ALLIED - CMBN-Market Garden - BETA AAR (the better beta beater reader)

[c3k]

Edgehugging is a dealbreaker for me.

If i spot my enemy doing it, I will call him out on it and call the battle forfit.

It's only valid if there happens to be a road at that edge and he is following the road. And even then it is a pretty dodgy move...

Oh, I don't mind Bil's use of that edge at all. I'd do it. I don't see any problem, whatsoever with it. The edge is part of the battlespace. If I cannot deny it to him, then he's free to use it. It's a flank. If you cannot cover your flank, you get flanked. I think he did a great job finding a path there.

[c3k]

Have to agree with Vanir. I have never (pbems in CMx1 and CMx2) understood that 'edge hugging' would be or is gamey. "You are not allowed to move your troops 20/50/100 meters closer to map edge! It is gamey!1!" I play CM mainly because of realism and protecting your flanks against an attack or flanking your oppo is and has been basic military doctrine for the last xxxx years.

I think Bill is doing the right thing here using Ken's unprotected flank.

Sorry about the slight OT here.

^^^

Absolutely! Perhaps I inadvertently fueled a fire by not putting a smilie after my checkers comment. My flank is unprotected. I don't have enough forces to cover that side. Bil chose a protected path, rather than an open field. Totally realistic move.

The map is a cut-down section of a MUCH larger one. This "seam" just happened to occur there. There was no original scenario designer intent whether or not a path on the edge should exist.

The salient point is that my flank is unprotected.

Thoughts on the current battle and where to go...

Why is my flank hanging in the air? Because it is a MEETING ENGAGEMENT, with OBJECTIVES in the FRONT of my forces. Why would I try to defend a 1 mile width of map? I have 2 companies, reinforced, to defend a mile? That's a failure right there. 6 manuever platoons plus heavy weapons. That would be about 250m of frontline per platoon. (Assume the tanks are in reserve to deal with breakthroughs.) Each platoon has 3 sections. 2 up, 1 back, means each section would have to cover 125m of frontline, with half a section backing them up. That's paper thin.

Bil's force selection versus mine: In the email exchanges to set up this battle I was under the impression it would be an infantry fight. Shrug. Bil's force obviously has much more offensive power than mine. (Did I waste my tanks? I don't think so. I'd love to have them back, though. As I explained at the time, I risked them for a reward. I thought LOS was blocked when it was not. That happened twice. Then one tank failed to spot an obvious target and died. Another died trying to retreat. All that occured in the space of one turn. As soon as I saw the Bil's armor, the retreat and overwatch orders were issued. It happens.) My force selection in the qb editor was shaped by the email. Would I love some ATG's? Yep. I excluded them since I had tanks, and it was a meeting engagement. ATG's aren't too useful in that role.

So, I've shoved hard with infantry against a mechanized force purely to gain the ordered objectives. This talk of flanks is purely because of the current nature of our forces. I cannot gain the objectives past the Dunes or the Windmill. The company in the woods will tuck into a ball and lash out as, and where, it can. The company which took the town will ready itself for a pasting. It will be be ugly.

My left flank is open because I was attacking and that area has no reason to be occupied, I have too few forces to cover the entire map, and the relative mobility of our two forces means Bil could concentrate wherever he'd like and outposts would merely be chewed up.

It's a rather enjoyable battle for me. I've worked to get two piat teams into position. One is blind, in a field, but that may be advantageous in a few minutes. The other got the shot, but it was ineffectual. That took a bit of work and planning to get them there.

I'm thinking about long-term use of my remaining armor, at this point.

If they stay in the town, Bil will create death-zones for them. My armor will be restricted to certain spots. They'll then get picked off as they try to engage Bil's forces. That's as obvious as can be. In town, as they are, they are sure to die and not use their mobility. Therefore, they may make a move out of town, along my back edge (yes, a back edge hugging manuever! ) and into the woods. That would leverage the infantry in the woods. If Bil wants to attack the Town, he'll HAVE to deal with the forces in the woods. Otherwise those forces can be bypassed with impunity.

The calculus gets down to:

Tanks in Town = Dead Tanks, Infantry in Woods wasted, Town lasts a few turns longer but still falls

Tanks out of Town = Tanks in Bil's rear, Infantry in Woods need to be cleared out to get the tanks, Town does not get hit with all of Bil's forces and may hold out

I think that's the solution...

Ken

[Oddball_E8]

Just saying it's a dealbreaker for me.

[c3k]

Just saying it's a dealbreaker for me.

If so, and to prevent hard feelings and misunderstandings, then I suggest that the onus is on you to ensure that your desire is clearly communicated before the battle starts.

About the only "dealbreaker" I can think of, for me, is the first turn setup area bombardment. And that is excepted if there is a reason to allow it.

If you really don't like the use of an edge, there are certain practical matters which need to be addressed. Do you tell your opponent to create a "red zone" of a certain width around the edge? Is it hard or soft? If you just cut the map down, well, you've got another edge. What if you suspect he used the "red zone"? Do you quit? How close to the edge is hugging? Etc. You see the issue? You have a clear idea of what you think is a dealbreaker. Your opponent may not have the same idea, even after you explain your stance to him.

It's a game and you should play it however you like. I like Bil's use of the battlespace.

Ken

[ASL Veteran]

Just saying it's a dealbreaker for me.

I can understand your frustration, but at the same time it really makes no sense if you think about it rationally. By definition any map you use in the game will have an edge on it, no matter how big the map is. If the map is 2km by 2 km then it will have an edge, if the map is 1km by 1 km then that map will also have an edge. By setting rules for your opponent about 'edge hugging' the only practical thing you have done is alter where the edge is.

In other words if you are on a 2km by 2km map and you indicate that anyone who is within 100 meters of an edge is a gamey edge hugger then all you have done is made your 2km by 2km map into a 1.9km by 1.9km map. So rather than say 'you are a gamey edge hugger' why don't you just cut the map to your specified size prior to the start of the game? Of course, you would then have a new ege, the only difference being that the map is smaller - do you cut the map size down again? You see how silly that would be? Eventually you would have no map to play on because you would always be cutting the map edges to make the playing area smaller and smaller.

[A Canadian Cat]

The calculus gets down to:

Tanks in Town = Dead Tanks, Infantry in Woods wasted, Town lasts a few turns longer but still falls

Tanks out of Town = Tanks in Bil's rear, Infantry in Woods need to be cleared out to get the tanks, Town does not get hit with all of Bil's forces and may hold out

I like the logic here - good decision.

[Vinnart]

If so, and to prevent hard feelings and misunderstandings, then I suggest that the onus is on you to ensure that your desire is clearly communicated before the battle starts.

About the only "dealbreaker" I can think of, for me, is the first turn setup area bombardment. And that is excepted if there is a reason to allow it.

If you really don't like the use of an edge, there are certain practical matters which need to be addressed. Do you tell your opponent to create a "red zone" of a certain width around the edge? Is it hard or soft? If you just cut the map down, well, you've got another edge. What if you suspect he used the "red zone"? Do you quit? How close to the edge is hugging? Etc. You see the issue? You have a clear idea of what you think is a dealbreaker. Your opponent may not have the same idea, even after you explain your stance to him.

It's a game and you should play it however you like. I like Bil's use of the battlespace.

Ken

Agree completely. Now giving an arty shelling on the set up turn is a DEFINITE deal breaker. Why? Because that ruins the game before it even starts. It is like coming out and kicking the opponent in the balls when it is supposed to be a boxing match. I think if polled most PBEM players would agree that it a “foul” for lack of a better term. What kills me is some map makers will make maps like that for single play. When it happens I will start it over, and avoid the initial raining of shells on the setup area, or just outside of it. The only time I feel this is acceptable is if it an attack /defend with the attackers preference only to use on set up or not.

As far as the edge goes it is a unique part of this game fighting arena that will never go away just as the cage in the octagon or the ropes in a boxing ring. There are also edges on every island I know of. My advice to anyone who complains about it is to adapt to the unique game environment, as it will not adapt to you. My thoughts on it are if one feels the edge is being used against you it is not the edges fault, but your own. Come up with ways to use it to pin the opponent against it in proactive ways just as the fighter in sport does.

In Bils case here I think it looks a bit exaggerated due to the pathfindng because of the narrow path behind the hedge, or perhaps he has always wanted to know what is like to look over Grand Canyon . Really it is a good route here, so why not take it.

[c3k]

Turn 42:00 to 41:00

Not much happens of excitement this turn. (BTW, this was from last night, late. I analyzed my armor in town AFTER this turn, so it remains there.)

Bil moves more on my left, and deeper. He consolidates, and begins to coil his forces. Oh yes, "coil". For only a coiled spring can...spring. And like a sprung spring, he will leap forth and fall short, bringing upon himself a winter of discontent. Enough of the heavily seasoned writing. On to the pictures!

More...

[c3k]

At 41:00, an overview

You can see how the battle is shaping up. I'm going to pull some guys back from the Dunes and distribute them more evenly, especially towards the left/bottom. I'll pull my mortars into the woods. No freebies for Bil. The A Company, (support guys), in the wheatfield will disperse, somewhat. I can't give Bil free rein in the middle. I have a few Piats in there and may ambush some unwary armor.

Meanwhile, time for me to figure out how to evacuate my armor without leaving a trail of pyres behind.

Ken

[Michael Emrys]

If I may throw in my own 2¢ worth on the edge hugging issue, it is indeed somewhat problematical. That is because the edges of the maps are the edge of the world as far as that scenario is concerned. The real world is not quite like that. Yes, there were limits in the form of unit boundaries, but these were drawn in response to real world conditions like the physical landform and distribution of channels for movement and obstacles to movement and fire. They also had to consider the density and fire capabilities of the units occupying those spaces. Our maps aren't laid out in quite that way, although some good ones I've seen try to replicate those conditions.

The strongest argument against edge hugging back in the CMx1 days was that a force attempting that in the real world would be exposed to fire from units in the adjacent space. But on our maps, there is no adjacent space; the edge of the map is the edge of the world and there is nobody over there to give you any problems. But this is true for both players. The attacker gets to move knowing that at least one of his flanks is secure, but the defender also gets to set up in the same knowledge, provided his force is large enough to defend the full width of the map or at least the important parts of it. But that is a scenario design problem that has nothing to do with any theoretical advantage given by edge hugging.

Michael

[gunnersman]

If I may throw in my own 2¢ worth on the edge hugging issue, it is indeed somewhat problematical. That is because the edges of the maps are the edge of the world as far as that scenario is concerned. The real world is not quite like that. Yes, there were limits in the form of unit boundaries, but these were drawn in response to real world conditions like the physical landform and distribution of channels for movement and obstacles to movement and fire. They also had to consider the density and fire capabilities of the units occupying those spaces. Our maps aren't laid out in quite that way, although some good ones I've seen try to replicate those conditions.

The strongest argument against edge hugging back in the CMx1 days was that a force attempting that in the real world would be exposed to fire from units in the adjacent space. But on our maps, there is no adjacent space; the edge of the map is the edge of the world and there is nobody over there to give you any problems. But this is true for both players. The attacker gets to move knowing that at least one of his flanks is secure, but the defender also gets to set up in the same knowledge, provided his force is large enough to defend the full width of the map or at least the important parts of it. But that is a scenario design problem that has nothing to do with any theoretical advantage given by edge hugging.

Michael

With that in mind, I was going to suggest c3k shove his truck right at the end of the road and in between the hedges and the boundary effectively cutting off an advance from the "edge of the world". But I was not sure if I was crossing a line. I can see its far too late for that now.

[c3k]

With that in mind, I was going to suggest c3k shove his truck right at the end of the road and in between the hedges and the boundary effectively cutting off an advance from the "edge of the world". But I was not sure if I was crossing a line. I can see its far too late for that now.

...but not if I fill the truck with demo-charge laden troops! And get Bil to fire incendiary rounds at it! This could work...

[General Lee Irked]

Well if Bil is edge hugging c3k is tree hugging in the forest...a tit for tat :eek:

[c3k]

Well played, that!

[PhilM]

With that in mind, I was going to suggest c3k shove his truck right at the end of the road and in between the hedges and the boundary effectively cutting off an advance from the "edge of the world". But I was not sure if I was crossing a line. I can see its far too late for that now.

I'd got as far as the last word I've made bold in the quote, and was thinking "that's a bit harsh, I'm sure Bill doesn't deserve that ...", but then the rest of it reassured me ...

[dutchman55555]

I think some people are reacting because he has a column literally right on the map edge rather than just near it.

But if that's where the map maker put the dead ground then so be it, IMO.

You hit the nail right on the head. It's less nefarious tactics from Bil, and more sloppy map design by the map maker.

[dutchman55555]

...but not if I fill the truck with demo-charge laden troops! And get Bil to fire incendiary rounds at it! This could work...

Otherwise known as the Battlefield 3 Approach.

[c3k]

You hit the nail right on the head. It's less nefarious tactics from Bil, and more sloppy map design by the map maker.

Gah. The "map maker" faithfully reproduced about 4km x 4km of an area that ACTUALLY exists! He used sat photos and period maps. Then Bil cut the map down to 1.6km x 1.6km. I'm sure his decision on how to set boundaries went something like this. "Hmm, 4km is too big. 1 mile is about right. Hey, I can use the editor to center it on the windmill and make sure I include part of the town of Eerde." click, click, enter. And there we have the genesis of the edge.

I shall hereafter refer to that specific route as "The Gutter". Notice the field. I had to demo to get into it. (I thought that would take Bil by surprise. It did, but I couldn't get my men out fast enough.) Other than coming down a road into the Ardennes, The Gutter is his ONLY route.

I will make this portentous pronouncement: If Bil somehow manages to eke a victory from this battle, no matter how small his margin, NONE of it will be due to using The Gutter.

Now, enough of that talk. I need to plan my attack...

[sfhand]

...What kills me is some map makers will make maps like that for single play. When it happens I will start it over, and avoid the initial raining of shells on the setup area, or just outside of it. The only time I feel this is acceptable is if it an attack /defend with the attackers preference only to use on set up or not.

As far as the edge goes it is a unique part of this game fighting arena that will never go away just as the cage in the octagon or the ropes in a boxing ring. There are also edges on every island I know of. My advice to anyone who complains about it is to adapt to the unique game environment, as it will not adapt to you. My thoughts on it are if one feels the edge is being used against you it is not the edges fault, but your own. Come up with ways to use it to pin the opponent against it in proactive ways just as the fighter in sport does...

Very well put, my sentiments exactly!

[Vanir Ausf B]

Then Bil cut the map down to 1.6km x 1.6km. I'm sure his decision on how to set boundaries went something like this. "Hmm, 4km is too big. 1 mile is about right. Hey, I can use the editor to center it on the windmill and make sure I include part of the town of Eerde."

Sure. And immediately after that he thought to himself "Hmm, 4 terrain objectives. One on Ken's side of the map, 3 on mine. MUHAHAHAH!"

[Vinnart]

Sure. And immediately after that he thought to himself "Hmm, 4 terrain objectives. One on Ken's side of the map, 3 on mine. MUHAHAHAH!"

Yes, I didn't like the objectives set up on this map for a ME battle. The town was placed good, but there needs to be intersections on Ken's side for Bil to capture, and Ken to defend for balance. I mentioned this here, and in the other thread from the start. My understanding is that Bil should not occupy any on his side with the fight being for the town to push on with the game. If that is the case then I think things are fine for the objectives. I would not of approved of this map if it were me unless the fight was to be for the center town only.

Ken, did you have a map preview before beginning?

[c3k]

Yes, I didn't like the objectives set up on this map for a ME battle. The town was placed good, but there needs to be intersections on Ken's side for Bil to capture, and Ken to defend for balance. I mentioned this here, and in the other thread from the start. My understanding is that Bil should not occupy any on his side with the fight being for the town to push on with the game. If that is the case then I think things are fine for the objectives. I would not of approved of this map if it were me unless the fight was to be for the center town only.

Ken, did you have a map preview before beginning?

Yes. And, frankly, I don't care.

I fight where I fight with what I have. Bring it.

Now, were this a battle developed for balance, yes, there's a lot out of whack. Shrug. It's not for balance. There were a couple of goals which were of primary importance. First, someone needed to take Bil down. (Morally, I've already won! Look at the thread count. Woot!) Second, we needed to just get on with it. Third, the desire was to show Market Garden and Commonwealth goodies. I'm easygoing. The map caught Bil off-guard. I generally never post private comms unless the poster pre-announced his approval. (Asking afterwards is a bit churlish, no? That puts the originator in the awkward position of denying a request. "You don't mind if I eat your extra lobster, do you?") However, I received an email from Bil noting all of the above and he asked if I wanted to start anew, with a fresh map, etc., etc. I did not. He was, and is, concerned about balance. I'm not.

Now, let's see what we have: A British Para unit with some elements on their objective, other elements off the objective. The two are split, with one trying to assist the other. The Germans have a tight armored task force on the attack. Hey, does this sound even CLOSE to Arnhem? That was not the original intent, but this is how it has shaken out.

It is of great interest to me how force structure determines the rythm of a battle. This is what is occurring. The CM system models these interactions so well, that the results are sublimely beautiful. We have paralleled the actual battle, in microcosm, due to forces and objectives. Could there have been any other outcome to the British attack, other than what generally occurred? What other wargame out there could do this so well?

Back to the map and forces: it is what it is. At this point my forces are still quite coherent, even if their leader isn't. My offensive power may be spent, but my men's offensive spirit is still present. An active defense will be my best bet. Bil has to move my Para's off the Town. It won't be easy for him.

I have two remaining objectives: Hold on in the Town Center; find Bil's top HQ in the game and kill the commander. Yes, Kill Bil.

[c3k]

Turn 41:00 to 40:00

Overview. Not much happened on the flanks. This is a "coil" turn, still. Bil shifts a bit to ready for his next phase. I move my men about, just to ensure they know that I'm in charge. Okay, actually, I'm trying to beef up the Town Center, but a lot of my men are very tired. Most of the action took place near the middle, between the Windmill and the Dunes.

Here we go...

more...

[c3k]

41.00 to 40.00 cont...

What's not pictured were my various orders and shiftings. Yes, I, too, am shifty. I'm moving my two jeeps and truck around on dirt roads to create rooster tails. That may confuse Bil. Or not. It's free, so why not?

If the jeeps survive, I'll use them to move my vickers out of my middle wheatfield.

I've ordered the two AA tanks and my CS Cromwell to locations in the Town Center so that next turn they can scoot out. I'm not sure if they have a covered path or not. How fast can Bil's tanks reload?

I'm trying for more piat sniping. I'm not going to move that piat team near the dunes. Movement will get them spotted, and killed.

If there are any pix you want, or questions, fire off the requests!

Ken

[Oddball_E8]

If so, and to prevent hard feelings and misunderstandings, then I suggest that the onus is on you to ensure that your desire is clearly communicated before the battle starts.

About the only "dealbreaker" I can think of, for me, is the first turn setup area bombardment. And that is excepted if there is a reason to allow it.

If you really don't like the use of an edge, there are certain practical matters which need to be addressed. Do you tell your opponent to create a "red zone" of a certain width around the edge? Is it hard or soft? If you just cut the map down, well, you've got another edge. What if you suspect he used the "red zone"? Do you quit? How close to the edge is hugging? Etc. You see the issue? You have a clear idea of what you think is a dealbreaker. Your opponent may not have the same idea, even after you explain your stance to him.

It's a game and you should play it however you like. I like Bil's use of the battlespace.

Ken

Basically its a matter of how someone "edgehugs"... Its ok to play on the edges, even I do that.

What is not ok is to go right at the edge, as far as is possible just to stay as far out as you can.

Thats just too gamey for me.

But as it has been explained, this time I would probably allow it because of the whole "gutter" thing.

But usually, playing right along the edge of the map is something i detest when people do.

And any opponent I play against will know this beforehand. In the way that I will let them know that I do not like gamey behaviour, and then I leave it up to them to ask what gamey behaviour is.

Usually most people do not have to ask.