Etiquette

[Peter777]

Whilst most times it is fun to play scenarios for the first time unseen, at other times it is good to play the same scenario a few times to try different tatics or to try and win when last time you lost.

May be in these cases you should just tell your opponent, that you have played this game before hand.

I find practice vs AI often gives you little insight into what a PBEM / H2H game will be like.


Cheers

Peter777

[Dave68124]

Have to agree with Al on this one. For bigger games, look all you want, because in about 5 turns it is meaningless.

For smaller scenarios, I can see where a little intel might help you out, but in most cases (at least with long time players) they have likely played both sides several times and already have an idea of disposition and strategy to win a smaller game.

For instance, I had two games of M41 going at once with two separate players. They both chose the same scenario and left me on both sides (at their choice as well). So I knew where and how the Germans would likely attack and knew where and how the Russians would defend by mere happenstance. This is probably not unusual.

[FLG]

I think looking is fine. The reason I say this is because the opposing armies don't just teleport into position, they usually fight there way there. So they have a good idea who/what is in front of them. Once the lines become static it is standard practice to send recon patrols to scout the enemy, as well as fly overs by recon aircraft. Read Beevor's Staliongrad for an excellent description of such patrols and how the German and Russian patrols entering and exiting the kessel used to pretend not to see each other so they wouldn't have to fight.

So along these lines I think it is fine to have a scout about, determine roughly who is where, as well as the lie of the land. But I think it is gamey to investigate all the defenses and troops strength at proposed points of attack.

Also, if myself and my opponent agree a game is to be played blind then obviously no sneaky peaking.

[Sgt Barker]

Getting pummeled in my first game, and having fun none the less! And looking for the next go round I discovered the scenario section of the site. Ratings and such for the scenarios. Very nice, and useful in picking the next fight. One question – is there a place to see any comments people have made on a given scenario? I notice that in the Report Game section there is a place for comments, but don’t know where to find them on the site.

And thanks for the comments on etiquette. It really strikes me as the same as playing a board wargame – unless set up blind beforehand one should assume that the other guy has played/studied the scenario. In a certain way I think it’d actually be better to ask the opponent to study it beforehand: this is a larger time commitment than a long Saturday night over the SPI board. To play someone and then find out days (weeks?) into it that they’re making a fundamental strategic goof simply because they haven’t looked at the scenario may give you the game, but the play would rather suck. Over a board you just look at him and say “Uhem… you really want to sit there when I’m getting armor coming in right HERE next turn?” Or even just start the game over after whumpping him and having a good laugh. Harder to do that sort of thing over the net.

[Mr Grumpy]

When you report a scenario result i believe there is a box for comments on the scenario, problem is nobody (including me) has been filling it in

If you look at the scenario scores for enjoyment and balance that can give you an idea how good a scenario is.

Also once a scenario has been reported 15 times or so a picture of results starts to build and then the bad scenarios (for balance) start to show up.

[von Nev]

This is a great discussion.

When I play a scenario by PBEM (big or small) I tend to not look at the opposing dispositions. I enjoy the fog of war aspect of it where I do not know the inherent advantages and disadvantages of each side. I figure that on turn one I get a lot of information generally that helps. I then use the heck out of recon planes and recon spotting too. Also, I read a lot and therefore I have some "unavoidable" knowledge of how things looked in historical battles which I suppose helps.

This discussion is timely for me as this exact topic came up in a recent PBEM game where we were playing a scenario I had never played or seen. When I executed what I thought was was the logical strategy based on the setup and proximity of the enemy (I was on offense), my opponent commented that he was surprised I would do that. I asked why would I know to do something else and he indicated that if I looked at my opponents setup or used knowledge from playing it before I would have known that there was another axis of attack that would be more successful. I said that I did not look at it setups and he indicated that was unusual and that probably I was in the minority of PBEM players. It eventually ended with us agreeing to disagree.

Another aspect of this is how this approach impacts playtesting PzC games. In S41 and M44, the goal of playtesting a scenario was to see if a historic outcome in the general timeline was possible (not guaranteed) when two players of equal capabilities play eachother. My approach with a new HISTORIC scenario was not to look at the enemy setup and to enact a strategy based on either historic references or what was "most obvious" in my mind. That approach was played out and if the results were pretty balanced the scenario was usually considered good. But, as you know if you play a scenario several times from both sides you will find the "best" play to win that WILL take advantage of knowing exact enemy strengths, weaknesses, reinforcement schedule, etc. In playtesting once we get the original historic scenario "balanced" we then looked secondarily at how it could be "gamed" to win. It is then that we start to fix units or time units' releases or re-arrange individual units to prevent immediate breakthroughs. etc. This is really a challenge because at some point the possible outcomes grows exponentially (see larger scenarios and campaigns) and it is then impossible to test every outcome. In those two titles I playtested campaigns to turns 25 and 35 but the scenarios were over 100 and 90.

I guess what my point is is that when you consider playing a scenario, to know if it was balanced using players' first impressions, look at the reported games for the first month or so against players equally matched by the ELO rating. To find if it is balanced with pre-knowledge and experience playing it a couple of times see the overall rating after a couple of months with a sample size of about 10ish.

Just my $0.02.

Marty

[Kharkov]

It doesn't really bother me if my opposing general takes a peek at my troop dispositions before a game, but I don't like to do so myself as :

(1) I do enjoy the fog of war aspect of knowing very little about the enemy's initial locations. Surprises can be fun as well as stressful :)

(2) Initial dispositions often only last one or two turns and can change swiftly and radically.

[FLG]

There is another aspect to this, which is what occurred prior to the battles being fought. For example, in Normandy the allies had extensive intelligence on troop dispositions and strengths, having had 4 years to gather the data, while the Germans knew very little and in-fact had been duped by Operation Fortitude. While in Smolensk the germans had charged several hundred miles in a month and then met armies it had no idea existed.

Similarly for Moscow, both sides were static for a month prior to the Vyazma campaign but for Operation Typhoon, where Germany had been mobile for sometime, the Russian's probably had a good idea of where the Germans were but the axis much less so, as it was just starting to meet the defenses around Moscow

So how justified a player is in looking at the others dispositions is to some extent depdenent on the lead up to the battle. Maybe, when starting a new scenario, players should consider this in discussions with their opponents on whether to look or not.

[Sgt Barker]

Coming from a board game background one thing I miss (maybe… given the amount of time it can take with a large game…) is the opportunity to set up forces. Ahistorical to be sure – everyone was in a certain place at a certain time – but it creates options.

For anyone not familiar with the concept, setting up means that your forces are not in predetermined locations at the beginning of the game. You place them where you wish, within whatever parameters the designer dictates. For very sophisticated games there can be variable forces to deploy, so besides not knowing exactly where you’ll be your opponent doesn’t even know exactly who will be there. VC can then be modified to account for the differences, again unknown to the opponent. For example, did Comrade Stalin give you an Infantry Army, a Guards Tank Army, or nada, from the STAVKA for your reserve? Whichever you get/choose will help determine the VC for the scenario; with no reserves the German must take more territory, with a Guards Tank Army less.

And related to this topic, such a scheme means that studying the scenario before playing doesn’t give you any more info than your historical counterpart had. You know the broad outlines of what you’ll face, and the various hypotheticals, but few if any specifics.

[Ricky B]

There was actually some talk about this a long time ago, Sgt Barker. Each player could do what you are talking about using the editor, then save the file. Then a third party, I could do it in just a few minutes and would be happy to do it, melds the two files together into a single scenario, and starts it for side 1 with his desired password, assuming FOW on, and off the players go.

Rick