October 19, 201115 yr Just a thought... In any scenario, you could divide a particular nation into more than one side; the difference being how different parts responded to other sides. For example, you could have two French ships as "France Task Force 1" and a third ship as "France Task Force 2." France Task Force 1 is set to respond to to a potentially hostile side as Neutral, but the second task force (the one ship) has a loose cannon for a captain...he's set on Hostile, to model him panicking and shooting first even though it is against orders. He gets played by the AI. Since the two French task forces are Friendly to each other, I imagine one shooting at a supposedly neutral power and then perhaps getting shot at in return might cause some confusion. By using generic names like Task Force 1 and Task Force 2, it does not reveal whether there is any difference (i.e., the two task forces are a red herring to make you watch them more carefully) or if you have a potential time bomb sitting in the middle of your operation. Any thoughts on this?
October 19, 201114 yr Yes, definitely a tactic that has been used in scenario development before and I'm sure you can work some masterful results with it! This as you've noted makes it extremely difficult to hold fire until positive identification is made.
October 23, 201114 yr Mi Mark, Just a thought... In any scenario, you could divide a particular nation into more than one side; the difference being how different parts responded to other sides. For example, you could have two French ships as "France Task Force 1" and a third ship as "France Task Force 2." France Task Force 1 is set to respond to to a potentially hostile side as Neutral, but the second task force (the one ship) has a loose cannon for a captain...he's set on Hostile, to model him panicking and shooting first even though it is against orders. He gets played by the AI. Since the two French task forces are Friendly to each other, I imagine one shooting at a supposedly neutral power and then perhaps getting shot at in return might cause some confusion. By using generic names like Task Force 1 and Task Force 2, it does not reveal whether there is any difference (i.e., the two task forces are a red herring to make you watch them more carefully) or if you have a potential time bomb sitting in the middle of your operation. Any thoughts on this? Interesting idea. I think both Dale and Freek have used it. Try it out! Regards, Ralf
Create an account or sign in to comment