[GZG] Target Identification and IFF

There is actually a range of issues in identification:

First: Is there something there?
Second: What is it?
Third: Is it Friendly?

Most games give the players complete knowledge of all three areas.  Some
games (double-blind types usually) will limit the players knowledge of
unit positions, types and/or affiliation.

Most games also freely give out the information as the position and unit
type. The players will know that Unit X is on the hilltop and dug-in, or
that Unit Y is located at the edge of the buildings.  Also it is rare
that squads are mistaken for platoons or companies for squads, and even
more rare would armor units be mistaken for infantry.

Finally, very few games have a mechanism for IFF confusion and generally
let both players know who owns what unit.

Ideally, a game system would:
a) Be double-blind with each player only having the information that
their units or technology would provide (i.e. if you have no eye in the
sky, you can't see the enemy forces dug in on the reverse side of the
hill, until you get line of sight to it.)

b) Limit player knowledge of what a unit is and what it's size is.  For
instance you spot 6 guys entering a building - a) is it really an
infantry squad, a mechanized infantry squad (i.e. there is an APC around
somewhere?) or even an armored platoon and you just spotted some crew
members doing reconnaissance on foot?  Are you faced with a squad or is
there a platoon or two hidden behind them waiting to open up on you?

c) Using the double-blind system, have units fall in and out of contact
- units that are out of contact disappear from the board to be replaced
by a "last known" marker which may or may not represent their actual
location and status.  When they re-appear, they will only have a generic
marker and need to be identified or re-contacted before they can be used
again.

Unfortunately, these are exactly the things that a computer does well
(i.e. Combat Mission:Beyond Overlord), but that misses the feel of
miniatures.  If there were someway to combine the two...

--Binhan

-----Original Message-----
From: gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
[mailto:gzg-l-bounces@lists.csua.berkeley.edu] On Behalf Of Fred Kiesche
Sent: Tuesday, August 30, 2005 1:30 PM
To: gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
Subject: [GZG] Re: Gzg-l Digest, Vol 2, Issue 43

Greetings:

"Very few games really capture this inability to
correctly identify the target."

IIRC, there were two games (board games, with very
strong miniatures overtones) that attempted this, but
its been a number of years, so the brain is fuzzy.

Avalon Hill had "Patton's Best", a solo board game of
WWII tank combat. You had to make decisions (hatches
open, hatches closed, etc.) that would modify your
ability to spot.

"Open Fire" was from 3W (I think). It was inspired by
"Patton's Best" or written "in response to" (or so
said Chris Klug, the designer. I got acquainted with
Chris as he lived in NJ for a while and did work on
another favorite of mine--SPI's Universe.)

Similar decision cycle on open/closed hatches, etc.

GDW's "Command Decision" series had spotting rules,
but I don't recall if they included AFVID or just
being able to find hidden "stands" (vehicle or
personnel).

We did do some home-grown spotting stuff for CD. For
example, we noticed how during WWII "green" troops
reported every German tank as a Tiger, etc. So I would
allow the German player to substitute Tigers for
whatever he had, the Allied player to substitute
heavier tanks for lighter tanks depending on the
opposing troop quality. 

When combat was joined and your "tiny" AT gun went
through that (alleged) Tiger's hull, then your troops
perception caught up with reality and we swapped the
Tigers (or whatever) for the real vehicles.

Made for some interesting gaming sessions.

Fred Kiesche (FPK3)

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.csua.berkeley.edu
http://lists.csua.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l