Playing Scenarios Blind

[Sergei]

Originally posted by dw:

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?

In a "game" sense: To "win" in a scenario, you are supposed to show some talent. With infinite time at hand, the stronger side could just systematically crumble the enemy defenses. Quite boring, actually, and doesn't require you to show much of leadership. If there is a scenario featuring a battalion vs. a platoon, sure as hell I as the regimental commander would get mightily furious to the battalion leader if he couldn't wipe that sorry platoon off the face of Mother Earth in less than 15 minutes! And if my platoon could hold off against a battalion for that long, I'd sure consider myself as a moral victor.

Realism-wise: What's the point of attacking unless you can use that to seize the initiative? Without initiative, all you have is a head-on onslaught when the enemy brings in reinforcements to stop you and you're bogged into a trench war. While if you make a bold dash and take the objective before the enemy higher command can react, your forces can exploit the situation and continue the drive.

[Lady Roxanne]

Going back to my first post, it would be good to KNOW what the designer had in mind with regard to blind play. After all, even if a scenario is tourney saved, it can still be played against the AI. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that some designers would design scenarios with the assumption in mind that both players will be familiar with both sides. Perhaps no designers do this, but it is reasonable to think they might. In fact, scenarios successfully designed in such a way would probably have good replay value.

Such a scenario would likely have large setup zones, few (if any) locked units, variable reinforcement arrivals, be rich in tactical options, possibly use dynamic flags, and probably tend to be a bit largish on average. Briefing content and scenario length decisions would be affected by the blind/not blind intentions of the designer. In any case it would be nice to know how the designer intended the scenario to be played, blind or not blind. Because blind play is apparently popular, maybe the vast majority of scenarios are designed with this fact in mind?

[Michael Dorosh]

I've always taken it for granted that scenarios are played blind; perhaps this was too great a leap on my part. Certainly all my scenarios have been designed that way.

[Kevin Kinscherf]

All mine at Boots and Tracks are designed to be played blind. The briefings are the place to put intel for players. Perhaps more attention needs

to be placed on the intel sections.It may be interesting to give a defender a weak force and lots of intel compared to a stronger attacker

with less information. I wonder if you can balance a battle simply via intel differences? Probably. There might be battles out there like this but I have not really noticed.

Good thread.

[SFJaykey]

I agree with most of the complaints that "probing" lessens suspense and gives the player an extra advantage. To be frank, I began resorting to it mainly to make up for my deficiencies as a player. I am getting better, but when I first started CMBB I had a really hard time reading terrain and figuring out where to expect the enemy, and how to choose the right line of attack. Also, I have often found it difficult to move with what seems to me to be proper caution and still achieve my objectives by end of game.

Obviously, these confessions identify me as a less-than-superlative player. The fact that I have "probed" almost exclusively vs the AI, and still not won consistently as the attacker, seems to underline this. (I have only "probed" once vs a human opponent, and only did it that time because he had already played the scenario vs the Ai and I wanted a fair chance.) As I gain experience and improve my tactics I'm finding it less necessary to "probe" and still have a decent chance of winning, but the technique has been quite helpful and I think shortened my "learning curve" quite a bit. And by playing QBs and "probing" during my learning stages in CMBB, I have managed to avoid "spoiling" the great human-made scenarios while I learned tactics and how to play the game.

Lots of good suggestions in the thread. I admit I never thought to open a scenario and just add 10 turns or so to allow for the recce...I may just do that from now on and never probe again.

Scenarios with two setup zones for the attacker are a good idea that I will try. One zone for recon forces setup forward, main force to the rear. But I'll try setting an adequte number of turns and playing it all straight thru from the beginning, rather than restarting. And variable game length in operations is a tweak I hope we will see in future game versions.