"The tactics of reconnisance" Topic

Now there are two schools of thought on reconnisance.
1) Stealth reconnaissance takes time, if you have it.
2) Recon by force. A friend described one of his family in WW2 say that his job in an armored car was to drive down the road until somebody shot at him. If the did there was somebody there , if not either they were good troops or not there.

To be honets we have been playing games for 10 years now and have not really come across a basic two player game that can deal in any reasonable way the steath approach, so I will say no more about option 1.

However the second type is interesting. In a bigger game there may be a gain to send down a recon force to "risk all" as the information may well be worth it, knowing for instance roughly where it lost contact/was blown up may save lives later on. WW2 is full of stories of Armored cars just going missing.

Its probably not within the remit of skirmish games as the board is possibly too small. More applicable to larger 15mm, 12mm and 6mm games. I have no expertise on 3mm.

So haw do you as commander of your force look at recon tasking where time is of the essence so option 2 is the only one available.

First one got DA BUG.

I used to run a scenario in which the recon force got points for uncovering the enemy and the enemy got points for killing the recon forces. It created a very interesting dynamic on the table. I think you can also represent the slow, methodical approach by having the players conduct recon and the GM runs the hidden enemy.

Reconnaissance in war is the battle for information.

As a general observation -- if the players have a God's Eye view of the battlefield, there will be no battle for information. All reconnaissance will be is light fast forces, so your tactics will devolve to trying to get to some advantageous position and not die until you've made a few victory points (whatever your scenario victory conditions are).

I've seen a lot of wargames where recon forces take almost 100% casualties trying to get one or two side-shots on some more meaningful target. They are the fast and cheerful death riders, the light brigade, hoping to ride to glory as they charge the gun line.

I find this to be mostly a-historical. Happened occasionally, but not often. Recon units were typically the most experienced, most seasoned soldiers in a command. That would not have been the case if they were expended for no useful purpose every time the command went into action.

And then I've seen wargames where the battle for information is the turning issue of the game. I like that, but it requires some care in how the game is set up.

I've been in games that were set up with all kinds of complex and time-consuming mechanisms to make information hard to come by. For example double-blind games with a non-playing referee, where side A has to pick up all their models and leave the room after the referee has marked their units on his map at the end of their turn. Then side B players come in, place their pieces according to the referee's map from last turn, are told if any of their units took fire while they were out of the room, then play their pieces as the referee checks his map to determine if and where something was spotted and side B gets to shoot. I often find those types of games to be laborious, and I have seen gamers who find them outside of their gaming skillsets, acting almost randomly and complaining about how unfair the set-up is when they blunder into a defense that has been observing them coming for 2 or 3 turns.

In general, I have some to the following guidelines for my own gaming:

1) If the game does not involve hidden units and hidden movement, don't bother putting any recon on the table.

2) Accept approaches to hidden unit / hidden movement gameplay that compromise a bit on information in favor of smooth flow and player engagement.

When I set up a game, each player not only receives a force of miniatures to play, but also a set of paper chits that have info identifying which piece the chit represents on one side, as well as a surplus of some number of blank chits. All forces are first played on the table as face-down chits until they are spotted under the rules. Only then are the chits replaced with miniatures they represent.

I also try to ensure that neither side knows what force the other side will be fielding. If I set up the game, I give my opponent some die-role determined choices to either build or bolster his forces, so even as the game master I won't actually know what is out there under those chits.

The battle for information comes to dominate the early phases of the game. Players jockey for position, trying to keep their own forces undiscovered while working to get eyes onto anything that appears to be in a position to interfer with them achieving their objectives.

I've seen gamers spend the entire game focused on chits that turned out to be blanks, or positioning major portions of their force to address what they were sure were very threatening chits that turned out to be nothing to worry about, or almost ignoring the threat of chits they assumed to be blanks or low-powered units that turned out to be quite threatening.

After a couple of games like this, having recon assets, keeping them alive, and using them well, becomes an entirely different proposition.

Of course that doesn't mean you still don't need someone to run down that road and find out if there are enemies out there. Tactics will depend on what you are called upon to do as your mission, and if running across the table fast, or getting to a key asset before the other guy, are part of your victory conditions, well someone has to do it…

-Mark
(aka: Mk 1)

When playing Steel Panthers I would send a small armored car down the road at high speed. Worked well unless you were a armored car crew. I called it " Dance of the Idiot ".

Interesting a game without at least one side hidden at the start would probably never happen.

Mark we have tryed the moving hidden and dummy markers and have had the same thing dummy's changing dummies, not ideal as it eats a lot of time for no gain in my opinion so we stopped it.

Our current best method is that as we have high definition maps (we use Hexon 2 so map is near perfect, we do not use static dummies and rely on player honesty, occationaly of course it add fog of war when one guy forgets he has seen the enemy!

JicCarroll, Dance of idiots seems apt. However the gains in knowing where the enemy is worth the loss, particularly in bigger games.

One interesting issue that keeps coming up as we better understand the real world tactics and there mirror on the board is defining key terrain. How much you drive through areas is dependent on how threatening an area is. If its very exposed, if the defender is there it can be ignored more or less or only trivial resources sent. In such places a serious threat is not possible as its exposure makes it a death trap for the defender, easily got rid of.

This then means you can concentrate on the areas at most risk so you understand the strength of the critical area.

On a recent 1/72 time limited game, my opponent was reluctant to risk any vehicles without any cover. he would have been much quicker (and have done better) if he had just driven down the road with a minimal force until it go shot. On a 22ft road knowing which half of the road as it were the enemy was deployed in would have given him more time to deploy to eliminate the defender.

The trick was there were 3 potential choke points and the defender was restricted to a limited extent on how dispersed he could be so he could deploy in a limited area on or off any one of the choke points. The time limit mans excessive delay will lose the game regardless. Hence reconnaissance to find the enemy is critical.

Running a double-blind refereed game solves the problem, but it's a lot of work.

pjm

In general, I have some to the following guidelines for my own gaming:

1) If the game does not involve hidden units and hidden movement, don't bother putting any recon on the table.

2) Accept approaches to hidden unit / hidden movement gameplay that compromise a bit on information in favor of smooth flow and player engagement.

That's a pretty important point.

I think Infinity has one of the best hidden-unit mechanics out there, and the rules are free to download to 'borrow' for your own games.

There are units that can hide themselves under a camo marker. You cannot shoot at a camo marker directly (barring something like a flamethrower that covers an area), you must Discover it first by succeeding at a Willpower roll (In game, that's rolling under your stat on a d20, but whatever for your game). Camo Markers are revealed by any action that requires them to roll dice.

There are even some units that can be Hidden Deployed with no marker on the table, but as soon as they move from their deployed spot they place a camo marker.

Oddly enough, I did like the Flames of War 'teleporting' American Tank Destroyers, which could be pulled from the table leaving only the M20s and Jeeps of their Security Section as an indicator of where the TDs might show up. IIRC the TDs could re-appear anywhere within 8" of their Security Section.

In the 'Nam rules, they simplified the recon troops to preventing someone from deploying within 8-16" (depending on troop).

Stealthy recon is really a game in itself: it should be too long to be the first phasenof a battle game. I had exactly the same thought as surdu as I read your post: one "player" is actually the GM. This approach was used in SPI's NATO Division Commander and in Lee Brimmicombe-Wood's Nightfighter.

My rules put a pretty fair premium on proper recon and recon units cost more reflecting their training and skill. In running games I've found the big problem with recon is that players really dont do it and prefer to just charge across the table. But maybe that's just the nature of multi player games at cons! Cheers!

I'm interested in these types of games, as well as ones where the defender is hidden, and must be detected before they can be engaged.

I've been considering using hex maps for preliminary moves.

What would really be interesting is if both sides could patrol equally, for weak points, though that makes things even more complicated.

I once played in a micro-armor campaign for the Battle of the Bulge where the defender plotted his defenses of Bastogne on a map, and I had to do the same as the attacker. We then gamed out any interesting encounters, and ignored the total mismatches, though the defender(s) had the option to fight things out, if desired. Real world though, in most cases, severely outnumbered/outclassed units would usually withdraw.

We never finished it, but it was an interesting concept.

Each turn the units were permitted to move one (or more? – can't recall now, but perhaps two hexes for motorized units)"operational" hex, and then see if anything was encountered.

Seemed like a good way to go.

One often missing thing on tables is recon by fire. That's how my grand parents home got shot up both in 40 and 44.
Pretend you see and shoot likely places. Then it takes netves and control not to move or answer. Die roll?

And too often recon units are "cheap" 🙄 Light forces that just get shot up, put in places to get killed in fast, in stacks which is not what happened most of the time.
I remember games with CD where recon was even the main point, or used a lot. But it took a huge chunk of time if done properly. Most often we don't have the luxury.
Probably often best set with some kind of pre game calculation and effects.

Another thing, in real life they don't always know they are located.

Kampfgruppe Command gives recon the ability to withdraw before fire is resolved and take 1/2 casualties. Loss of a recon unit cost double points toward a forces break point.
Not Quite Mechanized has a very interesting system. Recon unit rolls three different color dice. One decides if the defender is spotted, one decide at what range the defender opens fire and the last the fire effect. Results depend on experience of both the recon unit and the "hidden" unit.

Lion in the stars,
Most of that is in Maneouvre Group. The defender has real and dummy markers and neither can be engaged effectivley except by recon by fire which has only limited effects (even if its a real marker). they are not disclosed till it moves or fires or the playet gets within 10m. Anechdotally a member of our club noted they wone an excersise as they had the enemy pull up within a few feet of their position without spotting them so our approach is not that implausible. To be fair I am sure this bit of Maneouvere Group is not unique, its a mechanism that has been around long we used it. Doing much more than this, although to be fair that is quite a lot, needs a third person or a complex computor game that has precise details of both the map and the units moving, hence is not useful to us. as it wastes the third persons time and the latter is unavailable.

Convention games except in very unusual circumstances are not a good indication of how a serious games will be played by enthusiats of the particular period.

Lion in the stars,
Most of that is in Maneouvre Group. The defender has real and dummy markers and neither can be engaged effectivley except by recon by fire which has only limited effects (even if its a real marker). they are not disclosed till it moves or fires or the playet gets within 10m. Anechdotally a member of our club noted they wone an excersise as they had the enemy pull up within a few feet of their position without spotting them so our approach is not that implausible. To be fair I am sure this bit of Maneouvere Group is not unique, its a mechanism that has been around long we used it. Doing much more than this, although to be fair that is quite a lot, needs a third person or a complex computor game that has precise details of both the map and the units moving, hence is not useful to us. as it wastes the third persons time and the latter is unavailable.

Convention games except in very unusual circumstances are not a good indication of how a serious games will be played by enthusiats of the particular period.

In some very large multi evening games we have had the recon doing the job the LRDG did in the dessert in WW2 watching a piece of road to see what passes so that an indication of the force maintained beyond that point can be estimated. However the road needs to be watched for at least 24 hrs for that to be usefull which is well beyond a single evening game.

Plus recon games are not everybodies idea of a good game. On the one that sparked this thread, most of the evening was just the attacker moving and the game ended when time was up and I had only revealed about 5 of my seven fire teams and none of them had had any severe losses. We considered it an excellent 3hrs actaul playing but it may not be so for the "I JUST WANA KILL THINGS" brigade as it was all planning and thought and minimal die rolling and even less shooting.

Double blind is hard work but it's the best.
Even then.
When one figure spots enemy they are placed on the table and all players on that side now know someone is there.

We routinely use map deployment for attack defence games. The defender is usually outnumbered and tends to be fairly static. They can only "move" once there's some reason. A lookout must spot the attackers and communicate etc. There is scope for an attacker to carry out some recce.

With encounter games I've used fuzzy placement.
You start with a representative model marker per unit.
There's a mechanism for encountering an enemy marker and recce units are more likely to "win". The loser deploys their unit first.

Recon patrols are one of the basic skills all Infantrymen learn. And each Inf and Tank Bn has a Scout Plt. All infantrymen and Scout units learn to do dismounted and mounted patrols.

Moving quietly, using terrain, camo, cover and concealment are paramount in running recon patrols[on any patrol for that matter]. You shouldn't be seen or heard.
Recon is not generally to make contact. It's best weapon is calling in FA or CAS, if need be

Highly recommend getting a copy of the Ranger Handbook. Very enlightening reading. For the gamer or historian …

For gaming purpose recon ops may be a little "unique" as noted. May require some special rules, etc. IIRC the Future War gaming rules has some useful rules for incorporating recon units into the game ?

I used to have a 36 foot long table, seperating the table down the middle and into quarters was a curtain, much like you see in a hospital room.
So essentially, for the initial deployment and movements the table was divided into eight smaller table limiting vision and knowledge?
The basic rule was no one could slide the curtain over from their quarter of the table until one unit from either side crossed over a curtain, then that curtain and only that curtain was slid open.
All movement was triple speed until both the frontal and the flank curtain from your particular quarter of the table was removed.
I could relate some hilarious stories when a player moved a huge portion of their Corp past one of their curtains and were meant with a huge surprise ????
Soon those people began to send out light cav units just to get the curtain open.
It was not perfect, but did give some effect.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

You used to.
So at one point you drew the curtain on the curtains?😋

No, I moved and we took the table down. That group is totally scattered and/or dead.

I'm probably an option two guy. In most games I play (battalion and up) recon units are usually scarce so the game doesn't center on them. Their job is to be a trip wire though that doesn't mean they're expendable.

Formations depend on how many recon are available. I prefer not putting them all at risk. Sometimes I'll put a heavy unit among the recon forces. An opponent in ambush must choose between them, or risk letting them pass by and hope they don't get spotted.

I must admit for Option 2 recon I use a detachment from a standard company, no use losing expensive troops for no reason. Sometime I do have proper recon but its more as eys and ears for artiullery watching over the poor guys who are told to just drive down the road. Or sometimes to watch a route I and not currently active on but again that one of our long multi evening "campaigns" which last a few days in game time.

Recon in Force is basically called Movement to Contact today.

Driving stuff down a road to see who shoots at it. Is not proper use of and waste of assets. Very amateurish even on the gaming table. Let alone real life … IMO, of course …

As this thread has generated some interest I have nput the scanarion on the WWII scenario board for folk to look at and comment on.

I see recon (air, EW, HumInt, patrols, etc) as a pre-game activity unless the scenario is about recon.

Recon units are typically given a mission: route recon, delaying, ambush, screening, counter-recon, QRF/reserve, demonstration/deception, shaping, pursuit, observation/FO, recon in force, etc.

The effectiveness depends on assets and time. A prepared assault could take a week or more to conduct recon, a hasty attack may be only seconds. A recon in force is generally to break through the enemies light screening forces to get a better idea of the main defenses line and could make a good scenario in itself.

As some people have mentioned they are expensive and not usually leading an attack. They generally want to avoid contact.

Route Reconnaissance: check out roads for movement and obstacles. Check out bridges and stream fording spots. If not performed then there is a chance to be surprised by poor terrain (bog chance), minefields, obstacles, unknown bridge conditions/weight, and no known fording locations. There should be many terrain unknowns to the player if the route is not cleared in advance.

I've used them in an abstracted way allowing a player to put recon units on the flanks and would have the ability to delay the enemy reserves entering the table.

Recon by fire is pretty standard (especially for the US) and one of the reasons Sherman's overloaded with ammo. While the Sherman stabilizer was not very useful for moving tank-tank engagements it was useful to pump HE/Q into tree lines for an air burst against any units in the way. It also made the coax more accurate. Suppressing the enemy long enough can allow you to move out of his field of fire. My experience is players will want to saturate the entire defensive are so it needs to be limited with some type of hidden unit rules.

Wolfhag

Lion in the stars,
Most of that is in Maneouvre Group. The defender has real and dummy markers and neither can be engaged effectivley except by recon by fire which has only limited effects (even if its a real marker). they are not disclosed till it moves or fires or the playet gets within 10m. Anechdotally a member of our club noted they wone an excersise as they had the enemy pull up within a few feet of their position without spotting them so our approach is not that implausible. To be fair I am sure this bit of Maneouvere Group is not unique, its a mechanism that has been around long we used it. Doing much more than this, although to be fair that is quite a lot, needs a third person or a complex computor game that has precise details of both the map and the units moving, hence is not useful to us. as it wastes the third persons time and the latter is unavailable.

Not being able to engage 'Camo Markers' works fine.

Flames of War (being a significantly less simulationist game) usually has recon units limit where units can deploy in Ambush. The ambushing units are NOT assigned to a location, you can just 'teleport' them in when someone gets close. Unless that is a recon unit, when you can only drop ambushing units 16" away. 16" is outside Assault Rifle and most light antitank weapons range.

Good points Wolf ! And I obviously agree !