Future: Map edge option request

[Lacky]

I often find myself or my opponent attacking along the sides of the map. 90%+ of the current scenarios tend to uphold edge map hugging as a viable offensive maneuver. The defender is at a disadvantage unless they can discern or react to a map edge advance. Advancing near or against map edges allow players a secure method of protection their flank while concentrating their force forward or towards the center of the map. Using smoke rounds from off board artillery can wall off map edges much more efficiently than advancing up the middle! There exists many arguments for and against map edge maneuver. I find myself swaying to historical precedent. Given an attacking force attempting to dislodge a defender, the defender is quasi-assumed to be utilizing a flank (off-map) defense force. Encirclement or defensive breeches (i.e. Villers Bocage, Bastogne, Arnhem etc...) are situations for which my idea won't work. Thus...

My idea: As an option, allow Neutral map edges and a % of the boarding region to suffer several penalties. One such penalty could be a decrease in movement distance. Another penalty might cause a shortening of command radius.

The principle belief is to dissuade ahistorical advances because the 'game' doesn't take into account off board assets assigned to defend flanks.

[Guest Germanboy]

That seems like a very complicated solution to a not very prevalent problem (at least for me). A simpler solution would be to go for large maps, that allow maneuver (these are large in relation to the points for the game, so you would not end up with a 2x2km map for a 500 point attack). Also, if the map edge is a good advance route, it is up to the defender to block it. If not, he has nothing to complain about but his own failure to correctly assess the terrain. Map edges are dangerous as they are, because panicking (even without '!') units can just disappear across them seeking cover. I really don't think it is that much of a problem that we need a contrived solution where units suddenly enter some sort of space-warp when coming close to the edge (no pun intended).

Another point here is that often there would not be a continuous line, but instead contact would be held through patrols on the defense, so there would not necessarily be off-board assets beyond the map-edge. 1944 was not 1917.

Just my £0.02.

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

Andreas

<a href="http://www.geocities.com/greg_mudry/sturm.html">Der Kessel</a >

Home of „Die Sturmgruppe“; Scenario Design Group for Combat Mission.

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Tiger]

I currently have an opponent who has come up the edge of the map and is also making the turn to follow the edge of the map on my setup side. He'll soon learn the error of his ways

-john

[Olle Petersson]

Edge hugging isn't always a good tactic.

The defender might fairly easy scare the attackers to retreat off map and out from the battle, never to return...

If I defend and expect the attacker to hug the edge, I just centre my troops with a weak front and strong flanks. Then I'll be the one attacking flanks.

Cheers

Olle

[Lacky]

Edge hugging does not guarantee an automatic victory. This sort of attack doesn't necessarily mean one is maneuverings solely on the edge. When I attack an enemy flank, I'm generally off the edge of the map by a fair margin. When terrain dictates my approach, I often find myself sitting adjacent to the edge of the map thinking to myself how wonder it is not being peppered by off map assets.

First and foremost, terrain dictates the battle. But with the edge and a good dose of smoke, the attacker can split the map thus making an edge (far flank) attack advantageous. I agree there are a lot of pro's and con's associated with an edge attack. Rarely does one of my units turn tail and run off the map, though. Of the 100's of CM games I have played, I can't recall one instance of a unit running off the edge. The unit will run towards the nearest terrain and hide in it or run towards the safe side of the map. I truly cannot count the number of games in which I won by rolling a flank I've played a substantial number of games versus other players. Generally when terrain permits, attacking along or near one side of the map with support weapons in the middle of the map and smoke screening my advancing force, I roll the flank. All the while I'm thinking to myself how convenient it is not to be engaging with off map assets, even though a historical situation implies enemy forces near or in contact with my opponents flanks.

[Croda]

I've yet to hear anyone complain about a defender setting up forces on his extreme flank (the edge of the map). Why then should the attacker not use the same area for his assault?

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

WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! WARNING! -

THIS SIG FILE BELONGS TO A COMPLETE FOO.

MR T WOULDN'T BE SO KIND AS TO WRINKLE AN EYEBROW AT THIS UNFORTUNATE BEING. PLEASE OFFER HIS PARENTS AND COHABITANTS ALL SYMPATHY POSSIBLE. MAY BE CONTAGIOUS. CONTAINS ARTIFICIAL SWEETNER, INTELLIGENCE AND WIT. STAND WELL CLEAR AND LIGHT WICK. BY ORDER PETERNZ

Damn Croda. That is one funny sig!!!

must suck to be you - Hiram Sedai

[SS_PanzerLeader]

Any defender that doesnt protect his flanks adequately isn't much of a defender Always expect your opponent to flank your position... otherwise he isnt much of an attacker; that or he has an overwhelming force

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

SS_PanzerLeader.......out

[This message has been edited by SS_PanzerLeader (edited 12-18-2000).]

[Gotcha]

I think an "easy" way to keep the attacker from using the map edge is to: set up a "buffer zone" on the map edges where the attacker's forces are not allowed to wander, but the defender's forces are allowed (and expected) to occupy. This could/would simulate the attacker's boundary with other friendly/attacking units.

I believe this would elminate the "benefit" of running up the edge of a map and having one flank entirely secure.

However, this "solution" becomes problematic for meeting engagements.

[Doug Beman]

I don't believe anything in CM's code should be changed on account of this. The reason: in wartime, attacking forces usually assigned different units different and distinct attack axes. These units could then march up their axis assuming that, so long as the attacking units on their right and left were doing the job, their flanks WERE secure, and they could simply (if they wanted) march right up a "map edge."

Defenders didn't have this luxury. They didn't know where one attacking batallion's attack route ended and another began. Therefore they had to cover the entire FEBA, even if some of those areas were being ignored by the attacker. If a defender had a "seam" in their coverage (simulated in CM if/when a defender ignores a map edge, saying "the attacker shouldn't be allowed here") and the attacker found that seam, usually the defender got hosed. If the defender could somehow find a seam in the attack, the situation could be reversed.

Scenario creators can build in this "attacker's flanks MIGHT not be secure" by setting up some of the defender's reinforcements to show up on the attacker's flanks, simulating an attack in which one unit falls behind and opens the flanks of it neighbors. It would have to be a reasonable defending force; I don't think an entire batallion on the defending side could work its way into the attacker's flanks without the attacker knowing (this would probably end the CM battle as the attacker scrambled to cover its flanks)

DjB

[Doug Beman]

Olle has a good point. I'm working up a scenario for possible posting on CMHQ and I had to fiddle with some reinforcement spots. The problem was that, in a few cases, the reinforcements came into an area where a lot of defending units could hit them. This resulted in the less-experienced troops or more vulnerable vehicles retreating under the TacAI's control right back off the map. I had to move the markers a little bit to give the reinforcements more time to get themselves sorted.

DjB

[Guest Big Time Software]

Hi all,

Well... it has been a while since this was brought up, but a few of you might recall some really long discussions on this prior to CM's release (I think it was before the CM Beta, but maybe just after).

My first point is to agree that edge hugging is not an automatic advantage for the attacker. It is also not necessarily "gamey". Therefore, because it is impossible to realistically simulate map boundaries we are not likely to make changes. "Fixing" this problem will instantly get us into a situation of diminishing returns for our efforts.

Worse, it could create a quagmire effect where we invest more and more time into something that really doesn't work right. Then we abandon it instead. This means that lots of other things, which people would like to see AND we know we can put in, will not find their way into the game. If I had to put down a bet, it would be that this would be the end result.

All "fix" suggestions made above have been made before. Each causes its own sets of problems and distortions of reality. Something like the buffer zone does nothing more than create different map edges. It also gives the defender an unrealistic assurance that the flanks will be secure, not to mention all sorts of gamey counter flanking abilities (i.e. the defender can advance forward knowing there will be NO attacker units in his path).

Every time we have looked at this "problem" we have alway wound up in the same place. The cures are generally worse than the sickness, all things considdered. Nope... this is one of those things that spits in the face of anybody who thinks they have an "easy" solution Thankfully, the problem isn't as bad as some think it is. I say "thankfully" because I see no changes for map edge behavior for CM2 or even the rewrite of the game engine.

Thanks,

Steve