First, I really like this thread. I had been thinking about a similar problem for an adventure I was creating, and this thread has given me lots of great ideas.
I think I see. I think I was trying to address the wrong issue before. I think what you are trying to do is give a player who is interested in strategic planning a larger canvas to plan on than just one encounter. Right now, 4e supports planners thinking out how to work inside of an encounter: "I'm going to move over here, take the OA, so I can set up the flank and pin down the artillery." What it doesn't support as well is strategic planning across encounters: "If we take out the guards quickly, we can rush into the castle before the defenses are ready, take out the boss, and escape without getting tied down." In 4e, all of those encounters are generally pre-planned. Sure, the DM can change that, but the lack of transparency that you mentioned means that the players don't know if that change will happen, or what the change will be. If taking a risk in trying to take out the guards doesn't get me any advantage later on, why should I do it if I don't have to?
So how do you link encounters strategicly, and let the players see that, and how the players can affect those links? Is this (something like) the core issue you are seeing? If so, I've got an idea, but I need to kick it around some more before I'm ready to post it.
I guess a highpoint of the scenario is transparency. Already from the beginning the party can see where enemy guards are located, and can start guessing their responses (and response time). The adventure designer commits to his reinforcements, not bringing them out of a hat. The intervals the reinforcements arrive at become a function of the castle layout and the PC's cleverness, rather than some arbitrary measure of "dramatic appropriateness".
I think I see. I think I was trying to address the wrong issue before. I think what you are trying to do is give a player who is interested in strategic planning a larger canvas to plan on than just one encounter. Right now, 4e supports planners thinking out how to work inside of an encounter: "I'm going to move over here, take the OA, so I can set up the flank and pin down the artillery." What it doesn't support as well is strategic planning across encounters: "If we take out the guards quickly, we can rush into the castle before the defenses are ready, take out the boss, and escape without getting tied down." In 4e, all of those encounters are generally pre-planned. Sure, the DM can change that, but the lack of transparency that you mentioned means that the players don't know if that change will happen, or what the change will be. If taking a risk in trying to take out the guards doesn't get me any advantage later on, why should I do it if I don't have to?
So how do you link encounters strategicly, and let the players see that, and how the players can affect those links? Is this (something like) the core issue you are seeing? If so, I've got an idea, but I need to kick it around some more before I'm ready to post it.