Spoilers -what are they?

[Henri]

I have just been doing searches about the subject "spoilers" in order to find out exactly what is the standard on this forum, having recently been accused myself of posting spoilers in at least one message .The search didn't help much, except to tell me how sensitive some people are about the slightest bit of information.

Now I respect other peoples' opinions, and everyone has a right to determine himself how much he wants to know in advance about any scenario.The fact is that I don't understand how some small amount of information that any reasonable person should be able to guess can "spoil the fun" or give an "added advantage" . Here are some examples.

In one case, a poster (not me) was chided because he mentioned that there were tanks (without saying how many or which ones) in a scenario on a big map that lasted over 50 moves. I have difficulty imagining a very large scenario in combat mission where there are no tanks at all. Or what difference it makes in gameplay.If you are playing an assault, what difference does it make whether or not tanks or AT guns are going to greet your own tanks?

In another case, a poster was chided for "ruining" a pbem game about to start because he mentioned information that was clearly available in the briefing text.

Now I can imagine cases where information such as "...late in the game, German tanks popped up on my right flank unexpectedly just when I was about to enter the town...", but I fail to understand how knowledge that there is a Tiger in a big scenario can "spoil" the game.

As a matter of fact, I real all the AARs I can find, and it doesn't affect my gameplay at all. Maybe it's because I don't think about the scenario itself but on the tactics and flow of the battle; when I played a certain scenario recently, someone told me that I might have a nasty surprise as I crossed a certain bridge, but that didn't stop me from crossing it, and I would have been just as careful had I not been told anything. In another case, I read an AAR and the very next day, made the same mistake that the poster had mentioned in his AAR. In many cases, I prefer to know as much as possible about the scenario BEFORE I play it, which is why I would like a computer vs computer mode in CM . I understand that everyone is not like me, and that this is not good for human vs human play (which I haven't got into yet :rolleyes .

My personal definition of a spoiler would be "information about a scenario that may be used by a player to gain an (unfair) advantage over an opponent". If we want to use the definition "Any information about a specific scenario that is not explicit in the briefing", then maybe we need two definitions.

Opinions welcome.

Henri

[MadDog0606]

Henri,

No matter what you do your bound to piss somebody off. Heck, you could say "the grass was greener on the other side of the hill" and somebody will tell you that you spoiled that scenario for them (they thought is was going to be mud). Just cover yourself by putting "Possible spoiler" in the subject header if your going to talk about anything in a scenario that your playing. If they read it and then complain that you spoiled the scenario for them it's their problem because they didn't take the time to read the subject header.

Personally I avoid reading AARs until after I've performed my own mistakes for that scenario. I've played enough tactical war games to avoid most of the dumb mistakes, but a few still slip by my superior intellect .

By the way, was that your AAR for "All or Nothing" in the war-historical newsgroup? If it was I read it and liked it. I've only played up to turn 38 and discovered that lllooonnnggg scenarios with a battalion of troops (Oh my, I broke my own rule, now I'm going to get flamed because I spoiled a scenario) is not my thing and placed that scenario on hold for now.

[This message has been edited by MadDog0606 (edited 07-20-2000).]

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MadDog0606:

By the way, was that your AAR for "All or Nothing" in the war-historical newsgroup? If it was I read it and liked it. I've only played up to turn 38 and discovered that lllooonnnggg scenarios... [snipped to avoid spoiler complaints)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yp, that was me . That huge map has got to be the best CM map I hae ever seen . As I said elsewhere, an easier way to plot road travel of multiple vehicles could make this senario less tedious.

Henri

[Kingfish]

Hello Henri,

Mind if i chime in?

As far as i know, there is no "official" definition for a Spoiler. However, I'd like to refer to your own as it supports my position on this issue.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>"information about a scenario that may be used by a player to gain an (unfair) advantage over an opponent".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You will agree that everything on the map has an infuence on how the battle is fought. Friendly / Enemy deployments, Terrain, VLs, reinforcments, etc...all contribute to the outcome. Even the lowly 80-year old Volkstrum Sharpshooter can reduce the effectivness of a Pershing tank.

By providing specific information about a scenario you automatically give the player an unfair advantage. If you were playing on the largest map CM can produce in a 120 turn game, and i told you "there is a small minefield over there" you will change your tactics from that point on. Maybe not alot, but it will always be thinking in the back of your mind "I'd better not advance my tanks there".

Now, IMO, the German tank you mentioned does not fall in the category of "small amout of information". It has the ability to influence the battle and the opponents strategy in a big way. The fact that they might not see it until game turn xx and 2 kilometers away doesn't mean anything. It's the fact that it will appear that changes things.

One more point i'd like to add. I know that people that wish to play Blind scenarios are taking a big risk in browsing this forum, but your topic did say "no spoiler" and that's what i was trying to point out to you. If you had not put that in, just left it "all or nothing", then it would be the readers fault if they were spoiled.

Sorry for the long post, i hope it made sense (where the hell is John Kettler when you need him).

P.S. i hope the people that contribute to this thread can keep it civil, i've seen way too many threads that start out good but end up circling the bowl. Just my opinion FWIW

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:

Hello Henri,

Mind if i chime in? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not at all, on tghe contrary, I would like to generate a discussion to clarify this point, at least in my own mind.

I do agree that there are cases where information that there is a tank in a scenario can change the tactics of a player (especially if there are only two tanks per side as in a certain scenario), but let's take a hypothetical case to avoid spoilers: let us say that there is a 30-move scenario where the Allies are atttacking across a shallow river, and the briefing says that the river line is defended by the remnants of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Let us say that in fact there are two German companies supported by four tanks and a couple of At guns in the area.

No let us say that someone on this forum slips out that there is a Panther in the German position. How is this going to change the tactics of a British player? If there were a Tiger instead of a Panther, would he attack in a different way? How about a PzIV? The fact is that there is only one standard way of assaulting a river crossing, whether or not ther are tanks or AT guns present, and that is to recon the German position to the extent possible, then to mount an assault with tanks and infantry after pounding the German position with artillery and smoke, keeping a sizeable resserve to follow up the breakthrough. And the briefing clearly indicated that the Germans are the remnants of a Panzer Division, who are therefore likely to have tanks.

In my view, the following statement, although it clearly fits the definition of "spoiler" as implied by many here, gives absolutely no information that can be exploited by the British player: "I found that the German position was defended by entrenched infantry supported by tanks and AT guns, and I spotted a Panther near a hill behind what appeared to be the main point of German resistance across the river." What was the British player expecting, Daffy Duck?

Henri

[Kingfish]

To hell with work! Nothing like a good discussion on company time

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>but let's take a hypothetical case to avoid spoilers: let us say that there is a 30-move scenario where the Allies are attacking across a shallow river, and the briefing says that the river line is defended by the remnants of the 12th SS Panzer Division. Let us say that in fact there are two German companies supported by four tanks and a couple of At guns in the area. Now let us say that someone on this forum slips out that there is a Panther in the German position. How is this going to change the tactics of a British player? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you'd be a very lucky allied commander to have that much detail of the OOB of the enemy beforehand. Most times you only get "some dug-in Infantry w/ tanks across the river".

But anyway,lets approach this hypothetical scenario two ways.

1) I don't know about the Panther, and in the course of the river assault i kill 3 Mark IVs. I can assume that i've destroyed all his armor and so proceed across, only to get ambushed by said Panther.

2) I know about the Panther, and after killing the 3 Mark IVs i know there is still a threat to my river crossing, so i adjust my strategy to deal with it. Already i've gained an unfair advantage over my opponent because i denied him the ambush.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>And the briefing clearly indicated that the Germans are the remnants of a Panzer Division, who are therefore likely to have tanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Likely yes, but as to the number or type, no. Also, how about briefings that don't mention specific unit organizations? Case in point: Chance encounter. IIRC, This scenario never listed anything about the enemy OOB, and if someone was to say "there are x number of xxx, so be careful" wouldn't that ruin the surprise factor or "spoil" the scenario?

Bottom line is even the smallest bit of information can be used to one's advantage. Here is another Hypothetical: assume that instead of a Panther it was a minefield. Would it be any less of a spoiler if i had mentioned there are mines across the bridge? How about an Arty FO atop a hill?

If i was the allied commander charged with crossing the river and i knew all those things from spoilers it would change my strategy.

Example:

1)I just killed 3 of his tanks, but i know there is a Panther waiting, i'd better hold my tanks back.

2)I know there is a minefield just beyond the bridge, i'd better lead off with engineers.

3)I know there is an arty FO looking down on me from that hill, i'd better smoke it.

I hope this helped clarify the issue. Believe me, nothing is more enjoyable than executing a muderous ambush against an opponent. that would be impossibel if he knew what you had and where.

You thoughts

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Kingfish:

Well, you'd be a very lucky allied commander to have that much detail of the OOB of the enemy beforehand. Most times you only get "some dug-in Infantry w/ tanks across the river".<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear ; I'm assuming that the player doesn't know that much detail, this OOB was given only to illustrate the point. The attacker only knows that the enemy is part of the remnant of a Panzer Division (which shoujld lead him to expect at least a few tanks).

You say that the knowledge that there is a Panther on the other side of the river is going to change your tactics . I don't see how; in the example I gave, the attacking player shoud assume from the briefing that there are enemy tanks. He KNOWS from the "spoiler" that at least one of them is a Panther. After destroying some tanks as you say, he knows that there is at LEAST one more enemy tank and that it is a Panther . If he didn't know there were at least a Panther, he STILL wouldn't know whether or not there are still any enemy tanks left and how many. So I still don't see how this knowledge will give him an unfair advantage and how he can exploit it by changing his tactics, since the safe thing to do would be to assume that there are still tanks there.

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that his tactics for assaulting the river line should be the same whether or not there are any enemy tanks left, that is, clear a path to the river, pound the enemy with artillery, cover your advance with smoke, and advance with infantry supported by tanks . Even if ther are no tanks left, there are likely to be AT guns in the enemy position , and one should NEVER lead with tanks against an unknown enemy, except perhaps over flat open terrain where there is no place to hide for bushwacking infantry.

More comments welcome

Henri

[L.Tankersley]

On the other hand, if the player KILLED a Panther early on and had seen a spoiler that conveyed the information that there was only a single Panther in the defense, then he'd know he had no more Panthers to worry about.

Flip the sides and it can be more significant: say the spoiler is about the US force, mentioning that there is a single 76mm Sherman. If the Germans kill a 76mm Sherman, they might reasonably assume that their (heavily-armored) tanks are safe against frontal shots by the remaining Allied armor. Absent the spoiler, they still need to be (more) cautious about frontal engagements.

A lot of times, of course, the information might not be of real practical use. But you never know what might be going through a player's mind, or what misconceptions they might be laboring under to provide fertile ground for a spoiler to have a significant effect on the play of the game.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

On the other hand, if the player KILLED a Panther early on and had seen a spoiler that conveyed the information that there was only a single Panther in the defense, then he'd know he had no more Panthers to worry about.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you that giving the information that there is only one enemy tank and what kind would be a major spoiler . The example I was giving was saying that there is a specific tank when there is no information about whether or not there is only one, and when the briefing implies that there may be a number of tanks.

I also agree that there are cases where giving information that may appear innocent may on occasion give away more than the poster is aware of.

I also agree that each indivicual has the right to determine how much information he should be given and how much warning that he wants. But this is a public forum, so there is a need for some kind of consensus that probably can`t satisfy everyone.

The question is whether it is necessary to avoid ALL information in order to avoid such infrequent cases, or whether one should use good judgment.

It is somewhat similar to the question of whether one should avoid crossing the street because there is a small probability of being run over by a truck

Henri

[pathfinder]

hmm, most of mah spoilers come from leaving the pizza out a coupla days

------------------

unca pathy will show ya the path,

if only he could find it himself!

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

I also agree that each indivicual has the right to determine how much information he should be given and how much warning that he wants. But this is a public forum, so there is a need for some kind of consensus that probably can`t satisfy everyone.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Henri, your use of smiley and relatives cracks me up - it seems to have very little to do with the actual text...

Now for the topic: I would prefer it if the consensus was that you put possible spoiler in the top pf your post, some space in between that and the text, and everybody will be happy. I am too tired to engage in a discussion like the above, and I believe it is pointless. You will never find agreement on this, so please use this very simple device and thereby make sure that you do not spoil somebody else's fun. It is greatly appreciated, believe me. I just don't want to know anything about a scenario I have not played, b/c I don't know how it will affect my gameplay. And I do want to be able to continue visiting this forum.

Thanks in advance.

------------------

Andreas

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> If he didn't know there were at least a Panther, he STILL wouldn't know whether or not there are still any enemy tanks left and how many.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but as long as that Panther is alive and hiding the allied commander is assured there is still a threat. That assurance is something a real commander would not have in a true FOW setting.

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Henri, your use of smiley and relatives cracks me up - it seems to have very little to do with the actual text...

Thanks for the backhand ...

I am too tired to engage in a discussion like the above, and I believe it is pointless.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the effort. Opinion noted.

Henri

One of the most important things in life is to be able to tell the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the ass

[L.Tankersley]

Andreas is right - it's best to play it safe and put a spoiler or possible spoiler warning in the title of ANY thread in which you discuss a specific scenario. We can afford the bandwidth.

Another reason to put a warning, even if you don't put any actual spoiler info in your post, is that people that respond to you might not be so careful. And with this particular forum software, the entire thread must have the same subject line. This is the one gripe I have with this forum as opposed to some others; you have to read (or at least open) the entire thread instead of choosing specific posts to read. [Of course, it does cut down on the sometimes amusing but usually pointless threads of no-text posts.]

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by L.Tankersley:

Andreas is right - it's best to play it safe and put a spoiler or possible spoiler warning in the title of ANY thread in which you discuss a specific scenario. We can afford the bandwidth.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I`ll try to do it , although it is beyond me why anyone who comes to a forum whose subtitle says `...about scenario specifics, like how a battle played out or its balance...` would be surprised to find scenario-specific information in the messages

Henri

WARNING: The above message may contain smilies unrelated to the accompanying text!

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-21-2000).]

[Kingfish]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

[balthough it is beyond me why anyone who comes to a forum whose subtitle says `...about scenario specifics, like how a battle played out or its balance...` would be surprised to find scenario-specific information in the messages

Henri

[This message has been edited by Henri (edited 07-21-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the surprise comes from reading Spoiler info in a thread that's labeled "no spoiler"

------------------

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Hakko Ichiu]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

OK, I`ll try to do it , although it is beyond me why anyone who comes to a forum whose subtitle says `...about scenario specifics, like how a battle played out or its balance...` would be surprised to find scenario-specific information in the messages

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Even so, I might like to read a thread about a scenario that is spoiler free to find out, e.g., that it was fun (or not), that it was balanced (or not), that it took a long time, that it required especial skill in, say, use of mortars, etc., etc. Some people are good enough to put "Spoiler Free" in their subject lines, and most people seem to respect that in their replies, or at least lead off with a spoiler warning if they are inclined to give spoilers.

I think it best to err on the side of caution. If you think s.t. might be a spoiler, put a (possible) spoiler warning in your header. No one will complain because your thread was insufficiently "spoiled".

------------------

Ethan

-----------

Das also war des Pudels Kern! -- Goethe

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

Thanks for the effort. Opinion noted.

Henri

One of the most important things in life is to be able to tell the difference between a pat on the back and a kick in the ass <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry Henri, that came over completely in the wrong way, after half a bottle of wine, major lack of sleep and a bad cold. Note to self - stop posting under those circumstances. I do apologise.

Really like your use of smiley & Co.!

------------------

Andreas

[Henri]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy:

Sorry Henri, that came over completely in the wrong way, after half a bottle of wine, major lack of sleep and a bad cold. Note to self - stop posting under those circumstances. I do apologise.

Really like your use of smiley & Co.!

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are a true gentleman, sir! BTW, I enjoy reading your posts; you are one of the reasons I have spent most of the past week reading this forum instead of working

Henri

[Guest Germanboy]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri:

You are a true gentleman, sir! BTW, I enjoy reading your posts; you are one of the reasons I have spent most of the past week reading this forum instead of working

Henri <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh - thanks. Funnily enough, they are also one of the reasons why I spent most of the past week reading this forum instead of working. Strange coincidence or what? Guess it is time to call in Mulder and Scully...

------------------

Andreas