Intelligence

Dogfish · Post by **Dogfish** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:51 am

Hey All:

Someone did a scenario, and I appologize for not being able to find his name or the scenario, right now, but he had some unique ways of passing maps, and intel throughout the scenario.

He used zip files, with passwords that you would find as codes on enemy vehicles that you encountered. You used the codes to unzip the "radio messages". He also used the help file to pass on maps.

I enjoyed this and expected to see more, and of course further improvements.

If you were the crator of this scenario that I think pointed out some new innovations in SPWAW scenario's then kudos, and please take credit.

If anyone knows the scenario I'm talking about please post where to find it.

I think it would inspire other scenario makers who want to include intelligence in the game.

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 12:56 am

Dogfish: That's pretty wild.

adantas · Post by **adantas** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 1:30 am

Originally posted by Dogfish:
Hey All:

Someone did a scenario, and I appologize for not being able to find his name or the scenario, right now, but he had some unique ways of passing maps, and intel throughout the scenario.

He used zip files, with passwords that you would find as codes on enemy vehicles that you encountered. You used the codes to unzip the "radio messages". He also used the help file to pass on maps.

I enjoyed this and expected to see more, and of course further improvements.

If you were the crator of this scenario that I think pointed out some new innovations in SPWAW scenario's then kudos, and please take credit.

If anyone knows the scenario I'm talking about please post where to find it.

I think it would inspire other scenario makers who want to include intelligence in the game.

Hey Dogfish, the guy who did this masterpiece is my good friend Rockying Harry!

Brits vs Germans at Italy <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Alessandro

--------------
Senta à Pua!!!

BruceAZ_MatrixForum · Post by **BruceAZ_MatrixForum** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 8:27 am

Here is a little secret that I have used in the past that WB taught me. It really works. During assault, I always purchase fast, cheap motorized recon units and a large number of motoroized engineers.

I pick 2 or 3 locations to "probe" with the recon knowing they will be lost but will quickly spot the minefield's forward edge. When it is located, I rush the motorized engineers forward to the mine field and concentrate their effectiveness on one ot two hexes.

I awalys plan a smoke and HE barrage to protect them and always use a number of infantry tanks with smoke capability to support them in a over-sight role. This takes care of any enemy in bunkers that likely to spot the engineers.

In the meantime, I move up my assault forces close to the engineers for the planned break-through. As soon as the engineers open a hole (even one hex wide), I push the assault teams through the breech.

9 out of 10 times this will defeat the AI. However, this may not be a effective tactic with a live PBEM opponent. If the field is deep, the PBEM gamer will start lobbing arty at the breech and your plan goes up in smoke. To compensate for this I keep the assault force disbursed and away from the engineers.

This seems to help but the poor engineers are in deep do-do. The only way to protect them is to confuse your opponent as to the exact location with one as the specific or actual target and the other two as "dummies" to draw his arty away from the engineers.

This has been effective in 4 out of six games. By "effective" I mean long enough for the engineers to do their job of creating a breech. A few have allowed me to open the breech only to pick me off one at a time as I try to force units through the breech. I can hear their laughter all the way from the east coast.

Of course, if the field is multi-layered, you got a long night ahead of you no matter what you plan. <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0"> <img src="biggrin.gif" border="0">

Hope this helps.

Bruce
Semper Fi

Dogfish · Post by **Dogfish** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 11:53 am

Hey Adantas:

That's great, but do you know where to find this masterpiece by our good friend Rockin' Harry?

Resisti · Post by **Resisti** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 3:29 pm

Originally posted by Dogfish:

That's great, but do you know where to find this masterpiece by our good friend Rockin' Harry?

Ask him: harizan@web.de <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Charles2222 · Post by **Charles2222** » Fri Feb 22, 2002 7:19 pm

5thRecon: Well thanks for the advice, but unfortunately you confirmed exactly what I said earlier, that many scenarios are unfortunately designed around you spending most if not all of your force as recon and engineers (there's no gripe if they tell you that from the start). I only have 2 platoons of engineers, and almost never buy any additional in support, and even that gives me misgivings about my engineer support being too heavy. While some situations might call for a heavy amount of engineers, the campaigner is in a quandry if he has too many when he's attacked, because an unrealistically high proportion makes it "all too easy". When talking scenarios though, the designers often enough tell you to balance your forces, well 3 or 4 platoons of recon, and 3 or 4 engineer platoons, if that's what these 'balanced' assaults need, don't seem balanced to me. More time solves all kinds of problems in this regard. Still, for the life of me, I don't know why a commander wouldn't give his troops anymore time to take the battlefield, laden with mines, than he would in an area where little or no mines are expected. It's just silly. The original SP gave you more time on assaults, maybe because they knew something that's been largely forgotten.

RockinHarry · Post by **RockinHarry** » Sun Feb 24, 2002 1:44 am

sorry mates...I´ve not yet had the time to post these scenarios somewhere. <img src="frown.gif" border="0">

Here´s the link for direct downloads:

"Italy44" with the Zipped radio messages:

http://geocities.com/rockinharry/SPWAW/AFTERCASSINO44.zip

(right click mouse/save target as...)

"Probing the stalin line" with ingame battle map (huge shape graphic) and scenario text on main screen shown:

http://geocities.com/rockinharry/SPWAW/StalinLine.zip

(right click mouse/save target as...)

..and some pics of "Ardennes44" which is still in the works:

http://us.geocities.com/rockinharry/index.html

have fun <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

__________
Harry

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 12:34 am

Originally posted by Charles_22:
Velovich:

True, but what do you do when the designers have got gamey themselves? What about a mine belt that stifles one part of your start line and not another, and then they might place one lousy mine in a heavily wooded area with it not having any purpose but to sabotage you going away from where mines might be, and then only give you 15-20 turns (I'm not saying all assault designers do this, nor do I intend to name anyone if I remember, because it's a general trend I'm talking about here. Some just don't give you much time, some get gamey with mines too, making matters worse)? It almost seems as though when designers do this sort of thing, despite that they may encourage a combined force, what they're really after is to make practically your entire force as recon and engineers (wow, such fun).

If nothing else, perhaps mines ought to be made a lot more expensive (while maybe dragon's teeth and wire remain the same). You know.... this reminds me of something. It seems I've heard it discussed that ATGs were a lot more expensive now, and though they may be perhaps too effective just how is a defensive force supposed to make up it's lack of punch then? ATGs were always something that to me alaways gave the defensive force a HUGE advantage is he's only buy enough of them, and/or if the assaulter didn't buy very much artillery. It's a shame if they've been very much priced up, because it was always a fun thing about being on the defensive. IMO maybe mines should go up, while ATGs should go back to where they were (better yet that people would design assaults with 30 turns or more).

Thanks for everyone's time.

Sorry, but in my experience, a well balanced force at battalion strength, in an assauklt, has one company of engineers attached and operating as a unit with another company dispersed to the infantry platoons, 1 squad of engineers supporting each platoon.

If you anticipate mines, or just because it's an assault and mines should be more prevalent, *don't* lead with tanks. Lead with scout cars and infantry.

Using a one or two hex miefield as a harassment is a GOOD tactic and NOT "cheating". I do it all the time on the defense. Remember, these aren't "hexes" they are 50 meter by 50 meter areas. Minefields are typically, in real life, small affairs desigend to channel and obstruct key points. Barrier minefields (linear) went the way of the dodo back in WW II due to the ease of breaching them.

Non-linear minefields, which you seem to take issue with, are a development of WW II. They reduced the effectiveness of breaching methods by being unpredictable in their location and size.

If the enemy is breaking up your formations and frustrating you with mines in unusal places, he's doing a good job of defense.

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 12:39 am

Originally posted by Bing:

But a half dozen hexes back, with no pattern or rhyme or reason, individual mines are placed so that when the engineers HT's start to move - HT's the designer spotted next to the mines to start the battle - they run straight into them. Not at the approach. Deliberately placed to trick the player into losing the engineers transportation.

Sprinkled around, as if the enemy knew in advance where my HT's would be parked. That level of advance knowledge is so far as I am concerned reserved for the deity.

Bing

You mean in a scenario where you have no input on your deployment? The only way to avoid that is to dismount your engineers before advancing.

And frankly, advancing mounted when you *know* there are mines present is silly. First rule is that you won't spot mines while mounted, so dismount.

I dont' disagree that these designs are a bit much, but you can still beat them.

V-man

V-man · Post by **V-man** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 12:48 am

Originally posted by Charles_22:
5thRecon: I only have 2 platoons of engineers, and almost never buy any additional in support, and even that gives me misgivings about my engineer support being too heavy.

Yet IRL, additional Engineer support is normal when a unit is tasked to assault.

V-man

sveinne · Post by **sveinne** » Thu Feb 28, 2002 8:59 pm

Gentlemen.
I fully agree with Bing and Charles_22. There is far to often to little time for "intelligent" recon and this often results in gamey (reckless) playing. Well, the thread is getting long so I might have missed this one. Someone (Les the Sarge 9-1?)thought about purchasing knowledge of hexes for a price. What about purchasing turns in a similar manner as purchasing reinforcements? Would that be conceivable?? Of course the scenario designers always have to take into account that playing stiles differ and particular scenarios simply call for a certain stile/approach. This thread truly highlights the responsibility of the designer to consider time as much as a factor of a good scenario as everything elso on the map, terrain, torrent and troops.
Regards
Sveinn