Re: Recon, Scouts and Battle Phases

>>Why? If you can't see a good player, you can still probably look at
the
>game from his end, see his likely objectives and what he probably knows
>about you, and make some (usually decent) assumptions about placement
of
>his troops 

..but you may be suprised nonetheless. Because he'll see other sites
that are
almost as good, and use those instead.

Reminds me of a particularly good Convention game I had once . One
where, for
a change, I wasn't refereeing. Some 16 players involved, but instead of
1 on
1, the tables abutted each other, and forces were not confined to
"their" table.

I was near the left flank (playing US National Guard) vs 1st line USSR.
The
guy to my left had a Bundeswehr army, and was up against 1st line
Indians. He
got utterly wiped in the first day, and I was left with my flank hanging
in
mid-air, and with 1 company from a reinforced batallion facing
(effectively)
a complete Motorised Rifle Regiment backed up with over 100 tubes of
artillery.

Fortunately, the enemy artillery had to fire mainly on pre-planned
targets.
And I'd made sure that none of my forces were in the "best" positions,
they
were all in alternates nearby. As the Red Horde thundered up, and their
pre-planned
barrage lifted, my own came down in FPF just as my troops moved up into
their
fire positions. They ran into the hasty minefield I'd laid and stopped
dead,
waiting for the engineers. Bad Move. Then I opened up. With some 100
AFVs coming
in, the first volley only took out about 10 (I only had 12 Tanks in
position).
But that included the Regt HQ, all 4 Batallion HQs and half the company
HQs.
(The vehicles weren't marked in any way, but the behaviour was
unmistakable,
and both sides were using accurate doctrine). The second volley took out
all
remaining company commanders and the enemy engineers. It was something
of a
Turkey-shoot. 1 Company of M60A3s and 2 of Infantry in M113s (with
significant
extra artillery and TOWs) managed to take out over 70 enemy AFVs with
almost
no losses. If they moved, their treads got blown. If they didn't, they
got hit
by flank shots. 

In the pursuit phase afterwards, I made sure that I had recon units out
front,
and to both flanks. Embarrasingly, the engineers I'd managed to
infiltrate behind
the enemy dropped a bridge to stop enemy reinforcements just as they got
the
orders to keep it intact for the friendlies coming through, but I'd
found an
alternate crossing point by then, so all was well.

The recon units stumbled into two separate ambushes (forces in hidden
setup),
managing to extract themselves. One ambush was swamped by a hasty
attack, the
other bypassed. Both ambushes were by heliborne forces, originally
tasked to
go deep in exploitation after the attack, but now being used as delaying
forces
to cover the enemy's efforts to regroup.

The third recon unit met no resistance, and most of my forces followed
up that
route, straight into the artillery parks, repair shops, Divisional HQ
and airfields.

My forte is *not* the pursuit phase, it's set-piece assaults and
defences. But
as a defender I tend to rely on very active and aggressive recon,
infiltration,
and spoiling attacks. As an attacker, I tend to be very slow and
methodical,
not allowing an opponent's superior abilities a chance to make an
appreciable
difference. In pursuit I rely heavily on the chaos and confusion, and
not giving
the enemy time to think or react effectively. 

But everything's so much easier on a wargames table than in reality.   

>I love double blind, but it is hard to do without absolute trust
>(without a ref). 

..though having to adhere to pre-written orders can work wonders too, in
a