Intelligence

[SFJaykey]

One of the things I'd really like to see in future versions of CM is a pre-battle intelligence report on enemy forces and positions. In lieu of such a feature, here are three subsitutes of varying effectiveness:

1) Briefings by the scenario designer. These are great....a number of the best scenarios I've played have the equivalent of a basic intelligence report in the briefing. I think all scenarios _should_ have them, and plan to include them in all of my future designs. They are less helpful in scenarios where the AI is free to place units, and not at all in QBs.

2) "Probing" a scenario. I've done this a few times, and it seems to work if more than a little "gamey." I start a scenario and locate a small probing force, for example an infantry platoon or a couple of ACs, forward in the setup area, with the rest of my force 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. 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.

3) Two-Turn Operations. This is an idea I just had, while playing an operation BEM. Design short operations instead of scenarios, with the attacker's first turn units limited to the recon force. Use padlocking and/or the "honor system" to limit defender's movements between games, especially of fortifications. I haven't tried designing such an op yet, but expect it would work well: most of the problems with operations seem to crop up in later battles when main forces are engaged. I'm open to suggestions on setting width of no-man's land and other parameters to make this as workable as possible. How about a 2-turn op with the first battle a small-unit night recon? One downside is the defender doesn't have too much to do while the attacker's recon guys are sneaking from tree to tree. Then again, defenders are supposed to patrol, too....

- Matt

[ May 08, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[MikeyD]

Ah, you're thinking like a strategist/gamer and not a story teller! What would be the fun of reading 'Little Red Riding Hood' if she had first asked the locals if there were any wolves in the area? Part of the fun of carefully crafted scenarios is the surprise around the corner, the 'twist to the plot' in story telling terms. You're given a set of tools, an objective, and a timeline to get it done. Anything else would be 'peeking'

Yeh I know, only part of the community sees the game in historical narrative terms. The rest see it as a... well... game!

[SgtMuhammed]

One of the problems with this though is that in a real life situation you generally do have more time than say 15 minutes to take your company over a kilometer of wooded terrain and then take a defended town. You might not have very much intel but you do generally have a lot more time to work with.

Then again lots of things take much longer in RL than in CMBB like clearing mines or clearing a building.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

Ah, you're thinking like a strategist/gamer and not a story teller! What would be the fun of reading 'Little Red Riding Hood' if she had first asked the locals if there were any wolves in the area? Part of the fun of carefully crafted scenarios is the surprise around the corner, the 'twist to the plot' in story telling terms. You're given a set of tools, an objective, and a timeline to get it done. Anything else would be 'peeking'

Yeh I know, only part of the community sees the game in historical narrative terms. The rest see it as a... well... game!

Actually, I think you and I approach the game in much the same way. I see an intelligence report as _part_ of the story, like a prelude or preface, setting the mood...even when you pick up "Little Red Riding Hood" for the first time you can look at the picture on the cover and know there is going to be a wolf in there somewhere!

Well crafted scenarios do offer twists and turns....as well as, IMO, a good briefing! My desire for an automated intelligence report would apply mostly to QBs, and the "probing" idea I mentioned is admittedly a crutch that I'll use until one is developed. I really think it's more realistic for a commander to have _some_ idea of what he's facing before deploying his troops, at least in Attacks, Assaults, and Probes.

But of course an intelligence brieifng, whether automated or by the designer, should not be 100% accurate. And thus it presents even more opportunities for unexpected twists and turns.

- Matt

[ May 08, 2003, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: SFJaykey ]

[Moon]

SFJaykey - 2) is an interesting idea - but why do you restart? Simply keep on playing and after your recon force made sufficient contact, move up the main force. That would actually be a very realistic example for battlefield recon.

As for 3) - well, you can make an operation with only the recon elements available to the player for battle 1, and have the main force enter as reinforcements. I have made a couple of operations like that for CMBO, and they usually have a nice realistic feel of how a typical battle or meeting engagement might have evolved in the real world.

Martin

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Moon:

SFJaykey - 2) is an interesting idea - but why do you restart? Simply keep on playing and after your recon force made sufficient contact, move up the main force. That would actually be a very realistic example for battlefield recon.

Martin, I thought the same, I guess the idea is that in the 2nd setup you can position your main force on the right approach route.

[SFJaykey]

Originally posted by Andreas:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Moon:

SFJaykey - 2) is an interesting idea - but why do you restart? Simply keep on playing and after your recon force made sufficient contact, move up the main force. That would actually be a very realistic example for battlefield recon.

Martin, I thought the same, I guess the idea is that in the 2nd setup you can position your main force on the right approach route. </font>

[MGONZOM]

What is the true definition of recon on the battlefield? My understanding is that a good recon will Not only find out where to go but at the same time screen the othersides recon forces from finding out where your forces are...

What about Recon with force?

I believe there is a fine line on what to say in briefings give a little keep a lot of FOW. In some cases in a good AI scenario give a little more...

In historical scenarios that are usually unbalanced I tend to give a lot more and provide some historical history to read later. Also try to make these very replayable because of their difficulty.

As for operations I agree but really have a hard time setting them up so that they are fair right of the bat... I have yet to post one because they are usually too realistic and brutal but I am working on one now with the new Static flag feature...