Cheating

[General Bolt]

I was wondering how many of ya'll look at both sides breifing including OOB prior to starting a new scenerio. True FOG-of-War the commander rarely new what he was up against.

I consider seeing both sides before a battle total cheatery.

[Sergei]

I agree, I never do it. It takes away a lot of the fun if you know what's ahead. Sometimes the initial briefing is not clear enough to give me a good advice which side to pick, so I might have a peek and swap sides if it seems uninteresting. This only if I'm playing against the AI, of course.

[kenfedoroff]

I like to take a quick peek at the map before I consider a scenario for PBEM. Of course, I tell my prospective opponent to take a peek as well, without lingering over set-up zones, force-mix, etc.

As we get more reviews and recommendations for scenarios over at "The Depot" and similar sites, even this "map peek" won't be necessary anymore.

Ken

[ASL Veteran]

Actually, when I play a scenario I prefer that an opponent has seen both sides. Not only seen both sides but has played it a couple of times already from both sides vs the AI so he has a feel for how it plays. I prefer things this way in order guarantee a challenging fight since my opponent is not likely to make a silly rookie mistake if he knows the situation inside and out. I want to defeat someone who brings his 'A' game, not win because he screwed up or didn't recognize an important location until after it was too late. A scenario can be just as challenging when both sides have perfect knowledge of the opposing forces and tactical situation as they can be playing a scenario blind.

[Lady Roxanne]

It's good to see there are some who don't think playing blind is the ONLY good way to do PBEM. I really enjoy blind play; but I often enjoy the rerun when both players have perfect knowledge even more.

Back in the old days I played an Avalon Hill board wargame called Blitzkrieg. There was only ONE scenario. Sure, it got old; but not until I played it MANY times.

There are dozens of CMBB scenarios that could stand multiple replays before getting boring. Any scenario designed with lots of freedom for the players in the setup phase is a good candidate for multiple replays. Even scenarios with restricted setups are good for replay as long as there are several plausible courses of action available to the attacker.

Play 'em blind for the headrush of the unknown. Then, do it again against an opponent who also knows the scenario for the headrush of the UNEXPECTED.

[Spotless]

I think the only downside to the "peek" regards pre-knowledge of forces available. Knowing that the enemy has just lost his last AT asset or AFV is valuable tactical knowledge.

As for maps, though, knowing the terrain and playing against an experienced player makes for more exciting play, to be sure. The map import feature allows us to play on "proven ground" and still wonder what might be lurking over the next hill.

Despite CM's excellent 3d environment, there are just some things you must see in action to appreciate: where those scattered trees become just think enough for cover, which 8 degree little arc of LOS you can eek between two buildings to sight down a road, etc. Since you don’t have a point-to-point LOS tool, the only way to really hava feel is to have played it a time or two.

Just my 2 cents.

[ June 24, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Spotless ]

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by Spotless:

I think the only downside to the "peek" regards pre-knowledge of forces available.

I like a quick peek at the map for one reason:

A well-made or interesting looking map quite often (but not always) means the scenario designer has put some real effort into creating a fun and challenging situation to resolve.

As more people trot over to the Scenario Depot and make their opinions known, there will be less chance of spending time on a "clinker" scenario, and therefore, less reason for even a peek.

Ken

[Andreas]

An advice to those playing my scenarios: Don't peek. They are often consciously designed around the FOW, and therefore are not replayable, or at the very least will be extremely unbalanced if you try and do that.

I never peek, at anything, map, forces, whatever.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Andreas:

An advice to those playing my scenarios: Don't peek. They are often consciously designed around the FOW, and therefore are not replayable, or at the very least will be extremely unbalanced if you try and do that.

I never peek, at anything, map, forces, whatever.

I agree - the kind of game I'm interested in is one where no-one peeked.

The troops in real life didn't have a chance to walk over that hill and see what little valleys there were on the other side!

Of course, this is purely a matter of taste: someone else said they want their opponent playing their A game. Fair enough... except for me part of a good A game is being able to cope with what the terrain throws at you, not how well you spent an hour crawling over the map!

It's matter of taste. One thing that is important though: it definitely is cheating if you take a peek and don't tell your opponent.