Felix_45 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Bare in mind playing a scenario will usually never go the same way especially if once it is against the AI, and another time it is against a human. Even the best planning, and training will often never go the same when the real deal starts, but planning and training before hand has a better chance of success than not training at all not having any idea what to expect. In summery I do not look at mission planning/training to be cheating at all. I think it is more in line with what all militaries do to prepare for a mission being a smart thing to do. I think that if you tell your opponent that you are playing the scenario blind and then go on to play vs AI or have played it before then that is cheating. But if you tell your opponent before hand that you will do this and he is aware of it and then can do the same then by all means I would consider that a fair battle. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Actually in thinking about this today “recon” is not the best term to understanding my thought I was trying to get across. Since it only matters if you have agreed you're both going to play it blind, the rest of that post is entirely moot. However, it would be gentlemanly to mention that you're going to use these methods, since there is a fair probability that if you don't, your opponent may assume blind play. Sure, that's their lookout, and if (if, I'm not saying you do) you get your kicks squeezing every advantage out of the game situation to beat strangers, or even more especially, friends, then that's your perogative. Don't expect to retain an opponent once they find out that you've been doing this though. That's why it's good manners to mention all the rules you'll be playing by or ignoring, not just the ones the opponent thinks of. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Like I said I have no problem being honest, and up front saying I have played a mission before. If I have played it before, and my opponent has not, I encourage them to do so. Would you not tell your friend they are better off studying for a test rather than to show up on test day not doing so? If he chooses not to study for a test, and you choose to resulting in a better score then it really is his problem because of his poor planning, and laziness to be diligent. One may be smart, or talented to begin with, but studying, and practicing will only sharpen the skill you already have. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Personally, I'd rather play blind. What's the point of having the engine umpire the FoW for you if you just sidestep a chunk of that aspect of the game? It's all very well deducing that you've killed his last Sherman because you've killed 4 75s and a Firefly, and that's what's in a Brit platoon, but knowing that there are no more lets you continue play with a whole 'nother set of freedoms that is, IMO, gamier than is desirable. If you've guessed wrong and it's not one platoon, but two short ones with 2 Fireflies and 4 Sherman Vs, the armour you thought could operate with impunity would be in for a nasty shock. Sure, if I'm playing someone and they mention they've played the scenario before, and I know that I'd be operating at a disadvantage and, if I cared much about that, I should run through the game v AI, or hotseat, and at least look at the OrBat, and probably best to open up the scenario itself in editor and check when their reinforcements arrive, where, and what they are. But since that would remove a pretty big chunk of the "discovery" part of the game (a part I have a love-hate relationship with), I'd rather not do that. Actually, the very thought of it makes me a bit queasy. Which is why I avoid playing scenarios that are meant to be playable HvH solo; that's what campaigns are for. That, and if the forces are a good match with human players in the given situation, one side will have a cakewalk with an AI opponent, most of the time, unless the defender's best plan is to simply sit, which wouldn't make that interesting a scenario for the defender. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I guess so long as both players know what the other is doing and are happy with it it's all about "consenting adults". However, seems to be very time-consuming and ruins the fun of "discovery". Since my time is limited I would not want to play anyone who has the time/fanaticism to do that. And it would be the last time I'd play anyone who played me after reviewing the map/scenario without revealing it. (I always assume anytime I lose that is what happened lol.) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slysniper Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Now you are making comments that really dont apply, just because it is fun to play blind. Some of the best scenario battles I have ever played is when me and my opponant has played the battle before. Yes, you know what to expect to a extent, but both sides play much more polished and have solid goals in mind, It can be a more challenging battle Just like the fellow pointed out, pre practicing missions is a common practice for real troops when the time allows it. Like Dessert storm, how many times did they practice breaching the berms and defensive line for the first day mission before they did the real thing. It happened very smoothly because of the pre training. There is plenty of ways to play these games, just because it might not be your favorite, nothing wrong with it. The best advice given has been and is. just communicate with whom ever you play with and come to some type of aggrements. You can find a long lasting friendship and good entertainment when you hook up with the right person. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 "Dessert Storm"... I love it! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix_45 Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Personally, I'd rather play blind. What's the point of having the engine umpire the FoW for you if you just sidestep a chunk of that aspect of the game? It's all very well deducing that you've killed his last Sherman because you've killed 4 75s and a Firefly, and that's what's in a Brit platoon, but knowing that there are no more lets you continue play with a whole 'nother set of freedoms that is, IMO, gamier than is desirable. If you've guessed wrong and it's not one platoon, but two short ones with 2 Fireflies and 4 Sherman Vs, the armour you thought could operate with impunity would be in for a nasty shock. Sure, if I'm playing someone and they mention they've played the scenario before, and I know that I'd be operating at a disadvantage and, if I cared much about that, I should run through the game v AI, or hotseat, and at least look at the OrBat, and probably best to open up the scenario itself in editor and check when their reinforcements arrive, where, and what they are. But since that would remove a pretty big chunk of the "discovery" part of the game (a part I have a love-hate relationship with), I'd rather not do that. Actually, the very thought of it makes me a bit queasy. Which is why I avoid playing scenarios that are meant to be playable HvH solo; that's what campaigns are for. That, and if the forces are a good match with human players in the given situation, one side will have a cakewalk with an AI opponent, most of the time, unless the defender's best plan is to simply sit, which wouldn't make that interesting a scenario for the defender. +1 to that. I think a lot of us enjoy the blind aspect of a scenario that is why we play scenarios with tried and true friends that one can trust. It seems that those who insist on only playing QB's may (some not all) have trust issues because they themselves have a hard time from "peaking" so they naturally think their opponent will. There is a recent thread over at The Blitz about someone telling his opponent that he played the scenario once already. He was okay with that and proceeded to play knowing that his opponent played it out. During the course of the game the player who played it out once before set up his mortars to direct fire on a reinforcement area where reinforcements came in during the middle of the game to help with a counter attack. Needless to say the counter attack failed. What kind of fun is that? Anyway....lesson is to pick your playing partners wisely. :D:D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 Actually, the very thought of it makes me a bit queasy. Womble relax, and take some Pepto-Bismol you’ll feel better At least I know now what to get you for Christmas. A blind fold 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKMule Posted March 15, 2014 Share Posted March 15, 2014 I love being new to this awesome "game" i am not sullied by such dilemmas and enjoy it for what it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marka Posted March 15, 2014 Author Share Posted March 15, 2014 Thanks for all the replies! I've been away from my computer for the past week, and never expected the question would generate such a lively and informative discussion. Regarding the "blind scenario" question, I am a relative newbie, so I have only played a few scenarios. However, I avoid the temptation to play a scenario against AI once I have started a PBEM game, as that DOES seem like "cheating" to me. That being said, my son just started a PBEM game against me, using a scenario that I just finished (and won) against someone on the forums. He has kicked my ass in the last two battles, so I'm not volunteering that I know what his OOB just yet.... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 I'm not volunteering that I know what his OOB just yet.... If I do a “dry run” to become familiar with a map wanting to know the OOB is not the reason, or focus of doing it. The main focus is in becoming more familiar with the terrain, and how I will plan to accomplish the mission. Mainly in how I will initially deploy the units, and then how I will approach capturing the objectives. Like I said earlier I prefer missions where each player picks their own force. In this way a person can explore planning the mission without any order of battle info inadvertently being learned. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marka Posted March 16, 2014 Author Share Posted March 16, 2014 If I do a “dry run” to become familiar with a map wanting to know the OOB is not the reason, or focus of doing it. The main focus is in becoming more familiar with the terrain, and how I will plan to accomplish the mission. I just started using a grid terrain mod. It makes it much easier to see the terrain contours without having to pan the camera over every square inch. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Springelkamp Posted March 16, 2014 Share Posted March 16, 2014 But it only shows in fields that have no crops, so on some maps the effect is rather limited. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.