Recons

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 3:27 pm

Do recons have any effect on spotting of hidden enemy units in the begining of the turn? There is no mention in the manual, but what are recon units for? May be they serve as a one more AT-gun target?

RickyB · Post by **RickyB** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 9:15 pm

Originally posted by Mist:
Do recons have any effect on spotting of hidden enemy units in the begining of the turn? There is no mention in the manual, but what are recon units for? May be they serve as a one more AT-gun target?

That is about right. There is no improved spotting that I know about - only airpower helps that, I think. They are just a historical based target;-)

------------------
Rick Bancroft
Semper Fi

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Mon Nov 27, 2000 10:15 pm

Originally posted by RickyB:

Originally posted by Mist:
Do recons have any effect on spotting of hidden enemy units in the begining of the turn? There is no mention in the manual, but what are recon units for? May be they serve as a one more AT-gun target?

That is about right. There is no improved spotting that I know about - only airpower helps that, I think. They are just a historical based target;-)

What a pity

is it going to be fixed? Division with a recon squad should have some advantages. Other solution can be elimination of recon units as almost useless ones.

Harry · Post by **Harry** » Tue Nov 28, 2000 2:38 pm

I hope you are talking about the recon vehicles...

They have an effect!
It is mentioned in the manual....I dont know where, but it is in.

They give you a bonus in attaking. What exactly the values are, I forgot, but it is in the original manual. Keep searching.

How long I have searched the manual in the past I dont know. But there are a lot of information in this damn manual, believe me.

Harry

[This message has been edited by Harry (edited November 28, 2000).]

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 12:15 am

Originally posted by Harry:
I hope you are talking about the recon vehicles...

Recon vehicles are used in several places in the game. Page 19 under "Determining Odds" is one example. Load the manual into the Acrobat reader and search it for "recon".

Mist · Post by **Mist** » Wed Nov 29, 2000 12:33 am

Thank you a lot guys! I saw it in the manual. May be the way in which recons come to use in WIR is not obvious, but unit with recons realy should have some advantages in offensive.

john g · Post by **john g** » Thu Nov 30, 2000 5:03 am

Originally posted by Mist:
Thank you a lot guys! I saw it in the manual. May be the way in which recons come to use in WIR is not obvious, but unit with recons realy should have some advantages in offensive.

Hans von Luck was a recon unit commander, from the invasion of Poland to the last Russian attacks on Berlin. It wasn't until he was in France facing the invasion in 44 that he actually was given orders to attack an enemy position. Most of the war he was just patrolling to find out what was out there. If Guderian or Rommel didn't expect him to fight, why should you expect your recon units to fight either?
thanks, John.

Guardsman · Post by **Guardsman** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 12:26 am

John:

why should you expect your recon units to fight either?

Effective recce acts as a force multiplier. A force with good knowledge of the enemy dispositons, terrain, condition, etc is more effective than a larger force with no knowledge. That is why units with recon capability should get an advantage.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 1:11 am

Come on John, the guy you mentioned may not have been asked to fight, more or less, buy noone using recon to fight any? I guarantee if Rommel never used him to fight, his was the VERY rare oddball who didn't. I remember of number of tales about Rommel using them in the desert, for though to fight against enemy armor wasn't optimal use, when you have a whole 10-20 armored units left against 100s, you don't nit-pick about how your opposition is too light in the form of recon units; you use them. Also both Patton and Guderian were both known for telling their commanders, so as to advance when their commanders didn't want them to, that they were "reconnoitering in force". If recon wasn't ever used in force, then how could they get by with that explanation? If they weren't meant to be used in force, then why put guns on them? If they weren't meant to be used in force, then why did all the nations steadily upgrade the guns. If you really want to see recon without force, you wouldn't put guns on the unit, such as the Storch plane that Rommel so frequently flew himself.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Fri Dec 01, 2000 2:02 pm

Originally posted by Charles22:
Also both Patton and Guderian were both known for telling their commanders, so as to advance when their commanders didn't want them to, that they were "reconnoitering in force".

Which meant front line units were also involved in the "recon in force". If the recon unit runs into anything nasty, the front line units move up and take over.

If recon wasn't ever used in force, then how could they get by with that explanation? If they weren't meant to be used in force, then why put guns on them?

The guns were for self defense of course. Occasionally, when doing recon, you bump into the bad guy.

If they weren't meant to be used in force, then why did all the nations steadily upgrade the guns.

*Everybody* upgraded *all* their guns on *all* their forces, front line and recon units both.

If you really want to see recon without force, you wouldn't put guns on the unit, such as the Storch plane that Rommel so frequently flew himself.

Recon units fight, I don't see anyone arguing against that, so they need those guns. They are not, however, designed to be an offensive force like a tank battalion. In fact they'd be pretty useless as they are easily chewed up in a fight (light reconnaisance vehicles versus tanks - who do you think wins?)

When was the last time you saw a scenario in a tactical or operational wargame where the recon units *led* the tanks and APCs into battle?

[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited December 01, 2000).]

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 6:57 pm

Ed Cogburn: If you hadn't guessed it already, I was trying to counter the notion that recon was never used in attack, as a previous poster seemed to believe.

Which meant front line units were also involved in the "recon in force". If the recon unit runs into anything nasty, the front line units move up and take over.

It's my belief that 'recon in force' in the commander's ear, was supposed to mean that the recon was heavy and that they were engaging the enemy to some extent, not that they were getting supported by the main body of the army. It was ploy to actually attack with the main force. I suppose the meaning of the phrase was as I said, which the commander might not object to recon being done in and of itself, but at the same time would object to what it ended up turning into (a main attack). Patton, or whoever, could argue that the recon they did was getting mauled and that it needed support afterwards, should the commander find out. It was just a way of trying to get around the hold your positions orders and I wonder if any of the commanders of the more offensive generals we remember, ever caught on to the fact that it was just a way to get around orders.

Guardsman · Post by **Guardsman** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 10:46 pm

It's my belief that 'recon in force' in the commander's ear, was supposed to mean that the recon was heavy and that they were engaging the enemy to some extent, not that they were getting supported by the main body of the army. It was ploy to actually attack with the main force. I suppose the meaning of the phrase was as I said, which the commander might not object to recon being done in and of itself, but at the same time would object to what it ended up turning into (a main attack). Patton, or whoever, could argue that the recon they did was getting mauled and that it needed support afterwards, should the commander find out. It was just a way of trying to get around the hold your positions orders and I wonder if any of the commanders of the more offensive generals we remember, ever caught on to the fact that it was just a way to get around orders.

A 'recce in force' is more than a way to get aroun orders. These type of operations are officially recognized and do have an operational purpose. A 'recce in force' can also be thought of as a 'raid' or a 'probe'. The main purpose is to get information that is not available to regular recce patrols. This type of info could include, how quickly the enemy responds, what type of force responds, what areas the enemy is willing to lose or defend, how well the enemy fights, his overall co-ordination, etc. It can also be used as a diversion or cover for other operations, or it can be intended to engage forces which could intervene in other areas. Frequently this type of operation discovers a weakness that can be exploited and the operation becomes larger. It is important to note that a 'recce in force' is generally carried out by regular combat units and not recce elements. Recce elements are too valuable to wasted in general combat.

It's true that many commanders disguised general offensive operations as 'recces in force' to cover themselves from possible failure. After all a failed recce isn't as bad as a failed offensive.

In games terms the recce elements reflect small scale units (platoons, companies) that provide the divisional commanders with local intelligence.

As usual, this is only my opinion.

Charles22 · Post by **Charles22** » Mon Dec 04, 2000 11:27 pm

Guardsman: I believe we're in agreement here. There was a valid conduct of warfare referred to as recon in force, but with the Rommels and Pattons of the world (Guderian too), it more or less was a way of getting around the orders telling them to stand their ground. Probably, with generals like that, when they were told to 'recon in force' they would probably mutter to their adjutants that they were doing that all the time anyway.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 4:40 am

Originally posted by Charles22:
Ed Cogburn: If you hadn't guessed it already, I was trying to counter the notion that recon was never used in attack, as a previous poster seemed to believe.

They were part of the attack plan, but not part of the attacking force. The recce was on the flanks and probing ahead. When they found serious resistance they didn't attack (if the resistance was weak though, say a single AT gun and a squad or two defending an approach to a village, a recce commander may chose to attack, that's possible), they reported what they found and then tried to flank the resistance, or wait for the main force to arrive to deal with the resistance. As I said before, they do not lead the tanks and APCs into battle. In that sense, they really are never used in the attack.

As for the "recce in force" and the rest, I agree with what Guardsman said.

[This message has been edited by Ed Cogburn (edited December 04, 2000).]

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 6:30 am

It would seem to me you're both missing the point here. The recce were there for a purpose, even if it wasn't fighting. It is not unreasonable to expect the presence or absence of recon units to affect the battle in some way, if not by adding guns to the fire.

Probably, the closest simulation would be a temporary readiness loss for units without adequate recon, especially on the attack, to represent the misallocation of resources from incomplete information.

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Dec 05, 2000 2:45 pm

Originally posted by Yogi Yohan:
It would seem to me you're both missing the point here. The recce were there for a purpose, even if it wasn't fighting. It is not unreasonable to expect the presence or absence of recon units to affect the battle in some way, if not by adding guns to the fire.

Probably, the closest simulation would be a temporary readiness loss for units without adequate recon, especially on the attack, to represent the misallocation of resources from incomplete information.

For a tactical or operational game, this may make sense, but for a grand strategy game played at a fairly high level, it doesn't really apply. For one thing, an army is not in trouble if it doesn't have recce units, it just uses main-line units instead.

For WiR you're right though. It represents recce units as part of the division, but does not use them in any kind of formula when it comes to how much your forces know of the adjacent enemy. The problem is all WiR does is track how many armored cars your division has, not the number and quality of the division's full recce units, so its hard to see anything meaningful coming from that. Is recce better with 10 armored cars, or 7? It seems to me its more important to keep track of the full recce units and base recon ability on the number and experience of these full recce units, not on the number of armored cars they have. They should do something like this in the hypothetical "War in the East" game by Matrix.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Wed Dec 06, 2000 6:22 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
For a tactical or operational game, this may make sense, but for a grand strategy game played at a fairly high level, it doesn't really apply. For one thing, an army is not in trouble if it doesn't have recce units, it just uses main-line units instead..

Very good point, I hadn't thought of that.
But if the army uses line units for recon work, then those line units will not be available for regular combat, or at least not as easily as if recon units were doing the job. So there the absence of recon units WOULD make a difference in the battle.

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:
For WiR you're right though. It represents recce units as part of the division, but does not use them in any kind of formula when it comes to how much your forces know of the adjacent enemy. The problem is all WiR does is track how many armored cars your division has, not the number and quality of the division's full recce units, so its hard to see anything meaningful coming from that. Is recce better with 10 armored cars, or 7? It seems to me its more important to keep track of the full recce units and base recon ability on the number and experience of these full recce units, not on the number of armored cars they have. They should do something like this in the hypothetical "War in the East" game by Matrix.

Yes, I agree with this.

warhead · Post by **warhead** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 12:49 am

I thought that in the second half of the war the germans used the recon battalion as the basis for a divisional "rapid-response" unit. Throw in some tracked AT units and some pioneers and you have your "fire-brigade".

VictorH · Post by **VictorH** » Wed Dec 20, 2000 3:15 am

An advantage Germany had early in the war was it's recon ability. Recon units found the "lines of division" between different organizational units. These areas were where the Germans would exploit the communication difficulties between different commands. This gave the Germans a great advantage particularly on the Southern Front during Barbarosa. I would suggest that a German Unit with no recon units should have a lower combat factor and one with recon units, particularly those with high experinece have a combat factor bonus. As the war progressed the Germans would lose the combat bonus, but would be penalized if they had no recon units.

Yogi Yohan · Post by **Yogi Yohan** » Thu Dec 21, 2000 3:53 am

Originally posted by VictorH:
An advantage Germany had early in the war was it's recon ability.

This advantage accrued mainly from the complete German air superiority during most of "Barbarossa", while Soviet troops were essentially blind on the march. While German ground recon certainly would have helped to find the enemy weak spots, Air Recon was the determining factor.