A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

[Michael Dorosh]

I think a decent scenario design would tend to minimize the effects that edge hugging could possibly have in any event, no?

[GreenAsJade]

No! And again No!

Walpurgis Night once said something like "I've never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea".

(There are people over in the ROW thread looking for you, BTW, Dorosh).

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by 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

I acknowledge you aren't going to change this, and I'm not trying to persuade you to.

However, just from a logic point of view, I'm afraid the above argument doesn't hang together.

This is because it assumes a symmetry between attacker and defender that doesn't exist.

Right now, the edges are safer for the attacker than the middle. There is a demonstrable benefit in attacking up the edge - the suprise can only come from one side, not two. Walpurgis Night - someone who's opinion is surely worth something - has said something like "I have never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea". This is what I mean by demonstrable.

By contrast, the defender has no benefit from "hugging" the edge. He _has_ to defend the middle! That is where the contested terrain is. You rarely see defensive behaviour that can be ascribed to taking advantage of the edge.

Asymmetry. The attacker benefits from coming up the side and then into the middle. The defender by and large is "in the middle" with no advantage to being on the side.

This is where incoming fire, as originally described, would increase the realism of the simulation. No longer would it clearly be an advantage to come up the side.

Of course, this could equally be applied to the defender too. If he chooses to put units waiting sneakily by the edge (with a reduced chance of being spotted due to the reduced angles from which he can be observed) then he too should be subject to random off-map fire.

The point is that it's the attacking behaviour that's going to be most modified in the direction of realism by a change like this ... it is *not* that the change would only apply to the attacker.

Again let me say that I hear you: you are not interested in improving this are of the game. You believe you've heard all the arguments, and that it's not an area worth improving. Fine - I'm not trying to argue that you should improve it. However, I am pointing out that the logic given above as part of the reason for not improving it is flawed

GaJ.

[Blutzeit]

"I've never seen a scenario where attacking up the middle was a good idea".

Isn't the edge problem intimately related to mission objectives and victory conditions. Maps are usually designed around the mission objective (doh!), and there's a limit how far the attacker can wander away from it without loosing it.

I have no idea what the new victory system will look like, maybe it will partially solve this.

But another idea, expanding on the Danger Zone, is to have a Twilight Zone. Units that go too far out on the flank risk loosing control, and will go missing. Either permanently, or temporaily, and in that case it may have taken damage. My thinking is, if the enemy flank units are abstracted (and "invisible"), so should their fire. Another thing, these zones should not be rectangular, but rather triangular or half-circle shaped.

[Tarkus]

Ok ok my idea suck. The game designer wannabe in me takes note. But modelling the whole damn front could be fun.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

I think a decent scenario design would tend to minimize the effects that edge hugging could possibly have in any event, no?

That's right. The problem isn't always present due to clever scenario design. And now that I read Steve's post, I'm not sure if it's worth going through all the problems to address this issue. Maybe this is really better left as is. It's not realistic, but it's seems to be the least problematic approach.

For a start, playing on much larger maps for a given battle size is a big part of the solution. Playing a reinforced company on a tiny map will most likely result in issues with the edge. But get the same OB on a larger map and you tend to get away from the edge while still keeping options for flanking movements. And as Blutzeit point out, you don't want to waste no time where your objectives aren't.

Cheers

[ March 11, 2005, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[aka_tom_w]

I am OK with the game the way it is now.

We don't need more scope creep.

AND Steve is right, it is a HUGE can of worms.

oh well

-tom w

[Alsatian]

CM already abstractly models dynamic flanks: strafing runs by airplanes. CM already accepts that there is some random ordinance beyond either players control that might show up at any time, so why not apply the same logic to map edges?

Since board edges are already an abstraction, I don't see any logical problems using an abstract flank capability to address the issue. That is, if the issue even needs addressing, which it sounds like it doesn't. But I don't want to go to work, so here's my two cents.

I still see some sort of abstract, generic settings by the scenario designer as a solution.

Designer gets to set basic abstract stuff like flank defender unit mix (infanty, armored, VG, etc.), set the flank attacker unit mix. Specific units randomly generated, just like in a QB. Do that for both flanks. Also set aggression levels (does the left flank of the attacker hold and fire, or is it advanding too).

Then during game, some flank defender fire has to be dedicated to the attacker in front of it; probably most, so only a portion of fire from the flank should bleed over into the board.

The whole game, flank progress is kept track of. Maybe the flank defender gets attritioned down to nothing or is overrun, that would mean the map edge gets friendly for the attacker.

Terrain on the flanks could also be set, just like the parameters of a QB already are. If the designer says the flank is woods, LOS is more limited, so less fire bleeds over into the board. If flat, open ground, then more fire bleeds over.

Hell, take it to it's most abstract and just let the designer have the ability to determine the level of flank fire for both defender and attacker: none, sparse, moderate, fair, heavy, don't even think about it.

Seems to me plenty of unit commanders in RL were frustrated by flanking units they had not control over. Why not the same lack of control in CM flanks? That logic is already applied in the form of airplane strafing runs.

[Blutzeit]

I guess the part of purpose is to abstractly simulate an extended front. But if those flank units are close enough or strong enough, why abstract them? Anyone have historical figures (distances and strengths) of what these units would have looked like in a typical CM scenario?

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

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

I didn' think a true dynamic map was likely, but (and I haven't read through all the bazillion CMx2 threads, so forgive me if it's been addressed elsewhere) are there plans for more flexibility in reinforcement triggers? If so, then a scenario designer who wishes to simulate a chance of assistance from a neighboring unit based on the enemy's position could do so, without any fundamental change in the game system.

[YankeeDog]

Steve --

While I appreciate your comments, I think I've actually followed through on the logic pretty thoroughly. IMHO, the system I've proposed works precisely because it is relatively simple and abstract. I believe your response fails consider important aspects of the map-edge issue, and my (and others) ideas to ameliorate it. To wit:

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.

Absolutely, but this doesn't apply to my idea. My idea of "Active Map Edges" is that they would apply to BOTH the attacker and defender; either side would be in danger of getting hit by abstraced off-map ordnance if the wandered into the "Edge Zone".

So the for the defender to set up in these edge zones would be pretty much suicidal -- sooner or later, bad things are going to happen to them. So the defender will have to make sure that units on his extreme flanks can thow at least some firepower to the flanks, so that they can stop any attacking units trying to make a quick end-run through the edge zone. They don't need to be able to direct a lot of firepower to the flank, just enough to slow an enemy down. If the defender can force the attacker to stop and fight from the Edge zone, the defender will have help from the abstracted off-map ordnance.

The really cool thing to my mind is that this very accurately represents the real-world tactical concept that defending units are given sectors of responsiblity, but they have to "tie-in" their flanks with neighboring units -- they need to be able to offer some help, usually in the form of flanking fire, to stop enemy units running along the seam between two companies, or battalions, or whatever, and in return they can expect same from their neighbors.

Similarly, it would be inadvisable for the attacker to make any large, sustained movements through the edge zone. For the most part, he's probably going to pretty much stay out of the edge zones, and the battle is going to be fought as if they weren't even there, UNLESS the defender tries to pull a stunt like the ones I've mentioned before -- using the edge of the map to shield the flank of a high-value unit, for example. The attacker can then use the edge zone to maneuver and counter the move, albiet not without risk.

Simply put, the Active Map Edge abstractly represents that there is a wider battle going on beyond the map edge for BOTH sides, and units too close to the edge run the risk of getting involved with the wider fight.

I mean, if an AT gun "off map" can hit something x meters in from the edge, why not y meters from the edge?

Sure. But the same can be said of any abstraction in a model. As I'm sure you're well aware, if you set the goal of perfectly model reality, you're never get anywhere. The idea is to make adjustments and add functions that, that improve the model so it *better* represents reality.

Also, this statement is partially contradictory to your comments in the previous quote about units to the flanks having their own problems to worry about. Adjacent units absolutely have their own problems to worry about, which is why they're not going to get involved with shooting at an enemy unit somewhere way down the line. But as an enemy gets closer (along the map edge, in CM terms), becomes more and more likely that it will fall into the fire zone of an abstracted enemy.

So, no, I don't see how the fact that an off-map AT Gun somewhere on a flank MIGHT able to target a tank in the center of the game map negates the value of modeling off-map fire along the map edge, where such a thing is *most likely* to happen.

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?

Absolutely, which is why the depth of the "Edge Zone" should be ADJUSTABLE. Close terrain like woods or urban? Set it to just 50m. Big wide open terrain like the kind of desert stuff we see sometimes in CMAK? Set it to 400m. As long as the designer has some ability to adjust (a) the depth of the "Edge Zone", ( the probability of a fire event, and © the kind of fire, he can adjust it to match whatever terrain, LOS and combatant conditions are present in the scenario.

The whole notion of expanding the edges to accomodate unplayble terrain and support units is really flawed logic from the start,

Ummm. . . don't Air Support units in CM presently fall under the category of a unplayable support unit that travels over unplayable terrain?

Not trying to get your goat, and Air Support units may not be the best example considering the amount of griping you hear on this forum about the Air Unit modeling, but I'm just pointing out that BFC has used abstractions before in order to model tactical realities that the player should have little control over.

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

I can absolutely appreciate this, which is why, as mentioned, I think a relatively simple idea that abstractly represents flanking fire in a limited zone along the edge of the map is most appropriate. Keep gameplay focused on the map, but penalize players who unrealitically use the map edge as a tool with a simple abstraction. Works for me.

Weather forecasters try to model the movement of every air molecule on the planet in order to make a local forcast. They make some simple, educated assumptions about what's going on outside the local system, and run their forecast models from there. Admittedly, sometimes, they're wrong, but most of the time they do pretty well.

Similarly, I'm certainly not advocating the need to model what's happening beyond the map edge in minute detail (even if such a thing were possible!). But some simple abstractions about how the greater world is affecting what's going on on-map would, IMHO improve both the realism and the gameplay.

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.

Well, I'm sorry to hear that, but I do appreciate that you guys have a lot of things to work on with the new engine, and I certainly wouldn't want something like this taking time away from more important, basic combat modeling issues. But I respectfully disagree that such as system would be "more trouble than it's worth." My SWAG is that a simple, abstract Active Map Edge system wouldn't take *too* long to implement, and would add a considerable amount to realism and gameplay, and be a welcome tool for scenario designers.

I do hope you'll keep an open mind to some kind of map edge abstraction like this in a future iteration of CMX2, if you're not going to look at it for the initial release.

And, as always, thanks for taking the time to respond.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Absolutely, but this doesn't apply to my idea. My idea of "Active Map Edges" is that they would apply to BOTH the attacker and defender; either side would be in danger of getting hit by abstraced off-map ordnance if the wandered into the "Edge Zone".

Still unrealistic. If BOTH sides have units off the edge, wouldn't they be engaging each other and therefore not paying so much attention to what is going on in their neighbor's sector?

Simply put, the Active Map Edge abstractly represents that there is a wider battle going on beyond the map edge for BOTH sides, and units too close to the edge run the risk of getting involved with the wider fight.

Yes, but a wider fight that isn't simulated in any meaningful way. What the "active edge" concept (as it is being discussed here and has been discussed before) is akin to making the map smaller since people will avoid the magical strips on either side. So what's the point?

The truth is that neighboring units could sometimes shoot clear across several friendly sectors. So why just limit the "wider battle" to a rather arbitrary strip of territory that is neatly parallel to the edges of an arbitrary strip of the battlefield? And what determines the capability of the forces available to the wider battle? For example, if the defending force has the entire Battalion's worth of AT Guns, that would mean the neighboring units would have none. Well, unless one of the neighboring companies was from a neighboring Battalion, in which case perhaps on one side of the map there is another platoon of AT Guns. Whose to say what case exists for a given game?

Sure. But the same can be said of any abstraction in a model. As I'm sure you're well aware, if you set the goal of perfectly model reality, you're never get anywhere. The idea is to make adjustments and add functions that, that improve the model so it *better* represents reality.

I agree with the principle, but strongly disagree that this concept is any MORE realistic than the way it currently exists. What it is, without question, is a crudload more involved. The more detailed an abstraction becomes, the more likely it is that something will go wrong with it, requiring more attention and refinement. So we only mess with abstractions like this if we intend on going to a far greater degree of realism since going 1/2 way is generally worse than not going into it at all.

Also, this statement is partially contradictory to your comments in the previous quote about units to the flanks having their own problems to worry about. Adjacent units absolutely have their own problems to worry about, which is why they're not going to get involved with shooting at an enemy unit somewhere way down the line.

Not contradictory at all. I am saying there is a huge variable range of situations and to assume ONE situation as the norm is a very bad idea. Here is an example:

Active edge assumed to be 100m wide (and that is pretty damned wide). Attacking tank force is using a road 50m from the edge in dense forest. Tank explodes from an AT round. Another attacking tank is 110m from the edge on the side of a completely exposed hill, not even shot at. How is this realistic? You got one tank in awesome cover killed by a phantom that could be 200m or 300m distant, yet you have another one just over the magical boundary, fully exposed and well within decent AT gun range, that gets off without a hitch.

Reality issues... the tank along the edge shouldn't have even been spotted, much less shot at. Tank in the arbitrary safety of the non-active edge terrain is unrealistically immune from the "wider battle". And this doesn't even scratch the surface of what assets the mythical edge forces should have, what their ability is to use them, how the player can respond to them, etc., etc.

So, no, I don't see how the fact that an off-map AT Gun somewhere on a flank MIGHT able to target a tank in the center of the game map negates the value of modeling off-map fire along the map edge, where such a thing is *most likely* to happen.

Strongly disagree. A German 88 has an effective range of about 2000m. The average CM map is perhaps 1/2 as wide as that. A mythical 88 positioned on the very edge of the map could shoot straight across, and kill, practically anything it can see from one side of the map to the other. AT guns would NOT be hamstrung into "that is not my sector, therefore I won't shoot at it" since by general definition their "sectors" are larger than that of the infantry. And that means, in an abstracted system like you're talking about, the center of the map should be no more or less safe than the edges. Period.

Not trying to get your goat, and Air Support units may not be the best example considering the amount of griping you hear on this forum about the Air Unit modeling, but I'm just pointing out that BFC has used abstractions before in order to model tactical realities that the player should have little control over.

Apples to oranges. An air asset is unique in that it must pass over other sectors in order to come into play on the CM battlefield. It is also a single, definable asset that has known properties and behaves according to non-abstract rules once it comes into play. Plus, friendly AA units can shoot at the plane before it comes into play. Bottom line is that we HAD to create an abstraction for this because a lack of one would be, on balance, unrealistic. The active edge idea flunks this test because, as I have always maintained, on balance it is no better and very likely worse than the current system in regards to realism and playability.

My SWAG is that a simple, abstract Active Map Edge system wouldn't take *too* long to implement, and would add a considerable amount to realism and gameplay, and be a welcome tool for scenario designers.

Gamers, in general, have a horrible appreciation for what "simple changes" mean in development reality. As a design I can poke your "simple" system so full of holes that it couldn't possibly hold any water. So then the design either needs to be patched up or abandoned.

My expert (and I don't use that term lightly here) is that the "active edge" concept is neither "simple" nor is it "realistic". If it was really "simple" and "realistic" we'd put it in. The only reason to NOT put it in, if this were the case, is if we were unimaginative (i.e. we don't "get it") and/or unconcerned about making a better game and/or lazy. I think it is safe to say that we've shown that none of these are true, and therefore you should accept the fact that from a realistic development standpoint the concept is neither "simple" nr "realistic" as presented. I, of course, am willing to go further and say that even a more complicated system would not be realistic either. It is a big can of worms and we ain't interested in opening it because we've peeked inside and boy... they is UGLY worms

Steve

[ March 11, 2005, 08:54 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Michael Dorosh]

I think it is easy to lose track of how BIG Europe was and that a battalion action might take place well out of the range or even sight of their neighbouring battalions in their own brigade/regiment. Especially on the Eastern Front, but even in NW Europe. So a system that presumes there are neighbouring units right on the map edge of any given scenario on a CM size map is going to be incorrect, historically speaking, some or even most of the time. Mobile operations were thus because there was no World War One-like anchoring of one battalion's flank on its neighbour, from the North Sea to the Swiss border.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh is quite correct. And even assuming there is a neighboring unit, there can be no assumptions what that unit might be. Could be a bunch of admin guys pushed into the front line with nothing more than ink blotters and soup spoons

The "simplicity" of the active edge idea rests on the predictability of what the typical neighboring area might be like. Since that is a false premise, one can only expect problems form such an overly simplified system. Big problems.

So why is the current abstracted system on balance better than an active edge abstraction? Because on balance it is probably just as realistic yet it has no can of worms issues attached to it.

I also say that it is a gross overstatement to say that there all scenarios are best done with edge hugging. Generally when people make such statements it turns out that they are talking about a rather narrow way of playing the game (for example, QuickBattles of a particular size and feel).

Steve

[ March 11, 2005, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Melnibone]

None of the five games I'm currently playing in ROWV have any edge hugging going on at all.

[YankeeDog]

Oh well, looks like we agree to disagree, Steve.

I seem to recall that, at some point in reference to game mechanics you posted something like:

"We want to reward players who make realistic tactical choices, and discourage unrealistic ones"

Or somefink like that. To me, that's why the *option* of Active Mape Edges would be a good thing -- it would discorage unrealistic tactical behavior (unrealistic map-edge keyholes for the defender, using the map edge to make unrealistically easy end-runs), while encouraging realistic behaviour (tieing in flanks as defender, securing the flank of your advance as the attacker). I definitely agree it shouldn't apply in all situations, but that's why you should be able to turn it off.

But all your points are good ones, and I freely admit that I may be completely wrong about how easy such a system would be to implement. In my defense, I did think about it a fair amount, even going so far as throwing together a simple Visual Basic routine in Excel that calculated the Off-map Fire events. My thought was that, since I was able to come up with a simple 3-step system with only and a 3-4 small tables that would work for a pen-and-paper wargame (with no player discretion or value judgement, just a simple measure of the distance to the map edge), that it wouldn't be too difficult to add to a computer game. But again, I'll freely admit I'm no expert there since the last computer game I programmed myself was in sixth grade, when I managed to create a rather buggy pong-like game on an Apple II. I'm sure it's a fair bit more complicated to create something like CM!!

Thanks for the throughness of your response, though. It always impresses me when you guys take the time to respond to my (or others') crazy ideas in such detail.

Cheers,

YD

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dorosh is quite correct.[snip]

Careful there. Don't close a can of worm to open another.

[aka_tom_w]

Gulf War I

The ulimtate REAL life gamey move.....

Was that not JUST one VERY large gamey edge hugging armoured outflanking manouvre into the deep desert to go ALL the way around the Iraqi defensive positions?

There ware plenty of real life gamey examples of edge hugging.

Straight up the middle is not always best and some times one side or the other will try and out flanking manouvre. All all psrt of tactics and war and combat.

Was Swhartzkpoff's out flanking manouvre in Gulf War I gamey??

Who cares? it worked.

Edge hugging is just one of many approaches and tactics to play a scenerio, both sides know about it and both sides should be prepared to deal with any edge hugging activity.

Its all just part of the game and remember it is JUST a game.

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Oh well, looks like we agree to disagree, Steve.

And that's fine, but you should keep in mind that if something is really simple to do, and obviously beneficial, in your mind... you should ask yourself... why hasn't it been done before? The answers usually are:

1. Because nobody thought of it until now.

2. Because game designers are incompetent compared to game players.

3. Because the designers only care about money while game players only about the game.

4. Because the designers understand ramifications and limitations at a far deeper level than game players.

I think by simple process of elimination we are left with #4. So... by disagreeing with me you are, in effect, saying that one of the other three conditions is responsible for us actively arguing against the concept. And if you aren't saying that, then you by default have to agree with #4

I seem to recall that, at some point in reference to game mechanics you posted something like:

"We want to reward players who make realistic tactical choices, and discourage unrealistic ones"

True, but this is a general philosophy which can not be arbitrarily applied to one concept without qualification. In this case, I'd say another philosophy trumps this one... "in some cases the cure is worse than the disease. Not recognizing when that is the case can lead to serious injury, or even death, of the patient".

Or somefink like that. To me, that's why the *option* of Active Mape Edges would be a good thing -- it would discorage unrealistic tactical behavior (unrealistic map-edge keyholes for the defender, using the map edge to make unrealistically easy end-runs), while encouraging realistic behaviour (tieing in flanks as defender, securing the flank of your advance as the attacker). I definitely agree it shouldn't apply in all situations, but that's why you should be able to turn it off.

See... this is where we fundamentally disagree. The "edge huggers" will simply learn where the active edge is and hug 1 meter interior to it. You'll get the same outcome as current maps, but with less flexibility for both defender and attacker.

But all your points are good ones, and I freely admit that I may be completely wrong about how easy such a system would be to implement. In my defense, I did think about it a fair amount, even going so far as throwing together a simple Visual Basic routine in Excel that calculated the Off-map Fire events.

The problem is that once you go down this route then it is no longer "simple". The more you try to refine the behavior, the less abstracted it becomes, the more important it is to have things simulated to a greater fidelity. If you can not identify the line where one crosses between "simple abstraction" and "quagmire concept" then it is a good idea to avoid the thing entirely OR to rethink the core concept.

Thanks for the throughness of your response, though. It always impresses me when you guys take the time to respond to my (or others') crazy ideas in such detail.

Sometimes these crazy ideas do translate into something we can use, even if we just get a kernel of an idea from the discussion. But in this case... I don't think there are any easy solutions. Each time we've discussed this topic it has come down to the same sort of abstracted active edge concept. And that is not surprising since it is probably the only meaningful way to simulate events in other sectors. So the problem with the active edge idea is not the concept itself, but the ramifications of it on the rest of the simulation, development resources, and playability. And that is why we aren't touching it with a 10' pole

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Yes... CMx2 will have a lot more control over where and how reinforcements come into play. This could be used as a tool to limit edge hugging, though I really doubt it. Edge hugging is a player choice and therefore shouldn't become an obsession of the scenario designer to this degree. In other words, reinforcements should come into play in a way that makes sense to the scenario, not in a way that is deliberately targeting the edge hugger players.

Steve

[Alsatian]

Well, OK, if the debate is winding down, how about the Active Edge Advocates busy ourselves with playtesting our heresy

Borrow a map from a scenario, edit it to add board on both flanks, run strips of water down the original map edge (so neither side can wander over into the new area).

Then opponents agree on: parameters for additonal troops to be placed in the extra area; and agree that orders will not be given to these flanking forces for the duration of the battle. And, HEY!, no lumping all your flank forces on the edge of the original board for fire superiority.

During game play, each player's flanking forces should do their own auto-targeting. One big thing lacking from this playtest is that the attacking player's flanking forces aren't advancing abreast of the main board.

Any other details, rules and parameters can be worked out in the test.

But still, this might keep the Active Edge Advocates busy enough to leave Battlefront alone for a while.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Tarkus:

For a start, playing on much larger maps for a given battle size is a big part of the solution. Playing a reinforced company on a tiny map will most likely result in issues with the edge. But get the same OB on a larger map and you tend to get away from the edge while still keeping options for flanking movements. And as Blutzeit point out, you don't want to waste no time where your objectives aren't.

This got me thinking about scenario length again. For the above to work (and I think it's the simplest/best solution), it assumes a turn limit that won't allow the attacker to execute a 2000-meter right hook and still reach the objective before time runs out. Of course, that brings up the gamey end-rush thing, and "if only I'd had another turn" and so on.

What I would like to see (and it's probably been mentioned before like everything else) is the turn limit being replaced with an "intensity gauge" whereby the game measures how much progress the attacker is making, how much shooting is going on, the proximity of the two sides, and how firmly the defender is standing his ground. It's sort of like a chess clock, although it would be adjustable based on the type of battle being represented. If the attacker's rate of fire/advance falls below the specified level for more than X number of turns, the battle ends and he probably loses because he's short of his objectives. If he keeps up the pressure, the battle continues. If either side's firepower is reduced through casualties and/or ammo use to the point where the minimum "combat intensity" can't be sustained, the battle ends (i.e., the attacker retires or the defender retreats/surrenders).

Since both sides know the game won't end as long as there's significant fighting going on, the defender's choice of how long to stand and fight depends on whether he's supposed to hold the objective at all costs, or delay the enemy with a fighting withdrawal.

The length of each battle, then, would be limited by the amount of ammunition available, reinforcments, and the balance of forces on each side, not a turn count. Obviously, different engagement types would require different thresholds for intensity, so a probe wouldn't require much fighting to continue, while a set-piece assault would.

I hope this isn't too off-topic; like I said, I believe it is relevant to the edge-hugging issue, even if it doesn't address the "active edge" idea. Now everyone please tell me why it's been considered and rejected before.

[Malakovski]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Yes... CMx2 will have a lot more control over where and how reinforcements come into play. This could be used as a tool to limit edge hugging, though I really doubt it. Edge hugging is a player choice and therefore shouldn't become an obsession of the scenario designer to this degree. In other words, reinforcements should come into play in a way that makes sense to the scenario, not in a way that is deliberately targeting the edge hugger players.

Steve

Thanks for addressing that question. I think edge hugging is a relatively minor problem that can already be dealt with through good scenario design. As someone mentioned, the current ROW scenarios are a good example. No edge problems in my games either.

However, I'm glad that there will be triggers to use, if the scenario designer wants to make the edge a dangerous temptation, as there certainly were cases where there was a chance adjacent units could become involved, and it would be nice to simulate that when appropriate.

[Battlefront.com]

Imprudent Warrior,

What I would like to see (and it's probably been mentioned before like everything else) is the turn limit being replaced with an "intensity gauge" whereby the game measures how much progress the attacker is making, how much shooting is going on, the proximity of the two sides, and how firmly the defender is standing his ground.

CMx1 already has this to some extent. Games can automatically end when certain balances of active forces, ammo, combat, victory levels, etc. are considered. However, CMx1 purposefully errs on the side of a battle playing out longer than it would in real life. Simple reason... it is a game and that is what gamers have told us they want (even when they say in another thread they don't ).

The same type of system will be in CMx2, though almost certainly in a different form.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Actually Alsatian that's a pretty nice idea. If I understand it CMx2 will sooner or later be multi-player. If one could arrange for two human players to battle it it out in the manner you desribe above and let two AI do the flank forces you'd be able to get a score between the players without the flank forces skewing the points score too much but still influencing the outcome. Provided BFC make a decent way of keeping track of individual scoring in multiplayer (which IMO is important to implement anyway) it could work pretty well.

[Conscript Bagger]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Imprudent Warrior,

The hell you say!

CMx1 already has this to some extent. Games can automatically end when certain balances of active forces, ammo, combat, victory levels, etc. are considered. However, CMx1 purposefully errs on the side of a battle playing out longer than it would in real life. Simple reason... it is a game and that is what gamers have told us they want (even when they say in another thread they don't ).

Acknowledged. I just wonder if having intensity be the determining factor would give more flexibility to designers and more interesting decision points for players, particularly in operations. Then again, CMx2 ops might be Totally Different.

The same type of system will be in CMx2, though almost certainly in a different form.

It does work well enough not to be called "broken" by any means, but I'm glad to hear you're looking at improvements. To the extent that I've followed recent discussions, I realize there are no sacred cows in CM.