Recon and Wargaming

[bayonetbrant]

I found this from GrogNews while searching for something else and thought I'd share it here.

Someone else asked:

Does wargaming really reflect how recon is supposed to work?

My responses from the discussion over there

+++++++++++++++ BEGIN COPIED TRANSMISSION ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Nope. Not in the least. For several reasons.

1) They rarely have the right footprint on the map. Recon units, especially US ones (and the French, too) are designed to take up a lot of real estate, and this is rarely modeled on the map. The Fifth Corps series tried, by making the cav units TRP/CO size while most of the game units are BN/RGT.
A point of comparison: at NTC, a typical BDE w/ 2 maneuver BNs could attack thru the central corridor on line w/ each other (approx 14-18km of frontage depending on where in central corridor you are). An ACR w/ 2 SQNs will be crammed in to cover from the live-fire area in the northern corridor to the south end of the Whale Gap.

2) Because the spatial ratios are frequently off, cav units end up being significantly up-gunned compared to their maneuver brethren. This was especially apparent in the SPI ModQuads, where the div cav in Wurzburg was more high-powered maneuver battalion that often gets used as a 'fire brigade' to plug holes in the US player's lines, instead of spread out in front of the division where he belongs. And why not? There's no real cav mission for him, so why not take advantage of his higher combat value?
Note - the higher combat value is accurate if you have a cav unit occupy the same space as a maneuver unit. An ACR squadron is organized with 3 TRPs of 9/13 (tk/brad) + a TK CO of 14/0, so their start strength is 42 tanks (9x3 + 14 + SQN CO) and 40 M3 CFVs (3x13 + SQN S3) plus another 6 M109-series howitzers in the gun battery. Oh, and each CAV TRP has its own mortar section, too. That's a lot of firepower at a BN level.

3) Over 50% of the cav's mission is non-existent in a wargame. Someone already said this a bit, but when I can see where the other guy's counters are - and aren't! - then sending a cav unit out to look over the hill for Injuns becomes less vital. I'm not looking for composition/disposition of enemy forces at that point, because I know what they are when the shrink wrap comes off.

4) A significant part of the cav's mission is knocked off by the very nature of wargaming. The W@W series{1} varies the way the two sides pull their chits and says it's based on the variances in doctrine between the two sides. Fair enough.
But that's hardly a substitute for a doctrinal portrayal/employment of units on the map. There's absolutely no rule in place requiring the Forward Security Element of a regimental attack to consist of x, y, and z elements, and to move in a certain fashion with a certain mission according to Soviet doctrine. Once you get your ORBAT, the gloves come off, and there's no constraint on the player to fight according to doctrine, which would include a Sov-style Combat Recon Patrol (roughly equivalent to a US BN SCT PLT) that spreads across the BN frontage in teams of 1-2 vehicles to ID critical targets and get the FSE pointed at the key element of the NATO force.
There's no requirement that the FSE be organized w/ it's appropriate reinforcements, nor that they follow their doctrinal mission of engage/fix the lead enemy element. There's no requirement for the regimental main body to fight a certain way, to employ chemical munitions or FASCAMs a certain way, or to allocate reinforcements into the battle a certain way.
Without those doctrinal requirements, the recon units' missions of identifying parts of the enemy formation, and comparing that to their anticipated doctrinal layout on the terrain to try to 'fill in the gaps' of the rest of the formation is pretty useless, even if you were playing a double-blind game where you didn't see everything on the map as soon as the game started.

{1} note, I'm not picking on W@W, which is one of my favorites. Assault had the same problems. So did Fire Team. So did First Battles. So did (your favorite NATO-Warsaw Pact game here).

+++++++++++++++ END OF COPIED TRANSMISSION +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Mad Russian]

3) Over 50% of the cav's mission is non-existent in a wargame. Someone already said this a bit, but when I can see where the other guy's counters are - and aren't! - then sending a cav unit out to look over the hill for Injuns becomes less vital. I'm not looking for composition/disposition of enemy forces at that point, because I know what they are when the shrink wrap comes off.

The only way to show this for a boardgame is to have games with hidden units. Those are historically tactical level games. Mostly low level tactical games with squads or fireteams as the main maneuver units.

For higher level games it's hard to show the effects of recon. Unless you don't know what the value of the enemy units are and you can use recon to bring that into focus.

Recon is one of the main places that computer games can shine compared to board games. The Fog of War, what we all call FoW. You will find that even in most computer games recon is done by death. The recon gets close enough to get killed and then the enemy unit is revealed. So, even with a game system capable of showing off recon's unique abilities it's seldom done right. As a game designer some of my favorite battles are those of the recon. Either trying to do their job correctly of finding the enemy and getting out, or flanking actions. Those rare times when they are forced to fight also hold a special place for me. The Puma Prowls is one of my favorite ASL scenarios of all time.

Good Hunting.

MR

[bayonetbrant]

Yes, but unless the AI is programmed to deal w/ problem #4 - the enemy fights according to doctrine - then there's a limit to how much good fixing #3 does for you.  If your recon ID's the CRP, but it's not located where it should be according to doctrine, you really haven't accomplished anything for yourself.

[Mad Russian]

#4 is only a problem if the designer let's it be. As far as intelligence goes with an 'eyes on the enemy' with a board wargame once a recon unit gets an LOS to a hex and then survives a determined amount of time that would meet that requirement. It's tougher for computer games to do straight recon and get me information that it is for a boardgame. In many respects how good the recon are in the game is determined by the scenario designer.

While, I understand that Soviet doctrine is very regimented, the reason to do recon in the first place is to gather information. If the CRP isn't located where it should be may well be a sign that you have read the signs wrong along the way and your Recon need to dig deeper.

Games that don't have full Fog of War (FOW) are much harder to use recon correctly. The use of dummy counters is less than effective in most cases. They don't show me exactly where you are but they absolutely show me where you aren't. In most cases that is more than half the battle won. That's where computer gaming really comes into it's own. The FOW settings that don't show you anything but what your units on the map can see now elevates recon to it's rightful place. It also makes 'recon by death', which is a normal tactic in boardgames, very expensive. You need those guys to actually do your job.

If the game is done right you see that.

Good Hunting.

MR

[James Sterrett]

It also helps if, in addition to Fog of War, you have...

5) Orders Delay in some form or another - because it's the OODA loop that forces the recon way out in front.  The space and time between the recon and the next element behind it gives that next element time to figure out how to react instead of simply piling into the same battle the recon is already in.   (This is why the Soviets set up the spacing - expressed in space but intended as *time* - between the various elements.)

6) Game systems that let recon *not engage* - both by hiding, and by telling them (by player intervention or by game-doctrine) not to open up on the bad guys and give away their positions.  Otherwise the recon elements only have the option of recon by death.

That said, I think that with players you know something about, #4 still applies.  If I'm playing against Brant, and I have a clue how Brant thinks, then I can start to template Brant Doctrine against what I have seen (and he, of course, can start to counter-template maskirovka operations against his model of my model of his template, while I try to sort out what is or isn't deception by creating a model of his deception based on my model of his model of my model of his doctrine....  And it starts getting fun. ;D  )

[Mad Russian]

Yes, the best recon is familiarity. Know your enemy. Then it depends on how rigid they follow what they think in the correct SOP for situations. As you said, that's when the fun begins.

Good Hunting.

MR

[bayonetbrant]

I had no idea I had a doctrine...   :o

[Mad Russian]

Stick around here and you'll find out a lot of things you didn't know before.  ;)

Good Hunting.

MR

[James Sterrett]

I had no idea I had a doctrine...   :o

I think I read this in a GURPS book somewher:  "Even an enraged mob has a plan, they just don't know it."   ;)

[bayonetbrant]

bump :)