Reconnaissance Company Test

[Rumir]

The discussion went along the lines of choosing tactics.

But recon does give a speed bonus as well, so I have them on my Panzer-Divisions (but not on infantry, mountaineer etc.). This should help creating encirclements and overruns.

What is the general opinion on the speed bonus?

 

[Zauberelefant]

The discussion went along the lines of choosing tactics.

But recon does give a speed bonus as well, so I have them on my Panzer-Divisions (but not on infantry, mountaineer etc.). This should help creating encirclements and overruns.

What is the general opinion on the speed bonus?

You're already twice as fast as infantry. 10% increase is nice to have, but not a game changer.

 

[Kryndude]

The discussion went along the lines of choosing tactics.

But recon does give a speed bonus as well, so I have them on my Panzer-Divisions (but not on infantry, mountaineer etc.). This should help creating encirclements and overruns.

What is the general opinion on the speed bonus?

Speed is probably the only acceptable defense for Recon since it's difficult to quantify its value. If you find yourself narrowly missing encirclement opportunities often it might be worth it to add on armored divisions, but it really has to make a difference because it makes you more likely to get pierced by enemy tanks. That's in MP though, and in SP it'll be more viable since the AI doesn't know how to build proper tank divisions and there are many ways to cheese it with speed.

 

[mabus81]

I dont get the test conditions, can anyone explain? I always suspected that recons actually make combat effectiveness worse because generals seemed to pick tactics which were worse...

 

[Mousetick]

What is the general opinion on the speed bonus?

I'm not the general opinion, this is only my anectodal evidence. I like to put recon in my elite infrantry divisions (marines, mountaineer, offensive infantry) for the movement bonus which allows them to overrun the enemy's infrantry, in terrain or logistical situations where armored/motorized units are inadequate.

 

[Reman]

Recon advantage gives 5 skill levels, i.e. 5 * 35% = 165% bonus.

The attacker has roughly 6 equally weighted tactics available in the default phase (excluding Assault due to low probability). So normally they have a 1-out-of-6 chance in the ~35% of cases where the defender picked something counterable to actually counter. That's ~6%.
With recon advantage it is 2.65-out-of-7.65 for the ~35% cases. That's ~12%.

So when attacking, a fairly generous set of circumstances leads to attackers increasing their chance of countering enemy tactics by 6%. Since the 2 countered enemy tactics both give a -25% damage swing, using recon boosts offensive damage by around 1.5%. That's some real hot garbage.

The discussion went along the lines of choosing tactics.

But recon does give a speed bonus as well, so I have them on my Panzer-Divisions (but not on infantry, mountaineer etc.). This should help creating encirclements and overruns.

What is the general opinion on the speed bonus?

The speed bonus is still the only real use for recon. Speed is very worthwhile In SP for encirclement-heavy strats.

 

[DukofDeth]

Perhaps recon put in the support column should not be affecting hardness or piercing?! Recon aren't really supposed to fight as if they're taking up positions on the battle line. They're more spread out to better collect information.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Perhaps recon put in the support column should not be affecting hardness or piercing?! Recon aren't really supposed to fight as if they're taking up positions on the battle line. They're more spread out to better collect information.

German forces regularly used their recon in combat roles, out of necessity, granted, but still.
But i'd prefer an Division HQ and support unit any day over status quo

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

It seems that as long as Recon is linked to such RNG aspect as Tectics it won't matter much. Or at least until whole combat mechanics and duration won't be overhauled.
Even if devs will triple or 10x chances of tactic selection things won't improve. I'd rather see recon as a flat combat bonus than illusive RNG chances of getting better tactics.

 

[Zauberelefant]

It seems that as long as Recon is linked to such RNG aspect as Tectics it won't matter much. Or at least until whole combat mechanics and duration won't be overhauled.
Even if devs will triple or 10x chances of tactic selection things won't improve. I'd rather see recon as a flat combat bonus than illusive RNG chances of getting better tactics.

When you have 100+ divisions fighting over an extended period, it's hardly RNG anymore.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

When you have 100+ divisions fighting over an extended period, it's hardly RNG anymore.

Yes, but we are not talking about fighting 100 divisions with Recon vs 100 divisions without it. We are talking about fighting 100 divisions with recon vs 100 divisions with other support companies you can take in place of recon, that will provide constant, permanent combat bonus to your divisions.
You can get possible good combat advantage or you can get guaranteed, but not that good combat advantage.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Yes, but we are not talking about fighting 100 divisions with Recon vs 100 divisions without it. We are talking about fighting 100 divisions with recon vs 100 divisions with other support companies you can take in place of recon, that will provide constant, permanent combat bonus to your divisions.
You can get possible good combat advantage or you can get guaranteed, but not that good combat advantage.

Well, seeing the effects of tactics, averaging over a large number of combats, l cannot help but say that maybe that support AA isn't offering as much oomph...

 

[Black_Shade]

So, what happens if this test is done when the attacker might have more frontage than there is combat width? Say the defender has 4 divisions, and the attacker has 8 divisions but attacking from 2 provinces. This gets more into the impact that recon has on tactics selection, which impacts the available combat width and attack and defense modifiers. If the defender gets good tactics, they likely prevail because they can keep the combat width small and keep the width at 80- allowing them to have all of their divisions in combat, but only half of the attackers. If the attacker gets good tactics, width might go up to 120 or to 160- they get to commit all of their divisions to combat and therefore inflict more casualties.

 

[Zauberelefant]

Spoiler: Test Conditions

• Superior Firepower right left
• All 1940 techs unlocked
• Plains
• Level 4 generals on both side
• 24% entrenchment
• Regulars
• Recon tech 3 but shouldn't really matter because whichever side has the higher recon gets a flat 5 bonus to skill level
• Motorized Recon, 14% increase in cost

Spoiler: Division Templates

View attachment 587290

View attachment 587291

Spoiler: Index

Attacker >>> Defender
Length of battle (days/hours)
Fatalities
Number of counter tactic roles
Average (A-D)
Results of all 10 battles

1. No Recon >>> No Recon

5d 9h​

1168 vs 299 (869)​

1.4 vs 0.7 (0.7)​

Spoiler: Battle Results

5d 19h
1188 vs 300
2 vs 0

5d 6h
1210 vs 278
0 vs 1

4d 22h
1132 vs 233
3 vs 0

5d 7h
1166 vs 266
3 vs 1

4d 15h
1166 vs 311
0 vs 0

5d 23h
1177 vs 366
0 vs 0

4d 20h
1132 vs 300
1 vs 0

5d 8h
1188 vs 311
1 vs 2

6d 6h
1154 vs 333
3 vs 1

5d 15h
1166 vs 289
1 vs 2

2. Recon >>> No Recon

6d 1h​

1204 vs 331 (873)​

1.3 vs 0.5 (0.8)​

Spoiler: Battle Results

5d 23h
1195 vs 333
0 vs 0

5d 18h
1183 vs 289
2 vs 1

5d 23h
1206 vs 333
1 vs 1

6d 5h
1218 vs 344
1 vs 0

6d 17h
1241 vs 311
0 vs 2

6d 13h
1206 vs 400
4 vs 0

5d 16h
1183 vs 311
0 vs 1

6d 8h
1218 vs 333
2 vs 0

5d 16h
1206 vs 311
0 vs 0

5d 19h
1183 vs 344
3 vs 0

3. Recon >>> Recon

5d 13h​

1192 vs 322 (870)​

0.5 vs 0.4 (0.1)​

Spoiler: Battle Results

5d 7h
1264 vs 313
0 vs 0

6d 6h
1206 vs 313
0 vs 1

5d 7h
1183 vs 336
0 vs 2

5d 6h
1160 vs 302
1 vs 0

5d 17h
1183 vs 348
1 vs 0

5d 9h
1195 vs 290
1 vs 0

5d 14h
1183 vs 348
1 vs 0

5d 22h
1195 vs 371
0 vs 0

5d 13h
1160 vs 313
0 vs 0

5d 6h
1195 vs 290
1 vs 1

4. No Recon >>> Recon

5d​

1165 vs 276 (889)​

0.4 vs 1.4 (-1.0)​

Spoiler: Battle Results

5d 12h
1143 vs 302
0 vs 1

5d 5h
1166 vs 267
1 vs 3

4d 17h
1188 vs 290
0 vs 0

5d 8h
1188 vs 267
1 vs 2

5d 7h
1166 vs 267
0 vs 1

4d 5h
1188 vs 290
0 vs 0

5d 10h
1132 vs 267
0 vs 2

5d 6h
1166 vs 290
1 vs 3

4d 13h
1210 vs 244
0 vs 1

4d 16h
1099 vs 278
1 vs 1

TL;DR
Recon has almost no impact on the outcome of battle.

Using pure infantry to attack and then you're wondering you don't make any damage...

Recon shines when you have a close attack/defense ratio, unlike your example. Because the +50 % damage Output from better tactics does nothing If SA is 1/3 of defense - then you're doing poorly, but slightly better. But if you are closer to 1:1, then suddenly tactics damage becomes the scale tipping Factor.

 

[Morbus Bubbonicus]

So, what happens if this test is done when the attacker might have more frontage than there is combat width? Say the defender has 4 divisions, and the attacker has 8 divisions but attacking from 2 provinces. This gets more into the impact that recon has on tactics selection, which impacts the available combat width and attack and defense modifiers. If the defender gets good tactics, they likely prevail because they can keep the combat width small and keep the width at 80- allowing them to have all of their divisions in combat, but only half of the attackers. If the attacker gets good tactics, width might go up to 120 or to 160- they get to commit all of their divisions to combat and therefore inflict more casualties.

i highlighted the problems

 

[Kryndude]

Using pure infantry to attack and then you're wondering you don't make any damage...

Recon shines when you have a close attack/defense ratio, unlike your example. Because the +50 % damage Output from better tactics does nothing If SA is 1/3 of defense - then you're doing poorly, but slightly better. But if you are closer to 1:1, then suddenly tactics damage becomes the scale tipping Factor.

I also tested defensive battles and it didn't make any difference as you can see. But you have a point that Recon would be more beneficial to divisions with high attack value. That, coupled with the fact that movement speed is it's primary bonus, makes it something to consider for tanks, but then I'm not entirely sure if it'd be worth sacrificing armor and piercing.

 

[Zauberelefant]

I also tested defensive battles and it didn't make any difference as you can see. But you have a point that Recon would be more beneficial to divisions with high attack value. That, coupled with the fact that movement speed is it's primary bonus, makes it something to consider for tanks, but then I'm not entirely sure if it'd be worth sacrificing armor and piercing.

You should not forget "attacker tactics movement bonus" for overruns as Well as intel.
I consider recon to be vastly more powerful in Vanilla than support gun companies, field hospital or logistics company.
Defensively, infantry with recon can deny tanks without recon some vital tactics, or by choosing tactics that block attackers.
Since time is Essential for breakthroughs, that can make the difference between a successful defence and defeat.

 

[Mr. Wiggles]

Are 10 battles enough?

 

[Zauberelefant]

Presumanly yes, but the test Design will only produce the effects we see. An underpowered attack does not become a powerful one.

 

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Don't ever assign Aggressive Assaulter to a Field Marshal, and fire any Field Marshal that starts with it.

Do FMs even influence tactic choices (unless placed directly in command of the army)?