Off board direct fire

[Guest Lokesa]

On my way to work today, driving through an area I've always wanted to map for a CM scenario, my mind, as it is wont to do, started thinking about CM, visualizing AT emplacements and the like. I got to thinking about off board direct fire representing units supporting the flanks. I know it's a rough area who wants to lose a tank or even a squad to something off the map they cant see, no one. Nevertheless, it always seemed odd to me how we can use map edges to our benefit, knowing that we are safe from enemy fire from whatever direction the edge lies. I'm not saying that I want it put in, rather putting forth an idea as food for thought. Say if a unit strays to far to one side or the other there is a percentage chance of it being targetted by units not in your opponents OOB (I can hear it now, takes up cpu cycles, it would take a demon computer, no the mother of all computers hidden in a basement at the pentagon to run at a decent speed )

What would be really cool, not expecting this, would be to have units of both sides not under your or your opponents control on the flanks (outside of the scenario portion of the larger map). These units would engage units that came within a certain proximity but would not count towards victory conditions thus if you really wanted to clear them you could but would be likely be losing the battle you came to fight. In other words, they would only be there to keep players honest. Another positive side effect from this would be a sort of alarm to a flanking manouver, even if you didn't see the units yourself you would hear the gunfire on your flank, the severity of the gunfire could give you an idea as to how worried to be about the threat.

The more I think about it the more I like it, what do you think Bigtime?

[Mike D]

I know the flanking discussion has come up before. However, building on what Lokesa has said, what would happen if something along the following lines were implemented.

Say a map is 5000 meters x 5000 meters. Along the two flanking edges of the map there is a zone on either side, say 5% or so of the overall width of the map (scenario designer would probably define the actual width in meters or percentage of the overall map width), into which neither of the players can deploy or move there "primary" units (units under direct player control). This could be depicted by two dashed lines parallel to the left and right map edges so that the players could clearly see these zones. So we now have a map "playable" area of 5000m long x 4500m wide with an "unplayable" strip along both sides of 250m width. Where "playable" area is the area where the players main forces are deployed which he has under direct control and "unplayable" areas are those areas where only flanking units assigned to the flank zones are deployed which are only partially under the players control. More on this in a minute.

Think of the above concept as defining the map zone where your company, battalion, etc. is assigned to the sector of front of 4500 m between the dashed lines. The areas to the left and the right represent the flanking areas and units of the bordering companies / battalions assigned to your adjacent sectors.

Now, in addition to the units under your direct command, you also are given a number of units (or in purchase point scenarios a number of flanking purchase points to buy said units) to place in your two flanking zones on either side of the map to represent your neighboring friendly units. The player can choose which ones to place on which side (i.e. the player may choose to "load up" on flank more so than the other depending on the tactical situation, terrain, etc.). These units would be under partial human control. Meaning the "controlling" player can at least give some general orders like defend, probe, advance, etc., along with the ability to change these orders during the game. Other than having these generalistic kind of orders these units would be under computer control. They might decide to shoot at units within the primary zone of the map where both players are controlling there main forces. They may decide to fire at your opponents computer controlled flanking units that have been ordered to advance from the opposite side of the same 250m wide flanking zone of play, etc. Think of it as having these units in support of your attack and/or defense in the primary zone (map area between the dashed lines) you have been assigned.

What would all this accomplish? It would help prevent the totally unrealistic occurrence in most/all wargames where the attacker can move forward with total disregard for his extreme left and right flanks along the map edges. No more protective "magical shield" formed by the totally arbitrary and unrealistic edge of the map. Now the commanders must think about protecting their flanks as they advance. And, for that matter, the same would apply on defense.

For the attacker, in addition to giving the general orders to the units deployed in the flanking zones the player has to consider directing fire from tanks, artillery, infantry, etc. into these flanking zones to pin down, suppress, route, or otherwise silence defending units located there (maybe a pesky machinegun, infantry units, or even a tank or two is over there) so that the main units under direct player control can advance without taking flanking fire, being pinned, etc. Likewise, the defender has to worry about his flanks as well. Assume for a moment that in an attack/defend situation the attacker may be given 1.5 to 2 times the number of units to deploy in the flanking areas. On top of this during the pregame setup the attacker might decide his strategy is to try and turn the defenders left flank. He therefore puts most of his flanking units in his right most flanking zone and orders them to advance in support of his main forces (under his direct control) attack on the enemies left flank. Now the defender not only has to worry about the attackers primary units advancing on his left, but he also has to worry about units in the flanking zone advancing on this flank which might be moving up in support of the attackers primary units. The end result is the defender no longer has a "magical shield" of protection anchoring his flanks either. Bottom line is you have a more realistic game from both the attackers and defenders perspective.

Now this may be stretching it a bit. But it may also be appropriate to allow the players to divert units that start under their primary control into these flanking areas during the game as well. Say the defender in the above example can’t afford to let a horde of attacking units come up to turn his left flank and he only had two infantry squads initially set up in his adjoining flanking zone. So on turn 2 he orders a tank, mg, and another infantry unit to move over into this zone to support his flank. Once there they could only be given the generalistic orders of advance, defend, attack, etc. and otherwise would come under computer control. Also, these units would most likely not be able to be recalled back into the main map area under the players direct control at a later turn in order to prevent players from abusing this capability. However, this would give the players some additional flexibility during the game to help support their flanks in these flanking zones if they didn’t have enough units to deploy there intially, the units initially deployed have been wiped out, etc.

Is this proposal perfect? Doubtful. Is it a good idea? Perhaps. With all the great minds here on the board and at BTS to go over it, it might just possibly turn into something. If not, I had fun thinking about it anyways.

Regards,

Mike D

aka Mikester

[Guest Big Time Software]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I know it's a rough area<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You don't even know the half of it Do you know how much beer was consumed while talking about this issue? So much that we don't even know!

There is no tactical wargame in existence, so far as we know, that handles action from the flanks in any direct and meaningful way. We won't say that it is impossible to do, but it is so hard that even CM won't directly tackle this problem.

Lokesa, your idea would require a whole new simulation engine to do. Obviously, we don't have time to do such a thing The other big problem is that it is equally unrealistic to simply have an "edge of death" ring around the map. It is just as arbitrary as all other game's "safe" map edges. People would then treat the map as if it were smaller, thus avoiding the real edges and using imaginary ones in their place. The huge problem, though, is how to simulate where the fire is coming from and the terrain that is inbetween the shooter and target. LOS is so important at this scale that to toss it out and just have an area where you could die, simply because it is an edge, is very unrealistic.

Mike D, what you suggest has similar problems as Lokesa's suggestion, but requires even more coding. On top of that, you get into "where do you draw the line" problems. I mean, who is to say that the forces bordering the flanking forces are remaining quite. Shouldn't the flanking forces be subjected to flanking problems themselves? Otherwise the flanking forces, even if AI controlled, could drive along the map edges just as safely as any unit can in any other wargame.

Yup, this problem sucks. It might even be the only one that CM can not directly tackle. All we can say is when building a scenario choose a map scale and unit density that makes sense in relation to each other. The real flanking problems happen when at least the defender force size is too small for the map being fought over. Say, a 2000m wide map with a mixed company defending. This makes the defender have to spread out too much or concentrate on just a small area of the map to defend. The former makes for an unrealistically thin defensive line, the latter means giving up the flanks before the battle has even started. Neither are very realistic for most battles.

Oh well, everything can't be the mirror reflection of reality, can it?

Steve

[This message has been edited by Webmaster (edited 05-01-99).]

[CRourke]

This is a kind of nasty problem, but its seems it could at least be reduced (though there are prolly better things for you guys to code). Couldn't you just restrict the attacker to a slightly narrower map than the defender. This way the defender could provide his own flank support. Sure, people would whine about annoying it was not being able to drive in and squash that mg unit that kept firing at em, but in real life attacks are defined along strict boundaries.

Obviously, it would get slightly more complex as you wouldn't want the defender taking advantage of a safe zone that led far ahead into enemy territory. Perhaps both sides could have a "safe zone" at their respective ends of the map. (and by safe, i just mean that the enemy can't run you over there, he can still blow ya to bits).

I guess my favorite solution would be to allow scenario designers to put in "exclusion zones" for each side just as they can define deployment zones. I don't know how hard this would be to implement, especially with regards to AI, but it sure would be a flexible tool

Chris Rourke

[Brian Rock]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I guess my favorite solution would be to allow scenario designers to put in "exclusion zones" for each side just as they can define deployment zones. I don't know how hard this would be to implement, especially with regards to AI, but it sure would be a flexible tool <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is quite a clever idea. It's certainly not a cure-all for the problems discussed, but it does address an issue that most games entirely ignore - unit boundaries. Every game I can think of has totally open boundaries up to the map edge, irrespective of map size, despite the fact that units generally don't fight like this.

Harpoon allowed this with "exclusion' zones, for example - different purpose, but I think a similar system could be used - indicate an area where one side or the other "can't go".

This is only a partial solution, if only because there will never be a supporting attack on the flanks. But it does reflect some situations, and seems to me to be a good idea for an optional setting in the editor.

[Guest Big Time Software]

This is not a half bad idea, but it is likely to open Pandora's Box. One problem right off the bat is, how do you stop the defending units from marching up the Attacker's "exclusion zones"? Great way to flank the Attacker without fearing direct contact.

Not saying this idea can't work (it is one of the best idea we've seen so far), but it is the sort of feature that can turn into a problem for us. We don't have time for high risk features at this stage.

Thanks though! Idea noted!

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-02-99).]

[Brian Rock]

I read your comment about not taking on high risk ideas, so the following is for discussion only. I'll save the nagging/pleading for a really BIG idea.

Off the top of my head I have two answers to the problem of a free flank attack to the defender:

1) The complex one:

If the defender moves into an area then it activates additional units for the attacker. This only works, of course, if "provisional" units are programmed in, which I suspect they aren't

2) The easy solution:

Exclusion zones work both ways.

If the defenders are under orders to defend in sector, for example, it's not unreasonable to restrict the forward edge of the battle zone for a whole bunch of reasons: fire support, maintaining lines along the front, etc.

Again, if it is an option in the editor, it can be used/not used as the designer wishes.

(Hmmmm.... that sounded suspiciously like a nag/plead in disguise...)

[CRourke]

Ya, what brian said.. you could either give the attacker his own exclusion zone at his end of the map, or you could give them both triangle shaped exclusion zones that would be wide at the friendly side and pointy somewhere near the enemies mlr.

Better yet, make them polygon shapes, so a scenario designer could place them at the accurate unit boundaries (following ridge lines, or what not). You could use em for all sorts of other crazy stuff, simulating constrictions placed on you from higher up. Like, don't put men in the ancient monastary, or don't attack through the town to avoid civilian casualties. Obviously, there is some potential for abuse of exclusion zones, but only because it would be such a powerful tool. And anyway if you don't like the scenario someone designed (what do you mean I'm only allowed to attack along this single lane road??), then don't play it.

If you stop and think, you can probably come up with more uses. For example, I just came up with using them as restriction along front and back map edges in "exit so-and-so many units off the map" scenarios. After all, the blitzing panzer force would be a whole lot more useful if it charge off the map near a road rather than in a swamp.

Anyway, I can understand the hesistation to making big changes in the basic mechanics this late in the game. But I hope you guys keep it in mind, possibly for a patch or something.

Chris R

[Fionn]

IF this was enacted I would like there to be an option to NOT allow the opposing player to know where the exclusion zones were.

E.g. The player would not KNOW that you had to get your panzers off the map at the road and so might defend poorly. IF he knew you had to exit via the road he might just put all his units in a hedgehog defence around the exit points..

In reality an enemy wouldn't know that you weren't allowed to use the monastery and thus might put units there.. It could allg et very complicated then since if you were fired on from the monastery then you should be able to return fire (although not allowed to use artillery).. I think this is a great idea for a follow-up but probably too much for right now as it needs a lot of thought put into it.

OTOH in a follow-up it would be pretty revolutionary and useful.

[CRourke]

I agree fionn, the enemy shouldn't know where you aren't allowed. Thats the sort of info he might get in a vague form from a scenario briefing, but he shouldn't see it right there on the map.

Artillery fire probably should be allowed in, since the majority of the time that be used to simulate unit boundaries, not monastaries.

Hmm, does any one know if calling in arty across a unit boundary is allowed in real life?

[Brian Rock]

As I understand it, for US arty procedures at least, it depends on circumstances and what level the arty assets are assigned.

For example, indirect fire assets attached to B Company generally won't fire across a boundary to hit a target facing A Company - co-ordination problems being what they are, too much of a risk of fratricide.

However assets allocated from a higher level (eg brigade) that were allocated to B Company may be called in to hit a target in A Company's area - the higher level of organisation means they are more likely to have the relevant info to make sure they are hittng the bad guys.

This is where a good FO and good comms are handy. The checking procedures to ID targets, grid co-ords and such - it's a good idea to double check you aren't calling a few tons of HE on the good guys - can be slow even today. The computers are fast, but the info from the field can still lag, even with digital comms. It was harder in WWII.

US forces were generally much better at switching fire, much to the envy/annoyance of the Germans.

It's been a while since I read up on this, so I stand to be corrected.

[Guest Big Time Software]

The exclusion zone concept could be simulated easier, cleaner, and with more effect by just making the map larger and giving more units for the defender. Set up deployment zones to make sure they spread out, and there you go; a realistically strong defense, spread out the width of the map. If the attacker tries to flank he will be met by significant force while potentially exposing at least one flank to the rest of the defense force. And don't forget, it is really dangerous to move a significant flanking force along a map edge because, if caught by cross fire, movement is restricted to two directions (one is negated by the fire, the other by the map edge). And if there is fire coming from in front AND the flank, the attacker can only go in one direction to get out of trouble. Getting caught in the wrong place at the wrong time can be like shooting fish in a barrel.

Unfortunately, most of these suggestions really don't address the fundamental problem without either overly complicating the game, creating more problems, or keeping the same problem under different circumstances. Don't feel too bad though, we have been doing wargame development for 10yrs between the two of us, and we really don't have any better ideas

The exclusion zone thing *might* have some promise, but it has oh so many potential problems (Pandora's Box). For example, if both sides can't use the exclusion zone, you are right back in the same position you were in before. Ideas like "don't go there or the enemy gets more guys" is not realistic either because who is to say there are other guys for the enemy to get? Sure, you can code around these issues but you are basically talking about making a separate game just to simulate flanks. Obviously, that isn't going to happen any time soon

I don't mean to be raining on people's parades, but this issue has been a thorn in the side of wargaming for decades. Although it is a realism problem, people have found a way to live with it. Not to say that it should remain that way, but rather it isn't so important that it ruins the game or general quality of the simulation being played. Every game, of any sort, has its limitations. Flanks, or at least realistic portrayals of them, is one such limitation in wargames. Total intelligence and control over troops are other standard limitations to realism. If we had to pick one to fix, it would be the total intelligence aspect. That has a far more profound realism impact on the game than the flank issue.

Unfortunately, we haven't yet run into a cure that isn't worse than the illness for any of these issues. Real battlefield flanks are not so easy to define, they aren't linear, they aren't usually similar in character from one battle to the next, and command decisions aren't always trying to keep "rules" in mind during a real battle.

As I see it, the only true way to simulate flanks at CM's scale is to triple the width of the battlefield and the units on it. Each side would get the "center" third and the other two thirds would be under AI control. Battles would then be going on to your left and right without any control being exercised by the player. Now, even if this could technically be done (trust me, it can't unless you are willing to command a single platoon or at most a company), it would take us months to code it up. Maybe even a year. Then everybody would want to control the flanking forces, thus putting us right back to where we are now. Wargamers are such a predictable bunch

We discussed this issue before coding even started, and have recently batted around a few ideas (including the ones on this board) to see if there was a quick and clean way around the problem. However, we see no silver bullet, or even something that is better than nothing. So this discussion is welcome to continue, but unfortunately CM's door is closed on this matter for all intents and purposes. We still have far too many things to code up already

Steve

[This message has been edited by Big Time Software (edited 05-03-99).]

[Doug Beman]

CombatMission v2.0: "The Flank Wars!"

:~)

DjB

------------------

A lot of my schoolmates called me "warmonger."