I play-tested the Taipale scenario many times before I released it, but there was one experience that I consider very valuable because I think leaders in actual combat may be faced with the same dilemna. I will combine this experience with my expectations of the player.
First of all, when playing against the computer (AI) in Panzer General II (PGII), the player knows that if he does not control the third party, which in this case is the civilians, he is aware that it is the AI who is in control of the them.
I expect the player to observe the rules of war regarding ethical treatment of civilians and non-belligerents, so I expect him to leave the civilians alone. However, at some point in the scenario when the AI’s belligerents, or combat personnel, appears and engages in battle against the player, the player should soon realize that the civilians are assisting the enemy by providing information about the locations of his men to the enemy; in which case, I expect the player to act to protect the lives of his men by neutralizing the former civilians’ (new belligerents’) communications capabilities. In PGII, martyrizing the new belligerents is the only way to do this.
I was faced exactly with that dillemna in an experience that I had during a play-test of Taipale. It was about three turns after I engaged the AI’s combat personnel when I realized that I had a vulnerable flank, and the new belligerents had possession of this information; in which case, I had to make a decision – I neutralized their communications capabilities.
I hope to God that I never am faced with this type of decision in real life.
Back to Supply / CO's Notes Contents