A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

[aka_tom_w]

Its not a big deal for me.

I am OK with it just the way it is now

-tom w

[YankeeDog]

Steve,

I am making myself a liar by coming back here, but I think you just made a very interesting comment:

I think this is the key here. As some of you have seen repeated over and over again by me is about balance of abstractions. For things to work well there has to be a basic range of realism/abstraction that all features work within. The more related features are, the more similar they need to be. The more core they are, the more they affect everything else. So on and so forth.

What this means is that if you have a core that is tightly related and highly realistic, tacking on highly abstracted stuff tends to undermine the core and reduce the realism. The opposite is also true if the core is highly abstract. Ying and yang... balance, balance, balance.

This is a very good point, very well stated. It's also to interesting to think about how this applies to many other areas of life and work.

The way I see it, though one of the most inherently "abstract" as aspects of CM (or for just about any wargame I've ever played, for that matter) is the hard, absolute map edge. In fact, in many ways, I think you can argue that map edges are the ultimate abstraction -- effectively, they say, "The world ends here!"

So, to my mind, any of the Active Edge systems mentioned, while very abstract in themselves, actually have the net effect of decreasing the level of abstraction along the map edge. They take the ultimate, arbitrary abstraction -- a hard, arbitrary edge to the world, and they "soften" it just a bit.

In so doing, though, any such system would have to add complexity, and I can definitely appreciate yor points about complexity. One should always pause and consider very carefully before making anything more complex.

Actually, this is leading towards some pretty interesting questions about modeling and dynamic systems. For example: What exactly is an Abstraction? Can you put an empirical value on Abstraction? If not, what exactly do you mean when you say that one system is "more abstract" than another? How are "Abstraction" and "Realism" related? Can something be "Abstract" and "Realistic" at the same time?

Good stuff to discuss over a pint sometime. . .

Cheers,

YD

[flammenwerfer]

For Pete's sake, please lock this thread.

The horse is dead, the fat lady has sung and the chads have been counted.

[flamingknives]

I keep seeing the comparisons with Finite Element Modelling (but then I would, as that's part of what I do) and the complaints of boundary conditions in CM.

In FEM, you set the boundary at a point where it doesn't have an effect on the area of interest - could this not be applied to CM? Granted, in FEM, you can alter the effects of the boundaries, whereas the CM limits are much cruder, but isn't edge hugging a sign that the boundaries are in the wrong place?

[flammenwerfer]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

In FEM, you set the boundary at a point where it doesn't have an effect on the area of interest - could this not be applied to CM? Granted, in FEM, you can alter the effects of the boundaries, whereas the CM limits are much cruder, but isn't edge hugging a sign that the boundaries are in the wrong place?

Exactly, as was noted earlier a properly designed map solves the problem .

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

For Pete's sake, please lock this thread.

The horse is dead, the fat lady has sung and the chads have been counted.

So you're the arbiter of whether anyone else has anything interesting to say then eh, Flam?

And if there's nothing else to interest you in threads, they should be locked, eh?

Or ... what exactly?

[flammenwerfer]

Yes!! Get used to it Greeny old pal, I'm in in charge around here...

Ermm at least until my wife gets home that is.

[GreenAsJade]

Now I understand it all. Feelings of helplessness brought on by subjugation at home are taken out on innocent bystanders in the CM forum....

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

The way I see it, though one of the most inherently "abstract" as aspects of CM (or for just about any wargame I've ever played, for that matter) is the hard, absolute map edge. In fact, in many ways, I think you can argue that map edges are the ultimate abstraction -- effectively, they say, "The world ends here!"

True. We do have some very abstracted concepts mixed in with the highly realistic ones. For example, being able to purchase your own units, having the ability to dumb down FoW and not dumb down the rest of the game, the Player As God concept, minute tactical control, etc. These abstractions work better than others because of one fundamental reason: the player is already comfortable with them and/or actively wants them. Some people would like some of these changed, others kept "as is". Most emphasize options, which inherently suggests that refinement is not necessary for everybody and perhaps even detrimental.

The hard edge is a part of pretty much every wargame ever made, so it is something which the vast majority of players simply accept and therefore it doesn't get in the way of the rest of the game. Now, simply because people might be comfortable with something is not a reason to keep the status quo. Much of CM's value comes from turning the status quo on its head. But we can't do that equally well in all areas. Map edge issues are probably the least of our abstraction worries going into CMx2, yet at the same time also one of the hardest to solve. Not a strong argument for changing things.

So, to my mind, any of the Active Edge systems mentioned, while very abstract in themselves, actually have the net effect of decreasing the level of abstraction along the map edge. They take the ultimate, arbitrary abstraction -- a hard, arbitrary edge to the world, and they "soften" it just a bit.

Only if it works in practice as well as it does in theory. Otherwise you have a feature that is perhaps less abstracted, but also less realistic and/or less playable. The problem I have with the Active Edge concept is that I don't see it working very well even in theory, therefore in practice it is likely to be much, much worse. The simplified form of Active Edge is, in my strong opinion, a far less realistic and far more frustrating proposition than the abstracted feature it proposes to improve. A net negative effect is therefore not the right choice to make.

In so doing, though, any such system would have to add complexity, and I can definitely appreciate yor points about complexity. One should always pause and consider very carefully before making anything more complex.

Complexity, within reason and with a fairly predictable positive outcome, is fine if the goal is worthy of the effort. But again... a shaky concept that requires a lot of complexity just to get things started, all to solve something that isn't that big of a deal, is not the right combo of things.

Actually, this is leading towards some pretty interesting questions about modeling and dynamic systems. For example: What exactly is an Abstraction? Can you put an empirical value on Abstraction? If not, what exactly do you mean when you say that one system is "more abstract" than another? How are "Abstraction" and "Realism" related? Can something be "Abstract" and "Realistic" at the same time?

Good question. The obvious answer is that both definitions are undefined ends on a spectrum. Just like Conservatives and Liberals don't really exist in the real world according to their narrowly defined labels, there is no such thing as true Abstraction and true Realism when it comes to a simulation. Everything is somewhere inbetween. And yes, something can be both Abstracted and Realistic simultaneously. In fact, pretty much everything "realistic" in CM is based on abstractions of one sort or another since a virtual environment is by definition an abstraction of a real environment. The question is how much of an abstraction is used and how realistic are the results.

From a development standpoint the path isn't as important as the destination being sought. Given a choice we'd rather have the most abstracted systems possible producing the most realistic results since abstracted systems are usually far easier to develop than less abstracted ones. So whenever we can we use the least complex systems possible to yield acceptably realistic results. This is the philosophy that has allowed us to include so much with comparatively little investment of time and resources invested AND have that stuff basically work as intended with few bugs or unanticipated negative consequences. Screwing around with this equation of success is not a good idea.

FlamingKnives,

In FEM, you set the boundary at a point where it doesn't have an effect on the area of interest - could this not be applied to CM? Granted, in FEM, you can alter the effects of the boundaries, whereas the CM limits are much cruder, but isn't edge hugging a sign that the boundaries are in the wrong place?

The question should not be "at what point are their no effects?" since this is an impossible standard for a tactical sim since effects are felt far beyond what anybody would consider relevant to the battle itself. An example of this is the people asking us to simulate entire fronts of hundreds of thousands of men just to get the feel for a single couple hundred man battle in context with the larger war. No, the question that should instead be asked is "at what point are the effects in balance with the rest of the simulation of a battle at CM's chosen scale/scope?".

Yes, map edge hugging can, but not always, produce an unrealistic effect on a CM scale/scope battle. But having units arbitrarily, and unrealistically, penalized simply because they are using the terrain provided to them by the scenario is absolutely worse IMHO. So if it is a choice between the way it is now and a simplified Active Edge approach... I say that on balance the player feels less "effect" with the way it is now vs. the other possibility. In theory the Active Edge concept could be implemented in a way that the effects would shift over away from the current hard edge system, but the amount of effort required to do that would be inordinate to the problem being solved. And because of that the player would notice other "effects"such as longer development time, less innovation in other more important areas, more potential hassles from a player standpoint, etc.

So... I'd say no... FEM is either not applicable or is satisfied by the current arrangement compared to the alternative.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com (back a page):

In real life the attacker should have no arbitrary restrictions on the attack route he chooses.

eh? Unit boundaries, phase lines, and the like, all immediately spring to my mind.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by JonS:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com (back a page):

In real life the attacker should have no arbitrary restrictions on the attack route he chooses.

eh? Unit boundaries, phase lines, and the like, all immediately spring to my mind. </font>

[tabpub]

Been popping in and out of this thread, so I am not all the way up to date, but one different idea comes up about the edges (as one that has/will face this again and again).

Rather than have some unknown units "firing" on a "hugger", how about assessing a "morale check" on them?

Kind of like this - the further a unit is away from its baseline and in the "danger zone" on the edge, it takes a check against its experience level of increasing severity. Basically, the result would be that green/conscripts would rarely go far forward in that situation, while crack/elite would stand a far greater chance of proceeding.

A failed check would cause the unit to "pin", as it tries to assess the situation. Later, if it passes, then it may continue plotted move. You could either use the current pin model for this, or have the failed unit add a 60 second delay to its current plot, causing it to stop advancing.

Things that could counter this "edge effect" would be the presence/effect of leadership, the higher rank/ablility the better; the degree and size of the area of effect of the edge (the designer could designate a wide/narrow effect and/or a variable degree of difficulty).

For the QB set, they could toggle it off, set it random, or be able to set it like other aspects. Same for the designers, but I would think that they would be the ones that would utilize it if it were available.

Finally, you would have to have some sort of label that the player would see, so that he/she knew what was happening to their men/units. Don't want to hear all the wailing about "why won't my men advance down the edge!?"

Flank sensitivity in gaming has always been a problem. Some situations avoid this problem by keeping the scale small. Such as "you have a company. Take this town. Start line is 200m away and you have 10 minutes to get to the objective". But, as things get bigger (and they always do), then you have a battalion attack on a town and 30 minutes to do it, but you are starting a klick away. In that situation, many people with take the "indirect route", as it is gamers nature to avoid the obvious in most circumstances.

Well, I just thought that I would run this up the pole and see if anyone likes it or not.

See you later.

[Blutzeit]

Well, as the edges become a problem only when the player goes there, the obvious solution is to play on a larger map. I personally prefer QBs, and can't always expect to talk sense to my map designer [doesn't even pass the turing test ]. The problems (and proposed solutions) are, what happens when the player flank or bypass the engaged enemy far enough to bump into other segments of the enemy front?

I've seen bones about a new and more realistic system for victory conditions, that aim to take into account the wider scope of the war. Isn't this the way do solve the problem? E.g. your battalion has orders to attack position X. Say an extended flanking move might be tactical sound for your battalion, but as such a manouvre would interfere with the objectives of another battalion, it would reduce your larger scope victory points.

[Battlefront.com]

eh? Unit boundaries, phase lines, and the like, all immediately spring to my mind.

Phase Lines are not arbitrary... they are planned in accordance with the force structure, mission, terrain, and expected enemy resistance. Map edges do not simulate phase lines and neither would the active edge. In both cases it is simply an arbitrary limitation on the world. Active Edges simply decrease the arbitrary limitations, nothing more. So if that is what the scenario designer wants... just make the map smaller. Simple as that.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

tabpub,

Rather than have some unknown units "firing" on a "hugger", how about assessing a "morale check" on them?

This has the same realism problems as the suggestion that units get shot at. In short, there is no basis in realism for such a thing and therefore it is not the right direction.

Guys, a reminder that we have always, always, stayed very clear of "gamey" solutions to "gamey" problems. Two wrongs don't make a right If there is a realism problem in CM it must be solved with a realistic centric solution in order to keep things in balance. Attacking realism problems with unrealistic solutions only breeds more unrealistic conditions which then need to be addressed. Nothing works in a vacuum, especially not in a complex computer based simulation.

Flank sensitivity in gaming has always been a problem. Some situations avoid this problem by keeping the scale small. Such as "you have a company. Take this town. Start line is 200m away and you have 10 minutes to get to the objective". But, as things get bigger (and they always do), then you have a battalion attack on a town and 30 minutes to do it, but you are starting a klick away. In that situation, many people with take the "indirect route", as it is gamers nature to avoid the obvious in most circumstances.

Correct. And whatever the scale is we make, gamers will try to make it bigger. That is a wargamer truism The many calls for turning CM into some sort of über front simulator is clear evidence of that.

Blutzeit,

I've seen bones about a new and more realistic system for victory conditions, that aim to take into account the wider scope of the war. Isn't this the way do solve the problem?

Solve? No, I don't think so. Big issues like this that involve inherent limitations on what parts of the real world can be simulated aren't likely to be solved per se. However, I do think the victory conditions and other related elements will give scenario designers options to better set punishment/rewards for certain player options. For example, making an objective in the middle of the map that MUST be taken and taken by x time. Screwing around on the flank might cost too much time and therefore is not a viable option.

This brings up an interesting game point... most players enjoy wargames because it allows them to problem solve and to experiment with possible solutions. What some of these anti-edge concepts greatly undermine this by, basically, restricting the player to a single solution (i.e. drive straight down the middle). While that is fine here and there, if it was the NORM for games then I think it would become rather dull and frustrating for most people most of the time. Again... if the designer wants there to be only one viable option, just make the map smaller. It completely eliminates the viability of edge hugging as a useful tactic and so far nobody has disputed this. So why are some of you insisting on us fixing something that already has a fix?

Steve

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

FlamingKnives,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />

In FEM, you set the boundary at a point where it doesn't have an effect on the area of interest - could this not be applied to CM? Granted, in FEM, you can alter the effects of the boundaries, whereas the CM limits are much cruder, but isn't edge hugging a sign that the boundaries are in the wrong place?

The question should not be "at what point are their no effects?" since this is an impossible standard for a tactical sim since effects are felt far beyond what anybody would consider relevant to the battle itself. An example of this is the people asking us to simulate entire fronts of hundreds of thousands of men just to get the feel for a single couple hundred man battle in context with the larger war. No, the question that should instead be asked is "at what point are the effects in balance with the rest of the simulation of a battle at CM's chosen scale/scope?".

[snips]

So... I'd say no... FEM is either not applicable or is satisfied by the current arrangement compared to the alternative.

Steve </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, that sounds spot on. In the spirt of flamingknives' use of fancy terminology, I've decided to come up with some of our own

MCF (Mission Creep Feature)

TSF (Throat Slitting Feature)

Now, I think everybody here knows how well I think the active edge concept would work (hint... it wouldn't ), while at the same time I understand that the current system is a pretty big abstraction. The big problem with fixing the edge abstraction is that some sort of active edge concept is the most obvious and tehoretically realistic direction to go, yet in reality it is the least likely to yield a positive end result. Hence the multiple threads where, despite the best efforts of us all, no workable solution surfaces.

What this tells me is that a combo of other features is likely needed to reduce the edge effect. Much like our attack on the Borg and God problems. No silver bullet. The difference, though, is that we think the Borg and God problems have a huge impact on the simulation of reality while the edge thing doesn't. So our responses to each is proportionally different (lots of energy fixing Borg and God, much less of edge hugging).

Steve

[flammenwerfer]

Speaking of pretty big abstractions, I was wondering if sewer movement will be addressed in the new build. Will the z-axis go beyond trenches, foxholes, craters...such as basements...?

thanks.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

What some of these anti-edge concepts greatly undermine this by, basically, restricting the player to a single solution (i.e. drive straight down the middle).

Not at all!

What they do is make the _risks_ of going up the edge more similar to the _risks_ of going up the middle. YD's suggestion, at least, does not restrict you to going up the middle. It just makes it equally likely that you will come under fire from the side. This single thing that this is intended to change is that you could no longer go up the side knowing that you won't come under fire from one flank. IE the side becomes equally risky as the middle.

That being said, I think that there are flaws in YD's suggestion, and I think it's right not to implement it as it stands. I'm chiming in here only because I don't like to see the wrong reasons for it not being implemented put forwards.

The only right reason for it not to be implemented that I've seen put forward is this:

The problem of edges is not big enough to justify _any_ solution being implemented.

If we want a solution implemented, this is the point that would have to be debated.

Once that point was overcome, then there would be some merit in debating potential solutions, and I would pose some of the issues I've seen with YD's solution at that time...

GaJ.

[flammenwerfer]

What they do is make the _risks_ of going up the edge more similar to the _risks_ of going up the middle. YD's suggestion, at least, does not restrict you to going up the middle. It just makes it equally likely that you will come under fire from the side.

Why should it be equal? Sounds very gamey.

What kind of fire will edgehuggers be subjected to? Firebreathing dragons (or lobsters), Is-3s, Mortar fire, High velocity rubber-bands...

[Malakovski]

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Flammenwerfer:

Why should it be equal? Sounds very gamey.

Taking the question at face value, the thing that is gamey is that it is guaranteed that a unit going up the left edge will not come under fire from it's right.

Going up the left side there is zero chance of fire from the right. Going up the middle there is non-zero chance.

It would be more _realistic_ if this were not the case.

The question _what_ fire should a unit be risking as it goes up the left edge of a conflict area is indeed one of the fundamental problems with the suggestion, and one of the reasons why I tend to agree with Steve that the proposed solution won't work.

GaJ.

[Battlefront.com]

Flammenwerfer,

Speaking of pretty big abstractions, I was wondering if sewer movement will be addressed in the new build. Will the z-axis go beyond trenches, foxholes, craters...such as basements...?

Depends on the setting, but in theory all of this is possible. However, I think it is a very bad idea to get underground stuff, like sewers, simulated in detail unless the setting is pretty much all about that. It is a real bitch to pull off underground and above ground stuff from a user interface standpoint.

GaJ.

What they do is make the _risks_ of going up the edge more similar to the _risks_ of going up the middle.

In my opinion they are, at least in terms of realistic balance. For example, would you rather go down a map edge completely flat and devoid of cover, or would you probably rather go down the middle if there is sufficient covering terrain? If your answer is anything other than "always down the edge no matter what the circumstances are" then edge hugging must certainly not be as bad as some of you make it out to be.

Attacking style is like any risk/reward equation... the more risks you take, the more reward you should get. When you attack down the map edge you are more likely to meet stiff resistance from your exposed flank rather than directly in front of you (though that can happen too, of course). When taken under fire your choices are diminished due to the lack of one direction of movement (i.e. the map edge side). In contrast, driving up the center increases the chances of being hit from the front where, in theory, it will do the least amount of damage. Flanking fire can, of course, come from either side when in the middle, but it is unlikely that a well executed attack will get hit from both simultaneously. Therefore, driving up the center is in theory just about as risky as driving along the side. However, there is one big difference... going up the center means you have all directions open to maneuver because there is no map edge boundary. Attacking just a bit off center gets you a mix of the two systems' pros and cons. Out of the three types of attacks the most risky is the edge attack, least is the off center attack. Obviously it might turn out that the edge option is the better and safer option to take, but that is not known before the attack is setup and therefore not relevant to the risk/reward equation.

I will say this... although edge hugging attacks are the most risky of attacks, they are also the easiest to do. You pretty much just barrel on ahead in a straight line and hope for the best. If conditions are favorable, and the defender hasn't adequately planned for such an event, then the attacker has a MUCH better chance of success than if he ran right down the middle. But like all "gamey" tactics it is brittle. When it works it works well, otherwise it pretty much fails miserably with far less of an in between result. A competent attack up the center or off center is more likely to succeed even if things go wrong for the attacker at some stage.

From the defender's standpoint all of the above applies as well as the benefits of knowing, with absolute certainty, that the attacker can not come from behind or from off the sides of the map. Therefore he can direct 100% of his assets to face forward instead of having to hedge his bets. This is a luxury that most defenders didn't have in real life and it means the attacker is more likely to be brought under effective fire than in real life.

Of course the types of units, terrain, weather, size of the map, type of action (probe, assault, etc.) has a huge impact on the risk/rewards of any attack plan. Anybody that doesn't think so is a fool

My point is that there is FAR more balance in this equation than CMx1's system is being credited with. It is absolutely false to say "edge hugging always works" because that is bullcrap Victims of such attacks are more likely using it as an excuse for poor defense and/or bad luck (and luck has a lot to do with planning!). In other words, when I hear someone complain about how obviously unbalancing map edge hugging is, in any and all situations, I immediately put such complaints in the same place as I did "it is impossible to win against King Tigers", "it is impossible to win against SMG squads", "it is impossible to win as the Allies", "it is impossible to win against split squads", etc. When we've looked into these other "impossible" situations we quickly found that there was no truth to them. There is no magic "gamey" formula for success in CMx1, short of carefully controlling the variables to only play the game in the way in which the strategy in question gets the most benefit from (i.e. not playing with King Tigers in the mud ).

This single thing that this is intended to change is that you could no longer go up the side knowing that you won't come under fire from one flank. IE the side becomes equally risky as the middle.

I'd bet the random and unrealistic acts of violence visited upon the edge hugging units, as has been suggested here, would not be worth the risk. Therefore smart players would do the "gamey" thing and go right up the middle all the time. I'd rather take a path that I can predict when and where I might get hit and to scout appropriately. Especially if I think the REAL defender is less potent and competent than the phantom ones off to the side.

That being said, I think that there are flaws in YD's suggestion, and I think it's right not to implement it as it stands. I'm chiming in here only because I don't like to see the wrong reasons for it not being implemented put forwards.

Not to worry... the right reason to avoid the active edge thing is because it is inherently flawed

The problem of edges is not big enough to justify _any_ solution being implemented.

If we want a solution implemented, this is the point that would have to be debated.

Actually, this is the point that I am making:

Edge hugging is not big enough problem to justify a major effort and development risk.

And the important qualifier,

If we could implement something that was truly simple and did not alter the delicate abstraction/realism balance, we would. However, we doubt that such a "silver bullet" solution exists and therefore we aren't going to spend time looking for one

In other words, it is a combo of not thinking it is a big deal AND thinking there isn't an easy way to fix it.

Steve

[JonS]

Steve,

isn't there a morale hit for CMx1 units if they receive fire from more than one direction (i.e., ahead, left, and/or right). If my recall on that is correct, then scooting down the side does indeed have a practical, tangible benefit over going up the guts.

It might be the better thing to do tactically, but it's always the better thing to do game-wise.

Jon

[ March 14, 2005, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: JonS ]

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

[QB] ]I'd bet the random and unrealistic acts of violence visited upon the edge hugging units, as has been suggested here, would not be worth the risk. Therefore smart players would do the "gamey" thing and go right up the middle all the time. I'd rather take a path that I can predict when and where I might get hit and to scout appropriately. Especially if I think the REAL defender is less potent and competent than the phantom ones off to the side.

This is another good argument agains the proposal

Cheers,

GaJ.