This is what I thought at first, and then the developer of FCSS replied to me as follows:"for reconnaissance, my thought is whether a hexagonal grid near a unit that includes a reconnaissance unit can also be included as a point of view in the LOS calculation? this is a way to avoid micro-management and at the same time abstract modeling."
My goodness, no. There's a couple of reasons for this. 1. Geometry. You're proposing an offset of at least 500m. Quite possibly more. The time and distance scale of the underlying simulation drives us to a unit needed to spot (by its own sensors) enemy locations. The positional offset involved means a different viewpoint. It is entirely possible for one unit looking at a location to see an enemy unit and another unit, even in the same observing position. Oh, by the way, not even in the same Subunit. There's an interview you can find on YouTube where a Bradley Commander struggled with getting his gunner to shoot an Iraqi tank. Gunner didn't see it. "It's RIGHT THERE!" And I have experienced this myself in training (both as a Commander and as a Gunner). There absolutely is no Transitive Property of Spotting.
2. Communications networks. So, you proposal is a recon unit spots an enemy unit and tells other units about it. That presumes they actually talk to one another. Voice networks are very narrow. You talk to your peers with your unit and to your leader. So, in a platoon, talking occurs with the platoon. The platoon leader also talks to his company commander. Not to other platoons routinely. So, there ends up being a chain of nodes and messages to even get the location formation to a unit. This takes minutes and is stale to the point of becoming, essentially, a rumor.
3. Direct fire requires seeing a target. Telling a unit, assuming this can happen in a timely fashion, of an enemy location where the notified unit has spotted the enemy unit (meaning they have not seen even one enemy subunit) is not sufficient for shooting at the enemy with direct fire. Sure, indirect fore can be used, but there is already an observer for that. To do direct fire requires laying a gunsight on a spotted subunit. We are not going to initiate that fire chain based on another unit's observation.
4. Other game effects. So, we rule out shooting at a unit that is only spotted by another friendly unit. Are there other effects you think should be considered?
Let me continue this discussion here, the details about how a unit spots an enemy and returns the information is not clear to me, my experience with it is limited to video games. I appreciate the developer's response to my point. But I still wonder: is FCSS modeling and abstracting the reconnaissance force correctly?
A company on the march will always send a certain amount of reconnaissance forces along the march route, I don't know what the specific rules are, but 500m should be acceptable... So the problem is that developer mention that the fcss tries to avoid these micro-management, but at the same time the fcss tries to apply a microscopic, LOS determination rule that I feel is suitable for use in squad scale games. This is what I find puzzling. the whole point of the existence of these reconnaissance forces is to enhance the situational awareness of company combat teams, isn't it?1. Geometry. You're proposing an offset of at least 500m. Quite possibly more.
If, as you mentioned, suppose the full range of a company combat team is limited to a 500m hex. My reconnaissance unit detects the enemy via sensors, and at the same time if the enemy fires on my reconnaissance unit o, why is it my company combat team's main force that suffers losses? Please consider if such an abstraction is a distortion.
Totally agree. Knowing the presence of an enemy in a location is not the same as having the LOS to fire.But that is precisely why reconnaissance units exist, to provide situational awareness capabilities and then allow the company combat team commander to decide whether to continue marching and engaging or to stop the formation and withdraw in accordance with SOP.Direct fire requires seeing a target.
A little earlier in the discussion, someone in discord tried to conduct a scout mission with a Soviet company who set the SOP of the unit to retreat after taking losses, but instead of obeying his orders the unit took a lot of fire in place. SOP setting aside, if I were the commander of a company combat team, I would certainly not send the main force of a company combat team on a reconnaissance mission, which explains why I came up with this abstract model.
I have not argued that reconnaissance units can return information correctly and completely. Their returns can be vague, and information such as "enemy armored vehicles on the move in my north, type unknown, number unknown" can be useful. Can such unconfirmed information be represented on the map, for example, by placing a few question marks?So, you proposal is a recon unit spots an enemy unit and tells other units about it.
tbh I do this a lot in combat missions and they provide a good suppression effect. But back to my topic, I never mentioned that other units spotted = shootable. I suspect this requires a higher level of information chain than could be achieved during the Cold War, perhaps consider adding it as an optional rule in a future game?So, we rule out shooting at a unit that is only spotted by another friendly unit.
Thank you to the developers for taking the time to respond to me patiently, and if I have overlooked anything please help me point it out, I would greatly appreciate it.