PBEM SOP

[axxe]

In PBEM, is it assumed that before starting both sides have had full access to the map, including knowing the location(s) of the enemy setup zone(s)?

I'm playing through scenarios in the hopes of graduating to PBEM play and I'm wondering if I should be looking in the scenario editor at the enemy setup zones beforehand (I assume that's possible - haven't tried).  I realize that's not "realistic", but it that's how PBEM is done...

[A Canadian Cat]

2 hours ago, axxe said:

In PBEM, is it assumed that before starting both sides have had full access to the map, including knowing the location(s) of the enemy setup zone(s)?

Both sides do usually have the ability to preview the map (that shows you your setup zone but not your opponent's). Normally I would not use the editor to scope out the enemy setup zones. Mainly because you don't really have to.

2 hours ago, axxe said:

I'm playing through scenarios in the hopes of graduating to PBEM play and I'm wondering if I should be looking in the scenario editor at the enemy setup zones beforehand (I assume that's possible - haven't tried).

It is possible, yes.

2 hours ago, axxe said:

 I realize that's not "realistic", but it that's how PBEM is done...

No looking at enemy setup zones is not something I do. As I said earlier there really is no need. The enemy setup zone will be opposite of your setup zone.

Many (most perhaps) play with a no pre-planned artillery on the attacker's setup zone and no pre-planned artillery in a meeting engagement. So given that you don't need to know exactly where the enemy's setup zone is .

[axxe]

Here's a scenario I'm setting up for. I am looking toward the objectives the enemy is defending. The forest on the right side of the map is completely encircled with bocage. I would love to know if the enemy setup zone includes that forest! From the far left side of the map I will have LOS behind the forest, so if no enemy units start in there, I can move into the forest with ease.

If I imagine playing a human opponent here, I think it would matter to him if I knew the forest started out empty or not.

[Hilts]

For me, the "Fog of War" is part of the beauty of the game. You can get a fairly good idea where the enemy is from the tactical map. Outside of that I wouldn't dream of looking at the enemy's set up in the editor and I wouldn't be very impressed if I found out he had looked at mine.

[axxe]

FWIW, my plan of attack is right along the right edge of the map, so how I go through the forest is important.

If it starts empty, I will hurry to his side of the forest, knowing he can't enter without me seeing him from the left side of the map where I have LOS behind the forest.

If he might have units starting in there, I need to hunt them out.

[axxe]

6 minutes ago, Hilts said:

For me, the "Fog of War" is part of the beauty of the game. You can get a fairly good idea where the enemy is from the tactical map. Outside of that I wouldn't dream of looking at the enemy's set up in the editor and I wouldn't be very impressed if I found out he had looked at mine.

Yes, this is also my initial reaction - I don't want hints!  But anyone who's played certain maps before will have this info without using the editor, and it can't help but affect their battle plan. So it seems for more fair if both sides "cheat"...

[A Canadian Cat]

I think you should act as if the forest contains the enemy.

And therefore bypass it Leave some small forces along the edge to observe and prevent surprises and move past the forest.

[Hilts]

32 minutes ago, axxe said:

Yes, this is also my initial reaction - I don't want hints!  But anyone who's played certain maps before will have this info without using the editor, and it can't help but affect their battle plan. So it seems for more fair if both sides "cheat"...

Well, I suppose that's one way round it but it spoils half the fun. Anyway, I'm not interested in playing a scenario that my opponent has already played. There are hundreds of scenarios out there across the five titles without having to play one twice.

[Holman]

I think the CM clubs (e.g. Band of Brothers, The Blitz) assume that scenarios will be new for both players.  If you've played it before, you're expected to disclose this.

[axxe]

9 minutes ago, Holman said:

I think the CM clubs (e.g. Band of Brothers, The Blitz) assume that scenarios will be new for both players.  If you've played it before, you're expected to disclose this.

Ah ha, ok, that's good to know. It never occurred to me that there were so many scenarios that the hard-core players can avoid replays!!

[A Canadian Cat]

Hey some of us hard core players like to play the good ones more than once too. But @Hilts and @Holman both make good points.

Edited February 2, 2017 by IanL

[ASL Veteran]

For scenarios it really depends on what you like to do.  If you want to play 'blind' then absolutely you would not want to look at the set up situations for both sides.  That leaves you at the mercy of some level of randomness in terms of scenario balance when making your scenario selection.  I used to select a new scenario with someone by telling them that whoever selects the scenario does not select the side that they want to play as.  So if I select the scenario then my opponent gets to look at both sides and then choose which side he wants to play.  Since I wouldn't necessarily know which side my opponent will pick, then it would be prudent for me to select a scenario that I think I can win as either side.  That method won't work for blind play though and so the best way to do blind play is probably through the scenario of the month type of set up like they do at the Blitz where you have a third party selecting the scenario and determining who plays which side. 

As far as set up zones - well for a QB they are pretty straightforward.  With scenarios though, both the set up zones and victory locations can be in non intuitive locations.  Victory locations in particular can be different for each side.  Most scenarios are also typically not set up like QB meeting engagements and sometimes if the defender's setup zone is on the small side it can give the attacker an advantage that maybe they shouldn't have.

Having said all of that though - even if you aren't playing a scenario blind I have found that no two players will play the same side in the same way and so even a player who has played a scenario before may experience a great deal of surprise as their opponent will typically not do things the same way that either that player did when playing as that side or as a previous player may have done when that player played against that side against a prior opponent.  So in my opinion, the blind bit is probably overstated a bit, although there are players who feel very passionate about the blind aspect so it is important to be open about whether you have played something before - or examined the set up zones and victory conditions for each side.

[Bulletpoint]

For attack/defend missions, it's part of the challenge that you don't know exactly where the defender's setup zone will be. It forces you to play more cautiously, buying more time for the defender and counterbalancing that you have more points than he has.

Also, remember that against a human opponent, setup zones are just where he starts out. After a couple of turns he could be in a very different position.

However, if I have played a particular mission several times as both attacker and defender, I will inform my opponent of this before the game, so he can take a look at setup zones and forces on both sides if he wants. This is rare though. Usually I play scenarios that are new to both myself and my opponent, and we don't do any peeking beforehand.