Frontlines in Campaigns

[Uedel]

Hy,

just designing my 2nd Scenario with a friend of mine. But after i am happy with the first operation i made i am a little unhappy with the 2nd, Why ? ok i say it to you, it is the Frontline calculation. I made the Battle of Bastogne, with a lot ground to Manouver and fight for both sides, but this is now the problem, when i decide as the German not to attack direct frontal and instead to encircle my oponent the mistakes apear, the frontline moves him out of city while no of my soldiers set any foot in it, i only moved north and south around the city but the computer calculates allways a straight line. Can this maybe be overdone in a future patch ? also the option of 0 meter no mans land did still not work.

[BAR]

Hi Uedel - There are many of us hoping for a more dynamic frontline. Many Ops players are frustrated with the current calulations of frontlines now. Hopefully BTS will find a way to help us out. Take care.

[Bamse]

What is BTS official statement too this problem ?

Big problem solved in patch v1.79 or patch v1.04 ?

[Mikester]

Also see the thread entitled:

Operations - Your Thoughts???

Mikester out.

[Uedel]

so i am not alone

[Talenn]

Uedel:

The option to have a 0m 'No Man's Land' DOES work, but it has to be the last thing you adjust before you save the Op. It seems to always default back to 400m if you edit the forces or the map or whatnot. So, just finish the Op, switch to 0m and THEN save.

You also have to be careful when going back in and tweaking your Op to remember to reset it to 0m before every re-save.

Talenn

[Ubermac]

Didn't BTS fix that frontline problem in 1.03?

[Mikester]

No real fix to front line problem in v1.03 as far as I'm concerned and/or can tell. There may have been a tweak to kind of average out a little better where the line gets drawn so the defender doesn't get pushed back so far in general (irrespective of the no-mans-land or it's size which is then tacked onto where the attackers new start line is located), but it's really hard to tell. For the most part the only real change that I can see is that the defender is not so easily pushed off the map altogether which was what was causing the "premature" operation ending problem.

Mikester out.

[Uedel]

the main problem IMO is not that we got a "No-man´s land" but anyway thx Talenn for the Tip will try it.

The main Problem is that the Computer draws a straight frontline, so if 1 Enemy Soldiers gets behind your lines at only 1 point your whole front will be drawn back. I seen this in a few operations. I defend...Enemy AI pushing into my defences...gets slaughtered and flees....next battle my frontlines are drawn back 400 meters becaus there was still an imobile undestroyed MG 30 or 40 meters in front of me who causes that my Frontlines where drawn back (most designers did not set a zero-meter No man land.

So if the could model a non straight frontline it will be much better so u loose ground in the northern half of the map and still hold importend positions in the southern edge u are now flanked but ok u still hold that position and still can decide to deploy your troops unflankend and drop that location or to hold out and reveal the northern flank and hold the south etc etc hope u understand what i mean. Cup de grace would be that u be able to surround someone in great maps so your deploy zones are all arround him

[Uedel]

punt

[Uedel]

punt

any changes made in CMII or did BTS think about it small statemant possible ??

[carlosgohe]

I have suffered other "stranger front". Having advanced with my troops, in the next battle, the computer has given me that terrain, but with a color that I could not deploy any unit there, because all of them had other color (I mean the base).

Why???!!!!

[Tris]

Uedel: The following was written by Steve (p. 2, "Pillboxes - some CM modelling issues" thread) in response to my same query re the "Magical Line":

First of all, we don't "need" to do anything. Perhaps we "should" do something, but that is up for debate.

We originally had a crooked line system. I can not even begin to tell you how hard we tried to make it work. It was so difficult and filled with variable special case problems (which might only come up once in a lifetime) that Charles was thinking of scrapping Operations from the game. ENTIRELY. I and a few others convinced him that it would be better to do what it took to make it work better and keep them in the game. The solution was to make the line straight.

However, I think you overestimate how "crooked" a frontline would be at this scale, after an hour or more of downtime inbetween battles. For the most part forces would consolodate their positions to form more sensible defensive/jump off lines. In other words, straightening them out. And nothing says you MUST have a straight line. You can stagger your forces if you like. You just can't have them staggered evenly with similar frontline on the other side.

So is the system 100% realistic as is? No. But from a realism/simulation/game standpoint it works, overall, far better than the previous system that allowed the frontline to be more generalized. And it also works far better than not having Operations at all

As you can tell, this is one of those game-play issues BTS has decided to dig its heels in on, so until they decide to listen to reason we're stuck with this bad design decision.

That's all.

[Hunter]

Could the calculation be changed to favour the defender rather than the attacker then?

The Front Line could be drawn NOT where the attacker's foremost troops are, but where the defenders foremost troops are. This is slightly more justifiable, as it could be argued that any strong points not able to be taken along a line in the length of a battle would mean the attacker 'straightening out his line' would have to fall back to behind that strongpoint.

It eliminates the 'Bastogne by stealth' problem while creating the 'holding ground by hiding a sniper in a ditch somewhere' problem. I think this problem is more easily overcome by the attacker who should be scouting out the length of his line in any case.

I only suggest it as it might provide a quick fix (presumably, not knowing what the code does of course).

Bruce

[Tris]

The problem is the line itself. That is the problem, that is the only problem. There is no possible justification for the installation of any sort of line in between battles. None whatsoever. It's simply bad logic at work--if any logic at all--and it imposes a load of gaminess on the model.

All we need is for BTS to simply drop its silly "line" concept and let units stay where they are after a battle ends. It would then be up to the players or TacAI to straighten out lines to the best of their abilities and according to their perceived needs.

There is a possible conflict even there, however, as an occasion could easily arise where, for example, a couple of German squads are completely cut off and surrounded several hundred meters off in one direction or another, and the ability to simply "teleport" those assets to a safer and tactically better site on the map in the wink of an eye is really no less gamey than the line concept.

For this reason, I say just let troops sit where they are at the end of battles. Afterall, we're talking about a model here which runs in 60-second turn increments. Why do we need to "stand down" for half an hour or an hour between battles in the first place? What's that all about?

Anyway, the line must go. Bad bad bad decision, that.

[aka_tom_w]

I have never played an operation.

I say this because I don't understand the need to "stand down" and have a line drawn. I agree with Tris when he says this is inherently gamey. Why not just keep fighting?

I understand Charles is totally frustated with this issue and I don't blame him for wanting to abandon the entire concept of operations.

Why not just play REALLY large battles? I designed one with a HUGE walled city in the middle of it that lasts for 75 turns and it has been suggested I turn it into an operation, but I don't want lines drawn, and I see no need to stand down the battle after an hour.

Anyway, I don't really think this is a big deal if you choose not to play operations because that damn no man;s land line is drawn in a really gamey way.

BUT I'm not complaining because (other than the gunnery optics issue ) I'm THRILLED, just totally Delighted, with EVERY other aspect of this GREAT game and the fact that I have no real interest in playing operations means I'm really not to concerned if there are still problems with the line and the no man's land.

Its still a GREAT game and it can ONLY get better with V1.1 and TCP/IP

I can't Wait!

-tom w

[Tris]

The problem with "really big battles" is resupply of ammunition. If it could be arranged for units to receive new ammo loads every half hour or so then yes, it would be far preferable to design only battles and not operations. but then we'd also need to have the ability to allow battles to last an infinite number of turns.

I really don't think BTS is amenable to sensible change on this topic. It seems to be the case that they've simply decided to ignore the issue altogether, judging from the poor response I've had to date from Steve.

I do hope I am mistaken.

P.S. What do you mean by "walled" city? How did you depict the wall? Also, this model's weakest link, I believe, is house-to-house combat, and there's more than one reason for that.

BUT I'm not complaining because (other than the gunnery optics issue ) I'm THRILLED, just totally Delighted, with EVERY other aspect of this GREAT game and the fact that I have no real interest in playing operations means I'm really not to concerned if there are still problems with the line and the no man's land.

I'm glad you're happy. Speaking only for myself, since we've come this far with the 3D concept for wargames I'd hate like hell to "rest on our laurels" but would rather make it continually better, and if this progress must come at the expense of someone's brittle ego then so be it.

As they say where I come from . . . such is life.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

Tris,

I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but it IS possible for 2 reasonable people to disagree. You seem to imply because BTS doesn't, can't or won't move forward with Operations the way you see fit, that they are simply being unreasonable, stupid, or resting on their laurels.

Whatever your agenda is, it is really tiring to listen to this crap. It is people like you that cause companies like BTS who actually DO listen to stop listening. I am eager to see YOUR wargame that will handle Operations correctly. Let me know when the demo is out.

[Tris]

I don't know if anyone has ever told you this, but it IS possible for 2 reasonable people to disagree.

Correct, it is quite possible to disagree, even probable. But none of that changes this simple fact: some things work, some things do not work.

You seem to imply because BTS doesn't, can't or won't move forward with Operations the way you see fit, that they are simply being unreasonable, stupid, or resting on their laurels.

I imply nothing of the kind. BTS implies this, though, with their response to date re the query on the imposition of these lines between battles in operations. It was a bad concept to begin with, and Steve's response to me was, at best, unintelligent. Much the same as if to say, "If you don't like it go play a Talonsoft game."

Which, by the way, I find to be a remarkable stance given the company's hi-falutin' manifesto.

Whatever your agenda is...

And I will spell that out for you now, for the record and just so there is no mistake: I only and always want everything to be as good as it can be.

...it is really tiring to listen to this crap.

Then scroll past it and keep these comments of yours to yourself. The choice is yours.

It is people like you that cause companies like BTS who actually DO listen to stop listening.

That observation is near moronic.

I am eager to see YOUR wargame that will handle Operations correctly. Let me know when the demo is out.

Let me know when you stumble upon some sense.

Look. The issue here isn't whether I can make a better wargame or no. The issue is the wargame we have from BTS and how that title performs. My accomplishments or potential as a programmer have nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Now, as a paying customer I have every right to voice my opinion in this forum re the product I have paid good money for. As a member of the hobby, of long standing, I might add, I have an obligation to point out flaws in the system, if I can find any, and furthermore I have a responsibility to offer reasonably well-considered advice as to how said system might be improved. For you see, in that manner all might benefit.

If you don't like that, Captain Foobar, buzz off, that's too bad, tough toenails and like that.

Sheeesh. Just where do you people come from--and in round numbers at that.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

[Talenn]

Well, I'm going to weigh in on this one and probably be branded a heretic and burned at the stake but....

Why NOT use 'objectives' in the Operations? Have THEM determine when the map 'advances' or not. If a Op designer wants to make 'Bastonge' or anyplace else the 'key' terrain for the Op, they just place the objectives there. The other areas are simply for support of the assault on the 'key'.

A more standard Op could have the objectives scattered along the front a bit more with a certain percent needing to be captured in order to 'advance' the map.

This is just a rough idea but one that I've been sitting on since I first lost interest in Ops back in August. Like Tris, I have no 'agenda', I have no 'alterior motives'. I am simply posting a suggestion that might improve the game. Am I right? Who knows? But to SUPPRESS suggestions like I read above is just plain silly.

Just my $.02

Talenn

[Tris]

I've thought about objective flags in operations, too, but since they weren't included as an option I sort of put those on my mental back burner. I'm not sure I could articulate my thoughts on this as well you, now that I think on it, Talenn, except to submit the thought that even with objective flags provided the imposition of "lines" makes no sense and never will.

What I like about the notion of objective flags for operations is that in this manner a scenario designer might be able to better "channel traffic" this way and that over the course of several battles--but again, with those ridiculous lines always coming into play between battles none of this could be possible since you'd always end up with a stupid absolute N-S or E-W orientation.

The lines need to go before any progress is made, I'm afraid.

As for being a "heretic": there is an element on this board (everywhere you go on the Net, everywhere you used to go on the services back in the day) which delegates itself to serve as a sort of company watchdog. These people are gladhanders, hangerson, gadflies--call them what you will--and it is rarely the case that they themselves ever offer suggestions of their own as to how to improve play but rather just raise their ugly collective head and try to shout down anyone else who does through the pathetic veil of "do what's what's right by" . . . The Company.

Oh yeah, and then they trot out the decrepit "Trotter" logic (which predates that poor journalist by years, if you want to know--which ought to give you an idea of just how vacuous his mind is) all about how criticism of what we're "given" by way of game fare will just make these poor little publishers crawl back into the shells of their damaged egos, never to listen or to be heard from again.

Well, I've endured this garbage for many years and I am not moved, not impressed, and not about to act on it any further than to respond to such idiocy just as harshly as I deem necessary in order to ensure that the relatively few people around who can (or care to) entertain original thought are provided sufficient elbow room to do so, and hopefully to then publicly voice same.

If any of that brands me a heretic or an s.o.b. then I can live with it. Easily.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-25-2000).]

[Guest *Captain Foobar*]

BTS Quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>So is the system 100% realistic as is? No. But from a realism/simulation/game standpoint it works, overall, far better than the previous system that allowed the frontline to be more generalized. And it also works far better than not having Operations at all<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Tris quote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As you can tell, this is one of those game-play issues BTS has decided to dig its heels in on, so until they decide to listen to reason we're stuck with this bad design decision.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

which brings me to...

Tris quote: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>furthermore I have a responsibility to offer reasonably well-considered advice as to how said system might be improved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It is obvious that there are things that could be better. If you have been here as long as you say you have been, you have witnessed many additions to CM:BO that were inspired by customer requests, ideas, and contributions. With that being said, where do you come off with the negative attitude. It isn't necessary, and if you think about it, it probably is counter-productive to your goals of getting things changed.

I don't discount your right as a customer or a forum member to bring things up, it's the attitude which is obvious to anyone who read what you have written in this thread.

Perhaps I am just being a wuss, wanting everyone to play nice. I probably shouldn't be trying to teach you how to behave. Your parents should have.

[This message has been edited by *Captain Foobar* (edited 11-25-2000).]

[IPA]

I'm more of a lurker on this board than a active valuable contributor. The reason being right or wrong, I simply don't having the English or awesome debating skills of so many of you out there (the writers on this current thread included).

Going against the grain or not, I have to agree with Tris on his main points on this topic.

IMHO, Tris simply wants to keep the improvement process going for an already brilliant game. IMHO I've yet to see a baseless unsupported argument from this guy. There really is a problem with front lines in operations, important enough to be raised again. Just as Tris maybe somewhat blunt in his reasoning, sometimes BTS can be equally blunt in the shut down of improvement ideas in the face of logic.

IMHO the reasoning behind BTS' refusal to entertain this one may be that it's too much pain to implement, that's their pre-rogative. However, I guess some posters feel that if you keep banging on the door long enough they might come around on this one. BTS don't need to be defended, if you read deeper into the above posts they're not really being attacked in the first place.

Backing to lurking.

IPA

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

"Cry "Havoc!" and let slip the Dogs of War!"

-William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

[Tris]

It is obvious that there are things that could be better. If you have been here as long as you say you have been...

Hold on right there. I never said I've 'been here" for very long at all. As a matter of fact I first visited this board some time ago, but I didn't own the game at that time and my interest was more of a casual nature. After I bought in I returned to this board and paid closer attention to the arguments as they developed.

I've now owned the game a couple-three months, whatever it's been, and I feel quite qualified to make the points I do make. If someone with more "seniority" to me takes exception to that, so be it. I can live with that, too.

...you have witnessed many additions to CM:BO that were inspired by customer requests, ideas, and contributions.

This is true, customers have asked for lots of reasonable improvements. It is also true that BTS has made some of these requested changes. But BTS has also refused any number of reasonable requests, this business of "magical lines" in operations being only the most recent example.

Look, I don't make this stuff up.

With that being said, where do you come off with the negative attitude.

Sorry, but I do not view my attitude as being anything like negative. I do, however, refuse to accept the sort of response Steve directed my way re lines of demarcation in operations. I made good points, and he all but told me to go take a long walk off a short pier. It was, in fact, Steve who came across with an "negative attitude" during that short exchange, not I. He did so by claiming matter-of-factly the the issue had already been closely studied by BTS and the conclusion was that we were lucky to have any operations at all due to Charles being in some sort of snit about it, or something like that.

Sorry again, but that doesn't make it by half. First of all, if Charles can't "take it" that's not my problem but Charles's. If Charles doesn't have the patience to field lots of suggestions for improvement that is also an issue for Charles to look into and not for me. Am I getting through?

The lines don't work. Just don't. That should have been crystal clear to people clever enough to design this system to begin with. For some reason unknown to me they went with this concept anyway. The sad result is that operations are pretty much screwed up after the first battle because of this decision.

If you want to know, this is first time I've ever seen such a foolish scheme dreamed up for a wargame. Ever. And I've been at it in this hobby since the late fifties. Perhaps something similar has been rendered useable in one system or the other along the way, but it sure doesn't work in CMBO and that is what is under examination here.

My purpose is not to castigate Charles or Steve for this error. My purpose is to correct the error. Along that line I have offered concrete advice as to how to best go about this.

Now how could anyone fault that?

It isn't necessary, and if you think about it, it probably is counter-productive to your goals of getting things changed.

Where I come from good advice is taken for what it's worth. Other issues are considered subsidiary to good change.

I don't discount your right as a customer or a forum member to bring things up, it's the attitude which is obvious to anyone who read what you have written in this thread.

There you go with "attitude" again. Which "attitude" is that? Is it the "attitude" which allows me to dare to speak my mind? Is it "attitude" that I refuse to be talked down to by Steve? Is it "attitude" that I broach my ideas directly, instead of beating around the bush as people normally do, afraid that something they suggest might be "taken the wrong way"?

Is that what you consider "attitude"?

If so, don't hold your breath waiting for me to change. Life is too short, my friend, and the sooner you learn that the sooner you might become a more productive member of whichever forums you choose to habituate.

Perhaps I am just being a wuss, wanting everyone to play nice. I probably shouldn't be trying to teach you how to behave. Your parents should have.

Well, this remark is uncalled for in any number of ways. I will let it pass after I make one comment:

You seem to be offended by my remarks. Well, here's wisdom that you can take to the grave: offense is something you feel, not something you give.

Have a nice day.

[This message has been edited by Tris (edited 11-26-2000).]

[Peterk]

I'm going to jump in to because I find operations are probably the most interesting part of the game faults and all.

I have mixed feelings about the objectives. Part of the whole point of operations is that the player is supposed to be the one who decides what on the map is an objective and it's kind of nice not to have the designer spoonfeeding the player and telling him what is important. If I think I can get to the end of the map without taking Hill-123 then why bother? It would however probably be useful in guiding the AI on the attack in these monsters. Objectives for helping the computer to determine frontlines just shouldn't be necessary. The code should recognize that hills, towns and maybe road crossings with active defenders in and around them are considered objectives without being told.

Keeping units where they end the previous battle is definitely not a good idea because they'll start in sight of whoever was firing on them in the last battle. One side almost always needs to regroup between battles and re-setup a coherent defense/attack and doing the regrouping on the move during a game turn under fire just doesn't sound like a lot of fun and isn't realistic.

It seems simple but I think we just have to recognize that front-line calculation is more complicated than we think it is. I can think of one problem right off the bat.

1. Battle ends and computer draws front lines but gives defender in a surrounded town option to keep guys there.

2. Defender decides he doesn't want the town after all and moves everyone back.

3. Now the attacker has to set up but there's a huge black hole where the town is where he can't set up but should be able to.

I'm sure there's tons of little nasty situations like this that Charles has discovered already.

I would bet a million bucks though that operations get a nice look at some time in the future for no other reason that there will almost certainly be a Stalingrad operation (or many!) in CM2. Patience!

p.