Jump to content

What do people like in their Briefings?


Recommended Posts

Inspired by a topic in Tips and Tricks, the question raised it's ugly head. I know I've asked bofre, but can't find the old thread, so I'm making a new one.

A fair number of briefings (the majority) tend to be so misleading that you can usually assume the opposite.

"expect light resistance" naturally becomes "expect armour heavy counterattack by the entire 8th army with more artillery than was used on the Somme"

So, what do people like to see in a scenario briefing, and what would they rather was left out?

Personally, i like to give approximate enemy force size and make up, along with some location information, usually using land marks (e.g. Enemy infantry plus light ATGs in vicinity of Farm X) I try to make data on positions further back and enemy reinforcements more vague.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like your suggested mix of more detailed info for the front and then becoming more vague. I like briefing that set the scene as to how long your troops have been there and where they think the front line is as that is realistic - if they have been in position for a week it makes info probably good. If they moved in prvious night probably suspect.

Captured prisoners or raiding parties either side could give information such as unit type which would be legitimate info.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What basic info should a briefing contain?" (I've a copy of a post that appeared on a thread here a while ago and use that as a template for covering the 'need to know' info.

My own view is I am looking for a briefing that:-

1/ 'sounds' realistic and sets the scene for the scenario (I’m a sucker for ‘historical’ sounding briefings.

2/ Contains a reasonably accurate amount of info about the battlefield and enemy positions appropriate to the scenario/historical situation

e.g. an advancing unit might have less idea of what immediately faces them but may still have an overall picture of roughly the type of unit(s) facing them. There are some historical exceptions to this of course! Whereas a unit that has been in position for a period of time may have more detailed intelligence (I understand that capturing 'tongues' was/is a common practice for gaining intel on your opponent).

3/ I’m still mulling over the level of unit detail but at the moment I am happy with basic unit descriptions e.g. company of infantry etc, but I do like to know what ‘funnies’ I may have e.g. air support, specialist units/weapons etc.

4/ I do like to know if I can expect air attacks. Given air action is not all that common in scenarios (for balance play reasons) it does come as a surprise to suddenly have your armour chased by these funny smoke trails from the sky. Nae fun man! I know historically that air attacks were a very real and a major hindrance, for the Axis particularly, but it would be good to know that in the briefing e.g. “the weather looks to be fine for the attack so we can expect increased enemy air activity” lets me know ‘heads up’ for airborne nastiness! I don’t need to know the fine detail e.g. a Sturmovoik will arrive to blow your nice Tigers to hell on turn 5.

Although if my Tigers are going to be blown to hell by my own airforce on turn 5 I would like to know the detail on that (There is a family fear of air attacks here – My Grandad serving with the 51st Highland Div was attacked by both the RAF and the USAF on several occasions).

Related to the above on reviewing scenarios at the Scenario Depot. Looking at loads of reviews we all seem to mark down the designer’s scenario on the quality of the briefing. This drags down the overall score. So is there any chance we can reach a consensus on what constitutes an excellent briefing (writing this I realise the hopelessness of this task :D ).

ps I posted the above in response to another post about strategy in CM, realised I was about to hijack it so posted it on this post which is mair relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have one criterion for a good briefing that outweighs any other: be accurate in what you say.

I *detest* this "'expect light resistance' when there's major resistance" kinda stuff.

I don't mind vague, and I don't mind if you don't tell me stuff, but don't tell me lies.

The briefing is the only context you have for your strategy for the scenario other than what you can see on the field. If your whole strategy is formed around a lie, how much fun are you going to have?

I am playing a scenario where the briefing says "It's been raining but the ground should support our tanks". What a complete load of bollocks! The ground is "wet". The tanks and even HTs are bogging everywhere. My first HT bogged on turn 2. What was the point of that sentence in the briefing? It certainly didn't contribute to my enjoyment.

The only possible justification for "lies" is if you are trying to recreate an historical situation where one side was genuinely mistaken or deceived in what they thought.

Frankly, I question the role of such scenario design for a strategy game. The reason I question the role of unqualifie lies in this area is because your average person isn't going to have fun being deceived, and your grog-who-knows-the-history isn't going to be deceived anyhow. Sure, they can role-play at being deceived... maybe that's exactly what that audience wants. But if that *is* the point, then the briefing can say so. "This is an historical scenario recreating the situation where ...".

IE DO NOT LIE. IT IS NOT FUN.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So - what makes a good briefing:

1) Accuracy. Don't lie.

2) Good description of "why are we fighting this battle?". Give some reasonable justification for why the flags are where they are and what the motivation for the fight is. ***This needs to match the actual scenario***. There is really little point in saying "You must take Hill 208" if Hill 208 is over on one side in the middle of the open with one tiny flag on it. Is Hill 208 going to make any difference in this case?

3) Personal preference, but I enjoy scenarios better when I know what the reinforcement size & schedule is going to be. I know that good commanders can cope with suprises and work them into the plan, but unexpected reinforcements appearing in a useless place are more of an irritant than a fun challenge for me. Anyone else?

4) Atmophere is optional. If you can do it well, and meet the above needs, then it adds to things. Poorly done, it detracts more than if it wasn't there at all. Remember that the briefing is seen for a brief moment at the beginning then is largely out of mind (unless it contained lies that are revealled later, in which case it is cursed continually). The atmophere will come from the battle even if the briefing was just a few facts.

5) If you are going to list forces, do it in a plain language, not grog-speak. Telling me I have 2xP5/4-2, 1 Spk Plt 993 quite simply doesn't tell me anything.

6) I like it better when I have some information about the enemy. I know that this is not always a luxury commanders had, but as far as "did the briefing make the scenario more enjoyable" goes, the ones that help sketch out a plan for the attack are more enjoyable than the ones that don't, I find.

[ April 08, 2004, 07:17 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hullo, accurate briefings????

what planet are you on??

Inteligence services have always been prone to

innept and incompetent behavior, that partisan activity mentioned in the briefing translates as 2 platoons of your company being mauled before arriving on the battlefeild, the light cavalry resistance is old news, they were rotated out 5 months ago and replaced with elite motorized guards, the reinforcements you are to wait for, they got slaughtered by air attack while en rout, the good cover is a shack in open ground, and you must take the stupid hill because right now YOU are the only thing standing between half the damned red army and Berlin and that hill is the only defencible ground in the area, your ammo resupply is being stolen as we speak by a corrupt quartermaster, and you were stupid enough to enlist, you should have run to switzerland with that cute, blonde frauline you met in '39, NOW STOP WHINING ABOUT BRIEFINGS!!, TAKE THE DAMNED HILL or die trying,,,,,,,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said that the briefing that comes with the scenario is in anyway supposed to represent the intelligence services that a commander had?

It's a player briefing.

The scenario designers that understand this make have briefings that make their scenario more enjoyable than the ones that don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

GAJ,

I understand that outright lying is too common. But I would be careful about classifying

'we believe there to be only light resistance'

as the same as

'there is only light resistance'.

One is ambiguous and subjective, the other is a strong claim. And of course the sort of scenarios which begin with "it is 22nd of June '41 Comrade, and we have a peace with the Germans so don't expect anything to happen" are just damn comical to begin with (intentional self-irony in the best case).

I kind of prefer to know where the front is, roughly. Like if the attacking force has to walk 50 meters to find the enemy trenches, or if the enemy is 800 meters away. That kinda makes a difference. For the defender, knowing the probable enemy approach direction would be nice, including information about flanks.

And something about reinforcements. Even if not precise, you should at least tell that 'all reinforcements will arrive within 20 minutes' or that 'reinforcements arrive in three stages'. It is difficult to plan ahead when you don't know if you are to receive more troops or if that was everything (partly it's a lack in the game, designers should be able to give messages along with reinforcements, like 'this was the last platoon in the reserve company, you're on your own now').

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the fact that this topic comes up again and again, tells us all we need to know about the chances of it being resolved in a consensus.

I fully agree with what Sergei has said above. Briefings should be ambigous, and there should be scope for surprises. That does not mean outright lying, and it is not a black & white issue. The difference to me is that e.g. the presence of enemy tanks in a sector would normally be known (although not how many, or what type), while the exact location of a trench-line, an MG post, or whether a specific set of buildings was occupied or not was not necessarily known. So while I would not give someone false information by saying "the enemy will have no armour", when he has it, I could give them false information saying "a patrol last night found the farm building ahead of your left flank unoccupied", when it has since been occupied, or "it is likely that the enemy has strong AT assets in place" when he has few/none.

The briefing also needs to put the tactical situation into the operational context, in my view. The question of why this fight is occurring, at this time, needs to be answered. Otherwise it is just arcade gaming.

A clear mission should be given to the unit.

EDIT - I am a bit rushed today, will come back to it after Easter sometime.

[ April 09, 2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

GAJ,

I understand that outright lying is too common. But I would be careful about classifying

'we believe there to be only light resistance'

as the same as

'there is only light resistance'.

One is ambiguous and subjective, the other is a strong claim.

Absolutely.

The former is OK. The latter would be ridiculous (if there was only light resistance, then why have the scenario?).

Similarly, "we have seen only infantry fleeing before our advancing lines" is absolutely OK. Maybe those infantry are fleeing towards the gathering enemy tanks.

But "we can expect the ground to support our tanks" when the ground is "wet" is ridiculous.

So is "the enemy has only infantry" when he has tanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

The briefing also needs to put the tactical situation into the operational context, in my view. The question of why this fight is occurring, at this time, needs to be answered. Otherwise it is just arcade gaming.

A clear mission should be given to the unit.

Definitely. And the mission must match the map!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

So while I would not give someone false information by saying "the enemy will have no armour", when he has it, I could give them false information saying "a patrol last night found the farm building ahead of your left flank unoccupied", when it has since been occupied, or "it is likely that the enemy has strong AT assets in place" when he has few/none.

Here is where I would start not liking it.

The question you have to answer is: what is the point of telling me that "it is likely the enemy has strong AT assets in place" if he doesn't?

I will formulate a plan that deals with strong AT assets ... maybe more so than if you hadn't told me that. And then that plan will be wasted or have to be adjusted. Meanwhile, the person who simply didn't read the briefing will be in a better position. How is that good?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good because it makes you more careful than you otherwise would be (i.e. more like a real life commander than a CM commander). It could be a way of balancing the scenario without using more forces on the map. Note that it is not necessarily in those terms, this is just an example that randomly entered my head.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find most briefings to be quite reasonable. "Expect only light resistance" is always interpreted as inaccurate. It's just code for "we don't really know what's out there."

I don't expect briefings to be anywhere near 100% accurate. I do think reinforcements should be pretty well laid out in most cases though not tied to an exact turn number. I can't imagine many troops really arrived at the precise minute they were expected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Andreas:

It is good because it makes you more careful than you otherwise would be (i.e. more like a real life commander than a CM commander). It could be a way of balancing the scenario without using more forces on the map.

This sounds good - what I don't like about it is that it puts the person who ignores the briefing at an advantage.

I don't like "second guessing the scenario designer about the briefing" to be part of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well just to add my 2 cents, I would say most designers make ambiguous statements in their briefs to represent fog of war. I usually give a situation brief stating objectives and expected force strengths on the ground but never in 100% detail. Reinforcements are always in detail but exactly when, not. Otherwise it would be giving the game away.

Briefs are important and if you don't read the details given its the equivalent of leading your troops blindly. In a sense when people do so they advance without thinking and you can't blame the designer for that can you.

Besides once the battlefield appears on your screen you still have to assess the situation on your own. You are the person on the ground so to speak and must make your judgmentas it exists.

Nonetheless your posts on the matter is very insightful as it tells me I shouldn't be careless in making up my briefs!

all best

Patrick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've tried both way, from full information to nearly complete FOW - you get a mixed bag of responses back. Some like it some don't. I've even considered making up three version of each briefings:

Full disclosure

Nearly complete FOW

Somewhere inbetween

Cumbersome to say the least. I know produce each scenario with varying degrees of FOW and different formats for the briefings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you lie, make sure the player notices it. IE if you get some info by higher HQ, have some hint that your patrols found something that didn't fit the picture.

Meeting at HQ: "There's only light resistance by conscript infantry, no armor, no air"

O-group of your Task Force:

Your 3-days behind enemy lines patrol had no trouble getting behind the lines - but when they came back, it was another story. Sure no conscripts. They saw no tanks, but none of our tanks were close enough to them to be heard last night.

OTOH the info about air acitivty from higher HQ was always reliable in the last weeks.

You have set the mood and the player knows what to expect. Something in the middle.

And there is one thing that I'd like to have in operations: Supply and Repair should be at least hinted. I don't need the exact values from the parameters screen. But abundant, medium or scarce would help.

Gruß

Joachim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The special thing about air is it sometimes doesn't show up on its own too.

I've been on the receiving end of real briefing and given them as an S-2, in many cases it's best guess anyway!

Part of the problem with briefing is that not all the people playing CM have a military background or an indepth knowledge of military history so certain "hints" don't mean anything to them.

I've considered a series of scales, they would graphically indicate the (estimated)strenght of the enemy, his main weapons types, aggressiveness etc. An example is below

Infantry [..../]

Armour [.\...]

Artillery [\....]

Mines [..|..]

Air threat[..\..]

Patrols [..../]

Opinion of your own intel's accuracy

Intel [.../.]

I'd thought of about 30 indicators but again I thought it would be to bulky...comments?

If my intel was deemed good these indicator would tell me that I was facing an infantry force, with little or no armour, no artillery support, some mines, a chance of enemy air and that the enemy was aggressive (patrols).

Quality of your own intelligence - your own personal opinion of the quality of Intel you've received int he past - unless you are new to the unit/sector [...sucks..]

Unfortunately this all might be too much info to give out at them but if it was in color it might give them a flavor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something to consider is that there are two approaches to the game you are breifing (and all the in-between positions):

- Role players

- Strategy players

For a person who is role playing, an atmpospheric briefing full of real-life-imitating intelligence nonsense puts them right into the mood.

For a person who is seeing the game as a battle of stratey against their opponent, an atmpospheric briefing full of real-life-imitating intelligence nonsense detracts from the 'best player will win' aspect.

Since realistically there is only going to be one briefing, and realistically there are going to be players from both camps, then it is inevitable that the brefing will be hard pressed to please everyone.

If you just give some facts, probably the role-players will mark you down.

If the player who ignores your briefing or who guesses that you are bluffing has an advantage over the player who reads what you wrote, then the strategy gamers will hate you.

Who said scenario design was easy? smile.gif

That being said, I still beleive that you can have an atmpospheric breifing, ambiguous in places, that doesn't ask the player to second-guess the designer. If you can do that, you're onto a winner.

GaJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep the old five part operation order (american) is a good way to go. The Green guy is correct those are the two main types of players. I tend to make scenarios for both, straight forward ones or atmospheric ones tending towards atmospheric ones at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...