Avoiding "gamey" border-hugging interferes with tactics

[The Commissar]

Hey guys,

I'm playing my first PBEM using the "A Chance Encounter" scenario. I'm playing as the Germans, and as we all know from playing this scenario I am outnumbered and outgunned (Stugs vs. Shermans are almost no contest).

Playing this scenario against the AI, I have developed a nice tactic which I am using in the PBEM. I take all my Stugs, a Veteran platoon of SMG's and a bunch of green and regular rifle sqads and run down the left flank into the forest next to the ally positions. The opponent never sees me because he is cautious about my Stugs so most of the time my men get into cover in safety.

Now, reading this forum I have determined this would be called "border hugging" and I would be branded a "gamey player". But looking from my POV, this tactics works not because there is a border on the map that I am next to, but because the enemy never comes out anyway. In fact, without a border it would be even easier because I would do a wider flank and catch him with total surprise perhaps even encircling his Shermans.

Unfortunately, this game has limitations like all games, and so the borders are there. So if one is to do a wide flank for a desperate but effective move such as my own, the borders are next to me.

If I did not do this, I would have to be predictable and sit in wait for the Sherms to come around slowly and take out my poor Stugs from a far range, or outflank my positions. I've seen it happen.

So what I am asking is, in these sort of situations, would this tactic STILL be branded as "gamey" and myself branded a bad sport?

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

...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Mr. W W]

Speaking only for myself, I would not consider that gamey. I have the same set of limitations you have, and I can choose to deploy some of my units on the extreme flanks to guard for this. I should anyway, in the real world, I believe.

Not to mention that flank is where the trees happen to offer the best cover in that scenario. The 1st time I played it in the demo, I remember sending one of my Sherms around that way just in case, so I could pivot if necessary.

It's simply one of the limitations we have to deal with in PC games IMHO.

[Formerly Babra]

Having now officially been "edged", it's annoying, but not gamey IMO. If I had purchased tanks instead of assault guns the move would (or could) have been defeated, so I blame only myself.

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

It's a mother-beautiful bridge and it's gonna be THERE.

[Minnesota Joe]

Though this is a little off the subject of "gameyness" I'd like to express my feelings of borders in games. They are especially limitating in strategy games, of course and can be very annoying.

I have a helicopter flight sim called "Hind". It is of course a simulation of the powerful Mi-24 Russian attack chopper. Well anyway, on this game one can fly hundreds of miles in all direction with the same amount of visual detail and interactivity with the terrain as the land just outside your landing tarmack. The game only needs 25 mbs for medium installation and does not slowdown if you travel a long distance from your starting point. So this leads to the conclusion that the entire level is always open and, well how do I put it? "Present" maybe. Well you get the jist of what im saying (I hope).

Ive also seen games which randomly generate terrain past a certain point, just so there are never borders. Of course this is kindy crappy since its only visual and not "real" or burned into the game like it is in Hind.

So why cant CM do either of these? Just have trees or what have going in all direction away from the battlefield. Since it is kind of a turned based strategy game, you couldnt be a dumbass and send a unit off into the sunset since every minute youd hafta repeat the order to the unit. Get it?

Of course there would hafta be borders for unit placement so they dont start 20 miles away from eachother. Maybe "retreat zones" too. These would be a border on one or more side of the maps that once a unit passes, it has retreated.

So obviously youud need some borders. I hope youre still reading this. Amyway, what do you think?

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

Ah scheist.

[The Commissar]

I think flight sims and wargames are very different on the prospect of terrain (among other things too, of course).

A flight sim is designed for you to be above the ground, preferably so far above that you would not care about the miniscule details down below. They make no difference to you since you're busy repelling other aircraft. The rare instances that you do have to get close to the ground (perhaps for destroying a AA gun or bombing a target) you would notice how ugly the terrain gets up close.

Because of this "ugliness" and lack of features on the terrain in a flight sim, flight sims are able to render so much terrain. Now, comparing to a game like Combat Mission, where each building, ditch and shrub is crucial to survival and tactics, it gets very hard to render so much space. Not just to program it, but for the computer to be able to process it. Maybe in the future, but not now. So I guess border hugging is inevitable.

Thanks for your responces everybody!

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

...Every position, every meter of Soviet soil must be defended to the last drop of blood..."

- Segment from Order 227 "Not a step back"

[Lorak]

I think the easiest way to counter this is for map makers to follow some guide lines.

Basically make your map a little larger then nessasary. A lot of time some usefull terrain is only located at the edge of the map. (like a village, mostly clear, with woods around the outside).

If you extend the map so that there is cover within the map edges then this problem should go away.... unless your enemy really is a edge-hugger.

Lorak

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

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Ski]

I look at the map when I do my set up, if the best avenue of approach to the target happens to be along one side of the map (i.e. good tree coverage, etc.) than that is the way to go. Just because you move along the border of the map isn’t necessarily gamey. Trying to flank someone’s position is part of combat. Nobody said you have to make a frontal assault every time. Therefore, using the map edge is part of the strategy. But, if you are moving your troops in single file, along the extreme edge of the map to utilize the benefit of the dead zone, then I think that is rather gamey.

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

To conquer others is to have power,

To conquer yourself is to have strength.

-Lao Tzu

[Minnesota Joe]

Werent you listening? Hind is a HELICOPTER sim. The hind is most safely flown low to the ground as all attack helicopter are. Im not sure about the exact flight ceiling but i believe it is not more than 10,000 feet. When you crank the terrain/environment graphics to full, they are on par if not better than CM quality. Infantry is also depicted as individual soldiers and they interact with terrain as though it were real.

I dont really see a difference between CM and Hind terrainwise except for Hind has fewer trees.

[This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 08-09-2000).]

[Fionn]

Border-hugging is only gamey if you're using it to secure a flank etc.

In most of my games a lot of maneuvre goes on within metres of the edge since my opponent or I try to capture dominating terrain on the map edge. OTOH if that same terrain was in the centre of the map we'd also fight over it.

IMO fighting and moving near the edge isn't gamey IF you're fighting or moving for an obvious tactical advantage. IF however you are just using an edge sneak to try to get around behind your opponent unseen then that is gamey.

So, if you are moving along an edge towards a big hill on that edge which you want to capture then that isn't gamey BUT if you are moving along an edge so as to try to sneak into your enemy's rear then that's gamey.

[chrisl]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fionn:

So, if you are moving along an edge towards a big hill on that edge which you want to capture then that isn't gamey BUT if you are moving along an edge so as to try to sneak into your enemy's rear then that's gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think trying to get troops around the back of the enemy is gamey, and it may depend a lot on the circumstances. There's interviews with a guy named Arnold Brown over at http://www.tankbooks.com who sounds like he was sent on more than a few of flanking missions where his job was to sneak a company around/behind enemy lines in advance of major assaults. He apparently did it once pretty well so they sent him on more. There may be other similar stories over there (I haven't read much of it).

POSSIBLE SPOILER BELOW-SCENARIO NAME REMOVED BUT SOME CLUES (nighttime, fog) MAY GIVE IT AWAY

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

In <deleted>, which is a night fog scenario there's a river on the right with a few fords that the ami player can use to completely flank the germans, some really crummy terrain in the center (hedges) and some nice woods along the lefthand map edge. The ami has a ton of troops, and limited manuever space, the map is narrow, and the obvious thing to do is send a platoon across the river to the back, a platoon along the left edge, and a bunch of troops in the center to make it look like the main attack is there (and stalled) but avoid actually charging across open ground.

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe:

I dont really see a difference between CM and Hind terrainwise except for Hind has fewer trees.

[This message has been edited by Minnesota Joe (edited 08-09-2000).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

G'day Joe,

Not discounting your suggestion here, but I think there might be a difference in how the terrain is modelled between CM and Hind. I am guessing of course, not having played it, but I am thinking the terrain in Hind does not affect gameplay too much. Of course hills and gullies do, but is line of sight modelled through trees, varying depending on the density of the forest/woods/scattered trees? And things like wet ground vs dry, marshes, fords, roads and bridges - all of whic have different affects on the troop and vehicle movement. These features in CM make for a lot of CPU horsepower requirements, and this I believe may limit how big the maps can actually get.

Just a thought.

OGSF

[Lorak]

chrisl,

In your description of the map you have shown what you did isn't gamey.

If the good terrain is there, then by all means use it!

But... If you said to yourself "hey if i can get to this edge I can sneck thru here unnoticed and attack.." thats Gamey.

Like several people have said... It is hard to describe, but you know it when you see it.

Lorak

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

"someone you trust is one of us"..........the illuminati

*

http://clubs.yahoo.com/clubs/combatmissionclub

Lorak's FTX for CM <--Proud member of the Combat Mission Webring

[Guest KwazyDog]

Actually the differences between CM and flight sims such as hind are quite large.

The biggest difference is in the terrain elevation. CM works on a 20m x 20m grid for elevation and terrain purposes. Flight sims on the other hand have predonmately flat terrain, and certainally nothing down to the resolution of that in CM. Hind has a fair good terrain engine but going from memory I doubt if terrain is represented in anything less that 100m grids, and probably a lot larger. On top of that the terrain is much more sparse with the model detail such as vehicle being far less. So the options are either less detail or less framerate. And yes, I do own Hind

Anyways, you can see for yourself as CM will actually let you do what you mentioned. Go into the editor, make an operation and select the larget map (something like 4.8km x 3km) option in both direction. Select auto generate for the map and check it out. On my system the frame rate is bareable and it is a P3-600 with a Geforce 2. Of course, you could play on this map using the horizon cut off fearture....

[Guest Big Time Software]

I think Lorak and others have it right. If it is an honestly good attack rout, the defender SHOULD set up a blocking force. If he doesn't, whatever happens to him is his own fault. It is very easy to crush a border hugging move if you are prepared for it. However, when an attacker does something like not advance for 10 turns while he sneaks some units through a totally stupid approach, to either draw off enemy forces or get in behind, that is gamey. But a good defender should be able to counter this too.

As for the terrain detail of CM vs. Hind I can't directly comment as I don't have Hind. But I can assure you that we can't have endless terrain stretching all over the place. The detail level in Hind must be much lower than in CM. If it wasn't, the Hind simulation would have the speed of someone running through waist high mud. Check out a HUGE sceanrio like Clash of Eagles and see the effect on framerate. And OGSF is correct to some degree. Making maps larger means a lot more RAM chewed up and slower turn computation times.

Simply put... CM is pushing things about as far as they can go for today's hardware. If you see a game, like Hind, that you think is doing much more... you aren't looking hard enough or don't know what to look for.

Steve

[Lorak]

Umm... I really have nothing to add except.

Steve said my name!!

*faint*

[OberGrupenStompinFeuhrer!]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lorak:

Umm... I really have nothing to add except.

Steve said my name!!

*faint*<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And mine! And mine!

*"You go girl!" dance with the hands stirring an invisible pot in the opposite direction to the knees and....never mind*

OGSF <--- What *Steve* said!

[Jarmo]

Playing chance encounter PBEM, I ran a platoon of veterans

to the left in an encirclement move. I didn't consider it gamey at all.

Especially as my opponent had an ambush waiting in the woods

and all of my men were killed.

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

Now, would this brilliant plan involve us climbing out of

our trenches and walking slowly towards the enemy sir?

[Joe Shaw]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>IMO fighting and moving near the edge isn't gamey IF you're fighting or moving for an obvious tactical advantage. IF however you are just using an edge sneak to try to get around behind your opponent unseen then that is gamey.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Sorry, I don't follow this at all. Getting around behind my opponent unseen IS an obvious tactical advantage, how could it not be so? Stonewall Jackson and Chancellorsville? Mark Ezra used a flank move on me in our first game that used the board edge, but hell, I knew the edge was there and I knew from the terrain that it dipped slightly right at the edge so that I couldn't see it. If I'd had the troops I'd have sent some to hold it but I didn't. He used a TERRAIN FEATURE to his advantage ... just what every commander should do. Frankly I just treat the board edge as if it was a river and don't let it bother me.

Finally, speaking of Chance Encounter, I tried the same move described in the first post ... and Arien handed me my head because he took care to protect that flank.

Joe

[Olle Petersson]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Minnesota Joe:

... I've also seen games which randomly generate terrain past a certain point, ...

So why cant CM do either of these? Just have trees or what have going in all direction away from the battlefield.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here's what I think; If there were "endless" terrain, one also needed endless of troops to cover that terrain. It's very common for troops to have a designated area of operation, if they leave that area they're more or less likely to recieve friendly fire.

Even with borders I could buy if there was a risk of recieving incoming fire from unseen off board enemies if one was near the edge.

One way I've tried to reduce the "end of the world tactics" in non-historical wargame scenarios is to have a lake off board on each side, with a bay of each lake reaching a bit in on the map. The defender can set up guns to fire across the bay, but movement is definately reduced...

Cheers

Olle

[gashford]

Just my five pennies worth on the subject.

I think that running down the edge of a map shouldn't be considered gamey at all. The idea of a battle is to out think and defeat the enemy or gain the objective with a minimum amount of casualties to yourself (at least I always imagine it is).

Consequently IF I flank around the side of the map, to use best available cover etc... and my enemy has not seen this, should I be considered gamey, IMHO I don't think I should, I have just out witted the enemy commander/player.

Imagine in a ral combat that a hill has to be taken, and there is a direct route or an indirect one, upon using the indirect route you recieve a communication from the enemy accusing you of not playing fair because you have come from a direction you did not expect...

Perhaps I am missing the point on border hugging and flanking, in which case please correct me, but isn't a flank the best way of attack? Perhaps the problem is not with the flank/border hug, but with the defender for not thinking an attack would come from that area?

If my memory serves me right (hah fat chance) wasn't the conflict for Stalingrad ended in a very wide flanking move by the Soviets, which encircled the enemy? Perhaps German high comand should have written to Stalin and accused him of map hugging?

Just my opinion, but please if I have miunderstood zone hugging and flanking let me know... nicely. =)

[jgdpzr]

I have to throw my opinion in on this. I, too, believe that border hugging is not gamey. And really, I think that it is not gamey under any circumstances for two reasons: If a map edge has good terrain and would provide ample cover for a wide flanking, you should either defend it or exploit it. I don't think even trying to sneak a platoon or some small number of troops along the edge simply to get them into the enemy's rear is gamey. Every map has to have edges. No way around it. Even if the map were continued indefinitely, a commander could still always sneak around to the rear, with of course the penalty being the additional time taken if the scale of the map is much larger or possibly, in reality, running into other enemy units.

As far as scenario design, if the designer is concerned about gamey use of edges, he/she can always design the map so as to deter this (Ex. exposed edges, water, etc.).

[chrisl]

I'll describe one instance in which map edge use was gamey: in VoT I had the remnants of a US squad pinned behind a bump just short of the German position on the righthand edge. They had gotten there by sneaking through a minefield and getting hammered by Germans just the other side of the rise. After several turns of being pinned, I realized the minefield probably didn't touch the map edge, so i carefully sneaked them as close to the edge as I could without going off the map. They made it. I could have exploited this in the opposite direction (except for the damn infantry) if my opponent had chosen to just use fortifications to defend that edge.

As for all maps requiring edges-that's not strictly true. You could apply periodic boundary conditions and have the left edge attached to the right and the back connected to the front. There would be no edges. there would also be no front and back, so you could sneak behind the enemy by retreating...hmm. How about it for CM2? And how about a secret hotkey to enable/disable it that they only tell to me...Hehehe. Gamey sure, but interesting to play.

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by chrisl:

After several turns of being pinned, I realized the minefield probably didn't touch the map edge, so i carefully sneaked them as close to the edge as I could without going off the map. They made it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could argue that it's your opponent's responsibility to be sure the minefield extended all the way to the mapedge, if that's his intent.

Anyway, while border-hugging may be "gamey" in the sense that it's making use of an artificial constraint of the game, I don't have a problem doing it or having it done against me. I look at the game map (the ENTIRE map) as my specified area of operations. If my opponent doesn't choose to cover/observe his entire front, that's his concern. [And note that the mapedge can be used to advantage by the defender as well as the attacker, e.g. to anchor a flank outpost.]

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

Leland J. Tankersley

[DrBrydon]

I actually started a thred about this topic a week or two ago, too.

I think that the map edges are an artificial constraint in the game. In many cases this may not matter because of what is being simulated. I think the problem is that in many cases beyond the edge of the map would be other units providing support, especially for a defender. "Edge creep" is valid insofar as it represents flanking, but it creates an unrealistic opportunity for flanking in many cases. If you are moving down the left edge, you sould be just as open to fire from the left as the right. (Again, in many cases, there are obviously circumstances where there is no flank support.)

My suggestion was that the attacker have an attack zone set in from the map edges. The defender would have the entire map width to set up on, but to keep him from robbing the edges, there would be objectives there that he would have to occupy (or at least figure out the trade off of not occupying them).

The fact that I can take a hill on the left edge of the map and only have to worry about fire from the right is unrealistic.

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

Will

---

"The truly great thing is not to lose your nerve." --Unknown.

[von Lucke]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo:

Playing chance encounter PBEM, I ran a platoon of veterans

to the left in an encirclement move. I didn't consider it gamey at all.

Especially as my opponent had an ambush waiting in the woods

and all of my men were killed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yah --- this same thing happened to me last time I played CE. If you've played CE more than once, it's an obvious move --- and most players will be ready for it.

As far as "Edge Creep" in general goes, well, that's a hard one. I tend to follow the line of advance that offers the most cover / concealment without lending itself to being too obvious as a main route. But many of the Quick Battle maps I've seen tend to place the heavily wooded or well-sloped approaches toward the edges.

I'm all for accurate tactical doctrine and not using the limited mechanics of the game map as a crutch, but I'm also not about to walk up the middle of the map because my opponent may think it "gamey" if I do otherwise. This is the same mentality that cost the Brits so heavily at the Somme...

[This message has been edited by von Lucke (edited 08-11-2000).]