use edge of the map to attack

[Jorge MC]

is this consider gamey

[Apocal]

In general, yeah. I don't mind that much personally, but some guys get mad about it, especially when the map is built in such a way to protect the map edge from any ranged fire.

[Vanir Ausf B]

Depends on the size of the map. If you are on a map less than 1 km wide then it's either go up one of the sides or go straight up the middle. It sucks being given 3 options and then told 2 of them are gamey.

[womble]

The whole damn game is gamey. It's a game. If you don't defend against the edge approach (or nullify it) that's your fault. Is it gamey when a ball game player uses every inch of the pitch up to the sideline (trying to be generic here)? No.

Might as well say it's gamey for the defender to use the edge so they can't be flanked on that side...

[Apocal]

Might as well say it's gamey for the defender to use the edge so they can't be flanked on that side...

People say that as well. Its just far less common because the objectives are almost always located away from the side edges and the back-edge is usually blocked by terrain.

[Vanir Ausf B]

When I convert scenario maps to QB maps I often deliberately place at least one terrain objective very close to a map edge, sometimes right on it if it is a road exiting the map. That pretty much eliminates any questions. I hate wasted space on maps. As far as I'm concerned everything should be in play. Now if someone is marching their whole force down the very edge in single file that may be a little extreme, but for the most part I agree with Womble.

[Vinnart]

The whole damn game is gamey. It's a game. If you don't defend against the edge approach (or nullify it) that's your fault. Is it gamey when a ball game player uses every inch of the pitch up to the sideline (trying to be generic here)? No.

Might as well say it's gamey for the defender to use the edge so they can't be flanked on that side...

I couldn't have said that any better.

Players, there is an edge that will always be there. Adapt to it as it will never adapt to you.

[Freyberg]

Not really gamey.

[Michael Emrys]

Might as well say it's gamey for the defender to use the edge so they can't be flanked on that side...

Good point.

Michael

[TimoS.]

I think that there is a Diffrence between Totally sending all your Force on the Far Map Edge and favouring one Side for Attack. The latter one isnt gamey to me as it was normal Practice to force an Axis of Attack.

Defender does also everything he can to use his Troops at its best. They get heads down in Heavy woods with Firearcs when they dont have Long Range Capabilities or shine on Close Quarter Weapons. Why shooting on Long Range when you get pick by MG Mortar and Tanks?

Use the Terrain to your advantage isnt Gamey to me.

[womble]

People say that as well. Its just far less common because the objectives are almost always located away from the side edges...

That only goes to show that people don't understand how to set up a defense. You don't have to just sit on the objectives, and oblique fields of fire from one map edge to the other, with a covered front, are excellent ways of getting flanking/enfilading shots on enemy who are advancing straight forward. And such setups require using the edges of the map, inherently making a position which is unflankable on one side.

Answer this: If you're not allowed to use the edge, how far away from the edge do you have to stay to not be "gamey"? And at that point, don't you have to stay away from this new, virtual edge in order to also not be exploiting the edge? Why not just say the limits are, I don't know, how about the physical edge of the map provided?

... and the back-edge is usually blocked by terrain.

Yeah, cos the attacker has access to the rear edge of the map, so that matters.

[Apocal]

Answer this: If you're not allowed to use the edge, how far away from the edge do you have to stay to not be "gamey"? And at that point, don't you have to stay away from this new, virtual edge in order to also not be exploiting the edge? Why not just say the limits are, I don't know, how about the physical edge of the map provided?

Like I said before, I mostly don't care about the issue. I just have no issue with following people's house-rules and personal preferences regarding the matter. Just like they have no problem with my house-rule about "no turn zero defender barrages on the attacker's setup zone."

Yeah, cos the attacker has access to the rear edge of the map, so that matters.

I was thought I made it clear I was referring to the defenders throughout that whole post considering I'd quoted your bit about people who complain about defenders using map edges.

[Vinnart]

. Just like they have no problem with my house-rule about "no turn zero defender barrages on the attacker's setup zone."

I think you would find most all players would agree to that. The reason why is doing that ruins the fight before it even starts. It is like starting a boxing match, and one fighter kicking the other in the balls as soon as the bell rings incapacitating his ability to well, have a boxing match. Any reasonable person would agree that is in bad taste. I have never had an opponent do it to me, nor have I done that to them, but I have had the AI do it to me. In that case a restart is well warranted to be able to carry out the game. The only time most would say arty barrage on the set up turn is acceptable is for the attacker to bombard the defender who is on known objectives. Not the other way around as the attacker must be able to maneuver to begin the game.

[womble]

I think you would find most all players would agree to that. The reason why is doing that ruins the fight before it even starts. It is like starting a boxing match, and one fighter kicking the other in the balls as soon as the bell rings incapacitating his ability to well, have a boxing match. Any reasonable person would agree that is in bad taste. I have never had an opponent do it to me, nor have I done that to them, but I have had the AI do it to me. In that case a restart is well warranted to be able to carry out the game. The only time most would say arty barrage on the set up turn is acceptable is for the attacker to bombard the defender who is on known objectives. Not the other way around as the attacker must be able to maneuver to begin the game.

I've been thinking a bit about first turn bombardments of the attacker setup zone, and I wonder whether the lack of them, in the general corpus of play is the reason people seem to find that the attacker's force advantage is a bit too overpowering in QBs... Perhaps the odds have been selected by BFC with a chunk of loss by the attacker in early turn arty strikes! Of course, that sort of presupposes that there's enough room in the setup zone to make a turn 1 (usually at about the 30s mark) strike not be a total blanket'o'death, which is by no means guaranteed.

[A Canadian Cat]

I wonder whether the lack of them, in the general corpus of play is the reason people seem to find that the attacker's force advantage is a bit too overpowering in QBs.

Try a Probe QB instead of an attack. My friends and I have done this and are enjoying the balance much better.

[Vinnart]

Try a Probe QB instead of an attack. My friends and I have done this and are enjoying the balance much better.

Meeting engagments all the way here as a preference. It is the most balanced all the way through plus the most dynamic since both players must attack/defend.

[Apocal]

I think you would find most all players would agree to that. The reason why is doing that ruins the fight before it even starts. It is like starting a boxing match, and one fighter kicking the other in the balls as soon as the bell rings incapacitating his ability to well, have a boxing match. Any reasonable person would agree that is in bad taste.

Nah, some guys consider it legit. And if I'm being totally honest, there are counters: any kind of medium or heavy armor is a hard counter, placing men in trucks or half-tracks and racing out of the deployment zone on FAST, larger map size or under-pointed forces, purchasing shelters.

I just don't consider it fun to work around it, so I request my opponent not do it. Sometimes people request I don't run my entire force up the map edge since defending against that particular technique isn't fun for them.

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps the odds have been selected by BFC with a chunk of loss by the attacker in early turn arty strikes!

I don't know what BFC had in mind, but I always thought that it was more for historical reasons. While attackers might not have always enjoyed the 3:1 force ratio advantage on this scale usually regarded as necessary to insure a successful attack, they nearly always enjoyed some significant advantage. Unless the attacker is merely making a holding attack not seriously intended to seize the defender's position, that advantage would I suspect run to 1.25:1 or better. And odds that low would mean that even a successful attack would not be a walkover by a long shot.

Michael

[SlowMotion]

IMO there's less need to use map edges if the map is big enough that its full width cannot be covered by defense. If there is enough cover and map size is right so that there is room to manouvre, no need to use map edges.

[Doug Williams]

In general, I don't have a problem with my opponent using the map edges. As was pointed out, using large enough maps so the attacker has several approach choices should eleminate this issue.

[womble]

I don't know what BFC had in mind, but I always thought that it was more for historical reasons. While attackers might not have always enjoyed the 3:1 force ratio advantage on this scale usually regarded as necessary to insure a successful attack, they nearly always enjoyed some significant advantage. Unless the attacker is merely making a holding attack not seriously intended to seize the defender's position, that advantage would I suspect run to 1.25:1 or better. And odds that low would mean that even a successful attack would not be a walkover by a long shot.

Oh, absolutely. You wouldn't, IRL, attack if you didn't think you'd have enough of an advantage to negate the advantages of cover and concealment and being able to ambush and get the drop. There have been some posts, though, arguing that the ratios as they stand, given the game engine as it stands, give the attacker too much of an advantage to make the game fun/fair for both sides, even on Probe, since the attacker has, as well as their numbers, the scenario initiative, and can often achieve overwhelming local superiority without weakining the "secondary" pressure/flank security enough for the defender to be able to counter somewhere else. As has been said, Probes don't suffer as much from this, with their lower numerical advantage.

It was just some musing, cos the alteration in the VP distribution between force and terrain doesn't make that much difference (force VP can, IMO, legitimately be considered bonus points as you exercise the means to a terrain VP end...). Maybe they expect Assaults to have been at least potentially spotted by the defender and therefore the "jumping off point" might be subject to bombardment, whereas a Probe has less of a noticeable buildup phase (pre-BRB, I mean).

[db_zero]

Using the edges sounds like a perfectly valid tactic. I consider it similar to probing and discovering the boundary lines between different units which is often where attacks get made due to coordination issues.

IIRC the big 1973 battle at the Chinese Farm was initially targeted at divisional boundries that was discovered by an elite recon unit using captured Egyptian armor to mask the unit.

[Ithikial_AU]

Don't consider it gamey. Yes the attacker may have one less flank to worry about defensive fire coming from but they also have 50% less room to maneuver once contact is made.

Blasting a deployment zone with arty on the first turn. Very gamey. (Unless a specific scenario is designed that way).

[Quintus Sertorius]

It's just as gamey for the defender to use the map edges, since it eliminates potential attacks from a substantial arc.