"How Have You Found Hidden Deployment?" Topic

What has been your most satisfying experience of Hidden Deployment in a gaming system?

I've seen variations on the "Ghost" or "Blind" system. Despite my admiration for this direct or more immediate solution it sometimes feels that there's a little too much work involved. I've printed "Blind" markers and painted up little numbered 15mm Ghost minis representing potential forces on the table. For me the "work" is actually tracking the "real" units as well as the required actions spent on "rec." or "recon" actions revealing the real units. While on paper I thought this could be a satisfying addition to the game it usually ends up feeling like some really drawn out credits at the beginning of your favourite movie.

While Crossfire uses a similar "Recon By Fire" mechanic ,it could be argued that the systems activation system itself has an inbuilt "hidden unit" feature. Depending on the tactical situation an enemy unit staying outside the LoS of the enemy has the potential capacity to outflank an enemy without response. While for me this can feel very rewarding as a tactical feat in a game and it requires practically no book keeping there is probably a valid argument against the limitless movement a unit can make to achieve this "outflanking maneuver." I have wondered could a system employ a Crossfire movement mechanic within the confines of a certain "assault range" in the rules. Allowing outflanking maneuvers but just within a limited diameter of an enemy position. This would increase the importance of the location of a fixed defence position.

Other rules employ a very simple but sometimes very effective "acquiring target" mechanic that might require a modified successful die roll before the "hidden" enemy can be targeted. Sometimes or maybe in most cases this is further simplified by the acquisition roll applied as an immediate negative modifier to the base chance of the hitting roll.

Could it be argued that if our game is attempting to simulate in any way the results of the modern battlefield then perhaps this small element is perhaps the singularly the most important. If a bunch of farmers kids armed with automatic weapons can open fire on a unsuspecting elite unit in the open without cover then would their respective training/morale differences really make much difference.

A friend and myself have been trying to put together a blind system for WW2 AT guns to actually make them worth having. Basically there are three markers on the board – two dummies and one real. The opponent can fire on the markers and destroy them in the line with the rest of the rules but isn't entitled to know whether a real gun or a dummy has been destroyed. The real gun is only revealed if the enemy gets a unit close, it moves or it fires.

In play is does tend to mean the AT guns get the first shot off without slowing the game with extra dice rolls.

I love the idea of an "empty battlefield" on entry but as WP has said this can become laborious and time consuming.

I guess the crux of the matter is removing that birds eye view of critical assets so your opponent cannot unrealistically react to them or engage them. What is a critical asset may vary across games and should only reflect those that were commonly concealed.

So in an infantry game this could be an MMG team or in a company sized battle, the AT guns or tank destroyers.

I like D's idea of limiting what can be "concealed" but think I will widen it a little to (what I consider) "critical assets" for a particular game.

Wargamers obviously hate everything with writing. So IMO a good solution is to habe numbered blinds/ghosts and a numbered bar outside the table. You put your hidden model behind the bar and if you reveal your blind you only look, which model has the number. No need to write.

There is also a different system by FOW that you can bring your hidden models everywhere (in distance to the enemy), so you dont have to bookkeep. It works.

The easiest way is to do actual hidden movement.

The simplest implementation is player team (generally attacking) vs umpire(s) run defenders who are hidden, or have an honest defender.

Not WWII, but in Infinity there are a number of units that can be left off the board as they are effectively invisible until activated. You're supposed to note their locations and then reveal them when activated. We just use our phones to take photos of their exact locations (place the minis, shoot photo, remove minis) that way there's no real bookkeeping, no question as to accuracy of placement, and the units are truly invisible without having to use counters to simulate this.

We always play WWII tactical games with hidden forces. Fireball Forward has an easy, effective system for hidden movement. We've used hidden forces w/ Battleground WWII & Arc of Fire without difficulty.

Chain of Command has a very elegant system. You have Jump Off Points where your troops can deploy nearby. No need to plot what is there, till you place it on the table it is not there. Since there are only 3 of these points it does not mean nilly willy positioning. Having a Jump Off Point get captured is bad for morale too.

I find the best solution is to use an umpire, who can also ensure that the game tempo keeps going and have a few tricks up the sleeve if required!

To start provide air phots, if possible, and maps. The players can then plan defences, routes, choke points etc – a simple bit of IPB. Thus the players can plan their operation by what they see and how they assess the ground should/could be used. In addition they may get other information from higher echelon recce who may have passed through.

The process takes a bit of preparation but is well worth it for a day/weekend game.

Tally Ho!

"How Have You Found Hidden Deployment?"

I looked under a rock and there it was!

We did Lake Trasimene, with the Roman column marching lakeside, and the rest of the board covered by a gauzy white cloth. Each turn this was rolled back a little as the mist receded and burned off, revealing the Carthaginian positions. Not much of a surprise for the Roman player if he's read his history, But a nice way of revealing the actual Carthaginian deployment gradually.

I really like Greenfield Games' idea of placing the figures and then taking pictures. It's simple and will avoid arguments later.

Buck

We usually play double blind WWII and don't have a problem. It just takes a little longer and involves a lot of work on the GMs part.

> I really like Greenfield Games' idea of placing the figures and then taking pictures. It's simple and will avoid arguments later.

And with Cellphone cameras these days almost everyone can do it.

Extra points for doing multiple setups and "showing" the most advantageous one.

About half of INLGames' scenarios have some type of OPDEC. We usually manage this with playing cards. Royals and numbers and suits can indicate different size and type of units, as well as canards – false leads (usually the jokers). The known distribution of cards helps build a sense of gradually resolving ambiguity.

Playing cards are ubiquitous, so pretty much everyone has or easily can get them. And in the modern age, it is no more onerous to get Soviet, Wild West, or other themed backs and faces than it is to order figures. Or through WGV, you can make your own for less than $5. USD

I must admit, while the "perfect information" is one of the least realistic things in wargaming, I have rarely played a game with a "blinds" system that I actually enjoyed.

We mostly don't bother though we do use it in Crossfire where it's by terrain feature.

The PEF system in THW handles this simply and very well, okay, the best. :)

Also includes an AI system as well.

Get it for free here…

link

It will work with any set of rules, not just with THW stuff.

The biggest issue we have had with blinds is when they are used in scenarios designed without any fog of war in mind.

If it is going to take three or four turns (or an evening or whatever) of maneuver and scouting just to figure out what and where the enemy is having only that same amount of time to take or complete an objective means either nothing gets done or the lucky deployment wins.

On the other hand some of my favorite games were massive JRII games where blinds and hidden troops made for McClellan
like angst.

My favorite system was a set of house rules for Volley & Bayonet, but the technique would work at a high enough levels of command in 20th C. warfare. Basically, each command started the game as a bunch of blocks, which moved at set rates until they were "spotted" by an enemy unit/block in range and LOS. Once a command was spotted, the player replaced the blocks with miniatures. Every command had the same number of blocks (for fog of war) and the blocks covered more ground than the actual units represented, so upon revealing the unit, the owner had to make critical deployment decisions in the heat of the moment (and often not knowing what was concealed by the blocks coming toward him in the distance).

The process was extremely simple and easy to adjudicate, and had really neat resulting effects:

• Scouting was suddenly critical, creating a "scouting battle" phase of the game
  
• Scouting could also be used offensively to "pin" an enemy by forcing commands to commit to a deployment too early or out of position
  
• Units marching around concealed by blocks moved at generic movement rates typically faster than the actual units and spent no time changing formations or relative positions, all of which elegantly increased rear area movement speeds without any special rules
  
• Conversely, revealed units had to pay attention to formation, facing, masking, supporting distances, movement rates, etc. making a revealed unit slower and more cumbersome and thus encouraging postponement of revelation until appropriately positioned
  
• Careful use of the road net became critical, since traffic jams in the rear could hold up arrival of blocks at the front where they were needed, creating a "coming up" phase of army-level concentration/deployment that is missing or abstracted in many miniatures games
  
• Since the blocks covered more table area than the actual units, each commander had to maneuver his blocks so that he could avoid creating gaps or hanging flanks during revelation
  

- Ix

•Since the blocks covered more table area than the actual units, each commander had to maneuver his blocks so that he could avoid creating gaps or hanging flanks during revelation

The disparity between the size of playing cards and the size of skirmish size units (for most of our games) is also one of the things I like about that technique. Sometimes, you have to pick what you are covering, and what you are not. Other times, you don't have enough real estate on the card, so you "spill over" into vulnerable or not useful (your guys' line of fire is blocked) positions.

Our group has played some great double blind games in the past using Battleground WWII. While it does require double sets of figures, terrain, and more work on the GM's part, the payoff is a very unique and memorable experience for the players with the looming threat of the enemy being around every corner.

My cousin has also run some interesting Battletech games in which all the mechs are initially represented with chess pieces (possibly only indicating the mech's weigh class) until the actual mech is revealed when spotted by the enemy.

Maps work well, and I was going to suggest taking photos, but GG beat me to it.

Seems like that would make blind games a lot faster to set up, at least with the defender hidden.

The real difficulty is in the double-blind games, and that's where again, maps, two tables, or a GM come in real handy.

I'm still not thrilled with the blind detection rules for both sides hidden, since you need to use something like that old Feldmachink (not sure if I spelled that right). Perhaps, some of you have some other ideas for the double-blind hidden movement/deployment, and for rules to control detection/non-detection by hidden, and fake units, for both sides.

As you can imagine, that gets a little complicated.

You don't want to tip your hand as to which counters are dummies, but you also don't want to try to have actual dummy units detecting real ones. Other than the Feldmachink, about the only way I see around that is having a GM adjudicated detections for both sides.

As mentioned above, if you are designing scenarios, you need to take account of hidden deployment. It makes an attacker's job much harder, at least one column shift in odds ratio for a decent game.

Double blind gives the best gaming experience, by far.
It's a lot of effort to duplicate the tables and the refereeing is hard work.
Anyone who hasn't tried it should give it a go.

That isn't an option all the time.
2nd choice is map deployed defenders.
3rd fuzzy deployment.
4th something which limits players options rather than what they know. Such as modes based actions.

In ECW games I make the players sketch their deployment first. Then I deploy commanders figures and frontline units plus pike elements of units in rear lines. Both sides then write their battle orders. Lastly the side which has out scouted the other may adjust their deployment by a limited amount. Not hidden movement but does create some uncertainty.

I have played WW2 games on dual tables and it does completely change the dynamic.

WW2 games should always be hidden deployment in my opinion. We use PanzerGrenadier rules and they support it very well. We mark up hidden troop placement on a map before the start of the game and they stay hidden until either

1. They move in a way which would render them visible
2. They fire
3. They a seen by a recon event – recon is more successful the higher dice you roll

It stops the attacking player from advancing without caution – or you get shot to – which feels realistic to me.

Yep, I like the requirement for reconnaissance in games a lot.

Need to try to incorporate that a bit more in games, in the future.

Will probably need to add that in with a grand-tactical scale map of the battle area, since the tabletop really isn't large enough in many/most cases to permit maneuvers around strongpoints.

For pre-20th century games, hidden movement brings skirmishers and 19th century battle development into perspective. I remember on game using blocks [50% of which were dummies]where one side would send out skirmishers, the other side would block them from seeing what was behind them, more skirmishers, until a battle line developed, both sides trying to conceal what was behind the battleline. Woods and hills were a big help. When the main attack finally pushed through the enemy skirmishers, the force and location was a surprise. It was an exciting, nail-biting game.

We now simply use command figures instead of blocks or cards, even for the dummies. [No puns/irony intended]

I'm happy with the Blinds in I ain't Been shot Mum. One twist we play is we do 'Hidden' and marked on map for defenders, but those 'Hidden' units have a 2 stage process.

Units 'Hidden' if the move, fire or the area they are in is 'spotted' have a blind placed on them. They therefore need to be spotted or fire a second time (movement on blinds is always 'stay on blind'.

We did this because defenders opening fire from hidden and being revealed was murderous- as defenders are usually outnumbered, you would find EVERYTHING would hit the revealed unit. This allows a unit to fire and then bug out without (hopefully) getting shot.

One thing I do because 'Hidden' allows me to, is have a very thing screen high up the table. Because of the Auto reveal rule, these often will force the Attacker off blinds far earlier than he wanted – Blind move further, and all units move as a group, rather than having to dice for movement individually as you do for revealed units. I will argue this is perfectly acceptable and not gamey – soldiers in contact move more cautiously, so a defender putting in a 'tripwire' of a section or two allows the CO a chance to react.

Not being competion players we, ourselves as keen simulators, mark all stationary camoflagred units on a map. This is easy as we have Hexon II for terain and a CADS map with the roads and other terrain features drawn on. A unit is not spotted untill its fires, moves within sight of the enemy or is run over! The attacker is normaly placed on table as he is moving and is easily spotted. The defender will have little option but to remain where he is or betray his position in which case little is tactical lost.

It has become apparent that the real world reconisance is not normal about where "Private Brown" is sitting but at which key terrain feature a particular platoon is located. Therefore it is irrelevant to small table top games where the enemy is known to be present.

Here (typical table top game) dummies are fine. However don't have too many. You soon work out where the real ones are. There are not that many sensible places to put a Dummy. If he puts a real one in a stupid place its your gain anyway.

I do like the photo Idea for taking a photo of where a uniot was. Also as some of our games are multi eveneing at the club a photo will help recorging where suff is when we set up next week. Just biught a tablet so hopefully we will have some practical trials soon.

Back in the late 1980s, a Marine officer designed a hard plastic set of modular terrain. The trees line were imposed on the map as well as building slots. There were deployment pockets along the tree line and under the buildings. You had to engage the specific pocket to find out if it was occupied. There were other actions at revealed its status too.

That was the most interesting system that I have played. The the Grunt game, i have played in several games using the upside down unit and dummy markers on the table as well.

A few years ago, I designed a Vietnam game using a hex map and used hidden movement in it. It played smoothly.

"Not Quite Mechanized" has some interesting ideas on recon (no hidden movement). The ability to find the enemy and the enemy's ability to ambush the recon are all handled in one roll.

I handle hidden deployment quite mechanically.

In my 18th century games the only real hidden deployment is in woods.

In my 18th century game.

I use a large hex system (the hexes are 12" between parallels of the hex. The game Is not run on hexes, but the geo-form terrain is in hexes. It is simply a modeling base for the terrain.

Anyway, woods are created by making a hexagonal "box" inside the 12" hexagon which is 10-11" across. A hexagonal and conical or free-form roof or "hat" goes over the top. Troops are put into woods and thus cannot be seen and easily forgotten (often by their own commanders. I also use this occasional for villages as well. Works excellently, people are wary of the woods for what they may contain, and players forget about troops they hid there all the time. Not one rule is required. Works perfectly.

For my modern game, I must state that I play my own system which is an army level system. The table top represents the battlefield between those ---XXXX--- boundaries you see on maps all the time. Here nothing is hidden, but if you get to fire on it, ah- that's another thing.

Some of the issue has to do with what can be seen at what distances. This would/could be different for 20th Century+ rules as opposed to 19th Century and earlier.

Line-of-Sight would have a large part in this, but for the most part, anything beyond about a mile [2000 yards] would not be seen other than a hint of something there through dust or perhaps noise.

How Have You Found Hidden Deployment?<q/>

I haven't it's too well hidden

Often we are playing our miniatures battles in more of a coop fashion, with most of the players on one side, the GM (and maybe a helper to roll dice) running the Opfor. Our group are devoid of Type A rules lawyers, though chalk full of actual vets, and we view any game without a strong friction/FOW component akin to playing checkers. (EG we usually play ASL with all defenders HIP! or hidden initial placement)

Los

I write the contents of units on the back of chits. For every 2 chits a blank one. Move them all normally, and if one of my chits sees one of yours, we may "challenge" to reveal the contents. Of course, blank chits cannot challenge, but if you have something in a chit, you dont HAVE to challenge. Therefore, if I dont challenge you, I may or may not have a real unit in my chit. Its a bit like poker in that it allows one to bluff. If you challenge someone they have to reveal there contents and you reveal yours.

Even though I play FOW we still use the Spearhead system of writing up orders & deployments before we place our models & using line of sight range restrictions. So, even if you can omnisciently see your units are in the wrong place, you can't react or change orders to something you can't see. Granted this requires a little more paperwork at the start of the game, but I love the added suspense of knowing you need to change your game plan but aren't able to do so until the engagement begins. Recon units have become a lot more valuable.

I also use the Spearhead / Modern spearhead orders system, but with Fistful of TOWs rules. With everyone having cameras in their phones and tablets these days, and apps to enable drawing on the photo, the preparation of a plan is pretty quick, and really adds to the game. Goes quickly in the initial turns too, as the opposing armies follow their plan and can't modify their actions until spotting 'triggers' the ability to change the orders. Great system IMHO, and pretty simple.

The other good thing is that once the players commit their plan to paper / tablet, then all the toys get put on the table. So no painting of miniatures that spend the game off table and represented by counter or a card!!

The best system I've played with is Nuts/Chain Reaction – You never know where or how many enemy are going to pop up, if they even pop up, on your units. The system is also easily modified if you want certain units to possibly appear in that scenario. It's a great system that is ready to play with AI.

Coupled with the activation and reaction system, games are unpredictable and no game is ever the same.

In a players vs. referee game, I put about 20 lettered counters on the board. I had a list of what each counter was -- directional mine, hidden squad, etc. About 3/4 were just dummies, of course. The players had to do a lot of spotting, which slowed down their advance. Of course, the victory conditions motivated them to move fast, so there was some tension and intentional risk-taking.

At one point, plain old bloodthirstiness overrode tactical risk-taking, and an attacking squad attempted to close assault a suppressed defending squad that had taken casualties. Unfortunately, the counter beside the squad was a directional mine, which tore up the attackers pretty severely.

The game was StarGrunt II, setting was Traveller – Fifth Frontier War, with Imperials defending against Zhodani. We played at CelestiCon 2014.

Nuts/Chain Reaction

T:

Don't know that game/games. Who publishes them?

Chain Reaction is a Two Fat Lardies game.
Nuts! is from Two Hour Wargames.

Nuts! and Chain Reaction are both from Two Hour Wargames.

Chain Reaction is a free download from Two Hour Wargames so you can check out the game system. It's a set of basic rules so you can see how the system works as well as how hidden deployment works.

Thank you. Hadn't heard of either.

To be clear though, I'm not sure I would call the PEF system of the Nuts and Chain reaction, "Hidden deployment". They're random enemy generators for playing solo games, and effective/clever ones. I don't think they apply to the conversation of how to resolve deployment of units hidden from your human opponent.

Another system you can check out is Platoon Forward by Two Fat Lardies. It's a good hidden deployment system at the man to man level without the AI of THW's Chain Reaction system. Platoon Forward is also a very good scenario generator with some optional RPG style rules for your squad.