Proper protocol for intellegence gathering?

[D-Day_Dodger]

I am very curious about how other members approach the subject of researching the oppostion's forces, prior to and during a game.

For instance, once a player has decided on a scenario and the side he is going to play, is it kosher for him to do a detailed survey of his opponents initial set up to help him plan his openning moves. Likewise, would it be kosher to refer to your opponents re-enforcement schedule before or during a game. To my way of thinking, the answer is no.

When I am looking for a game I will usually check the Blitz stats for which scenarios of a game I am interested in seem to be the most balanced. I then bring up that scenario and take an overall look at the dispostions of both sides and then make a decision as to which side I want to play. However, I do not do a detailed survey of my opponent's set up or take any notes. I also check out the re-enforcement schedules for both sides prior to choosing sides, but after the game begins I consider that information to be out of bounds. If my mind was a steel trap and could retain every detail about the enemy that would be one thing, however, my old braino is more like a steel trap that has rusted permanently in the open position and things like details don't hang around long.

Another ethical question revolves around the idea of researching a battle with the idea of garnering specific information, and again I'm mostly thinking about info on re-enforcements. As an example, say I have plans to take a certain objective. I may know lots of info about the defenders but I would really like to know what kind of support they can expect. If I picked up a book and find that such and such infantry division arrived as re-enforcements on such and such a date, then I now have more information about the enemy than my historical counterpart.

Here is another example. I am currently playing a Normandy '44 campaign game (#29 - Stalemate (19-30 June)_Alt). We are now at turn 40 of 120 and my German opponent has been executing a policy of a steady, defensive retreat. He has surrendered a huge amount of territory and has been reduced to fighting in three isolated groups. One group is fighting in and about the environs of Cherbourg. Another group holds a line along the bottom map edge, about 8 hexes deep, running from hex (117,85) in the east to (44,85) in the west. The last group on the extreme eastern flank is hemmed in by the Dives river, south to about hex row 69.

If anyone cares to load up this scenario, they will see that that I now control the entire southern map edge from well west of the Orne River. This is turning out to be a mixed blessing though. If I knew for a fact that there are no German re-enforcements due to enter from the map edge I control, I could concentrate all of my forces against the remaining pockets of resistance. But I don't know this for a fact, so I am forced to divert units to dig fortifications, which could better be used elsewhere.

Still, I'm sure I could find the information about what, if any, German re-enforcements showed up in this area, but so far I've reisted the temptation. What do the rest of you Blitzers think? Am I carrying this too far?

[Fubar]

I always prefer to play a scenario blind, just like the commanders involved in the real battles, as knowing exactly whats coming from where and when it's arriving spoils a lot of the fun for me. Which is why i dont like mirror battles that much. :rolleyes:

[Mr Grumpy]

Playing blind only works the one time though, when you find a great scenario and you want to play it several times over a period of time it is impossible to forget all the facts of a scenario, so inevitably you have intel you would not have normally.

[Steel God]

It doesn't bother me in the least in a stock scenario if someone has a look around, I assume they do. If I want total fog of war I go for a different game where players can buy their kit.

[Landser34]

I agree with Foul that once you play so many games a of the scenarios I know from both sides without looking just from having played them so many times

[Steel God]

And anyone who's been involved with design or play testing work has played some scenarios close to 100 times in some cases.

[HMCS Rosthern]

I used to think that it was better to play a scenario blind, until I played a game of Smolensk '41. I had a really great plan where I was going to do a pincer action on the German postion featuring a Russian Calvary Corp on the left pincer. It was working until I found out that all the German reinforcements were coming on the edge of the boardboard in the rear of the corps. My corps was surrounded and I ended up losing the game. My thoughts are that it is a good idea to at least take a brief look at the other side of the sceanario just to make sure you are not doing something dumb.

[Jazman]

My thoughts are that it is a good idea to at least take a brief look at the other side of the sceanario just to make sure you are not doing something dumb.

But at that time of the war, the Russians really did play it dumb.

[Volcano Man]

I don't see a problem with looking over the scenario with FOW off before it starts, but you just have to be reasonable. I mean, the amount of studying that some might do would be a bit too extreme to the point that they might have the scenario editor open to look at both sides while they play their first few turns so that they know exactly how much fatigue the enemy has.

I do think that studying enemy reinforcement schedules is a bit on the border line too.

[James Ward]

I think looking over the reinforcment schedule is fair in the Campaign games. Unless you are very familiar with the battle you don't necessarily have a good grasp of the map, where the off map front lines are, forces recently reported in the area etc. You shouldn't have to act like the battle was fought in a vacuum. I do think you can go overboard with pre-battle recon though. A quick study before the game starts should be all you do.