter where I think the AT gun would be then send light armour to lure the gun into firing. The sniper fire should suppress the crew allowing the gunners to fire only 1 or 2 shots before being forced to take cover which gives the bait a fighting chance to succesfully withdraw into cover. Once the armoured bait has withdrawn, the gun should still be visible to the snipers (I was using crack snipers 100 to 200 meters from the gun.). It would then be a matter of taking snipers shots at the gun until the crew abandones the gun. Still risky but it's better than nothing and still much cheaper than plastering potential AT gun positions with mortar fire.
Or you could just adopt some doctrinal approaches:
1. Terrain analysis. Good tank terrain = good ATG terrain. So avoid good tank terrain and go in via poor terrain ( Soviet doctrine).
2. Lead with your heaviest tanks so that the tanks fired on can survive anything but hits from the largest anti-tank gun calibres. With the surfeit of medium and light vehicles which survive with this tactic one can easily suppress the ATGs... This is doctrinally derived from the German Panzerkeil and is the reason the Pz III N section was assigned to the schwerepanzerkompanie of Tiger Is and also describes their manner of use...
3. If you can't organise a Panzerkeil then you can simple pick your route of advance and swamp the enemy anti-tank defences along that route... This is the traditional attacker's advantage of crushing local numerical superiority in addition to general firepower superiority.
In a current PBEM I am facing German 5cm and 7.5cm guns as well as numerous Panzerschrecken and Panzerfausten in close terrain. I haven't lost a single tank ( heavy, medium or light) to enemy ATGs and have destroyed over a half-dozen ATGs and enemy tank destroyers. I have, to be fair, lost a few half-tracks travelling as part of the advancing force but even then most were lost in the close assault phase of the infantry battle with only a single half-track being lost to enemy ATG or tank fire.
So, concentration of force and firepower supremacy at the point of contact is the doctrinally correct answer. Any attempt to find a combination of units which can allow one to over-run ATGs at no cost ( excepting a dismounted infantry wave) is doomed IMO. The answer lies in the doctrine of the combatants, they came up with ways to deal with ATGs in various types of terrain and I think that using them in CM cannot but yield excellent results.
ER_Chaser
13 Jan 05, 17:19
two crack sniper + 1 armor vehicle, you call that cheap? :D
what if he has 10 AT guns? :) You need a company of snipers then ? :)
Wolfleader
13 Jan 05, 19:15
2. Lead with your heaviest tanks so that the tanks fired on can survive anything but hits from the largest anti-tank gun calibres. With the surfeit of medium and light vehicles which survive with this tactic one can easily suppress the ATGs... This is doctrinally derived from the German Panzerkeil and is the reason the Pz III N section was assigned to the schwerepanzerkompanie of Tiger Is and also describes their manner of use...
I do this also but I'm trying to wean myself away from using the heavy German armour and start using more medium and light armour.
Wolfleader
13 Jan 05, 19:27
two crack sniper + 1 armor vehicle, you call that cheap? :D
what if he has 10 AT guns? :) You need a company of snipers then ? :)
Ayup. A crack sniper only costs 26 points and you can purchase a 251/1 for 45 points (I can't recall off the top of my head but I think there is another AFV that's much cheaper than that also, prolly the 222's), you can probably even just use a tank hunter team or a LMG as bait also. From my experience so far it only takes a anywhere from 2 to 3 shots per crack sniper working in pairs from 200 meters to spook a gun crew into abandoning its guns, so provided they don't waste bullets sniping at the retreating crew and they don't get killed walking into a nest of enemy inf, 2 snipers should be good for 2 to 3 guns.
ER_Chaser
13 Jan 05, 20:58
:) your opponent must be pretty dumb to let your sniper alive after knocking out his first AT ... (even if letting them get to that range of 200m-300m) But interesting thing to try on from time to time, thanks :)
I do this also but I'm trying to wean myself away from using the heavy German armour and start using more medium and light armour.
Heavy, medium and light are relative... The concept of the Panzerkeil was first stated with respect to Pz IVs, IIIs, IIs and Is, was perfected using Tigers, Panthers and Pz IVs/IIIs but can be used with any vehicle mix ( even an all medium or all light vehicle mix).
The concept will work with all vehicles. You just need to relativise the labels.
Combined arms is certainly a strong approach, but I'm not sure how one can avoid the loss of tanks if medium armor is all that's used. Assuming of course that the defense is using armored coverd arcs for the hidden ATGs and they are supported by MGs, inf and perhaps ATRs, then the probing infantry should be held in check and the guns remain hidden. If tanks show themselves to support their infantry then that's exactly what the ATGs were waiting for.
Of course if buttoned tanks are somehow able to spot hidden (camo'd) ATGs and KO them first then that's probably a CM flaw. Spotting is still quirky in CM and hopefully will be corrected. Theoretically the ATGs should get off some shots before the suppressing elements of the attacker can lock on, particularly if the defense has a good crossfire with several guns.
Spotting is the WORST aspect of CM.
As soon as a ATG (or any unit for that matter) gets a LOS targeting lock-on every enemy unit immediately knows where it is and almost as fast starts shooting back.
I'm sure the British armor driving up Hell's Highway towards Arnhem would have loved to have that feature.
ER_Chaser
14 Jan 05, 12:04
Spotting is the WORST aspect of CM.
As soon as a ATG (or any unit for that matter) gets a LOS targeting lock-on every enemy unit immediately knows where it is and almost as fast starts shooting back.
Hmm.. I do not quite agree, Boss. :)
I have been screwed by the enemy AT guns well positioned and hidden severely many times. And I have screwed the enemy with well positioned AT guns gloriously many times as well.
It all depends on the situation, "doctrine" and experience of the two players involved. Quite the other way around, I like this balance very much :)
I tend to agree with Palantir on this one. I have run into some hidden guns that I just couldn't find, but those were the exception.
If you can picture a hidden TD, hulldown behind a thin screen of trees and theoretically bore-sighting an opening for an ambush 800+ mtrs away, and along comes a buttoned up tank moving off-road which instantly 'feels' the lock-on (as if it were a modern jet fighter), rotates it's turret and starts dropping accrate shots almost before the ambushing tank gets off any shots, well this is just silly. For starters the commander would have to be initially looking in that direction with field glasses thru a viewport and all while the tank is bouncing around and still may not spot the hidden TD. Yet I've seen it in BB and AK many times. Now if this is an ambushing gun in woods fully camo'd then the chances of spotting it even if looking in that direction is still a task. I've also had guns deep in woods be instantly spotted by every enemy in LOS once it un-hides. Not likely. :(
ER_Chaser
14 Jan 05, 13:13
I tend to agree with Palantir on this one. I have run into some hidden guns that I just couldn't find, but those were the exception.
If you can picture a hidden TD, hulldown behind a thin screen of trees and theoretically bore-sighting an opening for an ambush 800+ mtrs away, and along comes a buttoned up tank moving off-road which instantly 'feels' the lock-on (as if it were a modern jet fighter), rotates it's turret and starts dropping accrate shots almost before the ambushing tank gets off any shots, well this is just silly. For starters the commander would have to be initially looking in that direction with field glasses thru a viewport and all while the tank is bouncing around and still may not spot the hidden TD. Yet I've seen it in BB and AK many times. Now if this is an ambushing gun in woods fully camo'd then the chances of spotting it even if looking in that direction is still a task. I've also had guns deep in woods be instantly spotted by every enemy in LOS once it un-hides. Not likely. :(
Did you use a good commander for that AT gun? My experience told me that if you put a good cmdr with +2 concealment, even on a scattered tree terrain base, your gun can survive and knock out many tanks.
I've posted this "incident" before to prove my point on horribile spotting in CM so I'll just do it again.
This was in a game (which I was losing anyway) that I armor arced a section of road. The viable LOS Arc was 1 line wide as seen in the screen shots- 1 entire line wide.
Luckily as I anticipated my opponent stopped right in that spot!
Great news for me right? :D
WRONG!!! :mad:
That buttoned up Panther within 1 second of my targeting line going "active" swung his turret, shot, and killed my T-34 BEFORE my tank could shoot. :surprise: An "off the hip" one shot kill!
The only thing that changed to be "spotted" was the targeting line appearing. Now you call that using proper "doctrine" or "luck?" I call it ludicrous & it happens way to often.
ER_Chaser
14 Jan 05, 15:45
Boss, what you had there was a TANK! not an AT gun. That makes a hell-heaven difference.
If that panther was deliberately set on "hunt" mode, well, I am afraid, in many cases, the TACAI will do exactly what happened. The chance of being discovered for a tank is way much higher than an AT gun. My advice to you is: do not do that again.
Well of course its a TANK! :laugh:
But that is a clear example of the horrid spotting "AI" in CM & that instant "hey everybody look right over there" aspect. :kotz:
So, are you saying that in real life a buttoned up tank looking to the "right" (in this case) could spot that T-34 (that never shot by the way) with only a 5 deg LOS INSTANTLY AND swing the turret AND lock on AND fire before the "ambushing" tank could? Like happened in the game.
I've seen it done vs ATG's as well. :p
Must have been a super-elite crew with tank radar and a laser guided weapons system. :laugh:
That kind of nonsense is standard for cmbo. I thought BB and AK improved it but it still seems to happen too often.
Over all, the spotting algorithms need correcting. Hopefully cmx2 will do this. In the mean time I guess we'll have to grin and bear it. Or should I say, curse and kick the cat! :blab:
I was thinking about this thread a little today since much of what was written bothered me but I couldn't put my finger on why. Then it hit me... the search here is for the best way to handle ATGs at minimal cost... VERY attritionist.
If you pick your break-in point properly and mass appropriately, sure, you will lose some vehicles in the breaching BUT once that's done you'll have dislocated the enemy's entire line and rendered the remainder of his ATGs entirely worthless.
As to the modelling of ATGs vs tanks.. It is atrocious. Any reading of actual histories shows that the main problem tanks had when fighting ATGs was spotting. For various reasons CM vastly eases the attacker's difficulty in spotting ATGs.
Here's a test I did while testing CMBB... A friend and I were PBEMing a night city tank-fight. We found that the defending stationary tanks almost always lost the sighting battle vs moving, buttoned, attacking tanks. The German tanks were defending so optics can't have given the attackers the advantage,. LOS was no more than 50 metres. This is another example of a ludicrous outcome.
CM has many, many faults. Defending it blindly undercuts the game and the defenders. It is a very good game but it has faults. Better to own up to them than batter down those who point them out ( the unfortunate tendency of the rabid community).
Palantir my friend, perhaps the tank was hunting for targets and caught a glimmer of sun light reflecting off of your T-34's (who's over zealous russian crew did not put hull down properly) armor and managed to ambush the ambusher... :p
Stranger things have been known to happen in combat! :halo:
CM has many, many faults. Defending it blindly undercuts the game and the defenders. It is a very good game but it has faults. Better to own up to them than batter down those who point them out ( the unfortunate tendency of the rabid community).
This community seems pretty at ease when it comes to harping on CM's Short comings...I mean come on don't we all want a "better" wargame after all?
These types of issues do not bother me too much for the most part since I hardly notice this kind of thing. I usually just chalk it up to the absurdity of war as in my above post "tanks a lot."
But if people who do notice these types of things never spoke up the would never get improved upon! So by all means feel free to post your likes and dislikes :D
ER_Chaser
14 Jan 05, 18:01
Well, I do not blame CMBB much for this issue no matter what happened "historically" or in "real life".
CMBB is first of all and after all, a GAME. It is NOT real life. Playability and balance is the #1 issue to me. I do not care that much about the historical accuracy in these aspects, in particular if it was for the improvement of play balance.
Suppose the AT or lurking tank is next to impossible to spot, what implication would that have on the CM games? The defender will have double folded or even more advantage. Now let me ask you what to set to balance this out? More purchase points for the attacker, right? Then this will make the game unplayable to some extend. Since now it will become a gamble. The defender will not have enough points to set up a comprehensive defense and instead will bet on whether his few well positioned tanks/AT guns' luck (survival and efficiency). And the attacker is beting on whether he can either avoid or knock out those things. And at the current settings, it is still this struggle against each other, but each side can afford some losses, and that makes a scenario interseting, instead of a one shot gamble.
Of course, if they can make it better to satisfy everybody, that will be great :)
Perhaps the tank was hunting for targets and caught a glimmer of sun light reflecting off of your T-34's (who's over zealous russian crew did not put hull down properly) armor ... :laugh: Maybe the T-34 crew just finished giving it a spit-shine and polish so that it would glimmer like a giant mirror. :p :laugh:
CMBB is first of all and after all, a GAME. It is NOT real life. Playability and balance is the #1 issue to me. I do not care that much about the historical accuracy in these aspects, in particular if it was for the improvement of play balance.Yes, it's a game. Still, I prefer realism over playability. Historical accuracy, as in what combinations of troops and arms fought in what type of engagements, I'm not too concerned with for I really don't have a complete grasp of that. But the correct realism of spotting, armor slope advantage/disadvantage, maneuverability, to-hit, etc., is more important to me then pure balance and playability. If I want balance I can always play the Command and Conquer series with it's grossly abstract simulations. As an old ASLer I want something that approximates ASL as much as possible. I'm not happy when the CM designers artificially manipulate something for balance at the cost of realism.
ER_Chaser
14 Jan 05, 18:45
Yep, steve, I should have said, that was just me :) I knew many people here favor historical accuracy.
I am quite lonely :D
Wolfleader
14 Jan 05, 23:40
:) your opponent must be pretty dumb to let your sniper alive after knocking out his first AT ... (even if letting them get to that range of 200m-300m) But interesting thing to try on from time to time, thanks :)
Snipers are actually quite difficult to spot, even if they fire their weapons. About the only time I've ever managed to spot and take out snipers has been when my inf stumbled onto them or they fire their weapons from less than 30 meters away from an inf unit.
Wolfleader
14 Jan 05, 23:46
Spotting is the WORST aspect of CM.
As soon as a ATG (or any unit for that matter) gets a LOS targeting lock-on every enemy unit immediately knows where it is and almost as fast starts shooting back.
I'm sure the British armor driving up Hell's Highway towards Arnhem would have loved to have that feature.
Out of curiosity how far were your tanks before they feel the lock on of the AT gun. I've never had this happen before and the closest I have to experiencing something like this was in CMAK when one of my PzIV's in hull down with advancing inf nearby spotted a howitzer 120 meters away in rough terrain trying to rotate to engage my tank (fire from the PzIV and from the escorting inf knocked out the gun before it could do any damage.) Also what was the spotting level set to in your games? I usually set mine to extreme so it could be a factor as to why I've never had something like this happen to me.
NORAD,
My point was made with respect to the overall CM community... This little pocket seems fairly reasonable when pointing out flaws but, on the whole, the community is quite intolerant of said elucidation and this tone comes from the top
WHQ is a more "calm" and "respectful" sight than others as far as bringing up what players see as minor flaws in an otherwise incredibile game. :thumup:
And as long as the imbalances are felt by everyone and "fairly" distributed across the board then everyone gets the same results, and a great game. :halo:
But it doesn't mean we can moan about it when it happens to us! :cry:
:laugh: :D
True. It also doesn't mean the game can't be improved as well. I love it, but I still want improvements. :)
I heard if you post flaws on the BF forum you are likely to get flamed severly by the fan-boys.
Wolfleader
15 Jan 05, 14:31
True. It also doesn't mean the game can't be improved as well. I love it, but I still want improvements. :)
I heard if you post flaws on the BF forum you are likely to get flamed severly by the fan-boys.
I for one hope that the next CM game will have a unit editor just like the unit editor for SPWAW. Perhaps even an option for us to create new units and import our own 3D models.
NORAD,
My point was made with respect to the overall CM community...
No worries Fionn I know. :)
Wolfleader,
That'll never happen. One of the design priorities with CM was to ensure that the data could never be modded for good or ill. This protects you from players modding vehicles to cheat but also prevents hobbyists from creating unofficial new theatres.
FWIW even with the current levels of protection I've seen a Stuart destroy a Tiger company and prove invulnerable to every AP round fired at it ( was eventually killed by a 15cm HE round) and an M18 moving at over 100mph so believe me people would be cheating like crazy if this wasn't as protected as it is.
vBulletin® v3.7.4, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.