FEBA Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 - - - - - Possible spoiler for "Chance Encounter" _ - - - - - - OK, I have a FOW question. Has anyone discussed why the tactical stance of each side(Attacker/Defender) was put in the scenario information panel ? It seems to me that this knowledge is more than a tactical commander might have. The Chance Encounter scenario is a case in point. I feel that the US commander should not be informed that the Germans are "Attackers". If I were him, given the operational situation, I would expect to be running into a positioned rear guard/ambush or a counter attack, but I wouldn't know which. Because the scenario has the German labeled "Attacker" the US player has a different expectation of what he is up against. For example, he might think that rushing up to the town is a good idea, because the German is not positioned, the German is labeled as an "Attacker". If the US commander doesn't know what the German stance is he might be a little more careful about running into town... Maybe hiding the tactical stance information could be a FOW option? Any opinions? Anyway, just a thought. BTW, I realize the name of the "Chance Encounter" scenario does sort of give the situation away...but thats a different issue. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEBA Posted November 24, 1999 Author Share Posted November 24, 1999 I just had to add this. I wrote the previous post waiting for my opponent's turn to come in. It arrived just as I completed the post. Here's the text portion of his email: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> [This is him from his previous email] Trying to flank me? have you determined my strategy? [This is my response from my last email] Well, actually I was hoping you would be more timid in coming into the crossroads. [His response this turn] When I was timid in the Riesberg.cmb, I got the c**p beat out of me. When I aggressively moved into defensible positions, ie buildings, I did much better. I dreaded the idea of all my tanks on an open road. Since this is a meeting engagement, I assume you would not be set up in the buildings. I didn't think I would have to contest them. Question: is all that smoke from me or did you add to it? You know, those damn flags give too much away. I cannot see you in the woods but I know you are there. Bang Bang.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Read that one sentence again... <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Since this is a meeting engagement, I assume you would not be set up in the buildings.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Even more to think about... I should add that we both agreed not to look at the other sides setup or forces or read the "Spoiler" threads so we could have the fun of playing true FOW. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-23-99).] [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-23-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 Put SPOILER space in your mail. You know how you are playing a double blind game? Well so are other people and they are trying to avoid posts just like yours. I'd appreciate it (as would others I'm sure) if you would put some spoiler space at the top of your first post and explain it contains spoilers (as it does). ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEBA Posted November 24, 1999 Author Share Posted November 24, 1999 Sorry, I obviously did not intend to spoil your game. I have added a spoiler prefix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEBA Posted November 24, 1999 Author Share Posted November 24, 1999 Fionn, You also might want to propose the same for other threads that you have read which provide much more specific and detailed information: Hmmm, Close Enough? (pic) The picture quite clearly shows forces available to the US and German. As the German player I find myself quite interested in the count of M4s shown. Lance [This message has been edited by FEBA (edited 11-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 FEBA, Feel free to go into the thread and point it out. I'd support you in doing so. PS. It's nothing personal (which you seem to have taken it as) but one thread has to be first to be reminded of spoilers FEBA and yours had just started. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 Fionn, Just out of curiosity, and my apologies if this has previously been answered, but just what is your association with Big Time Software and Combat Mission? Also, are you a moderator of this forum? -Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 For the record I have put in a Spoiler message at the top of my 'Close Enough (pic) thread, sorry if anyone used this unfairly, it never occured to me that it may be used in that way! Madmatt out... [This message has been edited by Madmatt (edited 11-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 Gees, I am NOT moderator of the forum but just like many others in the forum have done previously as regards spoiler space when I saw a post which lacked spoiler space and could do with spoiler space I pointed it out to the post author. Go check out any newsgroup which deals with television shows and you will see that a lot of reminding of the need for spoiler space goes on in those groups in which posters constantly remind eachother and anyone who hasn't put in spoiler space when they should that spoiler space is necessary. I did nothing more and nothing less than what a good netizen should be expected to do. How would you like your double-blind PBEM games constantly ruined by reading posts in which people forget to mention there are spoilers? Well, I've had email from some people recently complaining about the lack of spoiler etiquette on this board so it IS a problem. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 Madmatt, Thanks for putting in the spoiler space Madmatt . ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iguana Posted November 24, 1999 Share Posted November 24, 1999 Fionn, Hey, no problem. I happen to agree with you on this issue. You just seemed to come down pretty hard on FEBA. Remember, you catch more flies with honey than vinegar . I haven't posted much on this forum, but I read most of what gets posted here. It has truly been a learning experience for me. Many of you know far more about the subject matter than I do. I am especially grateful that, for the most part (and unlike newsgroups), the discussions stay civilized. -Doug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pford Posted November 25, 1999 Share Posted November 25, 1999 Lance According the scenario briefing, Allied recon reports the town is not occupied with what sound like a high degree of reliability. And it is a meeting engagement. Unless there are no Germans, it is hard not to expect some. It wouldn’t be much of a game if you weren’t there. There are only 3 sides that you could come from and since in the 2 other scenarios, it is always the opposite side, chance are it would be also on the opposite side in this one. Since I (1)had to cover a lot of open ground to cross, (2)every time I had a Sherman in the open it has died, (3)every time I have had a Sherman away from infantry, it has died, and (4)the buildings are about the only defensible position, I think that rushing to the buildings only makes sense. The only way I see to make it ‘realistic’ is to not know the Germans are coming. In the setup like this, a surprise ambush on a large scale is not possible. If I actually believed there would be no one around, I would have convoyed leisurely down the road. [This message has been edited by pford (edited 11-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEBA Posted November 25, 1999 Author Share Posted November 25, 1999 Gosh, I'm going to have to give up working for a living, I need to devote more time to CM and this BBS. For the record, I too agree with the sentiments Fionn is defending. I made a mistake, and hope I didn't spoil too many games. I did feel "slapped" rather than "reminded", but it was late, and I can react as thin-skinned as the best of them. If the board needs a "Spoiler Whipping Boy" I'm as good as the next guy. I got caught up in trying to explain my point, which doesn't even depend on "Chance Encounter", and forgot the spoiling impact it might have. Speaking of my point... I still think the tactical stance information on the Scenario Information Panel (SIP) is contrary to the "Fog of War" environment BTS is trying to achieve. Consider: Each commander has his own briefing and his own setup locations. From this he knows what his own stance must be to achieve his objectives. He doesn't need the tactical stance info to say ATTACKER or DEFENDER, he knows. The briefing may also give recon on the enemy. Recon may be correct, out of date, or just plain wrong. Consider a scenario, like CE, where one side is advancing, but the recon is incorrect and the enemy has reached the objective first, or perhaps was undetected in a overlooking position (such as a woods). Now what do we put in the SIP? Do we put DEFENDER for one side, clueing in the other side that, hey, this ain't gonna be a meeting engagement after all? Do we put ATTACKER in instead for the defending side, to fool the other side into thinking it is a meeting engagement? I think the tactical stance information only conveys information about the other side, something I think shouldn't be done. All opinions welcome. (Fionn, If you want to weigh-in, please do. I respect your knowledge of both CM and WWII.) Thanks go to Madmatt for being proactive and "spoiler proofing" his thread. It was only after I had looked at the picture and reflected that it had Shermans and Stugs that I realized the combination excluded the other demo scenarios. Again, for the record, I enjoyed the picture and know you weren't trying to spoil. I apologize for embarrassing you. I should have emailed you my concerns before posting. pford: Thanks for the insight into the US briefing. I wasn't faulting your tactics, I was just trying to get into your head and figure out what you were doing. That got me thinking about the tactical stance issue. You surprised me by advancing so quickly, because I'm often conservative and thought you would be. Keep it up, that's why I like playing humans! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionn Posted November 25, 1999 Share Posted November 25, 1999 Feba, 1. Good I didn't mean it as a slap down. It was late and I wrote it quickly so it may have sounded harsher than it was intended. 2. I really don't think the SIP gives away too much. All wargames are like this and have this info in them and I don't think it exactly cripples any of them as far as FOW goes. I understand what you're asking and it it could be removed without hassle then maybe I'd go for it but I think this might be a CM2 issue.. Maybe it could be linked to FOW levels in CM2.. That'd be pretty cool. ------------------ ___________ Fionn Kelly Manager of Historical Research, The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pford Posted November 25, 1999 Share Posted November 25, 1999 Lance: I think the basic assumption you made, having known me for 30 years, is my unwillingness to take risk, which is accurate. However, in analysis of my portfolio, I discovered the apparent paradox that being conservative is higher risk. With this lesson, I look at this set up and decide I could move cautiously through your 88s or run like hell forward. Just because you don’t have any 88s that I know of is irrelevant. If I was to change something, I would drop the flags and add real fog. I know that the ATI rave , (but don't know about that sucky MS product), has fog but this may be too much coding to ask this late for what I see as a polished product. (ass kissing terminated, no discount expected) [This message has been edited by pford (edited 11-24-99).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Big Time Software Posted November 25, 1999 Share Posted November 25, 1999 Well... It is a good point about not knowing, realistically, what your enemy is supposed to do in a given scenario. However... there is a game play issue here. Say I want to play a battle as the Germans on the attack. I should be able to tell this right from the neutral first report. Otherwise I have to go and "peek" at the scenario specific stuff until I find one that I want. The first screen is supposed to provide just the facts about the scenario that are needed to determine if you want to play it or not. This actually PRESERVES FoW. Example, in my search to find that German attack scenario I look through the first 5 scenarios. I now have been exposed to the German OOB, stance, objectives, etc. for each one. Say the next time I want to play as the Allies. Well... I already have more than a hint of what to expect for the first 5 scenarios, even though I haven't played them yet. See? FoW ruined In any case, the point is pretty moot since you get this info before playing anyways (and should). Most battles have a history, and therefore the attacker should generally have a good idea as to what the other side is up to. Such was the case for all three scenarios I made for the Beta Demo. All that stuff is very realistic and to not include it would actually be creating a false sense of FoW (i.e. not historically correct). Only in the case of a meeting engagement is there any question as to the stance of your enemy. If you are defending, for example, OF COURSE the other side is attacking. If you are attacking your enemy could be either attacking or defending. If you are attacking it really doesn't matter what the other guy is doing as you know you are going to fight him one way or the other. If you advance, and find guys on the move, then he is not a defender. But up until the point of contact you should behave the same way, because you NEVER know where the other guy is starting out. The worst position to be caught in is an open march situation, so recon to some degree is needed in any case. In the end, the need to let people know what the battle is about in a neutral way outweighs the potential FoW enhancement of not telling the attacker the stance of his enemy. Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FEBA Posted November 25, 1999 Author Share Posted November 25, 1999 I see the point about a player looking through a list of scenarios to choose whether he wants to be attacker, defender, or have a meeting engagement. When that is the case the SIB info becomes a moot point, because the player already knows the stance of the enemy. In this case it doesn't matter if its displayed within the game or not. Again, when the engagement is an historical recreation the SIB tactical stance only reflects what the player already knows. Again the info is nice, but not necessary. However, I think another class of scenario exists. This would be an ahistorical (but plausible) scenario that has been created with the maximization of FoW desired. These might be scenarios created for tournaments or just for players to enjoy. In these, it might be possible to create plausibly incorrect briefings and let the players use their skills to determine and react to the true situation. I know all this is a minor point, CM does a great job with FoW... But, I am enjoying CM so much (and this is just the DEMO!!!!) that I want to see it become even better. "Only on the finest gems do minor flaws become major." The feature list for CM1 is probably frozen, but for future releases I would like to suggest an option where the scenario designer can designate UNKNOWN (or maybe "FoW") for the tactical stance. On the topic of victory flags, I agree with pford...I'll defer talking about that until I have a chance to do a search and see what others have said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Madmatt Posted November 25, 1999 Share Posted November 25, 1999 FEBA, No appology needed my friend! Once you mentioned that it could have been used as a spoiler I did a classic Hommer Simpson 'DOH!' head slap and put in the Spoiler Proofing! I just hope I didn't ruin anyones game. OT, anyone else noticed that they feel like they are missing something really important if they don't check this board every few hours? I gotta say that (some isolated incidents aside) this is one of the best behaved and mature Forums I have had the pleasure to be a part off.. Sniff Sniff.. I LOVE YOU GUYS! Madmatt out, sorry I just got something caught in my eye is all (sniff sniff)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts