Briefing Style: CMBB vs. CMBO

[CombinedArms]

[Edit: No responses, so I'm moving this to the CMBB forum]

An observation, leading to a query for both players and scenario designers.

The observation, made by an avid player of and fan of CM scenarios, is that CMBB scenario briefings are often considerably more straightforward and informative than CMBO briefings. CMBO briefings frequently gave both sides, and particularly, the attacker, misleading or outright false information. This seemed to be part of the briefer's art. The phrase "no enemy armor is expected" seemed almost a guarantee that there would be enemy armor. Rarely would any definite info be included about reinforcements and info about enemy forces and dispositions would often be sketchy at best--more frequently downright wrong. The player's art involved trying to extract some useful and accurate information from the briefing's tissue of wrong assumptions--usually attributed to "intelligence" that was generally quite unreliable.

In CMBB the briefings are often considerably more straightforward and accurate--they may be missing important details, but there's often a great deal of sound information in them. And it's far more common to get specific info about reinforcements, often including not just force makeup but location and timing of arrival.

My questions for CMBB players is--have you also noticed this difference? And do you like it? (I DO!)

My questions for CMBB designers are--am I right in observing this difference? And, if so, what is the reason for it? I have a suspected reason, which is that the engine redesign makes attacking considerably more of a challenge in CMBB than in CMBO. Not only is attacking more difficult; it also takes more time. So while in CMBO, attackers were given shakey recon info to make their tasks more challenging, in CMBB, their given more solid info to make their task possible to accomplish in the available time.

Anyway, I'm not complaining--in fact, I like the new style because, much as I like a good mystery, I like to be able to come up with a coherent plan even more. Just wondering if what I've observed has also been observed by others and is accurate to any degree...

[ April 03, 2003, 07:28 PM: Message edited by: CombinedArms ]

[GreenAsJade]

I far prefer the straightforward briefings.

I understand the inclination to simulate the confusion of war by making the briefing confusing, but it doesn't do anything for me at all (except irritate).

I would note that "vague" can be fine, where it

is simply "non-specific".

5thSS PzGr Wikin (CMBB) is a great example of "vague". "Tank sounds have been heard from the north and west". OK - I know what information this does and does not give me and I can make a call about how much I take it into account.

ToD2 Chambois Axis briefing was (for me) an example of the opposite: trying to create the confusion of war by having a briefing full of words that added nothing. In fact, the real problem lies in not differentiating information that is for atmosphere and information that is telling the player what they actually need to do. "You must rendezvous with Sergent Schulz in the village". What the heck does that tell you? Do I have to get a particular unit to within a particular range of another one? Who is "you" in that sentence anyhow? I'm a player behind a computer, how do I rendezvous with anyone?

Of course, for any question of opinion, like this one, there will be as many opinions as respondents. I completely acknowledge that some people will like the "pseudo realistic" briefings. But for me, the game starts when I press "Continue". I just want the briefing to tell me what I need to know to play...

[Sergei]

In CMBO you basically had these very-similar-to-eachother Allies (typically a bunch of Shermans supporting regular infantry). The Germans were either good-ish quality Wehrmacht or SS, or then conscript Volksturm. In that one year time that the game covers, there's no big surprises for the player. Therefore, as long as he's played the game a bit, it might be necessary to mislead the player into a bit less routinised approach.

But in CMBB the gameplay can differ totally depending on the year and the forces present. I often feel confused enough in CMBB without anyone adding to that. In fact, it can be necessary for the designer to point out that yes, your Uzmurt Boy Scout Brigade's not exactly "elite" by any standard definition of that word, as a matter of fact they'll run back to their mama if the enemy growls and shows his teeth. At least that will make you avoid using them in any sort of Waffen-SS'ish way.

It's nice to have surprises, though. But there really are so many standards in CM scenario design... if you have lots of AT weaponry, then your enemy has lots of tanks. If you have engineers, then there's gotta be mines somewhere. If you have Flak, then he's got air support. It's just that many designers don't bother to include engineers or AT and AA assets unless they are actually necessary in the scenario. (Some day I'll build a meeting battle scenario in which an AA battery fights against an AT company for the control of a flag situated in the middle of heavy mine fields...)

And usually the forces are balanced - well, fortunately not always. But really, a scenario doesn't have to be balanced in the style of a Quick Battle. One side can be overwhelming, just give the underdog a point bonus; limit the time frame (if you have a battalion against two platoons, it CAN'T take 60 minutes to overrun them); or make the terrain well-suited for multiple ambushes.

[Andreas]

I have adopted the non-rambling, very dry style that we were asked to do for the CD scenarios as standard. I really do quite like it, and it gets the job done. I find that with the long-winded intros it is easy to miss the key information.

I also find it somewhat inappropriate to delve too deeply into this 'Private Meier was anxiously peering out of his foxhole into the night - he had just written the letter to his fiancee, not knowing whether he would survive the next day, when he suddenly spotted a [...]' gibberish. Does not seem to do the scale and intensity of the conflict justice. Just my opinion.

Some of the other things raised - desinformation in the briefing. I try to keep this to an absolute minimum, if not doing away with it altogether. Uncertainty is fine, and expected. Intel was patchy most of the time in reality. Outright desinformation is not fine though, IMO, unless it is a scenario set at the very tip of the advance, where little to nothing is known.

Reinforcements - I always give a space of time, even if I design the reinforcements to appear at a specific turn. So if it says 10-15 minutes, they could appear in 8, but also in 20 minutes, as far as the player is concerned. I think it would be wrong to give the definitive time. The general direction they come from is fine though, that would have been known.

But in general, I prefer the short crisp style, not least because it reduces the strain of writing the things.

I also always try to give the sources, as in e.g. 'A morning commute', where the link to 'Irrepressible in action' is given in the general briefing.