Some thoughts that you can say are bad ideas!

[CptCav]

Mike,

Regarding #6, I would have to say that the designer (at least when I am designing a scenario) has already spent a lot of time putting it together and generally does not feel like spending too much additional time in putting together more than a brief description.

I suppose it would be more appropriate to actually put together something more along the lines of a detailed operations order with (situation, the forces participating in the battle, concept of battle, etc.) But, to do it right does take a lot of time and many players, such as yourself have indicated that you do not want detailed info on the opposing force, which an intel report may contain. So, it becomes more difficult to decide what would be welcomed versus unwelcomed knowledge.

For example, do we put something in the description indicating that on the second day of the scenario, the northern sector (off-map) will be penetrated and enemy forces will be outflanking you. That seems to be giving a player the knowledge of the future. Is that appropriate. Even if we say something like "the enemy has been building up and it has been observed to be in greater strength to your north" still can be too much info if you are wanting to play it blind.

As FLG points out, ideally there would be two descriptions of the situation, one for each side. But, again, how much info would make the player happy or unhappy. So, generally, a designer is safer just giving a brief description and it takes less of his time.

Regards,
CptCav