intelligence/recon

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

intelligence/recon

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion >> intelligence/recon

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

intelligence/recon - 4/4/2002 1:36:57 AM

SIdeslip

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/23/2001
From: Scotland
Status: offline

What about an option when spending points on your force to purchase "intelligence" on your foe? You could say allocate 200pts when you are about to conduct an assault and gain at random something like location of mines in an area of the battlefield. This would simulate a snatch squad having grabbed a sentry during the night and beat some intel out of the guy. Another intel could be on enemy armour, infantry or the location of artillery.
What about aerial recon? Why can't you get some pre battle intel on at least some of the enemies positions? Every game starts with you only being able to guess where you think the weakest point is. That may be a skill of playing the game but maybe a few points sacrificed towards intel would be a good idea.
Just a thought.

Post #: 1

- 4/4/2002 10:36:59 AM

Goblin

Posts: 5547
Joined: 3/29/2002
From: Erie,Pa. USA
Status: offline

The idea is very interesting. It would have to be limited to non-mobile units, minefields, or enemy strength. Mobile unit info would only give the player going first an advantage, because he(or she) would move units around, thus making player two's info useless.

Goblin

_____________________________

http://www.spwaw.com/phpBB2/index.php

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 2

- 4/4/2002 3:33:59 PM

Resisti

Posts: 1351
Joined: 1/22/2001
From: Livorno, Italy
Status: offline

SIdeslip,
your is an idea which could fit at a strategic/operational level of a game, being Spwaw VERY tactical I think correct no abstract intelligence is available.
But you can always spend those 200 points in a bunch of recon squads: they can do a very good work on "intelligence gathering" if used properly (and the # of turns of the battle are enough to lead a complete recon patrol...)

_____________________________

Federico "Resisti" Doveri

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 3

- 4/4/2002 4:04:06 PM

SIdeslip

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/23/2001
From: Scotland
Status: offline

I suppose it does fall out of the scope of the game right enough. I do use recon units as an SOP as you say and useful they are.
However, when a player is known to spend 300-400 points on mine fields then maybe this advantage could be offset a little by some limited maps.

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 4

- 4/5/2002 12:11:09 AM

Larry Holt

Posts: 1969
Joined: 3/31/2000
From: Atlanta, GA 30068
Status: offline

I really like this idea. It could have value in CL, especially using recon points between battles could represent operational level recon/intell assets. You might find out the general size 9point value?) of an enemy force, where they are, dug in or not, etc. Can you post this to the CL forum?

_____________________________

Never take counsel of your fears.

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 5

- 4/5/2002 8:59:10 PM

SIdeslip

Posts: 22
Joined: 7/23/2001
From: Scotland
Status: offline

If it might work for CL then feel free to suggest it on that forum. I would have to write it again otherwise due to being a bit lazy. Glad someone likes it though!

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 6

Battle Setup Guidelines incorporation - 4/9/2002 1:53:15 AM

Oxtane

Posts: 53
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: United States, Nebraska
Status: offline

The intelligence report could be like the intel you get in the Battle Setup Guidelines. You could get 1 of 3 different ranges of accuracy in the report.

1) and underestimate (3 platoons of engineers when there is actually a reinforced company)

2) on the money (you get a moderately accurate report)

3) overestimate (same as #1 but in reverse)

I think the info should be included with the opening report but a 4th option should be thrown in:
4) no intel available. :confused:

(in reply to SIdeslip)

Post #: 7