Why are off map reinforcements a thing?

[Thewood1]

I think a military person already said the way reinforcements show up in this way is not right...on the first page.  So there is that.

[Bennay]

i am wondering if it was mentioned in the briefing a lot of people i have sen in videos seam to skip over reading this and miss key parts of the battle the tactical map is just an overview and should not be used as briefing that being said i think map size is a big part of why this happens 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think a military person already said the way reinforcements show up in this way is not right...on the first page.  So there is that.

 

It yhas also been said that the board edges arwe not flank and rear protection. That is the crux of the mter. Maybe the way the scenario was designed was not entirely fair in that in did not give sufficient warning of the time/location that enemy reserves would appeaer. I agree with that point hough I would also agree that sometmes the enemy can and des arrive at a time or place that was not expected. Military intelligence is not absolute even with satellite, air and UAV survaillnce. Thtinformation has to get back to, in this case brigade and divisional HQ. The scenario designer might not have anticipated what happened. Or he could have made a decison to do it this way to simulate an intelligence failure at brigade or divisional HQ. So actually it cold be argued that the enemy succesfully achieved surprise above and beyond what was expected because the local commander had over committed his forces and had nt kept a reserve. Anfd that iss that,.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

i am wondering if it was mentioned in the briefing a lot of people i have sen in videos seam to skip over reading this and miss key parts of the battle the tactical map is just an overview and should not be used as briefing that being said i think map size is a big part of why this happens 

 

I think someone said that it was mentioned in the briefing.Commanders who ignore their orders also lose batles. Just look what happened to Custer at the Little Big Horn. He was ordered t wait for Terry bwefore attacking the Indian camp. Then ghe compounded the error of disobeying his orders (following his briefing) which, as every military history buff knows resulted in a military disaster.

 

If Spizenhund did not read he briefing and that briefing indicaed that Russuian reinforcements were coming. particularly from a given direction then he committed an error rather like the one Custer committed in that he disobeyed his orders or failed to take adequate precautions. We will reconvene at Spitzenhund's Court Martial hearing! Don't worry, just kidding! 

[c3k]

Custer saw Sitting Bull and his warriors as they approached. They did not appear amid the center of his bivouac.

[Jock Tamson]

Let's say in the real world you have a ridge line on your left flank where you could place your reserve tanks hull down to deal with anything that came from that direction.  Can you tell me how you can use them to protect your flanks in the game version of that scenario, when they can't see off the map edge and enemy reinforcements spawn right on top of them?

 

Of course you can't, so it seems pointlessly bone headed to argue that a design flaw in a scenario is somehow replicating real world circumstances.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Jock Tamson

[Bennay]

treat the map edge like a revers slop defensive you cant see over it but when they do come over that edge you need to ready

 

edit: on the  other side having an area just out side the map that was still "map" but out of play for the mission could fix this too troops coming in would spawn out in the field giving you say 300-400 meters of breathing room

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bennay

[Melchior]

^Bingo. Except in good scenario design I think a good section of that reverse slope should be included. 

[Spitzenhund]

Lucas, I want to see how you play. You must have at least 2 MBT's and 6 IFV's watching each corner of the map in order for what your telling to be at all useful.

[c3k]

treat the map edge like a revers slop defensive you cant see over it but when they do come over that edge you need to ready

 

edit: on the  other side having an area just out side the map that was still "map" but out of play for the mission could fix this too troops coming in would spawn out in the field giving you say 300-400 meters of breathing room

Think of a linear exit "zone", two action spots wide, snaking along the edges, but offset a distance, 500m, with LOS obscurations. That'll keep the player in the middle of the map.

Or, make them adjacent to the edge, if that fits the designer's intent.

Make sure the player understands the consequences of transgressing, as well as enemy immunity.

[Zveroboy1]

treat the map edge like a revers slop defensive you cant see over it but when they do come over that edge you need to ready

 

edit: on the  other side having an area just out side the map that was still "map" but out of play for the mission could fix this too troops coming in would spawn out in the field giving you say 300-400 meters of breathing room

 

Ideally we'd have something like that. An area on the sides of the map where the human player can't go, like some sort of out of bounds area. It would get rid of the reinforcements issue and having players hug the edge of the map with no fear of flanking fires. But this is an old question common to all wargames, don't think a perfect solution has been designed yet. Even this one idea here has probably unforeseen effects.

[c3k]

Umm, read my last few posts...

[Bennay]

i have not played this mission is anyone aware if its mentioned in the briefing text about this force or was it suppose to represent i "surprise attack" ?

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

And I am speaking as a mlitary history buff and as a wargamer of 25 years experience in both computer, miniature and boardgame experience.

 

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  

 

The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.

 

This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.

 

Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 

 

Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  

 

These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    

 

The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.

 

And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 

 

Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 

 

I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

[sburke]

i have not played this mission is anyone aware if its mentioned in the briefing text about this force or was it suppose to represent i "surprise attack" ?

I don't believe it is nor is it expected to be a surprise attack.  The units appear from the red side of the map.  The OP simply got to that end a lot faster than expected.

[Bennay]

panzersaurkrautwerfer 

This post i think is the best explanation presenting both sides of the argument great post.

 

I must agree that its the scenario designers job to paint a clear and realistically believable picture of not only the AO but the area around it, on the other side of the coin the designers cannot control how/if the play decides to interpret this information.   

[Thewood1]

Well, I guess Lucas got his answer.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Lucas, I want to see how you play. You must have at least 2 MBT's and 6 IFV's watching each corner of the map in order for what your telling to be at all useful.

 

Spitzenhund Come on. You do understand what a reserve is for don't you? Ideally a mobile force held in a position such that it can be moved rapidlyto the point of crisis. If the briefing indicates the enemy will be ooming from a specific direction I might position a UAV if available or a security force (perhaps recon units in hide positions in order to overwach what I believe wll b the area the eneemy will arrive at. This shuld give me as much warning as possible enabling me to redeploy the reserve in a timely way.

 

It seems to me that you committed all your forces to your attackand perhaps did not carefully read the briefing. That would explain why you were caught by surprise and tok the heacvy losses you are so upset about.

 

What I am saying is that, rather than blaming the scenario for being "unfair" you take responsibility for yourself. Maybe your plan was badly flawed as I suggest. Sometimes we all make mistakes as I freely admit I did in my las game in that I neglected air defence. I am realistic enough to admit my mistakes. Only by admitting mistakes to yourself can you hope to learn from them. So I suggest you take an honest look at the way you fough your battle taking into account what I am saying to you. Then you improve your chance of avoiding the same mistake in the future, thus increasing the chances of future victories. That is all I am going to say because I really don't have much more time to spend on trying to help you.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  

 

The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.

 

This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.

 

Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 

 

Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  

 

These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    

 

The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.

 

And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 

 

Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 

 

I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

 

So we will both be well aware of what happened to the awakalna Divivision in Februarry 1991 for example. Let's face it, commanders and intelligence staffs mess up sometimes whuiich isd the point I have been trying to get accross.

 

That said I have also always agreed that the scenario designer should give warnings either in the briefing or by employing another method such as use of the reinforcement buttons to provide further warnings.updates (these might represent messages from brigade HQ or off map recon forces. Unless of course the scenario designer really wants to be mean and simulate a surprise attack

 

Panzerkrautwerfer, have you stopped to consider the possibility that we both might be right here?

 

That said a briefing might still give a subtle hint that a surprise attack might be in the offing. Perhaps a cryptic comment about the situation in the wider area being "unclear" or "confused" If someone has read the briefing carefully they should pick up on hints like this and plan accordingly in tghwe knowledge that someyhing unexpected might well be in the offing.

 

I suspect we have some rather cunning ad extremely sneaky scenari designers out there and I would not put a stunt like this past them

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

So we will both be well aware of what happened to the awakalna Divivision in Februarry 1991 for example. Let's face it, commanders and intelligence staffs mess up sometimes whuiich isd the point I have been trying to get accross.

 

The Iraqis did pretty much everything wrong at 73 Eastings.  Their outposts were too close and not armed enough to do a good screen (if it was a screen, I'm being generous and assuming the ZSU-23 that initiated contact with 2 ACR was some sort of anti-scout measure), and they clearly did not have enough vehicles on alert/ready to respond to the sort of situation they found themselves in.  On the other hand while 2 ACR did not expect to roll into the Iraqis specifically in that place and time, they did know as the lead element enemies could reasonably be all around, and in the desert there's not a whole lot of restrictive terrain.  While the US Army elements were surprised to run headlong into the Iraqis right at that moment, they were aware the enemy was somewhere front, deployed accordingly, and responded rapidly.

 

None of this is the same as having zero clue that THIS open field is where the enemy's company will appear, while the other fields on the map are totally benign once cleared of forces currently on the map.

 

 

 

That said a briefing might still give a subtle hint that a surprise attack might be in the offing. Perhaps a cryptic comment about the situation in the wider area being "unclear" or "confused" If someone has read the briefing carefully they should pick up on hints like this and plan accordingly in tghwe knowledge that someyhing unexpected might well be in the offing.

 

It shouldn't be subtle.  When I sat down to do map recon, like pretty much every graduate of the Captain's Career Course, we'd assess known enemy and likely enemy positions, figure out mobility corridors within our area of operations and what they offered to both blue and red forces.  Players should have a reasonable heads up to that the enemy will reinforce, a vague idea of what will be showing up, and some sort of ability to guess at where those forces may show up with reasonable accuracy.  If it is not spelled out in the briefing, then the player should have what is reasonable tools to a person who's just really interested in military stuff vs a graduate of advanced military schooling or something. 

[Jock Tamson]

Lucas, I don't think you are getting this.  No one is complaining about enemy reinforcements per se, but if they spawn in on top of the player it is a flaw in the scenario.  They should either be spawned into an area that the player won't have reached yet, or they should start the game in dead ground and be triggered by player movement on the battlefield.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

They should either be spawned into an area that the player won't have reached yet, or they should start the game in dead ground and be triggered by player movement on the battlefield.

 

Or the player should have reasonable cues that the enemy will arrive "somewhere" vs "anywhere" 

[Melchior]

It'd actually be pretty cool too if the game had some sort of % chance that reinforcements could show up at all. We already have a mechanic for variable time, but how about variable existence? "501st Recon might show up but air interdiction has been awful high lately." 

[Spitzenhund]

Spitzenhund Come on. You do understand what a reserve is for don't you? Ideally a mobile force held in a position such that it can be moved rapidlyto the point of crisis. If the briefing indicates the enemy will be ooming from a specific direction I might position a UAV if available or a security force (perhaps recon units in hide positions in order to overwach what I believe wll b the area the eneemy will arrive at. This shuld give me as much warning as possible enabling me to redeploy the reserve in a timely way.

 

It seems to me that you committed all your forces to your attackand perhaps did not carefully read the briefing. That would explain why you were caught by surprise and tok the heacvy losses you are so upset about.

 

What I am saying is that, rather than blaming the scenario for being "unfair" you take responsibility for yourself. Maybe your plan was badly flawed as I suggest. Sometimes we all make mistakes as I freely admit I did in my las game in that I neglected air defence. I am realistic enough to admit my mistakes. Only by admitting mistakes to yourself can you hope to learn from them. So I suggest you take an honest look at the way you fough your battle taking into account what I am saying to you. Then you improve your chance of avoiding the same mistake in the future, thus increasing the chances of future victories. That is all I am going to say because I really don't have much more time to spend on trying to help you.

No where in the briefing does it state reinforcements are near. A distant reserve would not be use because as you may have forgotten, they spawn on top of you. Not miles out where you get time to 'redeploy the reserve'. And unless that Highway at the top of the map seperates past that point and turns into the thickest jungle that not even modern optics can see into then there is no way they should of been ontop of me without being spotted first. You not having air defence is a great deal different than me not watching the borders of the map with 2 MBT's and 6 IFV. But whatever, I hope you don't drive if you can justify units not being able to see tanks down a MSR.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

It'd actually be pretty cool too if the game had some sort of % chance that reinforcements could show up at all. We already have a mechanic for variable time, but how about variable existence? "501st Recon might show up but air interdiction has been awful high lately." 

 

Agree.  Also having some chance of losses inflicted on arriving reserves could be cool in terms of reflecting passage while there's still enemy air about.  This could also be really cool for campaigns, where if you've managed to keep your CAS assets more or less intact, later scenarios have an increasing chance of enemy forces suffering air interdiction, or perhaps the chance of air interdiction could be tied to how many ADA assets you've shredded in the last few missions (as if you're still fighting the same Brigade, but you've killed off 2/3rd of their air defense vehicles, they're not going to be as able to ward off attacks).  

 

Which is not to say this should be "standard" but it'd be interesting to see as an addition to user campaigns and narratives.   

 

Also assigning percentages to different locations for one arriving unit would be cool too (25% chance the reserve company shows up from the dirt road about halfway down the map, while there's a 75% chance it goes from the hardball road north of the Major VP location).  It'd keep the scenario lively, give the sort of tactical uncertainty that Lucas wants, while still being situations the player can plan around ("man, there's an enemy reserve to my east, and two high speed avenues of approach from that half of the map, I'd better have a plan to deal with those!")