Henri Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 I'm getting a little tired of always seeing hugging the map edge as the example of "gamey" playing, which should be forbidden, and it has even been suggested that if your pbem opponent does this, you should not play him again (after a suitable warning if you are so inclined). The reason given is that anedge-exploiting player is using the ahistorical information that no opponent is present on one of his flanks, which gives him an unfair advantage. Well I have news for you: it is to forbid such actions that is ahistorical! Let me explain clearly. In 1941, after Barbarossa bogged down and the Soviets began to counter-attack, the Germans hunkered down into strongpoints for the 1942 Winter, being unable to hold a continuous line. Such techniques were used throughout the war by both sides. When attacking such strongpoints, the attacker could be confident that his flank would not be attacked, and could therefore move up to strike the strongpoint from the sides if required. In fact, early in the war, the Germans would usually bypass the Soviet strongpoints with their forward mobile units, and leave the mopping up to the following infantry; the soviets early on did the opposite, and would systematically pry open German strongpoints before moving on (later on they changed their methods in favor of deep penetrations). Forbidding to move along the map edge is equivalent to forbidding the historical methods of forcing strongpoints, and is therefore ahistorical. The well-intentioned "rules" proposed by the well-meaning people who campaign against gamey tactics in favor of discouraging ahistorical tactics can have the exactly opposite effect, not to mention that it tends to reduce the possibility of surprise and to reduce all battles to bloody and unimaginative slugfests. I say let the players' imaginations run wild, and let loose the dogs of war! Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Formerly Babra Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 An interesting (and refreshingly on topic) point. I just rationalize it as assuming there are friendlies off map advancing on the same axis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PzKpfw 1 Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Well said Henri.. Regards, John Waters ------------------ Make way evil, I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hamster! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dittohead Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 What aboout hamster hugging, gamey or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I'm getting a little tired of always seeing hugging the map edge as the example of "gamey" playing, which should be forbidden, and it has even been suggested that if your pbem opponent does this, you should not play him again (after a suitable warning if you are so inclined). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Unfortuantly in real life you have no positivly secure flanks. You could have afriendly unit advancing or it could be an enemy there. Also, there is no barrier to movement through the flank. One may have a "lane" to remain in but you can still move across it if need be. Flanking is not "gamey", have a flank that is 100% safe is. Cav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M Hofbauer Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 CM BO is not Russia. It is not Winter 1942. now, as regards the topic, I heard something about "map edge bugging is fantastical"? how does that work, buggering on the map edge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Germanboy Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Henri, I am not quite sure whether you are not confusing tactical and operational levels here. Certainly the deep penetrations have nothing to do with CMBO's scale. In CM terms, an action within such an operation might be the screening of such a strongpoint, while the breakthrough is far beyond CM's scale. ------------------ Andreas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piekat Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 I'm not sure i've well understood the matter (my English isn't really "top quality"), but i think that if you consider CMBO battles as small portions of a continuous and dinamic frontline, the defender "must" take care of all his assigned "part of the front" (including edges) and the attacker have the same duty. This is my 2 Italian Lire opinion (and is really a low value ------------------ "Memento Audere Semper" - G. D'Annunzio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iggi Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Same arguement can go for the defense. If you place an anti tank gun on the flank and point it inward, you protect the gun's flank. Going down the middle is very dangerous. Especialy in the early game. Unless there is a tall hill in the middle. Then you can send a scout on a suicide run up the hill to get mucho info. Hell if you are worried about flanking moves, just hide zooks on the map sides. Near roads, behind hills etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mother Theresa Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 All of this 'gamey' talk is kind of pointless, cause no one in their right mind would give us supreme command over this many units in the first place. If we want to be realistic, we get to control one guy of one squad and the battle field should be just what he can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henri Posted September 4, 2000 Author Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Germanboy: Henri, I am not quite sure whether you are not confusing tactical and operational levels here. Certainly the deep penetrations have nothing to do with CMBO's scale. In CM terms, an action within such an operation might be the screening of such a strongpoint, while the breakthrough is far beyond CM's scale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, well tht sentence was just to point out that later in the war, the Soviets gave up the earlier tactic of never bypassing strongpoints until they were reduced. I may add that protecting one's flanks was more of an issue in larger battles than what is modeled in CM; at this scale, except for recon missions, the position of enemy strength was generally known. And when assaulting a strongpoint, it was generally not an issue at all, since by definition, a strongpoint is isolated. Henri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CavScout Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Henri: I may add that protecting one's flanks was more of an issue in larger battles than what is modeled in CM; at this scale, except for recon missions, the position of enemy strength was generally known. And when assaulting a strongpoint, it was generally not an issue at all, since by definition, a strongpoint is isolated. -Henri<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Did I read this right? "..protecting one's flanks was more of an issue in larger battles than what is modeled in CM..." Who or what is on your flanks is important as far down to the platoon level. CAV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mother Theresa: All of this 'gamey' talk is kind of pointless, cause no one in their right mind would give us supreme command over this many units in the first place. If we want to be realistic, we get to control one guy of one squad and the battle field should be just what he can see.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's on the money. It is a game. It's not a simulation (some will argue that point). There are rules and limits, and the map edge is one of them. In the game, you live with it. Use it, defend against it. Protect your flank, or don't. Those are choices I enjoy making. For what it is worth, all the veteran ASLers will tell you the same thing, the same problem exists in ASL (another game, not simulation, but, some will argue that point too) Still, CM is a good game. ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Steiner Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Hi <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: For what it is worth, all the veteran ASLers will tell you the same thing, the same problem exists in ASL (another game, not simulation, but, some will argue that point too) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Same applies to tabletop Miniatures games, one elegant solution in a couple of rulesets (Overlord and Grey Storm Red Steel) was to designate a zone on each flank as being dangerous ie units physically entering such a zone are subject to an abstracted attack which reflected possible off table enemy or indeed friendly fire. Made you think twice about hugging table edge ! Dont know if such a system would be possible to code/implement in CM though ?? Cheers ------------------ Sgt Steiner Belfast NI UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Brian Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sgt Steiner: units physically entering such a zone are subject to an abstracted attack which reflected possible off table enemy or indeed friendly fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Interesting abstraction. It'd add more flavor to the game... but I think it becomes a lesson in "weild-ability." I.e., is this unweildly? I know in ASL it would be, but in CM, source code could be added, with some identifcation on the map, to portray this. Of course, sometimes, the flanks are secure! ------------------ Doc God Bless Chesty Puller, Wherever He Is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Steiner Posted September 4, 2000 Share Posted September 4, 2000 Hi again <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Dr. Brian: Interesting abstraction. It'd add more flavor to the game... but I think it becomes a lesson in "weild-ability." I.e., is this unweildly? I know in ASL it would be, but in CM, source code could be added, with some identifcation on the map, to portray this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well for Miniatures games it worked ok with like minded gamers. However you still get some chaps who will hug the edge of this danger zone as if it were table edge :} For CM similar problems arise as to how big is this 'danger zone' and how potent is the danger ? Cheers ------------------ Sgt Steiner Belfast NI UK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts