Hide and Seek: Does it work?

[Calimehter]

Hello!  Long time (if *very* sporadic) lurker and player here.  :)

As I am spooling up my Piranha to start sand blasting the rust off of my game and get involved in a campaign again, I am finding myself with a question.  Current campaign rules (still a bit WIP) have a fairly significant chance to end up playing the Hide and Seek scenario (in either Battleforce or Battletech format depending on the dice rolls) and I was wondering if that scenario actually works as written.  I've played off and on since the 90's and I can't recall ever giving this scenario much of a shot before.  I have vague memories of trying it out once a decade or two ago in one game, and feeling like the defenders had a very tough assignment in this one, and I don't think we ended up finishing the game.  I was wondering:

- Does the scenario work as written to give a decent chance for the defender to win?  Hidden Unit and Pointblank Shot rules are strong advantages, but are they enough to offset being reduced to 1/2 the numbers and 1/2 the BV of the opposing force?  We are also giving the defenders free minefields ala the old BMR rules to determine number.

- If the answer to above is "no", is there a good way to help out the defenders?  We have speculated on including something like forcing a "search pattern until contact" type of restriction on the attacker, requiring a minimum spacing between units until contact is made, which would allow the attacker to hit one or two elements *very* hard via ambush and hopefully offset some of the attacker's numerical advantage . . . and from a meta perspective would also perhaps speed up the game for those of us with limited game times . . .but we aren't very sure if we need to do that or not, or if that would even skew things *too* much toward the defender if the basic scenario is OK.

- How about if both sides have pretty solid access to electronics?  We won't likely be going any further than the basic rules for Beagle Probes and Guardian ECMs (no ECCM or advanced electronics suites) but they will likely be available in decent numbers in the forces being chosen from for the individual scenarios (unless Hide and Seek comes up at the very end and we are scraping our half-repaired survivors out of the bottom of the barrel for the finale).  Seems like a lot of Probes on the attacking side and a lot of ECM on the defending side would change it from something more like Blind Man's Bluff to a game of Marco Polo, but even with ECM offsetting the Probes it will enable the attackers to concentrate on an ECM "ping" and maybe even triangulate a hidden unit's position with time and luck, and send a cheap unit in to "flush" them out and save more valuable units from the Pointblank Shot damage (see also "Life as a PBI, vol. 1").

- Any help or insight appreciated.  Thanks! :)

[Colt Ward]

Personally I think for basic table top ECM's ECCM mode should be available under BMM/TW rules- otherwise you end up with a 'I Win' bit of gear when expecting to face (or lose when fielding) C3/C3i.

My biggest suggestion would be depending on the map size is to give the 'seekers' a turn limit or the defenders reinforcements that arrive on X turn or a roll that increases probability with each turn- IE, Turn 5 roll 12 or better for reinforcements; Turn 6 roll 11 or better for reinforcements, and so on.  The reinforcements are of such nature the seekers will get hammered as they try to accomplish their mission- it gives the seekers some urgency. (Why yes, that is the reinforcements waiting on the sidelines over there . . . yes that Thunderhawk, Uziel 8S, Burrock, and Marauder 9M2 are exactly as they seem.)

The other part would be that I think your 'seekers' should be under forced withdraw.  You might also make the defender's victory conditions depend more on crippling enemy mechs rather than destroying them- they are mission kills, require the limited tech time to put back together, use up inventories of parts, and IMO might fit more of the strategic picture in which a Hide & Seek scenario applies.  I always pictured them as delaying action, and if you can force more of the enemy's equipment into the refit cycle then you are limiting their options for going forward.

[Calimehter]

Fair point about the ECCM option with C3 networks in play, though I do not think it will come up much in our upcoming games, so I don't know if we are going to worry about addressing it.  We are playing 3060 and earlier with a lot of RAT generated elements, and nobody is playing Kurita as of now.  That makes it hard to get C3 networks of any kind up and running, especially when we have a lot of BattleForce scenarios up and coming.  You seem to need to "go big or go home" with C3 at that level, since the individual lances are all in the same hex with their other lancemates, rendering lance-sized networks less useful than they would be in a a purely Battletech campaign.

The turn limit is a good suggestion.  It seems better than my original thought of forced spacing, as it preserved player agency for the seeker and allows them to choose their own path of advance and search.  I'm thinking of something with more of a "soft" limit, though . . . maybe giving the defender score a set amount of victory points each turn starting at turn X to put some time pressure on the seeker.

Forced Withdrawal is a great rule, but in the campaign game I am thinking of we pretty much have this "baked in" already through the need for resource conservation across multiple games. 

Hide and Seek doesn't seem to be a popular scenario based off of the replies here and the dearth of after action reports or other information about it (though my Google-fu could be weak too).  If we do end up rolling it up, I will try to get a report (or at least a summary) for everyone!

[gwaedin]

Hi, more on this subject.
I am adding another scenario to my small ones collection:
https://bg.battletech.com/forums/index.php?topic=67335.msg1557116#msg1557116
https://www.odrive.com/s/268d521c-d93f-427e-905a-bbb9aac926ec-5f0c2a9e

The last #7 is a Hide and Seek scenario coming as a follow-up of the previous one, set during the battle of Morges in 3054.
If I was to use the recommended BV ratios (2:1 in favour of the attacker) the two lineups could look like these ones:

Attacker: Jade Falcons: Vau Galaxy, under-strength Medium Probe Star
Name   Role   PV   Tons   Skill   PVmod
Puma (Adder) B    Sniper   28   35   1   46
Dragonfly (Viper) D    Striker   42   40   2   58
Thor (Summoner) D   Sniper   43   70   3   52
Griffin GRF-2N    Skirmisher   38   55   1   62
            Total   218

Defender: 4th Skye Rangers, Medium Recon Lance
Name   Role   PV   Tons   Skill   PVmod
Cicada CDA-2A    Scout   22   40   2   30
Talon TLN-5W    Striker   31   35   2   43
Sentinel STN-3L    Striker   23   40   2   33
Assassin ASN-21    Scout   22   40   2   30
         total   136

Note that this is not even a 2:1 ratio, but rather a 1.6:1 one. Nevertheless, even with the advantage of being hidden and having Point Blank shots, I see no way for the defending player to stand a chance against the Falcons.

In my scenario you will see that the defenders will get reinforcements on turn 5. However, this is simply because I play with my son (who is 7) and I typically give him a strong advantage (like +60%) in terms of PV to keep things fair. The problem here is that the reinforcements in this case are needed to make the fight somewhat balanced in the first place.

Is there any reasoning about the proposed 2:1 ratio? I know that with the old rules the Defender would also get minefields but (besides not fitting the scope of the scenario) they would not really tip the balance of the scenario. To me, the proposed 2:1 ratio seems plain wrong. Some ideas to fix it:
- give the Defender the opportunity to score extra points if he can exit his units (ideally 1 for each PV exited)
- adjust the 2:1 ratio to something more reasonable (maybe 1.25:1)?
- give the Attacker a limited time to flush out the defending units
- introduce the reinforcements as a standard component of the scenario (amounting to 50% PV of the attacking force, so that in the end they will be even)
Any comments or ideas will be appreciated.

[Paul]

The people who made that likely drastically overestimated the utility of hidden rules, as most players do.

[Colt Ward]

Did I miss a time-frame limit?  Part of the point of playing hide & seek as a defensive force is that you keep revealing a 'threat in being' that a attacker must honor, so you keep running around showing yourself and force the attacker to devote greater assets or specialized assets to chase the hiding force down before they end up in the backfield wrecking a re-arming point or something.

Mines IMO work better against a IS force than a Clan, unless the map really supports the use of mines.  First this sort of IS force lacks the ranged power to use mines to delay a rush.  Second, Clan forces have range and mobility that makes it very hard for a IS force to put them in the minefield.  Third, while for the most part you have mobility on the Clan force, its by a edge . . . and the most mobile Clan machine could defeat one of defenders 1v1.

The defenders should have a victory condition of- 'Shoot & Move, keep the Falcons chasing you for 10 turns' or whatever for marginal and then the longer the better.

[Daryk]

The people who made that likely drastically overestimated the utility of hidden rules, as most players do.

This (and I acknowledge how rare it is I agree with Paul)… the hidden unit rules really require your opponent to move near your hidden units.  If you guess wrong (and I have), you have a unit that's (at best) WAY out of position...

[Weirdo]

You don't have to reveal your units when the enemy is right on top of you(though it is fun). A long-ranged unit that simply reveals itself at the start of a weapons phase could be a good way to take down a fast scout that thinks a Probe makes it hard to ambush and took a chance on not moving for its full TMM.

[Colt Ward]

I think Hidden Unit rules require specific maps, objectives and even constrained deployment zones (like Total War's old ambush battle prep) . . .

FREX-  Hidden Units would be great if you gave the attacking unit a objective (capture road junction 4A) within 10 turns (or whatever it will take for the attacker's average mex run to get there divided into turns) from Deployment Area C (a 10 hex long by 3 hex wide) which is on the least time path between Dep Area to Objective.  Requirement to 'hold' the objective and better definition of 'capture' also helps.

It also helps if the attackers are unaware Hidden Units exist.  Otherwise behaviors are changed- 'the obvious path is obviously mined.'

Problem is, while in universe military forces will proceed with caution to prevent ambushes, the ONLY time BT players would do it on table top is IF they knew Hidden Units were in play or Double Blind was in effect.  So if Hidden Units are being used, then player behavior changes.

Unfortunately, as suggested most scenarios directing Hidden Unit use lets both sides know AND expects the scenario to force the attacker into close quarters with the Hidden Units.

[Hellraiser]

One of the issues I've always had with Hidden Units is that till it appears, you are down even MORE units.

Lets go with Even #s here.

If its 4v4 but the defender starts with 50% hidden then the 2 exposed units are taking twice the firepower every turn till the other 2 appear on the map.

Now add in a starting figure that is 50% already before calculating any % that is hidden & you've got an extreme advantage in firepower for any unit that is exposed.

Hidden units are a gimic, & if timed just right, like a Grendel jumping over the top of your SRM carrier to clear the hills, true story, then they can have a small amount of game changing glory, but, they are mostly a way to NOT have as much firepower on the field as the other guy.

Its a fun scenario toy but I agree that you have to give the attackers a reason to be moving full speed.

The above Grendel/SRM Carrier match also had a bunch of Donars (4?) that we knew would be able to blow by us.

2 of the added hidden units were an Archer-5S & a Nightstar-9FC.
  2 BIG mechs hidden the entire time when they could have been lobbing loads of long range firepower down range.
And it hurt, but when they appeared it was just as 2 of the Donars were going by, and both got wrecked with lots of crit seeking love.
We also had the "aimed fire over time" rule going, so they were able to see them approaching & got a couple turns of built up -1's.
I forget the exact name but its not shooting while maintaining LOS to get a -1/Turn when you do finally shoot.

Conversely, during the WWE with Jaffery? in the Rifleman-6X against WoBs in an ambush scenario things didn't go well at all for the Defenders.
The attackers had plenty of long ranged firepower to include a pair of Clan tech Heavies.  Highlander + Timby-Prime & Riflemen-IIC-1.
Whenever a hidden unit popped up it got 1 turn of fire at the "seeker" while the entire "Ghosts of the Blackwatch" would alpha strike.
In the end the Wobblies had 2 units that went hiding to avoid a total wipe while the Ghosts had lost only a couple units.
IIRC the Highlander ended up taking a TSM Axe from a hidden Ti-Tsang that charged out into the open to get some kills in.


So its an interesting scenario add on but the BV disadvantage with "Hide & Seek" specific set up isn't worth it ever.

Not unless the Attackers have some sort of time limit to score more points the faster they get off the map.

For Example:
Off by Turn 4 = 200% BV
Off by Turn 6 = 100% BV
Off by Turn 8 = 50% BV

I really like the idea of above that Colt mentioned of having reinforcements, say, for instance, the remaining 50% BV, arriving at a random time onto that home edge.

Say 2D6 Roll of Turn # or less.
So impossible on Turn-1, but 1/36 chance on Turn-2,  by Turn-6 its likely they will start appearing.

I think the incentive to get off early for bonus BV as well as avoid the reinforcements would make for a worth scenario set up.

[Sartris]

the main problem with hidden units is that they can't go back to being hidden

I think Hidden Unit rules require specific maps, objectives and even constrained deployment zones (like Total War's old ambush battle prep) . . .

yeah. when i used them as the GM-controlled opfor, they tended to appear around bridges and other chokepoints (like that time i had a pair of SRM carriers modded to carry twin ac/20s...) or small detachments that activated at unfortunate times if the player got too spread out. added a lot of uncertainty and forced people to actually do some recon instead of just barreling toward objectives

[Daryk]

Yeah, the last time I had hidden units, I had to explain why I selected that particular position for an AC/20 armed 'mech.  All I had to offer was "I thought you might try moving there on your approach to the rest of my force"...

[gwaedin]

Thanks everyone for the great feedback on this!
I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one feeling iffy about the proposed 2:1 ratio. Many of the points offered to discussion are something I was thinking about, too. Having played some scenarios with hidden units in the past I agree with the firepower reduction that keeping your units hidden implies. Typically their use has been (at least for us) tactical, to keep the attacker on his toes (e.g. in a Breakthrough scenario). It works best when the visible defending forces can benefit from some kind of heavy cover, such as high-CF buildings, or can Indirect Fire the attackers; this to compensate for the initial unbalance in the effective firepower. As soon as you have a good shooting opportunity you reveal them, hopefully turning the fight into a 1:1 kind in which you achieved tactical advantage thanks to good positioning. If you misplace the hidden units however you will have to run after the enemy which is always not good.
Given that this is really a hunt scenario, I think the best option would be to aim for a global 1:1 ratio, with the Defender's forces spread between the hidden IS lance trying to save their butt from the attacking Jade Falcons probe unit and the reinforcing Wolves', entering at a later turn. I will probably keep it random (e.g. roll less than or equal than Turn number with 2D6). In this way the Attacker is prompted to hurry up finding some units to hopefully take them down before the reinforcements arrive and things get gruesome. Of course this will be even more true for me as my son's forces, once fully deployed, will be stronger than mine. I will have to deal the most damage I can before the Falcons will stop being hunters and become prey for the Executioner... if you are interested, I will upload a revised version of the scenario to the PDF linked above.

[Weirdo]

Personally, I think Hide and Seek would work much better if, like Hold the Line (I think that's that one in thinking of), the Defender can claim victory after destroying as many units as he brought, as opposed to having to destroy the entire Attacker force.

[gwaedin]

Personally, I think Hide and Seek would work much better if, like Hold the Line (I think that's that one in thinking of), the Defender can claim victory after destroying as many units as he brought, as opposed to having to destroy the entire Attacker force.

As for that, I typically favour a PV-based scoring system. It reflects the actual destruction you cause to the opposing force while valuing the assets you lose for the purpose. Even when the overall outcome of a given scenario is clearly set, it still forces the players to decide whether it's worth to risk your units to score more kills, or instead trying to flee with what you can. I remember playing a breakthrough scenario against my son in which I managed to slip enough units to score a win past his defending force (also thanks to some kills), using a Loki as a long range support unit. Then I tried to withdraw it once the objective was secured but he chased me with his surviving Arcas for the whole two maps, taking advantage of the greater mobility ensured by its jump jets. He finally killed the poor chap at a river crossing just a few hexes away from my home edge, thus evening out the score.

[Paul]

Personally, I think Hide and Seek would work much better if, like Hold the Line (I think that's that one in thinking of), the Defender can claim victory after destroying as many units as he brought, as opposed to having to destroy the entire Attacker force.

That helps, since now you only have to wipe out the same amount of BV as you brought. And presumably, at least 1 opposing unit was subjected to Pointblank Shots, though as I think we'll agree, the odds of that causing a kill are pretty low.
Which then changes the tactical situation to 2(ish) on 1 in numbers and BV... still not even for the Defender in my view.

Other ideas might be for the Defender to have to retreat off the Attacker's edge after 1 of their units is found.
Or to attach a time limit to how long the attacker has to find and destroy the defender.

[Calimehter]

The last time we did this scenario, we used a "soft" time frame limit in which the defenders got bonus victory points after a set number of turns, and we tied that into using PV (rather than total force wipeout) to determine the victor, so that the defenders did not have to kill the entire attacking force and could possibly win even after losing all of their machines.  That worked out OK for us.  The attackers still won, but the game didn't feel overly one-sided, and a few key rolls could have saved a draw or a minor win for the defenders.

The key, I think, is to force the attackers to spread out to search the whole board and not have the luxury of taking their time . . . this will allow the defenders to focus their ambush into one sector and try to kill isolated elements quickly before the rest of the attackers can close in and overwhelm them with superior numbers.