Flanks in Computer Games

[DrBrydon]

This is part critism and part suggested tactic.

It seems to me that the biggest problem with computer games is the unrealistic nature of flanks. I realised way back in the SSI 'Kampfgruppe' days that, if you move along one edge of a map when attacking, you cut your exposure to enemy fire. In reality, only in very favorable circumstances would an opponent's flank being hanging in the air like that. Normally there would be other units covering the flank, or, more importantly, the *possibility* of other units on the flank. The effect is that while the flank is always vulnerable for the defender because there's no support, it also means that the attacker doesn't have to worry about his own flanks.

Now the bad (good) thing about 'Kampfgruppe' is that it would rarely shift units towards a breakthrough. you could just roll up the line. The good (bad thing about CM is that the AI reacts realistically when I get onto his flank and begins shifting forces.

I think that the only way to make this more realistic would be to have an attack zone or corridor that was set in from the map edges. The defender would then have the whole map width to set up on. To prevent the defender from ignoring his flanks (and piling on) there could be 'defender only' objectives on the flanks. He could abandon them only with the knowledge that he'd be losing VPs against whatever gain he hoped to make (I love the way an objective goes neutral in CM if you don't occupy it).

Well, those are my thoughts. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

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

Will

---

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

[DEF BUNGIS]

Your not going to get alot of flanking movements from playing the AI in CM.

I have excecuted plenty successfull flanking movements against the AI, however when you play skilled humans, they don't forget about the flanks and I have walked into a many ambushes and kicked my self in the ass for not considering how skilled my opponent was. I have also set many lethal ambushes for flanking moves against my defense. But this doesn't happen when paying the AI.

If you ask me, any map over tiny is sufficient for a flanking move in CM, and if your the attacker, you must alway's consider this tactic.

Most of the problem with flanking moves for the attacker is they don't let the situation develop. They decide and plan thier flanking move before the battle even starts.

Very deadly IMO.

For the defender, sometimes a locked set up can hinder your defense from a flanking attacker and you then struggle to get your troops positioned after the battle starts.

But if your defending and not covering your flanks.....well then all I can say is your gonna be suckn if you play some of the folks I have.

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

Better to make the wrong decision than be the sorry son of a bitch to scared to make one at all

[Jeff Heidman]

Ahh, the classic SL/ASL tactic: the board edge creep. Kind of gamey, IMO.

Shrug.

[HoosierTreadHead]

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

This is part critism and part suggested tactic.

It seems to me that the biggest problem with computer games is the unrealistic nature of flanks. I realised way back in the SSI 'Kampfgruppe' days that, if you move along one edge of a map when attacking, you cut your exposure to enemy fire. In reality, only in very favorable circumstances would an opponent's flank being hanging in the air like that. Normally there would be other units covering the flank, or, more importantly, the *possibility* of other units on the flank. The effect is that while the flank is always vulnerable for the defender because there's no support, it also means that the attacker doesn't have to worry about his own flanks.

Now the bad (good) thing about 'Kampfgruppe' is that it would rarely shift units towards a breakthrough. you could just roll up the line. The good (bad thing about CM is that the AI reacts realistically when I get onto his flank and begins shifting forces.

I think that the only way to make this more realistic would be to have an attack zone or corridor that was set in from the map edges. The defender would then have the whole map width to set up on. To prevent the defender from ignoring his flanks (and piling on) there could be 'defender only' objectives on the flanks. He could abandon them only with the knowledge that he'd be losing VPs against whatever gain he hoped to make (I love the way an objective goes neutral in CM if you don't occupy it).

Well, those are my thoughts. I'd be interested to hear what others think.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that the board edge advance is quite gamey. Your suggestion is very good. Another possibilty would be to have units take random loses if they move too close to the map edge, thus simulating fire from adjoining enemy units. There might also be a random chance of units placed on the edge to leave the map. This would simulate the unit getting sucked into the fighting going on off-board.

[DrBrydon]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Kind of gamey,IMO<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a new one on me. What's "garney"? (Clever and handsome?)

In the old days it used to be pure edge creep. I justified it because AIs cheated. The simple fact is that everyone is going to cluster defense around the objective. The indirect approach is the only way. If garney means not quite cricket, I agree, that's why I suggest the elimination of the edge.

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

Will

---

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

[chrisl]

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

That's a new one on me. What's "garney"? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The first indication that you need new glasses (or a new monitor).

The edges are there, use them. I'm in a PBEM now where all the flags are toward one side of a large map, and the heaviest fighting is on the opposite side. The edge nearest the flags has seen little use. A scenario designer can already heavily influence how an assault goes by choice of placement areas and the units in them, as well as locking them down.

If you poke around a read a lot of old detailed accounts, in small battles flanking maneuvers weren't unusual, and if there was a strong, well defended front, the right thing to do was move laterally and find a weak spot to exploit, creating a flanking maneuver. Defenders were not lined up shoulder to shoulder, and it was at least sometimes possible to sneak units as large as a company around behind the lines to take high ground prior to a major attack.

If you're defending, you have to defend across the whole map, and if you're attacking you have the whole map to use. The only way to avoid this in a game this size is to use periodic boundary conditions and turn the map into a torus (which could be very interesting...), but I think it takes care of itself anyway.

[Kingfish]

IMO, I have no problem with using or playing against a player that uses an edge manuever. Several things to consider:

a) Neither player gains any advantage by this. What advantage an attacker gains from advancing with a secure flank is negated by a defense with a secure flank.

Most people consider it gamey because it takes advantage of the game's limitation. But by restricting the attacker to a "corridor" you are creating an unrealstic situation which the defender can use to his advantage. That sounds gamey to me. If the best approach for the attacker is along the edge shouldn't he be able to use it?

c) Of course the way the map is portrayed is unrealistic due to its size limit, but unless we all get Crays for x-mas the map has to end somewhere. Why not make the most of what you get rather than limit your gameplay.

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

The dead know only one thing - it is better to be alive

[Bertram]

There also is already a disadvantage of using the map edge to advance.

If your troops get broken (and some of them will, more on the attacker side then on the defender side usually) there is a real change they 'run of the map', and are lost for the remainder of the scenario.

So advancing along the map edge can very quickly cost you a complete battlion, especially if they run into some decent artillery fire.

Bertram

[Major Tom]

Well, given enough warning Flank attacks can be easily defeated. The flanks are FAR from eachother, and difficult to support once comitted. However, the defender retains a solid defensive group and reserves can easily be shifted from one front to another.

You must remember that in World War Two there was not a continuous line of troops dug into trenches. Battalions did NOT physically touch eachother all of the time. So, advancing along a flank will not ALWAYS be theoretically gamey, as, there is a good chance that realistically there are no troops on that flank.

For something to be gamey it has to be unfair. I see absolutely nothing unfair about using a clever tactic to unnerve a defence. What would be gamey is to force an attacker to advance along predetermined lines of defence. What would the fun be in that, eh?

[Mick_Oz]

For something to be gamey it has to be unfair. I see absolutely nothing unfair about using a clever tactic to unnerve a defence. What would be gamey is to force an attacker to advance along predetermined lines of defence. What would the fun be in that, eh?

-

I tend to agree with those who point out that

approaching via flanks carries its own risks

(as in broken units running off map) and for

those willing to take those risks, why deny

them the chance of rewards? Many scenarios,

in fact, make it difficult NOT to advance along a map edge.. often the victory flags

are located nearby.

I know this subject has been debated in other threads..but the threat of a wide flank attack adds to the game's enjoyment and realism. We don't all want Grand Napoleonic charges in the centre. So if my opponent wants to send his troops close to a map edge, bring it on.

[Henri]

Look, the essence of good tactics/strategy is to do the unexpected; if the attacker is forced to follow the expected axis of advance, all games are condemned to be bloody slugfests and the small amount of maneuver warfare afforded by the game is destroyed.

Don't touch it; it is the defender's responsibility to adjust to any attacker tqctics, fair or not. Winning battles is inherently unfair.

Besides, as pointed out by someone else, on the scale of CM, it was not rare for mobile armies to temporarily have open flanks for a couple of hours. Armies did not advance and retreat in a stright line a hundred miles wide

Henri

Henri

[JOCHEN PEIPER]

How many times have I told you, forget about your flanks...

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

Quote.

If you see a white plane it's American, if you see a black plane it's the RAF. If you see no planes at all it's the Luftwaffe." ---German soldier on the Western Front, 1944.

[Guest Michael emrys]

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

c) Of course the way the map is portrayed is unrealistic due to its size limit, but unless we all get Crays for x-mas the map has to end somewhere. Why not make the most of what you get rather than limit your gameplay.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's another reason for a limited map area. In both attack and defense, units are given sectors with clearly defined bounderies. Moving outside those bounderies is *strongly* discouraged for reasons of friendly fire and command & control. If in CM you are feeling cramped for space, it probably means you have an unrealistically high unit count.

Michael

[tailz]

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

For something to be gamey it has to be unfair. I see absolutely nothing unfair about using a clever tactic to unnerve a defence. What would be gamey is to force an attacker to advance along predetermined lines of defence. What would the fun be in that, eh?

-

I tend to agree with those who point out that

approaching via flanks carries its own risks

(as in broken units running off map) and for

those willing to take those risks, why deny

them the chance of rewards? Many scenarios,

in fact, make it difficult NOT to advance along a map edge.. often the victory flags

are located nearby.

I know this subject has been debated in other threads..but the threat of a wide flank attack adds to the game's enjoyment and realism. We don't all want Grand Napoleonic charges in the centre. So if my opponent wants to send his troops close to a map edge, bring it on.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Terrain is a major factor in whether or not to use a flanking move. (I don't think 'edge creep' is a fair term to use with CM... I've found the AI does a good job of guarding the map edges, so it's not gamey at all!) CM is the first game I've played that doesnt' make the edge moves the most attractive. If I'm heading the for edge, it's because the terrain over there will facilitate my advance. (Infantry closer to the objective, tanks into a better covering position, etc.)

As a defender, if there's lot's of covered approaches on the flank, you've either got to have forces in place to deal with it, or a flexible reserve to quickly cover it. (Always have a reserve!) Also, 'edge creep' usually also means your opponent is rather 'strung out' in column because it is a necessarily narrow path of advance... making his column's flank quite exposed. (You've just got to work harder to get something into position to take advantage of his position--snipers and 'schreks are excellent if hidden for this purpose.)

[PatAWilson]

My $.02:

Using the flanks isn't really a big deal.

Usually the objectives are fairly centrally located.

Usually the flanks are far enough apart such that units on flanks cannot support each other.

Usually there is enough cover to preventany real crossfire from flankto flank.

If you attack in force up a flank then you have concentrated your attacking troops with no place to manuever. Usually as a defender I will have time to react and redeploy, unless I have non-mobile troops. Now you have limited your ability to manuever and I probably still have a reasoable defense.

If you attack down both flanks you no longer have your forces concentrated. Your ability to create strong points of attack has been limited.

The right thing to do is to choose the proper attack lane whether its on a flank or central. As the attacker you will generally have superior forces. To succeed you need the ability to apply those forces in as concentrated a manner as possible. Using an edge might be a bit gamey but IMHO in this game it really won't be of much benefit if proper tactics are abandoned in favor of a map edge.

[Mikeydz]

The edge cuts both ways.... You know as an attacker that you can only be attacked from one side, but as a defender, you know if you defend the edge, you can't be flanked. I don't think it's that big a deal.

[Wayne]

Concerning flanks in CM. I'm assuming that in a real world situation my flanks are covered either by other units that are not represented in the game or artillery fire. I'm given specific objectives in the scenario and I can't worry about flanks unless the map area is so large that there is a possibility that my opponent will counter my attack with one of his own, which is happening to me now in a PBEM game. What the scenario designer has given me is what I must deal with. What's happening off map is none of my concern.

However, if the scenario opponent has reinforcements that arrive on one of my open flanks, that's something else to deal with which happened quite often in real combat. There's a certain SL conversion scenario I recently played that I'm thinking of. Nasty surprise after I planned my attack.

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

Blessed be the Lord my strength who teaches my hands to war and my fingers to fight.

[Guest Kinch]

One thing map designers do to hinder movement along the map edge is to use terrain. Depending on the wargame, woods, marsh, streams and alike can make a player think twice about using the tactic. Their wonderful flanking movemnent might not "bite" in time to make a differnce. Using terrian this way and the proper number of turns can bring the focus of the battle where the desinger intends it to be and limit (not prevent) extreme map edge moves.

- Kinch

[Greybeard 101st]

Just about every game I have won, I did by flanking the AI.

A couple times I surrounded him, and he didn't react.

A few times when I flanked he sent a few troops over my way, but by that time it was too late.

Still all and and all, a good Ai considering all the different moves and weapons in this game.

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

-kill 'em all and let God sort them out-