Ostfront Tourney Fog of War question

[Rabbit]

My opponent brought up an excellent question to which I wasn't sure of the answer. What are the house rules / common etiquette regarding the knowledge you have from playing both sides in a mirrored game?

You can't help but have a "rough" idea of intel that wouldn't be normally available to you (e.g., locations of units, mines/traps/obstacles, available weapons, etc.). However is it appropriate to take advantage of that knowledge - such as firing indirect weapons (such as mortars and remote air support) into areas near the starting positions, avoiding areas where you know the starting positions of mines or enemy units, moving units from locations which you know won't be threatened to areas you know will be, etc.?

Specifically the issue that raised the question was that I had my Russians fire indirect mortar fire to where I thought the Germans would be approaching. The Germans moved first, so they were no longer in their initial positions, but I had a pretty good guess as to where they'd go. A few enemy units were in sight, but I still had a feeling I was getting into a gray area when I fired my mortars and wasn't sure if it was legit to do so or not. My opponent held back from firing his Russian mortars, so that obviously gave me an unfair advantage based on how we approached the fog of war. Being that we are only one full turn into our mirrored games (we both had vacations recently), it's probably best we just start over.

However just to make sure we all are on an even playing field, it would be good to know to what extent players should "erase" their knowledge of their opposite mirrored game when making their moves.

Thanks in advance!

[Mad_Dog]

I usually count on my bad memory to erase my knowledge of minefields and fortifications that are behind the front line. I think checking the other side of the scenario to avoid mines, and doublecheck just where the AT gun is is not in the spirit of the tourney, but I've never heard of that being a problem.

[tallin]

I think firing Artillery blindly at a legitimate approach should be fine. A defense is set up to channel attackers into a field of fire where artillery can be most effective. Of course firing blindly may not cause the enemy much harm if he is advancing dispersed and on ground. As defender, you may choose to opt for a juicier target rather than employing harrassing fire.

As far as minefields, scouts gave you a general idea of the threat. Personally, I would like to see the defender to emplace minefield prior to play so locations could be changed.

[Compass Rose]

Personally, I would like to see the defender to emplace minefield prior to play so locations could be changed.

That would sure be a great option.

[Nikb]

I'm glad this question has popped up.

I think it is fair to interdict with arty if it is a spot that you would normally lob a few rounds into. However, I personally draw the line at lobbing in arty where I know specifically from playing the mirror game where an opponent has hidden units. That to my way of thinking isn't cricket.

What I wouldn't condone is something like having the same scenario open as you play the proper turn. I haven't heard this happening with SB but I do know it has cropped up in other titles.

[TheBigRedOne]

These are all excellent thoughts, and an excellent question, Bill. I'm actually surprised that this is the first time it's been raised since I started doing tourneys here.

The reason I suggest the simultaneous mirrors is for this very fact. If you are playing at the same time, the knowledge that you both have about your positions should eliminate any advantage. I think back-to-back gives one player a bit more of an advantage typically. Maybe not, it's just my opinion, of course.

In general, the comments above all make sense. Just because you think the enemy will be in place doesn't mean that it's true, and indirect fire can be pretty weak, especially under cover. If your opponent is foolish enough to leave his men upright, then he takes that risk. I've never been a huge fan of indiscriminate lobbing of shells, espeically mortars. Those things tend to be so light in terms of damage on most things, save enemy units caught out in the open, that I prefer to use them only if I can see a unit, especially the 60mm ones. Then I hit them with every available mortar team I can. Only then have I found that any real damage can be done. There is the occasional lucky shot that pins a unit (usually mine, of course). There's a nice tactics section about mortars over in TFE4 that discusses the concentration of fire and the likelihood of hitting a target in a 40m hex with one or two mortar tubes.

The suggestion about the minefield is a good one, but one that will probably never be put into place. Don't wish too hard is all I'm saying.

I'm with Abram, I can't remember where most thing are even when playing a mirror, so it's like playing blind....

[Archijerej]

As it was me who raised the question, I'd like to clarify. Bill, I think you misunderstood (most likely because of my inadequate english). I think you had every right to bring mortar fire on german starting positions, especially in a situation where some german units in the area were already visible. Also, even with total fog of war, bombarding suspected enemy positions is perfectly fine IMO. What was unclear to me is should we bring counterbattery fire on russian mortar positions, knowing their exact location. Anyways, thanks for starting a discussion as it should bring some interesting opinions.

Best regards
Pawel

---

Oh, and by no means should you feel uneasy about the whole "incident". As I said, you had every right to bombard the german starting positions and shelling russian mortars did no harm.

[Rabbit]

Hi Pawel, your English is great - in fact, better than that of many native English speakers. It can be a little hard to tell where to draw the line, being that you almost can't help but be aware of some intel that can have a significant impact (such as the general area where AT guns and mines are located).

It sounds like the consensus is that we should avoid using specific intel that wouldn't be available otherwise. For instance, we should avoid indirect firing upon any positions that we wouldn't ordinarily consider bombing (in other words, Russian indirect fire around visible German units would be fine as well as German indirect firing near the Objective Hexes and other likely defensive positions, but German bombing near the Russian mortar positions isn't okay).

However I fear I am still a little unclear if we should be approaching our overall strategy from a concept of pure ignorance of the enemy's starting positions or if we should allow ourselves to take into account what we know of the other side's starting positions from a high level. For instance, players could formulate their overall strategies taking into account the knowledge from the mirrors of there being a minefield in one direction, AT guns in another, and free roaming tanks elsewhere without thinking about specific hexes. Or players can formulate their strategies by forcing themselves not to take that knowledge into account at all.

[TheBigRedOne]

Bill

I think you are thinking WAY too much on this.

Gamey tactics, at least what I've seen here in the SB world, are few and far between. You can't pretend not to necessarily know where things could be because you're playing a mirror, or have played the game before. It is what it is. Moving around a potential minefield is one thing if you generally know where it is. Flipping back and forth between your game and an open version of the game to specifically avoid individual hexes, well that may be another. I guess I always assume that someone could do that, but most guys I know here aren't that gung-ho to win. Maybe I just don't want it as badly as some...

Play hard, do what you think you feel is appropriate and go from there. Most guys around here have a solid amount of respect for each other and aren't necessarily worried about winning at all costs. In my 2 something years as moderator I've had no-one bring an issue to me about poor gamesmanship or potential cheating. This cannot be said for other games here...

What you're doing is fine, and your opponent seems to think so as well. It's all good fun.

[Archijerej]

Bill

I think you are thinking WAY too much on this.

Gamey tactics, at least what I've seen here in the SB world, are few and far between. You can't pretend not to necessarily know where things could be because you're playing a mirror, or have played the game before. It is what it is. Moving around a potential minefield is one thing if you generally know where it is. Flipping back and forth between your game and an open version of the game to specifically avoid individual hexes, well that may be another. I guess I always assume that someone could do that, but most guys I know here aren't that gung-ho to win. Maybe I just don't want it as badly as some...

Play hard, do what you think you feel is appropriate and go from there. Most guys around here have a solid amount of respect for each other and aren't necessarily worried about winning at all costs. In my 2 something years as moderator I've had no-one bring an issue to me about poor gamesmanship or potential cheating. This cannot be said for other games here...

What you're doing is fine, and your opponent seems to think so as well. It's all good fun.

I agree completely.