What's a Greenhorn General to do?

[Skryabin]

WOW, I can't imagine playing total blind a full campigne!

In CS, yes I find it challenging especially when your opponent is playing blind too (unfamiliar scenario for both sides). Because those are more like tactical battles.

But here on this operational level first of all it seems totally unrealistic. In historical situation in most cases commanders were familiar with most of the enemy dispositions and created their plans based on that knowledge. I may be wrong as a beginner, but it seems to me that all this game is about realisation of such strategic plan which was built from very beginning.

How much detail you want to know is another question. All the beauty to me is to see if your plan works. And how can you possibly even build your strategic plan without knowing enemy as far as lets say on divisional level: how many divisions, were are they?

In my opinion it is enough reconnaissance during the game itself, because after a few turns all rear dispositions may change.

Am I wrong?

Skryabin

[Ricky B]

It is whatever works for you Skryabin, I don't worry if my opponent studies the starting positions in detail - I do have issues if using that he attacks on turn one and uses air recon to spot and bomb vulnerable arty that he wouldn't have had a clue about without, but that is limited to arty (or other units too actually) in travel mode out of enemy sight.

Anyway, looking through the games, I believe most of the PzC campaigns relied on very weak intel on the forces being faced or where they were - Moscow-the Germans had no clue what they were in for, France 40 - where are the German Panzers?, Kharkov, the Soviets surpised the Germans with their attack, and were surprised in turn by the German Panzers when they were committed, Stalingrad, enough said, Bulge the same, Minsk I have no idea how well the Soviets knew the German force deployments, but the Germans had no clue about the Soviet masses. Korsun, the Soviets thought they trapped a much weaker force than in reality.

So I agree there is quite a bit of overall informaton, in some cases fairly detailed, but rarely complete or beyond the point of "there is an enemy mass with at least 2 divisions around Krasnograd, we will drive north through Bobruisk and then south to meet a drive from Uman to encircle them".

I do like to read the historical play to help form my own plan, what worked and what didn't, but beyond that knowing that the enemy has 5 divisions in XXX location isn't my cup of tea, I like the surprise of "what did I run into?" And the game let's you adjust your plan instantaneously as opposed to historically, so a detailed plan isn't even necessary, although it is nice to form one.

Rick

[Skryabin]

I do have issues if using that he attacks on turn one and uses air recon to spot and bomb vulnerable arty that he wouldn't have had a clue about without, but that is limited to arty (or other units too actually) in travel mode out of enemy sight.

Well, I did not mean that kind of a plan, of course. It has nothing to do with strategy. Indirect fire OR unchecked resolves this problem.

For the rest, yes, it depends, and you most be right in general. But I was replying to Outlaw Josey Wales's "Total blind is the only way to go". I looked only into Kharkov so far and Germans there were really surprised, but Russians were planing their attack based on some information. They did not know about some divisions such as 113 in Krasnograd and another one arriving to Kharkov by rail, but the rest...

This is an interesting question. But anyway, even if I play blind, I would prefer my opponent to do the same :smoke: This gives me a feel of an Optional Rule which make sense when both sides follow it.


Skryabin

[Dog Soldier]

I can not think of a single scenario, except the beach or air invasion ones like N44, Sicily43, Salerno, Anzio, Crete where on the first turn you can not see at least most of the front lines and guess where the rest of the front is that can not be seen. The enemy does not appear "from the mist". Add that you have an excellent map of the terrain (Germans invading and British defending in France 1940 used Michelin tourist maps and outdated WW1 maps where roads, villages etc were not entirely accurate) where your units never get lost and I just do not understand why this thread's topic is considered a problem? You also have a perfect sense of how far your units can travel. They always go where you point them. Unless your crafty adversary has something just over that ridge to mess up your day...)

I can not stress enough (from my humble experience) how much the map will shape the way the game goes. Too many players actually ignore the terrain and focus only on the hex grid. Big mistake, huge!

I think it is the beauty and strength of the PzC series that even if you have played the scenario before, there are many different ways to approach these scenarios and still win. Thus, no two games of the same scenario are the same. The designers take great pains to make sure no scenario has a "perfect solution" on turn one. Of the hundreds of scenarios in the game titles, I can count on one hand the few scenarios that do seem to have such a flaw that is fatal to the defender.

Small scenarios of 10 turns or a single day are for refining your tactics. Strategy is pretty straight forward in those scenarios. Getting to know the capabilities of your forces (and those of the enemy) is another use of the small scenarios.

The medium scenarios, 15 - 30 turns (up to three or four days) are the meat of the series to me. These never play out the same way against different opponents or even the same opponent with different sides than our first game in my experience. These scenarios are large enough to discount what anyone will know by examining the initial set ups. After the first day, both sides will have their plans in full motion. Nothing will be the same as when at start, that is for sure by the end of the first day.

The CG scenarios are what they are in that there may be some obvious things to do on the first day, all bets are off after that. And if you do the obvious, there are members here like RickyB, VM, Indragnir, LBouton, TET2, Heinz, sja_ski, Foul, Beerweasel, Steel God (some call him Templar now) and others that will make you wish you had not.

The best scenarios in the system, IMHO, are the many ones where the map is too big for the forces to simply line up from map edge to map edge and march their way across the screen. With open flanks, lots of ground on the map, you have to face the real decisions and anxieties of the historical commanders. You have to take risks based on incomplete information which sometimes pay off (then you think you are a genius!) or fail miserably as your opponent was looking for just such an opening. In the latter case you were playing RickyB, Foul, etc. named above.

Now where is my head? RickyB took it off in our last tournament game in the AAR section.....could he please return it? The trophy is probably in a box in his garage now as he has many others to display on the shelf.

Dog Soldier

[Mr Grumpy]

Now where is my head? RickyB took it off in our last tournament game in the AAR section.....could he please return it? The trophy is probably in a box in his garage now as he has many others to display on the shelf.

I am shocked! :eek1:

Does he have the bear hat as well????? :( :(

[Gordons HQ]

I agree with Dog Soldier very little stands the test of 2 or 3 turns and everything very soon changes. Your best plans based on initial deployments can often have to be radically changed once a few turns are played out. As previously stated terrain is often the key factor and you must try to use it well.
So an initial look at the opposition deployment can often mean very little as the game unfolds.
But I do agree that it should not be used to target units in transport mode and the like.

Cheers, Gordon

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

You have to remember too, that in WW2, it seems most info came from air recon and ground patrols grabbing a prisoner in the area. Yes, there was plenty of intercept and deciphering codes, but on the ground it wair air and patrols.

And that list of players Dog Soldier mentioned above, he is also one of them, they just stink!!!!!!!!! :) I don't know if it is a lack of personal hygiene or the fact of the ones I have played I haven't beaten any of them or even out in a good showing. Perhaps next time I should try beating them with a big stick! :)

They are definitely the cream of the crop along with a few others.

[Skryabin]

I can not stress enough (from my humble experience) how much the map will shape the way the game goes. Too many players actually ignore the terrain and focus only on the hex grid. Big mistake, huge!

Are you talking here about 3D map specifically?

[Al]

Are you talking here about 3D map specifically?

I don't want to speak for Dog Soldier but I don't believe that he was referring specifically to 3D alone - although it can help.

Since I usually play CG's I have no problem with my opponent checking out initial dispositions (like most have said, it doesn't last much past the first turn) but what I look at is 1) the locations of objective hexes and 2) likely avenues of approach such as roads, valleys or clear terrain and 3) strong defensive positions.

From my experience these have significant impact on the games.

[Skryabin]

Since I usually play CG's I have no problem with my opponent checking out initial dispositions (like most have said, it doesn't last much past the first turn) but what I look at is 1) the locations of objective hexes and 2) likely avenues of approach such as roads, valleys or clear terrain and 3) strong defensive positions.

Thanks for the tips!

This thread inspired me to play a blind game :)

I have Smolensk, but did not look into it yet. Anybody wants to play a small to medium scenario?

Skryabin