what should be in briefings?

[dugfromthearth]

people seem to put all sorts of different things into briefings.

my main questions are:

do you want a detailed list of your troops? ie:

4 Sherman V's

2 Companies American rifle

4 81mm mortar teams

3 MG teams

...

a general list:

some Shermans and a couple of re-inforced infantry companies

what about estimations of enemy forces? or where the enemy is set up?

"recon shows no signficant enemy forces on this side of the river" or "the enemy holds the town itself in force"

it seems whenever I see a comment on enemy forces it is always a lie "the Germans have no armor" and then a half dozen panthers open fire.

should any "advice" in the briefings be accurate or just random "historic" drivel? I find many scenarios with the "rush forward" advice/command in the briefing and then the enemy is dug in with heavy forces right where the briefing said they would not be.

in general should briefings contain:

lies, damn lies, or statistics?

[xerxes]

I think a detailed troop lists is a must IF it makes sense for the scenario. A commander should know what troops he has under his command. Of course, if friendly forces from a different command wander into the battlefield detailed information might not make sense.

Enemy disposition should also be included. Downright inaccurate isn't a very good idea in my opinion unless there is a strong reason for it. Vague is generally better then misleading.

Many players really like the "historical drivel" btw.

[dugfromthearth]

mine are pretty much just historic drivel

I never thought to include a force list since you can just see them once the scenario starts. But if people want one I can include one.

[ December 30, 2003, 02:18 PM: Message edited by: dugfromthearth ]

[Pzman]

Its a standard practice to include a list of the units. It could be done either way, its a matter of what forum you do your breifing in. Some do it as letter or message to the player, so the units are listed as part of a sentence (eg.1), while other just list them (eg.2):

eg. No.1

You have one infantry company, a 50.cal mg and a mortar section.

eg. No.2

1 x American Infantry Company

1 x 50 Cal MG

2 x 81mm Mortars

[Sergei]

Maybe from the gamers point of view it helps if there is a separate section giving out the force composition, even if it's not accurate. Something like

Forces:

Infantry Company (understrength)

light tank company

artillery and mortar support

The point would be to give a rough idea of what you've got in an easy-to-read format. This helps to put the rest of the briefing into a context.

Maybe telling too much isn't helpful. It should be enough to tell that there are two companies of infantry, instead of going down in detail. Similarly you don't need to tell the exact model of a StuG, the player can find that information during the play.

But if there is no long briefing (I tend to put the main stuff into the general briefing), I generally just put the information into the briefing.

[Andreas]

Briefings are a matter of personal style. To me, a briefing sets the scenario apart from a QB. A bad briefing makes the scenario much less interesting.

In my briefings, I include:

</font>

• General</font>
• List of scenario attributes</font>
• Historical background, usually operational situation, in brief</font>
• Play recommendations</font>
• Credit to co-designers and playtesters</font>
• Links to relevant websites (Der Kessel, Red Army Studies, Scenario Depot)</font>
• Side-specific</font>
• Situational background - why do you have to fight here</font>
• Intelligence briefing (as accurate as historically appropriate - I don't lie, but sometimes maybe more obscure than other times) - who do you have to fight</font>
• Mission - what do you have to accomplish</font>
• Forces - in quite some detail, with strength assessment, and information about reinforcements</font>

[Berlichtingen]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font>

• Forces - in quite some detail, with strength assessment, and information about reinforcements</font>

For this, I like to use terminology of the country involved. For me it helps with the immersion...

5th Company becomes...

Easy Company

5. Kompanie

5ème Compagnie

Something else that helps if you are writing a briefing that BFC will have translated into German...

Avoid the use of SS (which becomes Waffengrenadiere)...

3. SS-Panzer becomes...

Eiche's 'Totenkopf' Division

[xerxes]

I'm familiar with American company nicknames. Does anyone know typical Brit/German/SA/Italian company names would be or where you could find such names?

[Andreas]

Germans just use numbers, from 1 through to 15, depending on timeframe and formation.

E.g. the heavy company of the 1st battalion of 123rd infantry regiment is:

4./IR 123

The whole battalion would be:

I./IR 123

Italians also used numbers, I am not aware of any nicknames, but I am no Italo grog.

[Berlichtingen]

French use numbers as well...

1er

2ème

3ème...

Italians use numbers as well, however, the low numbers are written out (and I don't have my notes on the Italian names).

Brits and Americans letter their companies and number thier battalions. No idea what Anzacs and Canucks do

[Crank_GS]

I fullay agree with Andreas: a good briefing seta a battle apart from a QB. The outline of his briefings is what I like to see. Some historical background to set the stage, then a few specifics about the battle. At the "side-specific" briefing most of the ones I like best have that same formula Andreas mentioned.

Of course there are some (few) good battles I have played that started with the "Oh S**T! Here they come, go get 'em!!" briefing, but as a rule, only the smallest ones. Also a "best-guess" intelligence estimate as to enemy forces and disposition is probably pretty accurate. How many times did very accurate intelligence as to the enemy become available?

[kenfedoroff]

My point of view is, someone who is looking for a particular battle type (Example: "Assault"), year, region, force mix, nation, etc. should be able to find it in the General/Overall briefing.

They should always have a recommendation: "Best played as... "

Scenarios made for head to head play should be noted as such.

I like to PBEM scenarios "Blind", so I don't read the side specific briefings until we start play.

Ken

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by xerxes:

I'm familiar with American company nicknames. Does anyone know typical Brit/German/SA/Italian company names would be or where you could find such names?

British/Canadian/CW companies were almost always lettered A, B, C, D - no weapons company in infantry battalions (this was an American/German practice only) so A, B, C and D were all rifle companies.

They used the British phonetic alphabet at the start of the war

Ack Company

Beer Company

Cork Company

Don Company

In about 1942 the US phonetic alphabet replaced the names, and they became known as

Able Company

Baker Company

Charlie Company

Dog Company (boy, were some "D" company troops throughout the British and Canadian armies pissed about this!!)

It is also common just to refer to them by letters of the alphabet "A" Company (note the quotation marks), "B" Company, "C" Company, or "D" Company

The abbreviation for Company in the CW forces was "Coy". It is annoying when people actually say "coy" when they read it; the Americans had the correct idea by using Co. as an abbreviation.

Some regiments, according to tradition, did not use the standard letters. The Scots Guards, for example, have Left Flank Company, Right Flank Company, etc. I have read of a battalion briefing where a Scots Guards battalion was briefing their relief regiment (a Canadian unit).

"And Left Flank company is on the right, and Right Flank company is on the left...."

The Canadian officers, who had no idea of these traditional company names, were a bit stumped at first...

The British Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, by tradition, do not have a "C" company in their battalions.

Other regiments may have had similar traditions; Canadian units do not seem to have had any such peculiarities, at least not that I am aware of.

Support weapons were put into Support Company (the actual name of the company). This included the mortar platoon, anti-aircraft platoon (dispensed with early in the war), carrier platoon, anti-tank platoon, and I believe the pioneer platoon.

There was also a Headquarters Company with the battalion headquarters, transport section, scout and sniper section, intelligence section, Administration platoon (with battalion orderly room, clerks, adjutant, etc.), provost section, medical section (including Medical Officer and stretcher bearers, which might include members of the regimental band or pipes and drums), etc.

[ January 04, 2004, 07:51 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[JasonC]

I've seen many briefings lately that are all history lesson about events much larger than the actual tactical fight, with precious little else. I hate these. A little background is fine even fun, though often I already know that much. A thesis about what happened and why is not a briefing.

And all the things the briefing actually has to do get dropped, all too often. It needs to tell me -

what forces I have, including likely reinforcements. If my set up options are restricted it needs to explain why.

what my mission is. And I don't mean "there are some flags over there, go take 'em".

what is known about the opposition. The tendency for this to always be wrong is pointless, does not "add drama", is highly annoying and unrealistic to boot. Information does not need to be complete, and can be off by a third. But people knew something, even if it is just "the Germans opposite are Heer infantry and have been fighting in this sector for some time".

terrain orientation, specific to the tactical map. Too often there is none of this, and the overall history lesson is expected to tell me whether I am facing east or west - or the set up zone is - or the designer thinks it'd be oh so neat to make it a mystery. It isn't. It is a pain in the neck.

You can deal with this via landmarks, references to them within the briefing, and simple statements - "Easy company will reinforce from the southeast in about 10 minutes" or "the Germans hold Hill 264 and everything to your east."

Oh and please do not choreograph the opening situation or the first few moves. You are designing a scenario not directing a movie. Players want the outcome to depend on their decisions - *not* yours.

[Mark Gallear]

QUOTE]Origin ally posted by JasonC:

I've seen many briefings lately that are all history lesson about events much larger than the actual tactical fight, with precious little else. I hate these. A little background is fine even fun, though often I already know that much. A thesis about what happened and why is not a briefing.

[kenfedoroff]

Warning: Off Topic

Originally posted by Mark Gallear:

...Ultimately though the point made to me by one of my collaborators that the game should be fun is the over riding factor...

Amen. While it's nice to fight a historical battle, I'll take fun over history, any day of the week (it is a game after all).

I am playing a PBEM battle from the "Kursk Pack" (Opening Day?) as Soviet. I failed to notice the ground conditions are set to "Wet" until I heard gumblings from my German opponent about bogging. I immediately sent an e-mail back suggesting we load the game into the Editor, change the ground conditions to "Dry" or "Very Dry" and start over.

While I'm sure the ground conditions were "Wet" on the day of the actual battle, it will be much more fun in the game to destroy the invading host in honorable combat, than to have them bog a 100m off the startline.

Off Topic and my 2-cents,

Ken

[dugfromthearth]

"Making it appear that one player is weaker than the other is but using reinforcement to switch the situation half way through is a valid and original design technique."

The problem is it isn't very original.

It seems quite common for the enemy to be described as having "no tanks" or "no anti-tank guns" and then either starting with a dozen tanks or getting them as re-inforcements on turn 5.

I must say I have zero interest in historic scenarios as such. Only in scenarios. My goal is to have fun.

But I do want some overview in the briefing. Not just "it is another hill to be taken, go take it."

how about some giudelines for listing units and reinforcements. for instance (as suggestions):

Only the top two levels of infantry units, unless a specific unit is important to the scenario:

ie: 2 companies of rifles, 1 platoon of engineers. No mention of the extra machine gun teams, piat teams, etc.

Only the top level of armored vehicles, unless a specific unit is important to the scenario:

ie: 2 platoons of Shermans and a platoon of Wolverines, no mention of the extra Stuart

All artillery spotters (I would assume the commander would know of these).

etc.

any thoughts?

[Guest Manstein22]

Hi all

In my opinion a briefing should represent the kind of situation.

If the battle is a hasty attack then the briefing is like dugfromthearth more casual way.

If u have a battle which is a well planned opening of a operation then the briefing should be like that.

Battles in CMBB last 15 to 50 turns and im sure you won`t get a 50 minute briefing for a fight of a few minutes.

Manstein22

[Carl F]

To me, the best briefings would be something that represents what a company commander would expect in getting his assignment from the battalion commander. In many respects, the scenario designer is acting like the battalion or regimental commander in handing out the orders and the player is the company commander receiving those orders.

As such, a force overview is appropriate. If reinforcements have been requested and the request granted, then they can be identified (perhaps not in detail since the company commander may not have control over those forces until they enter the battlefield.)

Opposing force knowledge can vary from detailed to none. My reading of personal accounts shows that there was a wide variability to the knowledge of what to expect prior to a battle. In some cases, the intelligence may be outdated and may under-estimate the opposing forces but just as well may over-estimate the opposing forces.

A good book that I am reading now that provides descriptions of how the briefings were provided in the US Army during WWII is "If You Survive" by George Wilson. He was a platoon and then a company commander during the campaign through northwest Europe.

Carl