Why are off map reinforcements a thing?

[c3k]

I agree with the OP.

Enemy teleporting inside your defensive line is not right. It punishes "winning" the battle beyond what the designer thought would happen.

This has nothing to do with balance (maintaining a combat presence to flanks and rear). It has everything to do with witchcraft.

If I laager-up, guns out, with clear fields of fire, how does that enemy mech task force appear inside my perimeter?

Magic. That's how.

As mentioned, there are tools available. A pre-brief that the right flank is unsecured and EW intercepts have a mobile enemy operating there would be a clue. Then, having a message appear, "imagery shows enemy approaching" a few minutes prior, would simulate pickets giving warning. Finally, map labels, "possible enemy spawn location", would be the last clue.

All the above would warn the player NOT to hug the edge. (Or put LARGE exit zones along the edge which remove friendly forces from the battle would have a similar effect.)

All the above are to repair the damage to immersion that game edges and teleporting forces cause. It has NOTHING to do with fairness.

Ken

[sburke]

Some nice suggestions there ken. No value touch objectives make for good radio messages for warnings.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I would disagree. Things that happen in the real world follow a set of natural laws. This is akin to those being broken. It isn't a "Oh, I didn't expect that to happen but I can understand how it did" It is much more like you're computer suddenly ignores gravity flies to the top of the room and is smashed into pieces. You couldn't possibly expect that to happen and to attempt to provide for that contingency would be seen as absurd.

 

Similarly the CM series has a set of natural laws. To provide for contingencies outside of those would be absurd. The board edge, for example, represents the end of the known universe. if you are at the board edge nothing that is off of it should be a worry to you, because it doesn't exist. That is why we can sit an mech company on top of the tallest, most exposed hill we can find and not worry about an off map TOW-2 rocket killing everyone. Even though that mech company would probably be at risk from anyone within 6KM of its position.

 

There are plenty of examples from mlitary history where things like that happen. Including recent military history. During the 2003 iraq War there were several instances where US forces were surprised by Iraqi forces who were not where they were thought to be. This even happened during the 1991 Kuwait War. To me that is what the scenario in question simulates. Now you appea to think that anything off board should not be a concern. Well here is another newsflash for youy. The real world battlefeld DOES NOT work that way. It is in fact a very chaotic place  Friendly and enemy forces are manouvering and fighting all over the place. NOT JUST the small part of t our particular game represents

 

This particular scenario illustrates that reality very sharply. You don't like that. Tough luck. Learn to live with the reality of the real battlefield as simulated in the game Please assemble for the "practical" in the vicinity f the Russian - Ukranian border.

 

And note what I said about the issue of poor US air defences. I made the mistake of making inadequate use of the Stingers I did have by positioning them poorly. And movinfg an entire Combat Team into what turned about to be a Hind Gunship killing zone. I don't get upset about that. I messed up. I will try to learn from that mistake and do better next time by not making the same mistake again/ Just as you might learn from the mistake of failing to anticipate the unexpected time and place that enemy reserves arrived.

 

Sure, youy are upset about that. It does seem unfair in terms of the game. But like I keep telling you life and war is just NOT  fair sometimes. You need to realise that. Learn that sometimes the unexpected will happen. Then maybe you will be better placed to deal with it.

 

A harsh lesson it may be. But real war is the harshest and most unforgiving envcironment. Moderrn war particularly so

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

The odds of a company sized enemy force appearing within grenade range is not at all realistic. If there was a better cue like roads or am obvious avenue of approach then its not that bad but suddenly there's tanks 25 meters from your flank is just wrong.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I agree with the OP.

Enemy teleporting inside your defensive line is not right. It punishes "winning" the battle beyond what the designer thought would happen.

This has nothing to do with balance (maintaining a combat presence to flanks and rear). It has everything to do with witchcraft.

If I laager-up, guns out, with clear fields of fire, how does that enemy mech task force appear inside my perimeter?

Magic. That's how.

As mentioned, there are tools available. A pre-brief that the right flank is unsecured and EW intercepts have a mobile enemy operating there would be a clue. Then, having a message appear, "imagery shows enemy approaching" a few minutes prior, would simulate pickets giving warning. Finally, map labels, "possible enemy spawn location", would be the last clue.

All the above would warn the player NOT to hug the edge. (Or put LARGE exit zones along the edge which remove friendly forces from the battle would have a similar effect.)

All the above are to repair the damage to immersion that game edges and teleporting forces cause. It has NOTHING to do with fairness.

Ken

 Ken, yes. Scenario briefing hints would be nice. ~Or warnings given of the approach of enemy forces approaching. Often that would happen in ther real world. But smetimes the boys and girls in Military Intelligence just miss something or the enemy does something unexpected in the wider tactical and operational environment. Sometimes your pickets are destroyed before they can report in or they just fail to spot the enemy approach. Maybe they were in the wrng place r looking the wrong way. Sometimes commanders just get suerprised. It has happened on countless occasions throughout military history. That's why we have flank and rear security considerations. And, as I found out today, air defence positioning is of great importance.

 

In this game you step into the combat boots of a Combat Team or Battalion Commander. These ssues are what goes with that pay grade. It is your job to anticipate whaat the enemy might do and to be ready for the contingency even with little or no warning. That is the nature of the beast. This game in particular teaches some very harsh lessons about real war and, indeed, so it should

[Melchior]

The odds of a company sized enemy force appearing within grenade range is not at all realistic. If there was a better cue like roads or am obvious avenue of approach then its not that bad but suddenly there's tanks 25 meters from your flank is just wrong.

 

Indeed. I remember some particularly egregious scenarios in CMSF where the teleporting reinforcements created really baffling situations. I don't think culprit here is the reinforcement system per se though. Bad scenario and map design are more likely. A smartly designed map should feature an area of "dead ground" well behind and out of sight of a map's objectives where reinforcements can teleport in without breaking the game. 

 

Note, this should not be taken as "their should never be any surprise attacks in the scenarios".

Edited February 8, 2015 by CaptHawkeye

[c3k]

Right now, my immediate environs allow me to have LOS from 40 to 2,000m. Behind me (the 40m zone), are my buddies and a huge support organization. My rear is secure.

If, in the next instant, a dozen tanks and 100 infantry were to appear within hand-grenade range, I would be a'mazed. Magic.

It is a game limitation, atm, not a feature. IMHO.

Ken

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The odds of a company sized enemy force appearing within grenade range is not at all realistic. If there was a better cue like roads or am obvious avenue of approach then its not that bad but suddenly there's tanks 25 meters from your flank is just wrong.

 

If you go into an area of dense terrain, a viillage or a wood for instance and you failed to take adequate security precautions like for example conducting a quick recon of the area then walk smack bang into an  ambush you probably deserve all you got. t might not be grenade range but it probably will be a very close range kill zone.

 

And if they appear from off map, maybe there was a balka (the lcal term for a ravine) or a wood. It is not n the map so is not in your unit's operating area. The enemy however is not going to co-perate with you.

 

There are all sorts of ways something like this might happen in real world combat. You may not luike it and you may not like what whoever designed that particular scenasrio did. But things like that happen in real world combat frm time to time. Sure, it isn't fai but then, WAR IS NOT FAIR If you had been  beter prepared by holding a mobile reserve you would have been better placed to react to this unexpected crisis by redeploying swiftly as soon as you became aware of the theat. Something far easier to do witbh the reserves than forces in contact and in the wrong place for the changed situation.

 

Learn frm misakes like this rather than complaining how "unfair" the stuation was. A unfair stuation created, in part because you committed all your forces early on instead of folowing sound military principles such as keeping a reserve.

[sburke]

not sure if the version i am looking at is final one included in the release, but I expect the answer is the designer just never expected the player to have forces in that location in 30-35 minutes.  That is pretty quick.  So chalk it up to you being more aggressive and successful than a designer expected and let's move on.

 

I think Ken's suggestions are good and I intend to incorporate those ideas on work I may be doing.  As to whether I would consider off map reinforcements being an acceptable thing, absolutely.  They just need to be incorporated in such a way as to work with the scenario, not against.  I think in this scenario most of the time they do work, but the OP found an option where they don't.

 

by the way when BF does do Space Lobsters of Doom, I understand teleport technology is all the rave, get used to it.

[Melchior]

I agree with that to an extent. Particularly in CMSF with uncon. Fact is the unexpected is to be expected in  war, what I think people want is that it's done in a more subtle way. 

[Spitzenhund]

Spitzenhund, I could only count 3 Oplots remaining in your screenshot, if thats true I would start this mission all over,

you are going to need those Tanks in the last mission, which is total mayhem (and fun).

I quit the campaign entirely, I will come back to it later, but I don't feel like playing the mission in a linear way just so i dont get spawned on top of. But yea, I figured the tanks are important (I got 2 of thems main guns knocked out in the first mission.) 

[Spitzenhund]

Teleporting units in is problematic as you have to make some assumptions about where the player is possibly going to have positioned units.  Just making maps bigger or positioning the units on map in defilade doesn't quite work as well anymore due to UAVs etc which allow the player to spot well beyond where they might actually have units.

 

So unfortunately in this case you moved into an area the designer did not expect you to.  Bummer.

 

However before folks go on a tirade about the designer, perhaps you can design a few on your own and show them the "correct" way to design.  As it is the designer was trying to put together something interesting and create a challenge for you.  You can chalk it up to you doing something unexpected or you can make still another designer irked that his work is so ill received as to make him reconsider doing any more.

 

And no this does not mean do not critique the design.  Most designers crave feedback.  It is simply how one approaches it. Showing the situation and suggesting to the designer that the reinforcement location was problematic is definitely good feedback.  The OP was pretty close to that, I'd have simply left off the "what the hell" comment and simply said bummer. The designer will get the picture and may actually ask for more info on your attack plan.  win-win for everyone.

Ok, I'm sorry for the curse. A suggestion for reinforcements on this map would to have them come out of the woods at the top left of the map. That way it can be seen as unexpected (Why would I expect attack from the woodline), And I couldn't expect to see it coming any earlier (It's a pretty dense treeline). I think all reinforcements should be kept from coming from clear LOS angles, as the first reinforcement group came down the MSR which shouldn't be possible as I always had a combat vehicle watching it (too see if people were crossing the highway). Another advantage of having them come out of the treeline is that it slows them down, giving me time to re-position. The only complaints I could see are 1. "Why didn't my Helicopter/UAV spot them?" (once again its a pretty thick treeline), 2. "Why would they move tanks thru a treeline" (That way they can sneak up on your forces instead of getting shot down the MSR miles out).

[Spitzenhund]

Why do I feel like Lucas is trolling us to death.

[sburke]

Ok, I'm sorry for the curse. A suggestion for reinforcements on this map would to have them come out of the woods at the top left of the map. That way it can be seen as unexpected (Why would I expect attack from the woodline), And I couldn't expect to see it coming any earlier (It's a pretty dense treeline). I think all reinforcements should be kept from coming from clear LOS angles, as the first reinforcement group came down the MSR which shouldn't be possible as I always had a combat vehicle watching it (too see if people were crossing the highway). Another advantage of having them come out of the treeline is that it slows them down, giving me time to re-position. The only complaints I could see are 1. "Why didn't my Helicopter/UAV spot them?" (once again its a pretty thick treeline), 2. "Why would they move tanks thru a treeline" (That way they can sneak up on your forces instead of getting shot down the MSR miles out).

No sweat, yeah I think those are good suggestions.  Not sure if the designer is monitoring this thread, but that is good feedback.

[ASL Veteran]

In general, I think the first rule of reinforcements is to always have them come in behind friendly forces along the designated friendly map edge.  Coming in from the side will almost always create problems at some point unless the timing and location is thoroughly thought out and rigorously tested.  If you need the reinforcements to be at a specific location by a certain time to make the AI plan work, then you just have to have the reinforcements enter along the rear map edge a little earlier so they can move into position.

 

So yeah, I agree that the situation described by the OP is more of a design issue than anything else.  Unfortunately it appears that this particular situation was missed when testing the campaign.  We'll just have to try harder next time.

[Combatintman]

The CMSF scenario looks like one of JonS's which I (along with a couple of others) tested - the situation shown in the image certainly didn't arise in any of those tests. Added to which, you can see that Jon took care to ensure that the reinforcements arrived in dead ground and I'm pretty sure that the briefing mentioned that reinforcements would arrive. It just goes to show that the combination of an experienced and talented scenario designer and robust testing sometimes does not cover all bases.

 

FWIW I thought this was one of the better and more fun scenarios in that whole campaign.

[Pelican Pal]

Lucas, you have got to be kidding me.

 

Anyway, as it is right now I don't think the game offers a really suitable solution to the problem. The Primary ones seem to rely on time based triggers. Which we currently don't have access to.

 

Generally the way I design scenarios I don't run into the issue. However, my general rule of thumb is for reinforcements to never show up near objectives.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Pelican Pal

[agusto]

Why cant we just have a patch that slightly changes the first mission of the UKR campaign? The game is 2 weeks out, maximum, and there will be plenty of patches over the next year. It wont be much of a problem for BFC to just throw in a slightly moddified UKR campaign that has no first mission magic reinforcements. The OP is not the only one who has been complaining about this particular mission.

Edited February 8, 2015 by agusto

[agusto]

The CMSF scenario looks like one of JonS's which I (along with a couple of others) tested - the situation shown in the image certainly didn't arise in any of those tests. Added to which, you can see that Jon took care to ensure that the reinforcements arrived in dead ground and I'm pretty sure that the briefing mentioned that reinforcements would arrive. It just goes to show that the combination of an experienced and talented scenario designer and robust testing sometimes does not cover all bases.

 

FWIW I thought this was one of the better and more fun scenarios in that whole campaign.

 

I suppose i should have followed the road - but to me, it looked like a death trap, within RPG range of multiple buildings, 2 choke points (bridges), possible IEDs, so i went off-road. I didnt think this would be such an unusual course of action, given that the briefing explicitly tells me that i just must get my trucks from A to B alive, not destroy the enemy forces.

Edited February 8, 2015 by agusto

[Melchior]

Why do I feel like Lucas is trolling us to death.

 

Because he saying things that you don't like. 

 

"Trolling" is too often used ad hominem on the internet. 

[Spitzenhund]

Why cant we just have a patch that slightly changes the first mission of the UKR campaign? The game is 2 weeks out, maximum, and there will be plenty of patches over the next year. It wont be much of a problem for BFC to just throw in a slightly moddified UKR campaign that has no first mission magic reinforcements. The OP is not the only one who has been complaining about this particular mission.

This is the 2nd Mission of the UKR campaign for clarification. I don't think there are reinforcements in the first mission are there?

[LUCASWILLEN05]

The CMSF scenario looks like one of JonS's which I (along with a couple of others) tested - the situation shown in the image certainly didn't arise in any of those tests. Added to which, you can see that Jon took care to ensure that the reinforcements arrived in dead ground and I'm pretty sure that the briefing mentioned that reinforcements would arrive. It just goes to show that the combination of an experienced and talented scenario designer and robust testing sometimes does not cover all bases.

 

FWIW I thought this was one of the better and more fun scenarios in that whole campaign.

 

Just goes to show what happenswhen  gamer makes a mistake. In this case it looks to me like he over committed his forces, in this case throwing everyhing into the attack. The scenario designers cannot be expected to legiislate for tactical blunders. You pver commit your force and fail to keep reserves then you are going to be taken by surprise. Which is what most likely happened in this instance. If the briefing hinted at the possibility that reinforcements were on the way and likely to be comuinng from a certain direction and someone does not read that, forgets or ignores the advice then a military disaster is on the cards.

 

Which is clearly what happened here. In the real world that kind of thing could get a commander relieved of his command  and reassigned to a position on the staff preferably in a role where a foul up won't do too much damage. A foulup here does not end military careers, nor does it get a lot of people killed. You probably lost the game but, if you learn the lesson you do better next time. I lost a game today because I negleccted my air defencce cover, ggot a Combat Team into a Hind Kill Zone and lost a lot of men and vehicles. As a reult of this my attack bogged down. Result a minor US defeat because I also recognised when to quit instead of pressing a clearly failed attack.I think I understand where and why I went wrong and consider it a valuable learning experience for next time. Hopefully Spitzenhund can learn a lesson from his defeat. And others can learn from both his mistakes and mine.

 

Lessons of this thread

1 Don't over commit your force too quickly

2 Maintain flank, rear and air security

3 Read the scenario briefing

4 Anticipate that unexpected situations are going to occur and may happen with little or no warning. Be prepared

5 Scenario developers may need to think about clearer warnings regarrding approach of unexpected enemy reindforcements (unless they wish to simulate an intelligence failure or surprise attack) using both he briefing and the reinforcement buttons t provide relevant messages  Maybe that did not happen in this scenario, maybe not intentonally however.

[agusto]

No, i did not loose the game. IIRC i lost a truck and maybe 3 to 4 WIA/KIA in the incident with the reinforcements. BTW at which military academy did you graduate, do you have any experience in tactics apart from gaming that make you argueably superior in knowledge? It looks to me as if you were desperately bending reality to fit your almost religious defense of a sub-optimal game mechanism.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Posted Today, 04:16 PM

agusto, on 08 Feb 2015 - 8:56 PM, said:

Why cant we just have a patch that slightly changes the first mission of the UKR campaign? The game is 2 weeks out, maximum, and there will be plenty of patches over the next year. It wont be much of a problem for BFC to just throw in a slightly moddified UKR campaign that has no first mission magic reinforcements. The OP is not the only one who has been complaining about this particular mission.

 

 

A scenario does not need a patch. It just needs whoever designed it t make a change. In this case maybe using the reinforcement buttons to provide warnings as was suggested earlier in the day. But, like I said, sometimes things like this happen in the real world, and, as I ointed out there are plenty of historical examples.

 

Spitzenhund it seems to me that you regard this as a game where the map edge delineates the edge of the world and that makes your flanks and rear safwe. Unfortunately, in the real world your flanks and rear most certainly are not safe. If you overcommit your forces to an atack, as for example JKutuzov did at Austerltz you may not be in position to respond fast enough (or sometimes at all) You learned a harsh lesson about real world warfare today in your game. As I did inmy game today. My advice to you is to take those experiences and learn from them so you won't make the same error again and thus become a beter tactician

 

.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

No, i did not loose the game. IIRC i lost a truck and maybe 3 to 4 WIA/KIA in the incident with the reinforcements. BTW at which military academy did you graduate, do you have any experience in tactics apart from gaming that make you argueably superior in knowledge? It looks to me as if you were desperately bending reality to fit your almost religious defense of a sub-optimal game mechanism.

I was referring to Spitzenhund. And I am speaking as a mlitary history buff and as a wargamer of 25 years experience in both computer, miniature and boardgame experience.

 

Look. the point I have been trying to get accrss to you is this. In the real world your flanks and rear are most definatelty NOT safe. A fact that has been demonstrated, probably thousands of times to military history. This is a n established fact. It does not matter a jot whether we are talking abot the Battle of Kadesh or the Battle of the Karbala Gap. Or anything in between. At Kadesh Ramses II was taken bby surprise because ghhe neglected flank and rear securuity allowing the Hittites to attack him n flank and rear while the Egyptian army was in column of march (i,e not prepared for battle. Likewise, at Karballa Gap the Iraqis lost (ok they would probably have lost in any case) because they failed to anticipte the correct direction of 3rd Infantry Divsion's arttack.

 

If you study military history, even as a ghobby, as I do, then you are going to learn some lessns about tctics and warfare. Spitzenhund made the mistake of thinking that the map edge secures your flanks and rear. And he clearly over committed his forces. The guy committed a couple of tacticical mistakes which I have been tryng to explain to him.

 

If someone was to explain to me how I can better employ my air defences (which is where I know full well I went wrong n my game today) I would not be claiming that what happened was "unrealistic" I know l hat it was very ealistc. I know from some on line researcjh that the modern US military has paid less attetion to air defence han it should. And I know I failed to deploy my air defences to give proper defensive coverage against air attack. I paid the price for that mistake, just as Spitzenhund paid the price for his.

 

But I acknowlege nd recognise my mistake. Spitzenhund might not and instead blames the scenario designer, When in fact his screen print at the start ofthe thread clearly shows the position indicating a tactical error. His comments in fact suppot this hypohesis. I have read enough about howe the US military trains (eg Bolgere's books on experences at the National Training Centre) to understand that unit commanders often commit misakes like this on the trainin ground. They will very likely be hauled over the coals for errors like this for excel;lent prfessional reasons - so they won't foul up in combat.

 

I suggest you ask any military professional. particularly one who has done the job for real in combat and you will likely find the answer is similsar to what I have been sayiing.

 

Anyway, I have spent more than enough tme on this today and I real;ly could not be bothered to continue with ssomething that risks becoming a flame war so I suggest this would be a good place to call a halt.