Etiquette

[Sgt Barker]

[Tide1]

Hi Eric

Welcome to the club. Nope it's bad etiquette to open scenarios up and have a look before you start a game against an opponent. Although over time you will replay scenarios or just play against the AI and that will give you knowledge of the troop dispositions. I hope that helps sir.

Enjoy your time in the club. Lots of fine members to do battle against.

Gary

[Sgt Fury]

I don't think it's underhanded or anything to look but I think you're missing some of the fun of the game if you do. One of my favorite things is to start the campaign game of a new game sight unseen via pbem. This gives an extra sense of fog of war and makes things more fun for me. I still have not opened up and examined the Russian side of the M41 campaign and I think it has heightened the experience -- I've been playing that one for around a year and a half and am at turn 125.

Fury

[Sgt Barker]

Thanks for the welcome and words - they make complete sense. The fun aspect especially. I used to play a lot of Advanced Squad Leader, and some of the best times were had when unknown, new, scenarios were used. Very tense, and fun. And frustrating... lots of AAR of "Duho! I didn't even SEE that... how could I have missed that!?!"

[Ricky B]

Welcome Sgt Barker. As you can see there are different opinions on looking things over, so it can always be something mentioned as part of the challenge if you want it one way or another - or ask your opponent. As Fury's opponent in the Moscow game, he had mentioned at the start playing it blind. I did my best, having tested it some before the release as German and then playing as Russian, but that had been a few months and I only played the first day.

Anyway, always best to ask your opponent regarding anything that might be controversial, but most players are fairly easy on what they don't like.

Rick

[Al]

Most times I don't think it's too gamey to check out the enemy's dispositions before starting a game - especially a larger one. Those enemy locations will likely change & lose their significance rather quickly, anyhow.

[Elxaime]

It depends on the situation.

The first time I played F40 as the Allies, it was right out of the box. As I played the opening days, I had no clue an entire German Army Corps enters from the north edge, behind the Belgian lines. Sure enough, when they came in, they broke about twenty Belgian units who were too close to that edge and helped bring the battle to an early end. I kept on playing, but my opponent was the one who brought it up as something I should be warned against in the future - I think he was disappointed I had been caught by surprise because it made the challenge much less for the Germans. Players like to win, but few enjoy complete walkovers facilitated by events like this.

In real life, while strategic surprises do happen, in that situation the Belgians would have had some awareness of matters to the north in Holland, would have some intelligence to help warn them to fall back.


So, in cases where a scenario has a "Deux Ex Machina" of an enemy force appearing off a board edge behind your lines (M41 German entries also come to mind) I don't think it is "gamey" to get an awareness of this.

An example of what would be "gamey" is to use knowledge of the opening set-up to target known stacks of enemy troops with first turn air recon followed by devastating air and artillery attack. The stock K43 scenario is prone to this problem from both sides. In no-holds-barred games (of which I have had several) it is no problem so long as both of you agree nothing is barred. But if you want to, some house rules could be used.

But my general practice is to prefer not looking. It is more fun to play with uncertainty.

[Dog Soldier]

Looking or not looking before playing a new scenario is something the players should agree on before the game starts. There is no right or wrong. Novice players may need to look, esp. if the purpose of the game is to learn. Experienced players prefer the double blind trust format as it tests their skills more, thus increasing enjoyment.
It really depends on the purpose of the game.

Uncertainty is something that comes right after the opening moves. Most scenarios that are considered the best for H2H play involve mobile situations where players can use the start forces in new and novel ways.

Campaign games lend themselves to this FOW phenomena better than the shorter scenarios since there is more time (total turns) to develop an unorthodox approach.

Shorter scenarios, 2 -3 day battles are pretty straight forward in the strategic sense, but allow for more focus on the tactics and force abilities. These shorter games are great forums to sharpen your tactical skills and learn how to control different forces at different periods of the war. 1944 tactics do not work well in games like F40 or M41.

Dog Soldier

[von Waldenburg]

I think looking at the strength dialog to know the ratio of forces is normally enough information to begin with.

If we think about what situations we have in history, normally we will find diferent levels of knowledge about enemy dispositions. So if one wants a truly historical game, can even replicate or try to, that inteligence level. For example, the germans in Minsk'44 thought that the big strategic offensive was in the south so they didnt know about all the russian armour massed in front of the Bielorusian balcony.

Normally the historical and player's knowledge about enemy dispositions dont match I would say.

[Ricky B]

Good point on those type things, but there is a way to tell while playing that "something" will be appearing in hexes where there is a protected entry anyway. Go to View-Shade-Protected Hexes and it will show all the reinforcement entry hexes for your enemy, so that you can avoid deploying in them and losing your units there.

Rick