Why are off map reinforcements a thing?

[Spitzenhund]

I was just about to wrap up the 2nd Ukrainian Campaign Mission, and then out of no where 8 BMP's and 2 tanks come from behind/side and kill 6 vehicles and 6 MBT's. Why is this allowed to happen? It makes me feel like the mission was built to be completed only one way, to direct the attack fully to the front because as what I just did (Won the open ground and the tree line and began flanking and surrounding the enemy built up in the town) get's punished due to vehicles spawning out of no where 30 minutes into the game which is super late for reinforcements seeing as they only had 2 platoons at most left on the map before the reinforcements. 90% of those burning wrecks at the top of the map are my vehicles... What the hell.

[Spitzenhund]

Weow, this topic got posted twice by accident, sorry.

[agusto]

Yeah, teleporter equipped OPFOR reinforcements have been a problem since CMSF. It is one of the most difficult parts of scenario designing to guess right on where the player could be at the moment the reinforcements arrive.

 

Look what happened the last time i played the british CMSF campaign:

 

 

Captain Achmed to Enterprise! Scotty, beam down some more Jihadis!

Edited February 8, 2015 by agusto

[Spitzenhund]

I remember that mission. I also think one of the American missions had something like that. Bloody hell did those piss me off.

[womble]

Reinforcements are "a thing" in-game because reinforcements are "a thing" in real life. It's, as Agusto says, difficult to have them appear on flanks, because you never know what the player opposing the reinforcements is going to do. It can even be difficult having them appear on their own baseline, because you can't be sure that the opposition player's tempo is the same as any of the playtesters.

It makes me feel like the mission was built to be completed only one way...because what I just did...get's punished due to vehicles spawning out of no where...

I know it doesn't change the material result, but you could take some satisfaction in having done the unexpected. It's a bit meta, but developing a victim compelx when you can be pretty certain you just took a route that none of the playtesters did, or at least didn't achieve as quickly.

And you could take it as a lesson that the board edges are not perfect protection. While it's a perfectly valid approach to use the full extent of the playing area, it's not necessarily an excuse to neglect flank security.

[Spitzenhund]

Well if a victim complex isn't allowed, how about a suggestion. There should be reinforcement conditions. For instance (and im willing to diagram if i can't articulate it comprehensively enough). For instance you have your 'Reinforcement zone(RZ)' (the area the reinforcements appear at) around that zone are 'reinforcement condition zones (RCZ)', these 'RCZ's' auræ around the 'RC' in increasing distances. The Scenario Designer can create and pick a 'RCZ' and apply settings such as "If 50% of player 1's force worth is within RCZ1 then Reinforcements do not arrive", (you could also set other parameter such as a time condition or amount of enemy left on map condition.) But then you have a second RCZ that is closer to the RZ and you can set it so "If 30% of player 1's force worth is within RCZ2 then reinforcements do not arrive". Up to as many zones as the Scenario Designer feels appropriate. 

That way if you get close to the RZ with a large enough of a force then the Reinforcements do not arrive. (As there are no reason for them to arrive, as they are either going to be destroyed instantly, or destroy a large portion of the players forces unfairly. 

[LUCASWILLEN05]

This is why you need something called a RESERVE.  If something unexpected happens you need fresh troops to deal with the unexpected. If you did not keep a reserve you are in trouble and you may have to redeploy units in contact already.

 

Spitzenhund, you might consider it "unfair" but in reality war. like life, is not fair. If you encounter a sitution you did not expect then,, unfortunately, war is hell. You are going to have to use your tactical skills to deal with the challenge as best you can. As this is only a simulation game, not the real thing, you get to live to fight anotherday and you hopefully learned from your mistake and will apply the lesson to future battles.

Edited February 8, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[Codename Duchess]

This is why you need something called a RESERVE.  If something unexpected happens you need fresh troops to deal with the unexpected. If you did not keep a reserve you are in trouble and you may have to redeploy units in contact already.

 

Spitzenhund, you might consider it "unfair" but in reality war. like life, is not fair. If you encounter a sitution you did not expect then,, unfortunately, war is hell. You are going to have to use your tactical skills to deal with the challenge as best you can. As this is only a simulation game, not the real thing, you get to live to fight anotherday and you hopefully learned from your mistake and will apply the lesson to future battles.

Under most circumstances your point is fair, however modern war does not feature teleporters.  At least if a mission designer says "An enemy QRF is located to the NW" you can keep that in mind, but unannounced reinforcements out of thin air well within detection zone is just an unfortunate cheap moment.  If it goes terribly wrong, your only option is to go back in a save and ambush a force that you now know when and where it's arriving.  I'm all for a logic chain, if it would be unfair to spawn them in location A, spawn them in Location B 750m away.

[Spitzenhund]

This is why you need something called a RESERVE.  If something unexpected happens you need fresh troops to deal with the unexpected. If you did not keep a reserve you are in trouble and you may have to redeploy units in contact already.

 

Spitzenhund, you might consider it "unfair" but in reality war. like life, is not fair. If you encounter a sitution you did not expect then,, unfortunately, war is hell. You are going to have to use your tactical skills to deal with the challenge as best you can. As this is only a simulation game, not the real thing, you get to live to fight anotherday and you hopefully learned from your mistake and will apply the lesson to future battles.

Yea, it's a simulation... And a proper Simulation wouldn't include enemy units appearing out of no where 10m from my main units, and if you look at the map I do have a weapons and rifle platoon in reserve. The campaign had to be scrapped however because no matter how much reserve you have losing 8 tanks and 8 BTR's due to teleportation is not acceptable from something that is yes, very unfair and yes using real life as a analogy does not work, because as a game it is supposed to be fair and if it wants to display the abstraction of fairness then having armored platoons spawn out of no where is not the way to do it.

[BlackAlpha]

Well, a few things can be done to fix this:

 

- Bigger maps can be used, while still limiting the enemies to the smaller area on the map. This will then make the player focus on the smaller area where the enemies are, and then hopefully when the reinforcements spawn in, the player won't be near them. This way the player can also take in account enemy reinforcements in a realistic manner that will require setting up proper defenses and such.

 

- Marking the enemy reinforcement zone in advance can be done as well, so that the player knows where the reinforcements may come from and thus the player will know how to avoid situations where the enemy teleports on top of the player.

 

- Giving the player a warning before the enemies spawn in, like a 15 minute warning, and mark the reinforcement zone. This gives the player time to get away from where the enemies will spawn in.

 

- A combination of the above.

 

 

From a game design perspective, I'd say don't use reinforcements on small maps or do give the player a warning on where the enemy reinforcements may come from, so that the player knows what gameplay limitations there are (ie. can't flank around certain areas because there's no way to secure the flank/rear when there's an imminent threat of teleporting enemies).

Edited February 8, 2015 by BlackAlpha

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Under most circumstances your point is fair, however modern war does not feature teleporters.  At least if a mission designer says "An enemy QRF is located to the NW" you can keep that in mind, but unannounced reinforcements out of thin air well within detection zone is just an unfortunate cheap moment.  If it goes terribly wrong, your only option is to go back in a save and ambush a force that you now know when and where it's arriving.  I'm all for a logic chain, if it would be unfair to spawn them in location A, spawn them in Location B 750m away.

 

Bear in mind that your battle is not he only action going on iin the area of the particular battle you are gaming. In reality this may very well be only a part of a much larger battle. It may well be that the enemy flank marched that force arund the battle you are in. Maybe they found the seam between your battalion and the neighbouring unit. Maybe they had a hidden force in an ambush positionThat is not your fault of course. Blame it on the brigade/divisional commander off map or on insufficient recon.. Or perhaps it was simply the fog of war.Was there perhaps smething in the scenario briefing that qwarned you of this possibility?

 

Remember,, this kind of thing can and does happen in the real world. During the 1991 Gulf War for example the mericains caught the entire Tawkalna Republican Guard Division facing the wrong way!

 

In your game situation something like that went wrong due to the mistake of another commander on your side or a clever enemy manouvre. and, unfortunately you are the commander whose flank or rear got attacked. This is not "teleportatio" It is the consequence of an off map manouvre by another force, not yet involved in the battle.

 

If, instead of being the victim of this in a scenario would you still regard it as "unfair" or would you smile in satisfaction knowing you might benefit from this. In another scenario the boot culd very well be on your foot instead

 

However, as the boot is on the enemy's foot this time you are now going to have to find a way to deal with it however unfair you think it might be. In fact try not to vew it as "unfair" at all. Instead regard it as a tactical challenge. Take a look at the tactical situation you are now in as a result of this surprise attack and work out what you need to do to meet the crisis. If you failed to anticipate the possibility of a surprise enemy attack on your flank or rear then I am afraid you only have yourself to blame for your losses. Like I said, sometimes the unexpected happens in war and commanders who are not ready for that suffer the consequences. Just as you did. Thankfully, this time it is not real war and there are no pixilated widows and orphans,

 

In short live with it, learn from your mistakes and, next time, anticipate the possibility of the unexpected. OK

Edited February 8, 2015 by LUCASWILLEN05

[womble]

Well if a victim complex isn't allowed, how about a suggestion. There should be reinforcement conditions. For instance (and im willing to diagram if i can't articulate it comprehensively enough). For instance you have your 'Reinforcement zone(RZ)' (the area the reinforcements appear at) around that zone are 'reinforcement condition zones (RCZ)', these 'RCZ's' auræ around the 'RC' in increasing distances. The Scenario Designer can create and pick a 'RCZ' and apply settings such as "If 50% of player 1's force worth is within RCZ1 then Reinforcements do not arrive", (you could also set other parameter such as a time condition or amount of enemy left on map condition.) But then you have a second RCZ that is closer to the RZ and you can set it so "If 30% of player 1's force worth is within RCZ2 then reinforcements do not arrive". Up to as many zones as the Scenario Designer feels appropriate. 

That way if you get close to the RZ with a large enough of a force then the Reinforcements do not arrive. (As there are no reason for them to arrive, as they are either going to be destroyed instantly, or destroy a large portion of the players forces unfairly.

Conditional reinforcements might appear. We only just got conditional "do you next order early" options, though, so it's likely to be a while.

[BlackAlpha]

Bear in mind that your battle is not he only action going on iin the area of the particular battle you are gaming. In reality this may very well be only a part of a much larger battle. It may well be that the enemy flank marched that force arund the battle you are in. Maybe the found the seam betwween your battalion and the neighbouring unit. That is not your fault of course. Blame it on the brigade/divisional commander off map. Or perhaps it was simply the fog of war.

 

Remember,, this kind of thing can ad does hapen in the real world. During the 1991 Gulf War fr example the mericains caught the entire Tawkalna Republican Guard Division facing the wrong way!

 

In your game situation something like that went wrong due to the mistake of another commander on your side or a clever enemy manouvre. and, unfortunately you are the commander whose flank or rear got attacked. This is nt "teleportatio" It is the consequence of an off map manouvre by another force, not yet involved in the battle.

 

If, instead of being the victim of this in a scenario would you still regard it as "unfair" or would you smile in satisfaction knowing you might benefit from this. In another scenario the boot culd very well be on your foot instead

 

However, as the boot is on the enemy's foot this time you are now going to have to find a way to deal with it however unfair you think it might be. In fact try not to vew it as "unfair" at all. Instead regard it as a tactical challenge. Take a look at the tactical situation you are now in as a result of this surprise attack and work out what you need to do to meet the crisis. If you failed to anticipate the possibility of a surprise enemy attack on your flank or rear then I am afraid you only have yourself to blame for your losses. Like I said, sometimes the unexpected happens in war and commanders who are not ready for that suffer the consequences. Just as you did. Thankfully, this time it is not real war and there are no pixilated widows and orphans,

 

In short live with it, learn from your mistakes and, next time, anticipate the possibility of the unexpected. OK

 

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Well, a few things can be done to fix this:

 

- Bigger maps can be used, while still limiting the enemies to the smaller area on the map. This will then make the player focus on the smaller area where the enemies are, and then hopefully when the reinforcements spawn in, the player won't be near them. This way the player can also take in account enemy reinforcements in a realistic manner that will require setting up proper defenses and such.

 

- Marking the enemy reinforcement zone in advance can be done as well, so that the player knows where the reinforcements may come from and thus the player will know how to avoid situations where the enemy teleports on top of the player.

 

- Giving the player a warning before the enemies spawn in, like a 15 minute warning, and mark the reinforcement zone. This gives the player time to get away from where the enemies will spawn in.

 

- A combination of the above.

 

 

From a game design perspective, I'd say don't use reinforcements on small maps or do give the player a warning on where the enemy reinforcements may come from, so that the player knows what gameplay limitations there are (ie. can't flank around certain areas because there's no way to secure the flank/rear when there's an imminent threat of teleporting enemies).

 

Giving the player a warning of enemy reinforcements can be done. In one of the published scenarios the designer made use of the frieendly reinforcements button to give just such a warning. It was a little disconcerting at first because I hd never seen the reinforcement function used like that before. But then I though abbout t and realised what a clever design approach this was,

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

 

I understand that perfectly well. Maybe it is unfair if it happens wihout any warning in the scenario brief or using another metod. Sometimes it happens that way in real lfe either on the batlefield or for that matter in any work place environment. Maybe your boss, a colleague or a custome lands an unexpeected crisis on you.  You are probably not happy about it. You could bitch and moan about how unfair it is that this was dumped on you. Or you can adopt a "can do" attitude and get on with dwealing with the problem as best you can.

 

In the game situation you had the best part of a BMP company and a couple of tanks arrive at a time and place you did not anticipte. Arguably, in the realworld a Combat Team Commander (or any other commander for that matter should have anticipaed the contingency. You didn't. You committed all your forces to the attack and you got blind sided by a surprise attack/ambush. Sure, you can cry about how unfair that was but, newsflash WAR ISN'T FAIR!!!

 

Had you held a reserve instead of committing yur entire force early maybe you would have been ready to counter the surprise enemy move. Hopefully you just learned a useful lesson about battlefield realities and tactics. You won't make the same mistake nex time. And you made the mistake on a computer game simulation, not inactual combat. In the real world you would either be dead, seriously wounded, a POW (as would be many of the men and women under your leadership) If you escaped that you might very well be relieved of your command for your mistake.

[Thewood1]

I must be missing something in some of these replies...

 

The poster isn't saying reinforcements are a bad thing.  I can't see where he is saying that.  He is saying reinforcements ending up right next to his units with no warning in the briefing or in game.  I have seen this in all CM games.  Why are people trying to school him on reserves?  I don't really think that is what he is talking about.  This is as much a scenario design issue as anything.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I must be missing something in some of these replies...

 

The poster isn't saying reinforcements are a bad thing.  I can't see where he is saying that.  He is saying reinforcements ending up right next to his units with no warning in the briefing or in game.  I have seen this in all CM games.  Why are people trying to school him on reserves?  I don't really think that is what he is talking about.  This is as much a scenario design issue as anything.

 

Because, in the REAL WORLD the unexpected is a RISK  that must be anticipated. As ?I see it he failed to anticipate the contingency that something like this could happen by committing all of his force to an attack without thinking about what he would do if something happened that he did not expect or anticipate. If you look at what real world commanders do one important task is just that, planning for the unexpected.

 

This is of course a computer simulation game, obviusly not he real thing. But to succeed you have to think about what would be done in the REAL WoRLd. in this case on a real battlefield.

 

For example, if you read Into the Storm by Tom Clancy and General Fred Franks (Franks was the commander of US VII Corps during Operation Desert Storm) you will find somethig called FRAGPLANS (Fragmentory Plans) mentioned quite a lot. These are contingency plans to be used during the course of a military operation if certain things happen. Such as, in this case, the unexpected appearence (in time and place) of an enemy force.

 

Spitzenhund failed (or at least suffered heavy casualties) because he failed to anticipate this particular contingency. There is no shame in that. Even the greatest cmmanders in military history lost battles for that reason. Napoleon lost Waterloo in large part because he failed to anticipate Blucher;s arrival n his right flank. Just be glad that this is only a computer game/simulation and the fates of men and nations don't depend on the outcome of our computer game hobby battle.

 

And, like I said, you are going to be around to learn from your mistake, an opportunity you might not get in the real world. This is why the military train so hard. If you were in the military you can foul up in training. It is OK. You get a bollocking from your CO. But you probably won't make that mistake next time. And "next time" could actually be on a real battlefield,.

 

I suspect that some of the scenarios might well have been designed by actual military professionals who have acually done the job for real and might well have don so in combat. Scenarios should give is a good ansd realistic gaming challenge. Within this context we should be prepared to anticipate the unexpected from some of our more tricksy scenario designers

[agusto]

LUCASWILLEN05, although i in general support your arguement that unexpected things must be expected to happen during battle and that edge hunting is gamey, the reinforcements teleporting in can sometimes be just ridiculous, a joke and a game breaker. Just look at the screenshots i posted above. In no way could these guys have moved to the positions they spawned in without beeing spotted by some of my assets. They are in god damn parade formation! If something like that happens under those circumstances, it is just bad design, not "realism".

Edited February 8, 2015 by agusto

[Lille Fiskerby]

Spitzenhund, I could only count 3 Oplots remaining in your screenshot, if thats true I would start this mission all over,

you are going to need those Tanks in the last mission, which is total mayhem (and fun).

[womble]

I must be missing something in some of these replies...

 

The poster isn't saying reinforcements are a bad thing.  I can't see where he is saying that.

Apart from in the thread title which isn't "Why are off-map reinforcements arriving by teleporter a thing?"

While the argument has moved on to being about teleporting arrivals, it's not unreasonable for the discussion to be coloured by the heading of the thread.

And the answer remains "Because reinforcements are a real life thing and there isn't currently any other way of having reinforcements arrive".

The impression I get is that the "front" in the BS timeline is rather more fractured than WW2 fronts were, and so it would be theoretically practicable to have the "area of interest" in the middle of a map with a kilometer clearance for activity all around, and then another klick radius beyond that so that reinforcements arriving could arrive at the edge of the map and then proceed towards the engagement area, giving the opposition time to react to them. You could even design the map so that the "distant, irrelevant-to-the-engagement-being-depicted-apart-from mediating-the-arrival-of-reinforcement edges have some terrain cutoff, so the reinforcements appear out of sight.

That, however, is a ****potload of work for largely irrelevant terrain. As Lucas says, the designer can flag up that there will be reinforcements appearing from whatever direction, and a tentative timescale. And if it's not a historical map, can have the area that the reinforcements are arriving in in defilade. But whatever you do as a designer, the player can turn it on its head. If you tell them where the arrivals are appearing, they'll set a trap with that information. If you don't, you can guarantee that the player will squeeze along the map edge where they're showing up and have a nasty surprise. If you have the reinforcements appearing along the baseline, they'll get shot up by a player who's exceeded your expected optempo and gotten flanking shots on their intended "approach march".

It's not the end of the damn world though, and while it might be a weakness in any given scenario, it works perfectly well in many, where the conditions suit the "common case scenario" better. It's when scenario designers try and get cute with the feature that they need to make sure to compensate for its obvious and well-known weaknesses. I think there have been some good suggestions for both using the current systems and for improving them.

[Pelican Pal]

Because, in the REAL WORLD the unexpected is a RISK  that must be anticipated. As ?I see it he failed to anticipate the contingency that something like this could happen by committing all of his force to an attack without thinking about what he would do if something happened that he did not expect or anticipate. If you look at what real world commanders do one important task is just that, planning for the unexpected.

 

 

Are you really trying to justify this? Like seriously?

 

It is just a "Real World" risk that a bunch of enemy troops will suddenly appear within 20 meters of your troops without any possibility of detecting them? That is complete and utter trash.

 

According to your logic I need to be prepared at all times to have a relatively heavy attack force appear within 20 meters of my troops. I must therefore, watch the entirety of the board edge with sufficient force to destroy them within a few seconds of appearing, and I will probably take absurd losses anyway.

 

This isn't something that can be planned for and frankly I find it appalling that you are trying to defend this as a realism feature.

 

Like jesus. This is a modern war. Where we can have very accurate fights at 3 KM or more. And you are saying that I just have to understand a magical teleporting force of BMPs and MBTs showing up essentially in my line as a natural part of warfare?

 

 

In the game situation you had the best part of a BMP company and a couple of tanks arrive at a time and place you did not anticipte. Arguably, in the realworld a Combat Team Commander (or any other commander for that matter should have anticipaed the contingency. You didn't. You committed all your forces to the attack and you got blind sided by a surprise attack/ambush. Sure, you can cry about how unfair that was but, newsflash WAR ISN'T FAIR!!!

 

How is this a legitimate answer?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[sburke]

Teleporting units in is problematic as you have to make some assumptions about where the player is possibly going to have positioned units.  Just making maps bigger or positioning the units on map in defilade doesn't quite work as well anymore due to UAVs etc which allow the player to spot well beyond where they might actually have units.

 

So unfortunately in this case you moved into an area the designer did not expect you to.  Bummer.

 

However before folks go on a tirade about the designer, perhaps you can design a few on your own and show them the "correct" way to design.  As it is the designer was trying to put together something interesting and create a challenge for you.  You can chalk it up to you doing something unexpected or you can make still another designer irked that his work is so ill received as to make him reconsider doing any more.

 

And no this does not mean do not critique the design.  Most designers crave feedback.  It is simply how one approaches it. Showing the situation and suggesting to the designer that the reinforcement location was problematic is definitely good feedback.  The OP was pretty close to that, I'd have simply left off the "what the hell" comment and simply said bummer. The designer will get the picture and may actually ask for more info on your attack plan.  win-win for everyone.

Edited February 8, 2015 by sburke

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Are you really trying to justify this? Like seriously?

 

It is just a "Real World" risk that a bunch of enemy troops will suddenly appear within 20 meters of your troops without any possibility of detecting them? That is complete and utter trash.

 

According to your logic I need to be prepared at all times to have a relatively heavy attack force appear within 20 meters of my troops. I must therefore, watch the entirety of the board edge with sufficient force to destroy them within a few seconds of appearing, and I will probably take absurd losses anyway.

 

This isn't something that can be planned for and frankly I find it appalling that you are trying to defend this as a realism feature.

 

Like jesus. This is a modern war. Where we can have very accurate fights at 3 KM or more. And you are saying that I just have to understand a magical teleporting force of BMPs and MBTs showing up essentially in my line as a natural part of warfare?

 

 

How is this a legitimate answer?

 

Listen Things like this happen in the real world. I am sure you have had situations happen in the work place where something nasty happens that you did not expect. If you are a professional, which I am sure you are, do you bitch and moan about it? No, of course youy don't. You deal with the crisis. Then you work out what went wrong and why the crisis happened. You learn from your mistakes.

 

And that is the poin I am making here. This kind of thing DOES HAPPEN in modern war  and it happens frequently in history. Doesn't matter qwhether it is the Battle of Kadesh or the Battle of the Karbala Gap. And it can happen to any commandr at any level. Look at youur military history. Ramses II was surprised by the Hittites at the battle of Kadesh. Frederick the Great was surprised by the Austrians at Hocchkirch. Napoleon was surprised by the unexpected arrival of the Prussians at Waterloo. The commander of theTawakana Division was surprised when the VII Corps arrived from an unexpected direction earlier than the Iraqis expected. And, during the 2003 War the Iraqis were frequently surprised. Sometimes even US forces were taken by surprise.

 

The point I am making is that commanders AT ALL LEVELS have to be ready for the unexpecterd, In war we have friction - the enemy also has a say in what happens.

 

Now I am not saying that a scenario should not give you some warning that something lke this MIGHT happen. Maybe thuis scenario does give you a hint and it was missed - in which case you deserve everything you get. Or maybe the scenario designer wanted a surprise attack and gave no warniing. Unfair in game terms? Probably? But war, like rel life is often NOT fair. Live wih it and, like I said, learn to expect the unexpected. What do I do if the enemy attacjks my right flank or rear at this point?  

 

Maybe recon (ground. air, UAV) missed that enemy force. Maybe the UAV sent to recon the area was shot down, crashed or just didn't find anything. Maybe the enemy moved tha force nto position later. Intel is never as complete as we would like. And this is not the open deserts of Kuwait and Southern Iraq. It is European terrain. Close. villages, woods. That sot of thing.So yes, it is quite possible that particular force was just missed. Fog of War you see!

 

And a good commander has t take the issues of friction, the unexpected and he fog of war into account. If he does nt it will come back and bite him. Probably at the worst possible moment. Just look what happened to Napoleon at Waterloo/ He failed to adequately consider that the Prussians might march accross from Wavre. Napoleon thought Grouchy would keep the Prussians occupied. Napoleon turned out to be wrong and failed to plan sufficiciently for that contngency. Which cost him he battle, the campaign and his throne.

 

That force was one the scenario designer wanted to use as part of this battle and he obvuiously wanted to catch the unwary. Which is exactly what happened here. A mistake was made by the gamer in failing to expect the unexpected and he suffered the consequences of the mistake. You think that modern technology will always identify all enemy forces that might affect a mission. NEWSFLASH - IT DOESN'T. For example just look at the famous deep helicopter raid during the Iraq War and how it met unexpected enemy forces that weren't supposed to be there1

 

If you have a good plan and anticipate unexpected developments then your plan is likely to better survive the impact of battle. I am quite sure that any military professionals on this forum will tell you pretty much the same thing that I am telling you.

 

Learn from your mistakes. Next time anticipate better. Particularly if this is the first time you play ed a particular scenario.

 

I agree the scenario designer played a nasty, dirty trick. But in real war that is just what a competent enemy is going to do.

[Pelican Pal]

 Listen Things like this happen in the real world.

 

I would disagree. Things that happen in the real world follow a set of natural laws. This is akin to those being broken. It isn't a "Oh, I didn't expect that to happen but I can understand how it did" It is much more like you're computer suddenly ignores gravity flies to the top of the room and is smashed into pieces. You couldn't possibly expect that to happen and to attempt to provide for that contingency would be seen as absurd.

 

Similarly the CM series has a set of natural laws. To provide for contingencies outside of those would be absurd. The board edge, for example, represents the end of the known universe. if you are at the board edge nothing that is off of it should be a worry to you, because it doesn't exist. That is why we can sit an mech company on top of the tallest, most exposed hill we can find and not worry about an off map TOW-2 rocket killing everyone. Even though that mech company would probably be at risk from anyone within 6KM of its position.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I just made the mistake of neglecting my AA overwatch and found out what a Hind or two will do to a US Combat Team. Do you hear me complainng about how "unfair" that was? No, not a bit of it. I had stinger teams. I was aware of the possibiliy of a Russian air threat. I did not sufficiently prrovide AA mssle cover for my advance. I was caught in a Russian helicopter engagement area. I aid the price for my mistake. Next time I will know better and will try to avoid making he same mistake again.

 

This game/simulation teaches some very harsh lessons about the devestating nature of modern conventional wrfare betwenn two roughly similar armies. Thankfully this s just a gaming simulation and we can make every mistake in the book. Nobdy dies, There are no sad widows and orphans. The fate of nations does not really depend on what happens in our computer battle game/simulation.

 

In a real war of course lessons like this would be learned the hard way and the inevitable mistakes would be paid for in ral lives. And real combat on the modern battlefield is even more unforgiving of mistakes than anything n the past. That is a lessn we would do well to understand as we play this game. And, if it teaches us that much it will hav succeeded in at least one of its' aims.