SCOUTING

[Glint]

A game I'm playing is 400x400 hexes and I put five spotter planes in the scenario, (roughly ratio of one per division). After a number of turns we thought they had too much capability, i.e, too many units could get spotted, so we agreed to fly them off the map.
I think they are a good addition to the game but, when designing a scenario, they have to be utilised very carefully. i.e, having them available, say every 20/30 turns in a 100+ turn game and an agreed flight plan within a suspected enemy area after which they are exited from the map. That being said though, it leaves a lot to the integrity of the players!
regards
Peter

[K K Rossokolski]

That is a problem with CS, which me must remember is ancient by game standards....I think the CS players are a bit like vintage car/bike fans or antique furniture collectors...we like old well crafted stuff. I think the idea of "negative reinforcement" .....a force removal built into the scen, has a lot of merit and would be historically correct, particularly naval and air support, which were often allocated to a commander for a defined period or purpose

Question for JP...is such a "negative reinforcement" possible within the CS parameters?
Reinforcement itself allows a lot of flexibility, but around a specified coordinate.
I think the addition of new capabilities, many of which cannot be properly modelled in a 2D game, needs very careful consideration, to avoid some of the results we presently have .

[Jason Petho]

Question for JP...is such a "negative reinforcement" possible within the CS parameters?
Reinforcement itself allows a lot of flexibility, but around a specified coordinate.
I think the addition of new capabilities, many of which cannot be properly modelled in a 2D game, needs very careful consideration, to avoid some of the results we presently have .

I would imagine something could be created where the "negative reinforcement" could be implemented.

Possibly the introduction of a flag that if a particular unit (the special type units) is used, it has X amount of turns until it is flagged with 0 AP; rendering it useless -- so best for the player to remove from gameplay or have it destroyed.

Just a quick idea off the top of my head, and I am unsure how it would be implemented.

Jason Petho

[K K Rossokolski]

I think that could be a worthwhile game feature, particularly in the context of off-board units.
And in the longer large scale scens. No big deal for regimental size, maybe even division size actions, but might well come into play in Corps+ actions

[Dan Caviness]

That would also apply nicely to naval artillery support. Often ships were only involved with pre landing bombardments, or had to move on before becoming targets, etc. I like the idea of removing assets.

Make it so Jason!...damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!...(:O)

[Glint]

I'm not that technically minded but, re spotter planes, couldn't something be played with in the manner of other aircraft? i.e, pick a hex area to spot, give the aircraft a 'fly-on and exit' point with the ability to spot along that line with say, a 2-3 hex sighting corridor?
Just a thought!
regards
Peter

[Skryabin]

I'm not that technically minded but, re spotter planes, couldn't something be played with in the manner of other aircraft? i.e, pick a hex area to spot, give the aircraft a 'fly-on and exit' point with the ability to spot along that line with say, a 2-3 hex sighting corridor?

...which will disapiar in fog of war next turn. This way it works in RTS.

Dmitriy

[Mike Abberton]

Another great use for the negative reinforcement would be opening barrages where a commander might have a lot of artillery (regimental, divisional, corps or even army level assets) for an opening barrage to prep an area, but he wouldn't have all those assets for the whole battle where they would be unbalancing.

It would be great to have "negative" smoke rounds for the same reason, to represent smoke barrages tied to those opening barrages, but not present with local assets for the whole battle. That way you could give somebody a large amount of smoke to start with, say 100 for talking purposes, and on turn 5 you loose 90 smoke rounds when the divisional arty drops out that represent "non-local" smoke rounds, and if that drops you to zero smoke or negative no smoke for the rest of the scenario. That way you give your initial assault troops a lot of smoke to cover themselves, without allowing engineers to smoke up turn after turn after turn during the rest of the scenario.

Also, since I am assuming that any negative reinforcements (units or smoke rounds or whatever) would be scenario dependent, so they don't disrupt existing scenarios.

Good idea, KKR.

Mike

[Glint]

Whilst on the subject of flying units Jason. - I also tried out some bombers in the scenario and it became apparent that, after dropping their' loads, they could be flown around as spotters. I'm trying out new units in the scenario and just see this as something that could be used in a 'cheesy manner' and thus, perhaps be included in any doctrine regarding the earlier comments about aircraft?
regards
Peter

[WARHOG]

Perhaps another option is infantry units with radio capability can be broken down in to perhaps two units designated for recon or spotting roles. I have seen it in other game systems and I feel is realistic and with the realm of the game system.

Just a thought.