"Royal Opponent" discussion (spoilers)

[GreenAsJade]

OK - I really am going to post a big ole spoiler. So if you haven't played this *top* scenario, go and play it first then come back and talk about it!

GaJ.

[GreenAsJade]

(although in my previous message (above) I wrote "top scenario") I think there's some confusion about whether I'm complaining here. I'm not complaining as such, I'm exploring the idea of how much people rely on/use the "Meeting Engagement" etc description of a battle in forming their plans... just want to be clear that I think this is a top scenario!)

So.

You're the axis, right. You read the briefing and look at the map. A "meeting engagement" with quite a long map, some flag at either end and some in the middle. So - that near town is mine to start off with, and the far one is his, right?

How many of you honestly twigged that the @$@^#$%^!@%^%%^!!! allies were going to be set up in ambush, closer to you than the nearest town!?

Wow - it sure was a nice joke on me, that's for sure:

GaJ... now hastily trying to pick up the pieces!!

[ April 10, 2005, 01:02 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

[Bigduke6]

I thought it was perfectly fair. Of course, I played the Soviets.

[Joachim]

Flagrushing....

[GreenAsJade]

Yeah - you could say flag rushing, but remember this is the beginning of a 60 turn *Meeting Engagement*.

It's not the middle flag that I was "rushing" towards, its an apparent base on "my side".

First let me say I think it is a design that worked wonderfully to a particular effect: an ambush.

I'm just wondering whether really smart players had some way of working out that this "Meeting Engagement" is actually an "Assault"!

[George MC]

Hi GAJ!

I've played this a few times - excellent scenario (now did I post some feedback on this...)

****************SPOILER COMING UP****************

First time I played it I move in cautiously, with some Panzergrenadiers on foot, clearing the woods - that's where they found some hidden T34s. I thne brought up some armour to torch them. I still lost some armour further down the road to other hidden stuff. But my real trial and tribulations came latter - now not sure if you want to hear that now..

I had'nt twigged that this was an assault - just I had'nt been as canny as you and worked out where the enemy might be based on the scenario description of 'meeting engagement'.

Overall though it is a top scenario!

[GreenAsJade]

It is a top scenario, and thanks for not spoiling the later material.

Well done for moving in cautiously.

You must have figured that the advantage to be had in moving cautiously outweight the advantage the enemy would have had from being able to move forward across all that long terrain uncontested. If in fact that was what the enemy was in fact having to do....

Do you think it's fair to call a scenario "Meeting Engagement" when the setup zones don't match that though?

In this case it was I supposed "fair" because the designer set up an ambush quite effectively. But it's a bit tricksy isn't it, since the one and only piece of information the "battle type" gives you is "where the setup zones will be".

(Well, OK, also relative forces sizes).

[ March 07, 2005, 06:04 PM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

[George MC]

GaJ said - "Do you think it's fair to call a scenario "Meeting Engagement" when the setup zones don't match that though?"

Hhmm... I suppose if the briefing makes it clear as to what you are tasked to do, then does it make any odds what the CM scenario descriptor says? I'm usually that in that much of a fedding frenzy to play the scenario I don't take much notice of what the box at the bottom left says! I think for scenarios where you are playing against the AI the designer might have to be 'tricksy' to fool the AI into patterns of behaviour it might not otherwise adopt.

Be interseting to hear what others have to say?

[Panzer Aufklarung]

This is a great scenario developed in Beta version. Definitely should not have been a ME. An ME is 1st echelon (recon+) moving fast for what intel identifies as unoccupied objectives and running into his adversary trying to do the same. I think Rune ought to re-tweak with final market version and revise parameters as an Axis Probe - more historic - using panzergrenadier infantry; I have tweaked a semi-historic version for AI play(which I call Royal Recon) - but Tim Orosz is the guy who burned himself out building this gorgeous baby ...

[Liddell-Hart]

It probably helps if like me you'd been royally hammered by the AI a few times at other scenarios, thus engendered with a slowly slowly check all the corners approach I managed to beat this first go (Although I did manage to lose half my PzIV's to a lone anti tank rifle a few turns in). But I still think it's one of the best I've played.

[Kingfish]

Originally posted by Panzer Aufklarung:

An ME is 1st echelon (recon+) moving fast for what intel identifies as unoccupied objectives and running into his adversary trying to do the same.

But where is it written that both sides must start off at exactly the same distance away from the objective? Is it no longer a ME if the opposing side got a half-hour head start, or is riding in vehicles that travel 15-20mph faster than yours?

[GreenAsJade]

I'm curious to hear what you think the definition of a "Meeting Engagement" is, Kingfish. Compared to "Assault", "Probe" etc.

I agree that there are grey lines, but this is a map that is very long, and one force is set up within a few hundred metres of the edge, and the other is set up in ambush over 3/4 of the way towards him across the board.

Just when is an ME not an ME? What is the point of classifying them if it doesn't mean anything?

Note that in addition to the setup placement, the classification relates to the relative force sizes and composition, as in QBs. Note that there is a direct relationship between force size and setup area for a balanced scenario. There's no point in calling something a "Probe", giving the defenders all fortifications and very few troops and then making them set up within 10% of their own edge.

Similarly in this scenario, while the ambush may have been an intended feature, it was my uneasy feeling about the way it was achieved (by telling me that it was an ME) that made me come here and seek other opinions...

(If it had been called "Assault" there's no way I would have gone merrily rolling down that road...)

Cheers,

GaJ.

[Kingfish]

Would it have mattered if both sides started near the back of their respective map edges, but your side started inside 200 meters of scattered trees, and his was on a fully developed road net? The end result would have been the same - his force would have arrived in position ahead of yours. All Rune did here was accelerate by a few turns what both sides try to do anyway - get thar furstest with the mostest.

[GreenAsJade]

The difference in this scenario would have been that if I was in the trees and he had roads, I could have seen that on my map, and would have been able to deduce that I would take longer than my opponent to reach a particular point on the map, and make decisions accordingly. In this particular scenario, we both were apparently presented with the same manouvering options ... and a long distance between ends.

The more general question remains: what do you think that the designations "ME, Probe, Assault" etc are intended to mean, if not to convey the basic intelligence of the situation with respect to force deployment and composition?

(Wrapped up with this is the age-old chestnut of "should briefings be deceptive?" too. But I'm not asking that one. I'm not asking "should things be deceptive?" but rather "was this one deceptive?" (it sure deceived me!! )

Cheers,

GaJ.

[rune]

Scenario was set as a ME to modify the AI's behavior. The Sides have to be free to manuever, for various reasons which I do NOT want to give out as a spoiler.

Also why should the briefings be correct all the time? You state you would have reacted differently, had you known. How realistic is this? Did the troops in the field KNOW the other side was matching forces? That the attack was an assault or an attack?

Who said meeting zones cannot be offset? Why shouldn't they be? There is another scenario I made where the Allies attack a light defended town, and the Germans slowly develop a counter-attack. It is a meeting engagement altho it doesn't start out that way.

Glad you like the scenario and glad it caught you by surprise...the King Tigers were surprised in the encounter. Yep, it was made, remade, and remade a few more times during the beta. I won't go back and re-do it, I have too much other work going on, and evilnesses to design.

Rune

[GreenAsJade]

Hey Rune, thanks for popping in!

I certainly wasn't suggesting a re-do - more just having a chat about how other people experienced it, and how one would expect this kind of thing to work in principle. I was saing "here's great scenario where 'what it was called' had a significant impact on how I played it - did it do that to you too?".

The "should brefings be correct?" debate is an old chestnut, and not at all where I was coming from.

I personally am more often irritated than entertained or challenged by "misleading" briefings. As a designer's tool I believe it should be used rarely and with great care. To achieve a clear and specific effect that could not be achieved any other way.

In this case, you (the designer) are saying "I wanted an ambush situation, here's the tool I used". Excellent - it sure did achieve it, and

I wasn't irritated, rather I was challenged & entertained. I hope that came across!

It's very different to the ole "intelligence reports no armour in the area" in a scenario full of armour. Hah hah tricked them again... groan not very funny.

Cheers,

GaJ.

[rune]

GAJ,

No it didn't come across that way, and I was answering everyone in that one port. Glad you enjoyed, and like I said, there is a reason for the ME, because of the AI is more prone to move then if on the defensive. It is a must for the scenario.

A few things I wish I could have done with it, some of the Russian tanks were in haystacks. Wish I could of done that. The ground was a sand/dirt mix, so I used mud, but not really what was there. There was a light misting rain, I used light fog as it was the closest. Etc. I had reports from both sides, and the Russian battlefield web site and Valera helped quite a bit. Amazing the differnces between the Russian and German accounts.

Rune

[markl]

Well I am convinced to give this one a go. It sounds good even if I do now have a few tips and a head start. (Which of course I would not dream of using)

cheers MarkL

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by rune:

Etc. I had reports from both sides, and the Russian battlefield web site and Valera helped quite a bit. Amazing the differnces between the Russian and German accounts.

Rune

Can you point to those accounts? It'd be fascinating to hear how it went in real life.

GaJ.

[rune]

The Russian version was at Valera's site, which is www.battlefield.ru, under battles. however, it is not up right now, but you may want to consider helping out the web site.

The German version was sent to me in email from someone here on the board. I'll look and see if I still have the email, but might be doubtful, since it has been a few years since I made that.

Rune

[Panzer Aufklarung]

My thanks as well for a super scenario, Tim. It was a fascinating encounter. Other good references in the book SLEDGEHAMMERS and in the articles area on Achtung Panzer. Did you ever try playing with slope and elevation to simulate haystacks in the fields near Mokre and Jablonica?

Thanks for all your contributions to CM.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by rune:

GAJ,

No it didn't come across that way, and I was answering everyone in that one port.

To make sure my intent in this discussion is clear, I've edited the first content post. I'm also adding another thread about my general thoughts on the scenario... with all of that hopefully any confusion will be swept away!

GaJ.

[Fishra]

Just finished Royal Opponent as the Germans, managed a total victory. A few small mistakes but generally did an infantry wave supported by tanks, using halftracks to shuttle the additional platoons forward. Made it all the way to railtracks in the end.

The 200m visability made for some interesting engagements. I'm pretty blown away at the power of the King Tigers. I started most of my Combat Mission playing in 39-42ish, and T-34s used to scare the crap out of my. It was strange how easily the King Tigers dispatched them.

As for the Meeting Engagement debate, I would just define it as defenders not having dig in time, so no trenches, roadblocks etc. I can see your point GreenAsJade, but Runes makes sense too. Sending in infantry halftracks first like that should be risky I think. During the battle I caught some russians moving troups forwards, so the meeting engagement setting of the scenario seems to have had it's intended effect.

Fishra