American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/

Pre-game intel
http://www.wargame.ch/board/acwgc/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18215		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  simovitch [ Fri Oct 26, 2012 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Pre-game intel
I used to not "take a peek" at the opponent pre-game starting positions and reinforcements until I learned that some if not all of my opponents were either taking a look at the scenario or had already played it both sides.

I suppose the best thing to do is agree on this before hand, but I have made it a standard practice to review a scenario before I play it, usually unbeknownst to my opponent.

I read the club gaming rules and didn't see anything on it.
Author:  Blake [ Fri Oct 26, 2012 10:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
I always check out any upcoming scenario before I play it. The only way to avoid this type of intel is to have a third-party create a custom scenario for both players to play blind (I have been doing this for buddies lately) or to play a "blind-scenario" created by HPS. Usually those just place the men all over the map at random locations. Those drive me nuts because they destroy any command structures.
Author:  K. Koch [ Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:30 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
There was a thread about this a few months ago, and I was a little surprised at how many people do not look at the scenario before hand.

When I first joined the club I was under the assumption that I should look over the scenario before getting deep into it to help develop a strategy, and that my opponent would be doing the same.

I still look at the scenario before a fight, but would not be oppossed to not looking at it if we agreed before hand, but eventually, overtime more and more different scenarios will have been played and choosing a scenario would be come limited.

I like the "blind" scenario idea. Heck, I wouldn't mind setting one up, as long as I got to see the unfolding battle.
Author:  Blake [ Fri Oct 26, 2012 11:46 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
Koch46 wrote:
I like the "blind" scenario idea. Heck, I wouldn't mind setting one up, as long as I got to see the unfolding battle.


Actually thats what I do! Its a fun idea and if you can get a few friends to agree to play it and send you the encryption keys then you can watch as an impartial silent observer from above. I have watched quite a few games and you can learn alot about how people play by watching.
Author:  simovitch [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 9:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
If the club disallows "pre-game peeking", then it is an unfair advantage to guys who have played the scenario before, and the club would be (technically speaking) restricting us from playing our own game (e.g. "I just felt like playing this one all of a sudden as the Confederates against the Union AI... hey looky here at all them rebs I get... better remember that for the other game I'm playing for OBD points..."

Otherwise, it should be made clear before starting whether a player has played the scenario before or not, and from which side and give the opponent a choice to decide whether he wants to continue.

Or perhaps a "dont ask dont tell" policy would be best.

Perhaps our cabinet could pass some legislature regarding this?
Author:  Dwight McBride [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:32 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
No. We've got enough regulations.
Author:  Ernie Sands [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 4:56 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
There is nothing to preclude anyone from looking at or even playing a scenario, solo, prior to playing a scenario. As Col. Simonitch said it would place an unfair restriction on playing scenarios, again.

Sometimes members will look for "double blind" games, where neither opponent has seen or played the scenario and that, obviously, is a preference that gives neither side an advantage.

Personally, I think that even if you or your opponent has played a scenario or has viewed the setup, etc, does not ALWAYS give an advantage, except for the obvious of knowing about reinforcements and specific emplacements. Everyone plays a scenario somewhat differently and you cannot predict how or where your opponent will actually attack or where troops might move to, during the initial phases of any scenario.

Players may agree to any number of positions, prior to playing, different options, different playing tools, like no column attacks, except bridges, etc, and any other playing methods.

The fewer restrictions (rules) on game play, the better it is.
Author:  Neal Hebert [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
Gentlemen <salute>

I have always previewed scenarios, and always will. No commander willingly goes into battle blind. Does anyone believe General Swartzcoff (spelling?) commenced his attack in the First Gulf War ignorant of the Iraqi deployments? Why did Hitler choose the forrests of Belgium for the "Battle of the Bulge"? How was the Japanese Navy defeated at Midway? I'm certain there's an extensive list of battles throughout history where knowledge of the opposition's locations, strength, intent or potential actions has led to success.

There's even a thread here where General Stuart is considered the most responsible for the Confederate Army's loss at Gettysburg; General Lee didn't know what lay before him.

General Sands probably makes the best point of all; knowing in advance the disposition of your opponent guarantees nothing. Only reconnaissance as the game progresses will provide information of use to you.

Highest regards,
Author:  Vern Pinkham [ Sat Oct 27, 2012 10:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
I love scairy movies. I also love to be startled as one of my columns stumbles into a whole pile of Yanks as I march willy nilly down a country road. I have never looked ahead at a scenario to gain the knowledge of when troops (the foe that is) are scheduled to enter the battlefield. Like I said - I love a surprise.
I also play these games for the fun of it. I would hate to see the club put restrictions on whether or not you can PEEK. I agree with most if not all comments above - but one of the hardest things that leaders of the contending armies had to do was move their forces to the most advantageous position. The Battle of Shiloh is a good example. The combatants usually knew who they faced - but I believe on most occassions had no idea where they would deploy onto the battlefield. There were no high altitude observation posts (unless you sat on a large mountain). There were no radios (what my Great Grandfather could have done with a PRC 10). Most of the fun I have playing you Yankee fellers - is trying to find out where y'all are hiding and getting ready to pounce on me. Gen. Ken Miller has been whoopin' my behind for several years now and still can't figure him out. But like any stubborn Reb - I keep trying - even if my eyes are closed....
Author:  KWhitehead [ Sun Oct 28, 2012 10:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
While they didn't know exact positions they did have quite a bit of information. At Shiloh AJ had cavalry scouting the Union positions for some days before the attack. Grant was the one who failed to recon. At Gettysburg Meade know the position of every Confederate division on the day before so had a pretty good idea of when they would arrive. Lee however was blind as a bat.

The problem in our scenarios is its hard to reproduce this. Random reinforcements can skew a scenario badly so isn't the best solution. Not peeking gives a decided advantage to the player who has played the scenario before. They already know when things show up. While some of the most fun games I have had have been blind scenarios I have played to long to have this occur in any historic scenario. Sometimes in a campaign it is possible but even those are usually repetitive after a while.

It would be nice if the Campaign engine was a bit more sophisticated and could alter reinforcement schedules and entry points based on choices made grand tactically but it probably won't happen. Maybe Hank will pull his "Fight the War" together and give us a campaign engine that will do this. He keeps letting life get in the way.
Shame :mrgreen:
Author:  Vern Pinkham [ Tue Oct 30, 2012 9:35 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
Nice reply Ken - and I agree pretty much. I got to thinking about making a map of MY neighborhood and inventing a battle. All I need to do now is map out the area usning my GPS and then learn how to create a map and put all the CYBER fellas on the map. Many of the blind scenarios I have played usuall were based on WHO killed the most.

I would attempt to make a map with some kind of topographical landmark and assign points to these. My idea would be to have each side start with an objective in their control - and have one that would be up for grabs. I wonder if anyone would be willing to play something like that?
Author:  KWhitehead [ Wed Oct 31, 2012 9:17 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
Vern Pinkham wrote:
Nice reply Ken - and I agree pretty much. I got to thinking about making a map of MY neighborhood and inventing a battle. All I need to do now is map out the area usning my GPS and then learn how to create a map and put all the CYBER fellas on the map. Many of the blind scenarios I have played usuall were based on WHO killed the most.

I would attempt to make a map with some kind of topographical landmark and assign points to these. My idea would be to have each side start with an objective in their control - and have one that would be up for grabs. I wonder if anyone would be willing to play something like that?


Coming up with a nicely balanced scenario with objectives to force the fighting is a lot harder than it would seem. But if you take it on talk to Hank. He has solved most of the problems with creating OOB's and Maps for Corinth 1.01a (only version that allows you to do this).
Author:  D. Groce [ Wed Oct 31, 2012 10:21 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
For me it would be ideal if each player only looked at the opening positions, but did not look at when and where reinforcements arrived. Would this get you closer to what Gens. knew going into a battle, and make it a little less gamey.
Author:  KWhitehead [ Thu Nov 01, 2012 8:59 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
David Groce wrote:
For me it would be ideal if each player only looked at the opening positions, but did not look at when and where reinforcements arrived. Would this get you closer to what Gens. knew going into a battle, and make it a little less gamey.

It would be nice but other than a few Shiloh scenarios I can probably tell you the approximate time if not the turn of reinforcements for most historic scenarios and quite a few of the campaign generated ones. Right now even the campaign generated ones are pretty predictible.
Author:  simovitch [ Thu Nov 01, 2012 11:39 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Pre-game intel
I think "don't ask don't tell" may be the best policy.

Not knowing whether your opponent knows (or knows you know, or knows you know he knows, or knows but can't remember, etc.) can each in itself alter your plan of battle.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/