A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

[YankeeDog]

For the most part, I've tried to avoid getting involved in the "Please Put This in CMX2" stampede, mostly because it's become a rather cacophonous din lately.

Recently, though, I had the best idea for a wargame I've ever had. That's not to say it's a *good* idea, just the best one *I've* had. Apologies if this has been thought of before and discussed here. Even a rabid fanboi like myself doesn't read everything on this forum, and some of the CMX2 threads are absolutely voluminous. My guess is that this has probably been thought of at some point by someone, and there may even be a game out there that uses it, but if there is, I've never seen it.

Anyway, as a preamble I think many would agree that one of the most inherently unrealistic aspects of almost any wargame is map edges. Simply put, the real world is not sectioned off into seperate little 2km x 2km (or whatever) squares. Sometimes, a creative scenario designer can create a map that uses natural barriers, such a rivers, to give a map edge legitimacy, but this isn't always possible.

How often have you thought, "gee, IRL I'd just flank that MG/ATG/bunker, but I don't have enough room on this map."

Or, alternatively, "Darn, he's running his attack straight up the map edge. IRL, I'd call for fire support from the units on my flanks."

So here's my solution to all this:

I call it "Active Map Edges."

It's a pretty simple concept. Give the scenario designer the option of creating a "Danger Zone" along the neutral map edges of a certain width, say 50-200m. Units traveling into this danger zone would have a random chance of attracting fire from an unseen, off-map enemy unit.

Basically, the program would make a "die roll" for every time interval (10 seconds, or whatever) a unit spends in the danger zone. If this roll came up "yes" it would make a second roll to determine the type of fire the unit receives. Type of fire received should probably be partially dependent on unit type -- AFVs should receive mostly AT fire, infantry units mostly small arms and/or HE fire.

For infantry, resolving the "Random" incoming fire should be relatively simple -- for small arms, a random die roll could detemine vector, and a second roll to could determine intensity. HE fire on infantry could be even more easily resolved -- one roll for shell size (no need to represent every type in the game, just 3-4 possibilities would be fine), and then a second to determine exactly how close to the target it lands.

Fire on AFVs would be a bit trickier, but I don't think it would insurmountable. Unbuttoned AFVs might have a chance of receiving sniper fire, but otherwise, you'd need some kind table referencing the most likely types of AT weaponry for the given region, time period, and opponent. Assuming CMX2 continues to use "rarity" settings in some shape or form, the game already has this data, though. Once the Type of AT fire is known, it could be resolved in a way similar to small arms fire, with random die rolls for vector & range, then the regular "to hit" & penetration/damage algorithms could kick in.

The whole thing should be optional, so scenario designers (and possibly QBers as well)could turn it on or off, and should probably also be adjustable to a degree (depth of "Danger Zone", liklihood of Random Fire event). It might also be interesting to be able to set it so the "Danger Zone" applies to only one side in order to represent certain tactical situations.

Anyway, I like it. I think it would solve a lot of the "edge hugging" problems, without compromising gameplay. Based on my limited understanding of coding, it doesn't sound like too difficult a feature to make work -- the hardest part would be the beta testing, to get the percentages of fire events right for good gameplay.

Players would have the option of using the danger zone to try to flank or avoid, but only at a certain risk. Properly used, I think such "Active Map Edges" would force defenders to set up in such a way that their their flanks were protected, but at the same time would also tend to inhibit massive map-edge rushes by the Attacker.

Anyway, I like it. Hope others, and esp. BFC, do as well.

Again, apologies if I'm reinventing the wheel.

Cheers,

YD

[Malakovski]

I think better than random fire from off map units would be a chance of reinforcements from nearby units, definable by the scenario designer. That's what we really getting at here, that there are nearby units that would be called upon in some instances.

If more options are available for reinforcement triggers in CMx2, the would not even need to be added as a separate feature. Just plop some triggers on the map edge.

Now even better would be a dynamic map edge, such that if a neigboring unit gets involved, the map is extended and they appear in their real positions. How far to take this would be up to the designer, but you could eliminate all tempation to hug the edge this way.

[V]

Those are some very interesting ideas. I would love to see something like this in future versions. The map edges drive me crazy!

[YankeeDog]

I like your ideas, Malakovski, but I'm concerned that they run afoul of the KISS rule.

I think that anything that takes Charles away from coding the actual combat and graphics modeling for too long is unlikely to make it into the game. A random map edge fire routine would be relatively simple and robust. Map edge reinforcement triggers, or expanding maps, would be much more complicated, I'm guessing.

But we shall see; I'm sure BFC has more tricks up their sleeve than we know. . .

Cheers,

YD

[ March 10, 2005, 10:25 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[JasonC]

I like the original proposal. Might grade the likelihood to the position along the edge and adjacent edge ownership.

E.g. on a map with German west and Russian east, N and S neutral, fire at Germans from active edges is too unlikely to care about in the first 1/4 or 1/3rd of the map, E to W. In the middle third, it rises. In the last 1/3, it stays high. E edge, same height. West edge, zero.

If it is German north and Russian south, then there would be map fire vs. Germans only getting serious 1/3rd of the way along the Russian edges, and none from the German edges.

So be simple to scale it - the probability is multipled by a position factor, that goes from 0 to 1 as you move from a friendly edge to an enemy one. (Straight or an S, like normalized arctan mebe).

This lets you maneuver right up to the edge if the edge is friendly. But makes it dangerous to do so when it isn't, for long periods or high numbers of units etc.

I'd suggest absolute scale factors for various sorts of incoming. Some targets won't receive certain kinds, so they are fired at less often. (Rather than the reverse, one roll to see if shot, then select shooter).

MGs the most common flanking fire. They have the range and are everywhere. Also, it was SOP to interlock fire zones across sectors. Occasional mortar or sniper fire (ATRs too for Russians). Real AT fire should be less common, and average caliber for that date or less. So it would be easier to maneuever armor along edge and thick armor than thin, but still a risk (since the shot will be to a flank...)

P.S. a little fiddling for the scaling factor finds - ((1/Pi) ArcTan[ 2Pi (2phi - 1)]) + 1/2

Not exactly KISS, but the user never needs to see it. It just goes smoothly from 0 to 1 as phi goes from 0 to 1, along an S, through (.5,.5). Near a friendly edge, flanking fire strongly damped. Near an enemy edge, rising to full probability.

[ March 10, 2005, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[aka_tom_w]

KISS

yes

keep it simple silly

Maybe something as simple as unit morale takes a hit and drops if it moves too close to the edge.

it should be simple ...

but the edges of the dangerzone should somehow be somewhat uncertian.. and the net effect of the morale drop should be something to "think" about BUT not like taking fire from unseen units off the map.

Keep it Simple for sure

Maybe just have a range near the edges like the Burmuda Triangle where a unit could maybe "lose" or drop a percentage of it ammo (simulating expenditure) or become mysteriously demoralized with a random moral drop.

-tom w

[ March 10, 2005, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[dieseltaylor]

Seems to me that you will need to adjust the attacking strength then to balance the game as I am sure that the odds are a reflection of the game balancing before the game was launched,

Also to be considered the differences that occur when fighting in Finnish woodland as opposed to the Russian steppes. And in very hilly terrain ? A whole can of worms.

I have played many games on huge maps and they have benefitted from having flank forces and screens in improving game play. I do not see a problem other than people apparently playing on maps that are so small that the edges are important if you wish to flank. Of course one never hears of a defence being gamey about flanks only the attacker!!

If you wish to harden the flanks then allow players to position " flanking troops" that are tied to positions and would be penalised if they advance towards VP's. That does at leats give the opponent the choice of deliberately engaging extra enemy troops for a perceived tactical advantage.

But a good idea to bring the discussion up : )

[YankeeDog]

Interesting thoughts, Jason. I especially like the idea of at least having the option of dividing edges up into "Defender Hostile" and "Attacker Hostile" areas.

I like you morale idea, too Tom. Honestly, it's a bit *too* simple for my tastes (I'd like to at least see the incoming round that caused the morale hit, if not the actual enemy that fired it), but it it's all BFC has time for, it would be better than nothing.

Diesel, I don't think the idea of "Active Map Edges", in whatever form, would affect play balance. At least, they shouldn't if properly implemented because the they affect both the defender and the attacker rougly equally.

They give Attacker has slightly more area on the edges of the map to use for maneuver, but using said areas come with a caveat emptor -- stay in them too long, and you're likely to give your opponent a few "free hits".

For the defender, he knows that his flanks are 'tied in' to a degree, but at the same time he can't absolutely rely on the "off-map" fire -- he has to have some of his asset pointing outwards to defend against flanking attacks since the attacker can take the calculated risk of trying an end-run through the "Danger Zone."

I actually see unrealistic stuff happening along the map edges fairly often in CM, even on large maps. A simple example is AFVs with good frontal, but very weak side/rear armor. All it takes is one small ridge or patch of woods along the map edge to create an "unflankable" position, where the AFV has an enfilading fire position to a large portion of the map, but is virtually impossible to flank. Active Map Edges would solve this, since just camping out too close to the edge would be suicidal -- sooner or later the off-map fire would get you.

Of course, a player can still camp out on the edge of the "Danger Zone" in a similar position, but the other player can then take the calculated risk of transiting through the Danger Zone to flank the position. That's the whole idea -- brief excursions into the Danger Zone are an acceptable risk when the potential gain warrants it, but camping out along the map edge and using it as a shield, or excessive maneuvering along the map edge, will burn you sooner or later.

Oh, one more thing: I don't see how adding addition "flank troops" really fixes things; to me that's just creating a larger scenario -- There's always going to be a map edge somewhere. You still have the possibility of unrealistic edge deployments, either in setup, or as repositioning once the action has started.

Cheers,

YD

[aka_tom_w]

But a good idea to bring the discussion up : )

dieseltaylor makes a good point!

It is a REALLY big can of worms.

Maybe it is easier just to leave it the way it is and not worry too much about flanking along the map edge.

If they do anything it should be simple and simple to understand and a snap to build into the game, otherwise nothing will happen?

-tom w

[YankeeDog]

As far as wired effects on various types terrain, such as extremely hilly, or heavily forested or whatever:

That's why it should be an OPTION for the scenario designer, not an all-the-time feature. It's also why things like the depth of the Danger Zone, and the probability of a fire event, should be adjustable.

So on a really heavy terrain map, or really short LOS, or whatever, he should just make the Danger Zone very thin, or turn it off entirely.

To my mind, on many maps, and in many of the tactical situations I see being depicted in CM scenarios, it would be a useful and realisim-enhancing feature. In some situations, it shouldn't be applied and would create wierd effects. As long as it can be turned off, this is not a problem.

Cheers,

YD

[Brent Pollock]

Perhaps the easiest fix is to leave it as is and tell yourself that the off-map flank units are also attacking/defending and are thus way too busy to help out with long-range enfilading fire? Can't get much simpler than that.

No remedy for YankeeDog's "keyholed tank" problem, though.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

If an attacker is taking casualties for flanking of the 'proper' battle map, it should be realistic. If I'm marching Matildas through a map edge while facing Italians I would hate for the matildas to start dropping like flies. Make the 'firepower' of the defending flank reflective of the firepower of the defending forces on the map.

And ofcourse option to turn it off, with aditional options to weaken or worsen the flanking casualty rate.

[YankeeDog]

Yes, that is why the probability of off-map flanking fire should be adjustable by the scenario designer.

It needn't be overly complicated: a low-medium-high toggle would probably be fine.

Casualty rate would, of course, vary with the intensity of off-map fire. the higher the chance of a fire event, the higher the chance of a casualty.

It's also why, especially WRT AT fire, the type of off-map flanking fire should be adjusted depending on the region, nationality and time period.

So no Matildas getting KOed by 88s when facing Italians in the desert in 1941. Leave a Matilda out there along the edge for too long, and sooner or later something is going to get a lucky hit and KO or disable it, but not right away. Unless you're really unlucky, of course, but that's all part of the game. . .

Cheers,

YD

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I don't think a 'typical force' for the defending country would do it. I'm thinking more on the lines that the off map defenses would only consist of defending units that were deployed on map or maybe just those defending units remaining to reflect the tide of battle affecting the whole front. For example if the defender has an all sharpshoter force then the flanking units should expect to lose their TCs but nothing else. If including capable AT guns then losses should mount up quickly.

Further expanding on this the neutral zone could be swept by ATG fire but defending off map infantry would only get to use their AT capabilities in the Enemy flank zone. If an algorithm could be made to make the latter's AT effectiveness reliant on the closeness of tanks to terrain that be even sweeter. Say a MkIV is passing within 60 meter of light woods in '41 would be fairly safe but same MkIV passing within 40 metres of dense wood in '44 would stand a good chance of going WOOSH because of the heavier cover more likely to contain a unit, better AT devices and at that range more options for infantry to engage that tank. SAme tank staying 200 meters of any reasonble cover should thus remai safe from infantry, as you would expect IRL.

Boy this is complicated. Do you think we've stumpled upon the reason why map edges have remained for so long?

[YankeeDog]

Yep. That is complicated. Which is why I think a much simpler, abstract off-map system based just on likely enemy weapons for the time period is better.

Heck, for gameplay purposes, the net effect is the same if there's small, recurring chance that any unit too close to the map edge just goes *poof* in a little cloud of pixie dust. That definitely follows the KISS rule.

But I hope we could afford *a little* more complexity than that. I'm fine with just a general abstraction of typical combatant/region/nationality ordnance, even if this doesn't match exactly what's on the map.

If the designer doesn't like that, he can turn it off.

Cheers,

YD

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I envision pretty much the same system for dealing with flanking units as you but only disagree on where the values for firepower inflicted should come from. The reason I favour a specific link to on map capability over a rather nebulous generic value of a 'typical' force is that the if the scenario is all infantry for the defender it'd be odd and contrary to the scenario designers intentions if off map there are tanks and ATG aplenty killing off a flanker.

Turning the ability to flank off would seem a bit too rigid in countering this. Having the flank defenders resemble the map defenders would keep the nature of the battle much better.

[YankeeDog]

Well, if you like it probably wouldn't bee too hard to give the scenario designer a "restrict off-map fire to same type as on-map" option.

The program could then just randomly select from whatever's on the map when a "yes" result is generated.

Actually, the coolest thing would be to actually give the designer access to the period/region/combatant TOE, and let him pick what units are eligible to be selected for flanking fire. Then the designer could restrict to what's on map, or not, as he chooses, and also really fine-tune the deadliness of the off-map fire.

Again, not too complicated, since we're talking about simple selections offa database the game already has, and I would LOVE to see something like this in the game, but ebry additional complexity gets us closer to violating KISS. . . I'd rather see *some* kind of Active Map Edge option than none at all, even if it is just Tom's morale hit idea.

Cheers,

YD

[Tarkus]

This problem was brought up in a CMx2 thread somewhere, but not for very long, and without much results.

Although I agree that the map edge is indeed a thing to look at and to fix, I'm not 100% convinced by YD proposal, althought I find it better that what is in right now. I mean, I totally understand the aim, which is to keep the player from sneaking up the edge and getting a 100% worry-free flank, but I'm not sure I'd be too happy to loose my troops to an automatic thing to which I cannot respond. It would be "woosh!" and that's it?

If only for the sake of debating the whole concept, I would suggest an alternate way to look at the problem. I do not think it is necessary better than the previous proposal, but looking at two solutions may help to consider the problem from different angles. I know Steve told us not to get into too specific features, but I have to to make my case.

Anyway, by allowing the designer to extend the map, and designate part of it, beyond the dreaded "edges", as some sort of secondary terrain, he could gets more control on this restricting factor of "edges". Then he could place adjacent units that would receive some SOPs and stance factors, orders, cover arcs or whatever. These would not be under player control but only on his side. They could also be out of the "spoting" and C&C systems we still don't know too much about.

By not allowing the player to place waypoints on this "secondary" terrain features (that could be drawn with varying surfaces, not necessarily straight), we could avoid the problem of this feature being a false limitation. Units receiving fire from secondary terrain could respond but not move into this terrain, except, say, from AI moving to cover.

Of course, it is still unrealistic to restrict movement, but less so than having an absolute void.

I'm pretty sure I'm looking at this a bit to hastily, but still, I hope it can feed the debate somehow.

Cheers.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

What you desribe would be even more ideal. More tools to the designer without overly complicated mechanics behind the scene. I like it... a lot.

*I replied to Yankee Dogs post. I can't believe it took me more then 3 minutes writing and rephrasing two and a half sentences. Aaagh*

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

Although I agree that the map edge is indeed a thing to look at and to fix, I'm not 100% convinced by YD proposal, althought I find it better that what is in right now. I mean, I totally understand the aim, which is to keep the player from sneaking up the edge and getting a 100% worry-free flank, but I'm not sure I'd be too happy to loose my troops to an automatic thing to which I cannot respond. It would be "woosh!" and that's it?

Exactly. As annoying as map edges are, I think randomly losing units which happen to stray into a "danger zone" would be even more so. Most of this is looking at the situation from the POV of the "victim," the defender. Look at it from the attacker's point of view, and it's clear that random fire to which you cannot respond just makes the attacker the victim. No one would go near a map edge under this system, so the edges would go from an attacker exploit to a defender exploit, because they could be safely left undefended.

If nearby units reinforce, or join the battle, they need to really join it, so that the attacker can deal with them.

I agree, a true dynamic map edge is not simple (though it's not all that complex--some ops have a dynamic map edge as it is, just change the axis and you've almost got it in CMx1), just giving the scenario designer a fuller set of reinforcement triggers would allow those who wanted to to take care of this problem, by triggering a chance of reinforcements if an enemy entered certain zones.

I assume/hope that many more options will be added to the scenario editor, and flexible reinforcement triggers are an obvious one, so I think there's a fair chance that this problem will be addressable, even without wonderful things like dynamic maps.

[GreenAsJade]

I think the original idea is great.

As has been demonstrated, getting more sophisticated gets more problematic.

I *dont* like the idea of using morale as a disuader. It's already been shown to be prone to problems (half squad debate).

Having random fire come from off-map at near-map-edge units is a fantastic simple idea for an irritating issue of unrealism.

BTS - look here!!

[GreenAsJade]

YD - maybe rename your thread "CMx2 idea: solution to edge hugging".

It's not that crazy.

GaJ.

[dumrox]

What about having the game support a 45 degree board rotation, so players start from, and have friendly corners rather than sides. This would force a flanking player to swing even wider and could conceiveably give a defending player a smaller front to cover. I believe this has been used in various scenarios and gentlemen's agreements in the current series. I've never played a game under those conditions. If anybody has, how did it work out?

[Battlefront.com]

Guys,

We've had many long discussions about this in the past. The conclusion I have always come to after seeing many ideas, with the pros/cons of them debated by you guys, is that this is a huge can of worms and it is almost certainly better left "as is". Although imperfect, it is most likely on balance fairer, realistic, and playable to have map edges be nothing special. Therefore, we will be making no special map edge rules in CMx2. That's a certain point not subject to change.

One of the thing commonly missing from the Anti-Map Edge Hugger Association is the fact that it is not a clear cut benefit to one side or the other. It is map, unit, weather, and luck dependent. I remember early in the CMBO Alpha game between Moon and Fionn this lesson was clearly shown. In it Martin had "hugged" one edge with a group of Shermans. His intention was to catch Fionn's advancing armor in a cross fire. Well... when Fionn's tanks came into the kill zone Martin's missed and Fionn's, for the most part, didn't. Martin's tanks were stuck with nowhere to run. Fionn pulled back and kept out of LOS, thereby leaving Martin's one remaining Sherman stuck. Fionn then snuck some infantry through the woods on the edge of the map and dispatched the last Sherman with a Panzerfaust. And this is just an example from before the game even went Beta

In short... although it is unrealistic in some cases to have assured protection along the map edge, it is just as unrealistic that there is an edge that can't be crossed over in case of danger. As far as I am concerned, the two ON AVERAGE balance each other out. Not a perfect solution, for sure, but neither are the ones I've seen proposed to fix map edges. Some of them are for sure worse than the current situation

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, you guys aren't following through with your logic about simulated defender flanking units along the map edges. Don't feel bad... every discussion we've had in the past falls into the same logic gap

When people talk about neighboring terrain or units, the whole issue of expanding scope seems to be absent. The most obvious example which is over looked is presumption that only the defender has units on the flanks, never the attacker. This means that the atacker along a map edge is somehow able to be shot at by neighboring units in another sector, yet the attacker has no friendly units in the neighboring sector to attack the ones that are attacking his force along the edge. As a standard rule this is nonsense right from the start. Carried further, what if the map is completely flat and featureless? Why should the edges be any more or less dangerous than the middle? I mean, if an AT gun "off map" can hit something x meters in from the edge, why not y meters from the edge? And who is to say the neighboring unit has a weapon capable of hitting the advancing enemy unit? And what if the map is overall really dense and therefore LOS along the edges is practically nil... why should one lose a piece of armor or infantry to something that likely couldn't get LOS to it?

The whole notion of expanding the edges to accomodate unplayble terrain and support units is really flawed logic from the start, which is why it is so easy to poke holes in any system that comes up which proposes to simulate neighboring units. It's a typical "scope creep" issue that if followed through means the entire damned front needs to be simulated in order to have the edges for one company wide sector realistically simulated

Again, we aren't touching this one at all. It simply is far more trouble than it is worth. At the very least it is a potentially huge black hole that could suck up valuable time and resources that should be spent on making a dozen other things that are more relevant function better.

Steve