Playing Scenarios Blind

[Lady Roxanne]

I've been giving this some thought lately. I've come to the conclusion that many, if not most scenarios should NOT be played blind. Why?

1)Briefings often do not convey the information that a commander who is stepping off into an imminent firefight might have.

2) Time limits on scenarios often demand rather quick decisive action. It's hard to do that when you're marching into the COMPLETE unknown.

Granted, many scenarios are much more realistic (and fun) when played blind; but a significant number are not, IMO. Wouldn't it be nice if, along with recommended play (Human vs AI Russian, Human vs Human, etc.), the general briefing made a recommendation concerning blind play?

[CombinedArms]

Well, I pretty much always PBEM scenarios blind because it's a greater challenge and therefore more fun. It's also more fair if both players are playing blind. The ROW tourneys have been terrific for this.

On a couple of rare occasions I've replayed old favorite scenarios PBEM with another player who was also familiar with the scenario. That can be fun but is quite different from double-blind play.

Replaying a scenario vs. the AI is different. I sometimes do that if I want to test a different approach, play it from the other side, or see if my tactics have improved since I last played it.

But I'd say, whatever works for you is fine. If you and an opponent prefer playing after reviewing the other side's forces & briefing, why not. Just be sure both players have the same advantage.

[MikeyD]

It all depends on what your objective is in a game. Some people go in specifically to get their butts thoroughly whipped!

I'd say doing a run-through would be appropriate if you're playing defender on your home ground. Logic says you would have more info in those circumstances. Or if you've been fighting for the same factory in Stalingrad for 3 weeks straight. You should be expected to know the territory by then.

But if if's a meeting engagement in a snowstorm, for example, what extra info do you think you should be entitled to? If a scenario designer leaves out a vital piece of information he did it on purpose. He's building a story line - "What if a couple light tank platoons were to stumble into an enemy infantry division on the march during a snow storm?". Doing a scenario run-through would change the story to "What if a couple light tank platoons knew an enemy infantry division was on the march along that road?" That would warp the whole storyline!

[BeauCoupDinkyDau]

Blind?! Do you have a brail screen or something?!! :eek:

[nevermind]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

[sNIP]

I'd say doing a run-through would be appropriate if you're playing defender on your home ground. Logic says you would have more info in those circumstances. Or if you've been fighting for the same factory in Stalingrad for 3 weeks straight. You should be expected to know the territory by then.

There is one problem with this.If the defender does a run through against the AI,he gets to see what the attackers force composition is.That is a little bit too much of an advantage,IMO.

I am really starting to like playing double blind PBEMs.I just hope that all the great scenario designers out there keep us supplied with a steady stream of this type of scenario goodness.

Another interesting point about double blind play.It will make you honest.You will advance more cautiously and IMO more realistically.All in all,i'd say the briefings are about right,i've seen some that didnt tell enough,and others that told way too much.

For future versions of CM,add a map to the briefings with all the lines of advance,suspected enemy positions,etc.Here is the cool part though,add FOW to the briefing map.Have the option to have things like fords and bridges located on the attackers briefing map incorrectly.This would impose a penalty to the attacker.Of course for this to work,you would also have to have FOW applied to the actually battlefield.A very similar discussion about this took place awhile back.I was thinking that everyone liked the idea ? :confused:

[ May 16, 2003, 03:57 PM: Message edited by: nevermind ]

[Boo Radley]

I've always played PBEM scenarios blind and for the most part, it works out well. Except for one memorable occasion where I set up my men to defend straight ahead of my position and my enemy came at me from my right.

That left a mark.

[Carl Puppchen]

I play quick battles to practice or pull down scenarios from web boards that are specifically built as playable vs AI and save all of the "good" scenarios (esp. RUNE scenarios) for play against a human opponent. Neither me nor my opponent plays them first.

It is a lot more fun that way!

[Firefly]

I prefer to play PBEM scenarios blind too, but I take CrankyKris' point about briefings, particularly ones that deliberately lie. I'm getting to the point where, if I read 'Ivan has no significant armour assets', I start expecting T-34 battalion at the least. Yes, I know that WW2 recce occasionally produced misleading information, but in every battle?

[Lady Roxanne]

I'm not suggesting a complete runthrough against the AI. What I had in mind is a brief look at scenarios in the editor, like maybe a 30 second peek to note setup zones mainly. It really all depends on scenario design. The thing is, you don't know anything about that unless you look. Then, if you do look, you might spoil one that would have been an excellent candidate for blind play.

It might be interesting to turn this thread into a poll. Against humans, do you prefer blind play?

[SgtMuhammed]

I'm not sure what you are driving at. Do you mean you want to have a peek at the whole scenario, your stuff, his stuff, where they can go, etc.? Or do you just want a look at the map?

You have all the time you want during the setup phase, why not just make your plan then?

[Lady Roxanne]

I sometimes wish, after playing a scenario, that we hadn't done it blind, for various and sundry scenario dependent reasons. I would have liked to have checked out, IN SOME CASES, setup zones and force balance. A 30 second check of the scenario in the editor is what I had in mind. However, doing so will detract from enjoyment of some scenarios, and ruin others, IMO. So, I'm going to play some scenarios blind, and check others out first. I would of course inform my prospective opponents if I take a peek, and encourage them to do the same.

[ May 16, 2003, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: CrankyKris ]

[SFJaykey]

I agree the time limits can make it difficult to move with what seems appropriate caution, and still have a chance to achieve the scenario objectives. But it feels like cheating to open the scenario from the other side and see exactly what they're got, where their setup zones are, etc....and takes a lot of the suspense and fun out, too. In lieu of a proper intelligence brieifing in many scenarios, one of my solutions is to "probe" the scenario, simulating a recon by light forces. I posted about this to an earlier thread; here are the details again in case you find it helpful.

To conduct a "probe" I start up the scenario and choose a small scouting element from my forces, for example an infantry platoon or a couple of ACs, and set them up forward in my allowed setup area. The rest of my force remains back near the map edge, in deep cover. I play the first 1/3 or so of the scenario's turns vs the AI using _only_ the small recon force, probing cautiously to locate enemy positions and identify the type of forces. It goes pretty quickly, because I am only issuing orders to a small part of my force and there isn't much actual combat. Then I restart the scenario and play normally.

If playing the "real" game vs the AI, sometimes it will relocate its units, sometimes not, but I go in with some idea of what I'm up against. Against human players I don't "probe" the scenario unless they have also probed or played it themselves. "Probing" can be used in QBs if you save the game at the setup phase, probe, then reload the saved setup.

[Lady Roxanne]

That sounds like a fun idea, Jaykey. I like it!

[Aacooper]

I believe in playing a scenario blind and then never going back!

Of course, that approach makes it important for the scenario designer to come up with a good one. Sometimes briefings are intentionally misleading, sometimes they're bad. Sometimes the forces seem unbalanced, but bonus points or time constraints make up for it. Sometimes the forces are just unbalanced.

Playing each one blind makes each one interesting, but the quality can be mixed. On the whole, a good blind PBEM game is well worth slogging through an occasional stinker.

[kenfedoroff]

Originally posted by SFJaykey:

....In lieu of a proper intelligence brieifing in many scenarios, one of my solutions is to "probe" the scenario, simulating a recon by light forces.....

I like your idea. Either that, or throw it in the scenario editor and add 10-15 turns for recon.

Ken

[sgtabell]

Having just lost my cherry in ROWIII, blind is fun and annoying.

In one scenario, where the parameters were not written, I place all of my mines and wire and barricades around my defensive position, when in fact, it needed to be on on long side, and the two short sides. Statistically, remember where the battle is being fought from, Germans from the west, Russians from the east. (It would seem that scenario designers would pick this as a default).

However, I love to play a whole scenario from each unit, even if played before, it is so much more fun to do this when it's a blind game.

SgtAbell

[Andreas]

This idea about probing a scenario is quite interesting. Unfortunately there is a real risk that it completely alters the balance of the game.

In a scenario I did for CMBO, the initial defense force is so small that the attacker could just waltz over them, in 5-8 turns. In turn 10 however, if the defender has managed to hold on that long, he receives reinforcements that balance the game, if it has not already ended. The key element here is of course that the attacker does not know the exact positioning of the defending forces, does not know how strong they are, and is not aware of the timing of reinforcements. Or, simpler put, operates under FOW conditions. The best scenarios I have played relied on FOW to achieve their class. In that sense, they are one-shot wonders. Replayability is not even not a design-feature, it is purposefully designed out of the scenario.

Like Anthony, I only play double-blind, and I never replay a scenario. To me that is not even a question. It certainly is not correct, as postulated here at the outset "[...]that many, if not most scenarios should NOT be played blind." In the case of scenarios I designed, it is quite simply that ALL of them should be played blind, because that is what they were designed for.

[Dirtweasle]

Got to agree with Andreas here.

Playing a scenario blind is essential in most cases against the AI, and against a human PBEM makes for a much more enjoyable time.

Briefings may or may not contain details from the designer that the player later would know to have been useful. However it just could be that was the intent, eh?

Cranky Kris - you should send an e-mail to the scenaio designer and discuss the spcific ones in question. Maybe join in the discussion on the scenario design section.

[Marlow]

Originally posted by Andreas:

This idea about probing a scenario is quite interesting. Unfortunately there is a real risk that it completely alters the balance of the game.

Might be interesting to design a battle where the attackers force consists of 2 groups. A small recon force, and a larger attack force. The designer would place the two forces in different parts of the set-up zone, with the attack force set up in a location that is not vissible from the defenders set-up area. On the first run througn, the attacker can only use his scout force, and the battle will continue until a briefing defined number of casualties are reached, or until the attacker feels he has enough information. Then the battle is restarted.

[Andreas]

Indeed Marlow. Or have operations with variable battle length, i.e. the first battle is just recon with 20 turns, and the second the main assault with e.g. 60 turns and the main force on the board.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Indeed Marlow. Or have operations with variable battle length, i.e. the first battle is just recon with 20 turns, and the second the main assault with e.g. 60 turns and the main force on the board.

What impetus would the first force have though? Perhaps if the point system were altered such that recce elements did not count as casualties - or that units "spotted" by the recce force started padlocked in the second operation (but only if the recce unit that spotted them survived the first battle - ie lived to tell the tale) then perhaps there would be more of a reason for the player to screw around with recce troops.

As it is, you can get your recce shot up the first 20 turns and not do a damn thing because in game 2 of the operation, the enemy just moves all their setup anyway.

[Chad Harrison]

To comment on the original post, I prefer playing blind, especially with attack/assault scenarios. To often a scenario requires you to set up in certain areas, and when and where reinforcements arrive is another big factor.

My answer to this problem is that I always play QB rather than scearnios when I play multiplayer. Its always new and fresh, and most of all balanced.

Chad

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

As it is, you can get your recce shot up the first 20 turns and not do a damn thing because in game 2 of the operation, the enemy just moves all their setup anyway.

You lock the main firing positions in place (bunkers, trenches etc.) - wouldn't they stay in place for the next battle(s)? As for the other assets - yep they can be moved. So what, if that means giving up good positions?

[dw]

The basic scenario problem has always been defining the length or number of turns (Whether for this game, Steel Panthers, or Squad Leader). By defining the length of the game you are imposing the tactics the players will have to use. For example, if a player has to cross a huge amount of ground, but only has 15 turns to do it, they are going to be much less cautious than if they had 25 turns.

Timing becomes a valid component only when an event is going to occur. For example taking a key postion prior to an enemy attack; or secruing a key crossroads for yout troops to pass through (or a bridge like Market-Garden).

Otherwise a reasonable commander would be deliberate in an attack to minimize causulties. In a real combat environment(assuming no event as described above)would it matter if a commander got an objective in 28 minutes versus 21?

[SgtMuhammed]

Just a general comment as to how much information an attacking unit can expect to have about the enemy. Most of the time it is even less than the worst briefing you get in a CMBB scenario. For some reason the enemy never seems to want to cooperate. They tend to move around, especially if they think you know where they are.

Even in situations where the enemy does cooperate often your own people wont. I had several squad leaders and who's Op Orders went something like this.

"Ok we are moving here 5 or 10 klicks and attacking or defending that hill, I don't remember. There were a couple of phase lines but I forgot to write them down."

Me: "Do we know about the enemy?"

"No. They said something but I wasn't paying attention."

Me again: "Ok so basically a walk till dawn and shoot whatever we come across."

"Something like that."

Even without this extreem case there is still the old "Captain, your company needs to take that hill. We have no idea what is up there but we need that hill."