A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

[YankeeDog]

Steve,

I'm probably beating a dead horse, but one point I still feel the need to respond to:

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.

Yes, we really do fundameltally disagree. To my mind, the whole reason why the system would work is that camping units just 1m from the "Active Edge" would not be the same as putting them 1m from the real map edge. The beauty of the whole system is that, in the situation you describe, the other player still has the ability to flank the "edge hugging" position by moving through the Active Zone. It's camping out in the Edge Zone for long periods of time that will kill you; short excursions would be low risk and wise when the tactical gain was substantial.

I also dispute that such and idea would never work, or has never been done before -- I do recall using some very simple house rule "Active Edge" systems in old pen-and-paper wargames (edge hugging didn't start with computer wargames!), and they worked pretty well. My specific idea may suck, but I am confident some kind of limits to excessive movement along the edges of the map is possible.

But I'm wasting my keystrokes; you disagree, and stepping back and looking at things objectively, you are far more experienced and knowledgable in these matters than I am, so I should probably listen to you. If I want to be free to mess up a computer game any way I want to, I'll go start my own software design and publishing company.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

YankeeDog,

Yes, we really do fundameltally disagree. To my mind, the whole reason why the system would work is that camping units just 1m from the "Active Edge" would not be the same as putting them 1m from the real map edge. The beauty of the whole system is that, in the situation you describe, the other player still has the ability to flank the "edge hugging" position by moving through the Active Zone. It's camping out in the Edge Zone for long periods of time that will kill you; short excursions would be low risk and wise when the tactical gain was substantial.

Which is fundamentally "gamey". If you move to the edge and get spotted by a neighboring unit in the first 30 seconds, why should you get a magical grace period?

Again, the difference here is between coming up with a gamey way to prevent a gamey tactic vs. a realistic way to limit a realistic tactic. I don't see active edges, without a LOT of work, being any more realistic and less gamey than what the system currently is like. I also think the problem is not as big as some people think it is. Like anything you don't like in an opponent... if you find people that map edge hug... don't play against them.

I also dispute that such and idea would never work,

I didn't say it would never work... just never work in a simplistic way. It's like trying to fix a boo-boo with general anesthesia and an expensive doctor, with lots of machines that go "bing" Sure, you're going to get that boo-boo fixed up nice, but at what cost?

But I'm wasting my keystrokes; you disagree, and stepping back and looking at things objectively, you are far more experienced and knowledgable in these matters than I am, so I should probably listen to you. If I want to be free to mess up a computer game any way I want to, I'll go start my own software design and publishing company.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

I havent read the whole thread so if this has been mentioned forgive me.

But why don't scenario designers just use a 'baseball diamond' approach? That is, the map has friendly 'corners'? An attack strait up the middle is actually a diaganol across the square/rectangular map? The other diagonal is the 'front-line'?

-----------

-..A.....**

-......**.-

-.....**..-

-...**....-

-..**.....-

-.**....B.-

**........-

-----------

** Front lines

So B moves towards A and has plenty of flanking room.

[ March 11, 2005, 01:47 PM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Wartgamer:

I havent read the whole thread so if this has been mentioned forgive me.

But why don't scenario designers just use a 'baseball diamond' approach? That is, the map has friendly 'corners'? An attack strait up the middle is actually a diaganol across the square/rectangular map?

-----------

-..A.....**

-......**.-

-.....**..-

-...**....-

-..**.....-

-.**....B.-

**........-

-----------

** Front lines

So B moves towards A and has plenty of flanking room.

Have you seen Assault on Kamienka? I did exactly that in one of my GD for CM scenarios.

[Wartgamer]

I havent seen that but it would seem a natural for Desert/open-plain type battles.

[Michael Dorosh]

I agree that it is a technique more designers could make good use of.

[hoolaman]

This was discussed in one of the CMX2 wish list threads. Along the lines of the diagonal idea, someone suggested ROUND maps.

Most of these ideas above are very arbitrary and cause more problems than they solve, however I think a round (or oval) map would be an elegant and effective improvement. I hope BFC considers it!

[chiavarm]

I think a simple solution would be to frame a map with relatively flat and open terrain.

Set up zones would not be allowed to enter the frame.

Units could only be moved into the frame during normal game play.

Enter at your own risk.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by GreenAsJade:

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.

I can't comment on the general worth of Walpurgis Night's opinion, but he is wrong on this one. Or maybe he is right in a very narrow sense, but then he has probably not looked very far for the kind of scenarios where this is not an issue - again affecting the worth of his opinion on the matter.

[flamingknives]

The quality of a simulation can be made or broken with it's boundary conditions. If you're simulating a mass attack on a section of continuous front, then the map edge can be a problem. If, however, the attack falls on a comparitively isolated tactically or strategicly important objective, the map edge isn't as much of a problem.

Andreas' "Gefectsaufklarung" in CMBB is a good example. a diamond shaped map and a situation where the combat zone is essentially isolated from the rest of the ongoing operation. You may edge hug, but it isn't gamey.

Also, especially in the desert or the Russian steppes or in poor visibility, the defender cannot possibly put up a coherent line - it has to be strongpoints that can interdict supply lines if the enemy attempts to bypass.

[Andrew H.]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

Andreas' "Gefectsaufklarung" in CMBB is a good example. a diamond shaped map and a situation where the combat zone is essentially isolated from the rest of the ongoing operation. You may edge hug, but it isn't gamey.

Sort of similar situation in his "Cemetery Hill" - the defenders are not trying to hold a line across the entire map, but are in a - IIRC - roughly semi-circular defensive position where the widest portion of the half circle is < the width of the map edge. Which means that you can go all the way to the back edge if you want...but it's not particularly a good idea because it basically means that you are driving parallel to the enemy's defenses, and narrowing your own internal lines of communication.

[Andreas]

Two more of mine that I can think of where IMO Walpurgis Night's alleged statement does not hold true:

'A visit at dawn' and

'The dirt road'

Can't see how edge-hugging would give you an advantage in either of them.

Using diamond-shaped maps is a good way of dealing with the problem. Simulating attacks on isolated positions in a scenario is another one.

[GreenAsJade]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

YankeeDog,

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

</font>

[GreenAsJade]

Oh - another worthwhile outcome of this thread has been the exposure of good map design techniques for avoiding map hugging.

It would be great if the QB generator could take some of these on board! I think that the idea of comparatively flat open terrain on the edges sounds particularly amenable for the QB generator, and the diamond design approach seems feasible as well.

Cheers,

GaJ.

[Battlefront.com]

GreenAsJade,

Yes - I at least was still operating with #1.

You thought wrong In the past there have been several long, involved threads kicking around the same central idea. You aren't expected to know this, of course, but it is the case.

Has BTS already thought of this specific idea?

See above.

And, more importantly, even if it BTS has thought of this idea already, isn't it just possible that the discussion here might shed new light on it?

Sometimes this happens, but not in this case. All this, and the previous discussions, shed light on is how this is not a simple thing to fix. More importantly, it is not necessarily something that is all that important to fix compared to other things.

If you are really saying that "BTS has thought of it, and thought of every possible angle on it, and so the opinion of anyone else can't add anything to it"

Not at all. What I am saying is that this idea is going in the wrong direction and so far nobody, including us, has thought of a clever and practical way to realistically restrict map edge effects. If someone did come up with a clever way, we'd do it for sure. This just isn't it.

When you design stuff for a living, anything really, if you are any good at it you tend to have a pretty good sense of the direction ideas are headed. Some are headed down the wrong road but the designer see something the others didn't, and therefore diverts the concept onto another path. But the further down the path the idea goes without getting to the end, the less of a chance the idea can be diverted onto a useful path towards the end goal. This concept is the latter. "Simple" ideas that quickly rely upon other ideas and assumptions just to keep it on track are neither simple nor are they likely to work. Learning how to spot this when it starts to happen is part learned and part intuition.

This would leave me curious about what it is that our opinions could be worthwhile on, though?

Tons of stuff. One thing you guys are very good at are kicking tires to see if things will work as expected. Well, at least if the person making the suggestion is BF.C For some reason the tire kicking seems to get a little, well, sporadically applied when the idea comes form within the Forum first. Not always, mind you, but I've seen it happen more than a few times.

I'm coming away with the impression from this thread that the game experts have already thought of anyhting anyone else could think of and therefore there's nothing that anyone else can contribute of value. I acknowledge that this could be an unfair leap from a specific case to a general case. A leap like that should be made only with some care. But it is an impression that's building.

Hopefully the above will reassure you. This is not a new idea, it has not been successfully defended in the past, and as clear as can be in this thread has not been successfully defended here. It is a hopelessly endless development drain that we're staying away from like the Bubonic Plague.

Is there ever going to be a case where someone other than BTS's suggestion doesn't end up being ruled out as "this wasn't already implemented because of #4"?

Sure, there are tons of cases. I wouldn't be here if I didn't believe this. Why do you think it took so long to make CMBO? Because of all the user suggestions we hadn't thought of. You buggers probably added 6 months to our development schedule Right now there isn't MUCH for you guys to come up with simply because you don't have something in front of you to tire kick.

As I said before, users are far better at giving narrow feedback, not as good giving visionary feedback. That is a general truism, not something limited to wargame development. In the past I have directed people to watch the Simpson's episode where Homer is put in charge of designing cars. The storyline from that episode was not plucked out of thin air, that's for sure!

It would be illuminating to see an example of such a case.

At the risk of making Emrys' head bigger

http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=30;t=003684#000007

What you guys have to do is accept the fact that MOST ideas are absolute crap. A small amount are good in theory, not so great in practice. Only a tiny number are worthy of being acted upon. Again, it doesn't matter what type of designing you're talking about, the same truths apply to them as well. A good designer is simply someone who tends to gravitate more towards the 2nd and 3rd groups of ideas rather than the 1st. But as evidenced by all the horribly designed stuff out in the world, it is pretty clear that there aren't as many good designers as there are bad ones

Oh - another worthwhile outcome of this thread has been the exposure of good map design techniques for avoiding map hugging.

Note that there is disagreement about the severity of the problem. Kinda reminds me of all the complaints about how "impossible" it was to win against certain combos of units, terrain, or techniques (like split squads, as we recently discussed in detail on the CMBB Forum). Can edge hugging be a benefit to one side or another? Sure. Is it as black and white beneficial as some make it out to be? Absolutely not. So the question isn't "is there a problem", rather "how much of a problem is it and how much resources should be devoted to fixing it". Our position is that it isn't a big problem and it isn't something we should harm other things in order to fix.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Using diamond-shaped maps is a good way of dealing with the problem.

Except that you get some funky retreat/rout behaviour. Funkier than it already is in a normal E-W or N-S setup

This could be improved in CMx2, but it isn't a universal pancea in CMx1.

Incidentally, the same problem also aflicts isolated-position scenarios, though to a lesser extent, and only if you try to flank the posiiton, rather than going up the guts.

[GreenAsJade]

Thanks Steve - this one's squared away for me now.

GaJ.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I'm still not sold on the idea that keeping it as it is now is better. I just can't believe that the 'dropping of the edge of the earth'/'bullet proof' map edge concept is the best BFC can come up with. Oh, I don't know, maybe it's not worthwhile for BFC bolting on such a feature as proposed. But please, please, do not say it's better the way it's now. I've played numerous games saying it is not.

[Battlefront.com]

GreenAsJade,

Glad we got that cleared up

Elmar Bijlsma

I just can't believe that the 'dropping of the edge of the earth'/'bullet proof' map edge concept is the best BFC can come up with.

For now, believe it. And hopefully that will register with you guys. We, Battlefront, are well known for tackling difficult stuff and coming up with really good, smooth implementations that take that feature to a whole new level. You KNOW we don't shy away from innovation. And yet... here I am saying that this isn't something that can be easily fixed. In fact, we think it is so difficult to fix that it isn't even on our radar screen mostly because we don't think there is a way that is, on balance, better than the system right now. Also we don't think it is a priority thing to fix.

But please, please, do not say it's better the way it's now.

It's better the way it is now vs. the Pandora's Box concept proposed in this (and earlier) threads. Remember, just because you THINK an idea might lead to better results doesn't mean that it will.

Gamers have a tendency to see only what they want to see in a feature proposal, not the way it might actually work if it was implemented. So the feature either gets unfairly knocked or cheered. In this case "cheered" by some when, I say quite strongly, you should all be deathly afraid of us trying something like this.

I've played numerous games saying it is not.

You've likely played far more games where this was not an issue (either that or you're playing against the wrong person ).

Having said all that, if someone were to come up with some sort of simple and clean system to realistically simulate the wider battle, we're all ears. Just because we doubt such an idea exists out there doesn't mean it is so. But I wouldn't knock yourselves out searching for one since the likely return on brain juice investment is very, very low.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

Here's an idea thats abstracted but fun.

Variable Cost Minefields. When you put mines along the map edges, they don't 'cost' as much.

Or how about a ..(drumroll).. GIGANTIC HEXAGON?

[ March 13, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Wartgamer ]

[aka_tom_w]

or the circle map?

the hexagon map is a good idea too

what about a map like this

...... _____________

.... ( ................... )

..( ......................... )

.(................................)

...( .......................... )

......(______________)

only more circlar

___

(___)

just allow wide edges on the map

BUT as simple as that is both players

would STILL find it easy to hug the map edge

all the way out there :confused:

oh well

-tom w

[Battlefront.com]

Variable costs for defensive options based on proximity doesn't make any sense. First of all, you must purchase your units BEFORE deployment, so it simply doesn't work from a functional standpoint. Secondly, it is an arbitrary, unrealistic type suggestion that is unlikely to have any real impact since it only works if the defender has a whole bunch of mines.

Map shapes, IMHO, are rather gamey. In real life the attacker should have no arbitrary restrictions on the attack route he chooses. It would be like the French crying foul about the Germans' chosen attack route in 1940. "They hugged the map edge and got around our beautiful Maginot Line!! That was SOOOOO gamey"

Guys, I really don't get it. If the scenario designer wants to ensure that the attacker can only go down the middle, make the map narrower in relation to the forces. If a map is only 400m wide and you have 3 companies of troops... guess what? You're going to see the attacker go right down the middle.

What I see happening here is that people want their cake and to be abe to eat it too. You want the possibility of flank attacks, but not the ramifications of them (i.e. getting around a well planned defensive line). Conceptually the lack of threat from flanks works equally well for both attacker and defender, so that is a null and void argument. Anybody that thinks this is not the case should look at all the assumptions the defender can make that a real defender wouldn't be so safe to make.

As it is, the scenario designer in CMx2 will have a lot more control over objectives and the like, which will likely aid designers in making the kind of scenario they want. Also, Realtive Spotting and FOW settings will make it much more difficult to pull off the sorts of "gamey" edge hugging tactics from working unrealistically since. Remember, uncertainty generally works to the defender's advantage and therefore an attacker that puts all his eggs in one basket is more likely to fail in CMx2 than he would in CMx1.

On a scale of 1 to 10 I think the whole map edge thing ranks at about a 3 when taken all on its own, and about a 1 when compared to the other things we feel CMx2 can improve on over CMx1.

Steve

[Wartgamer]

But the player, could see the map first in a newly designed game, place the mines, and be debited IF the purchase routine were revamped.

Will the maps shrink in cmx2? I suppose you might not know till you find out, but in general what is the shoot-for size envisioned?

[YankeeDog]

My, my. This thing is still going on? I'm not sure whether to be flattered or embarrased -- I've never had one of my threads inspire a Peng challenge title before!!

For myself, I must admit that I still don't understand why some sort of simple abstract system that "softens" the map edges a bit wouldn't be a workable and enjoyable addition to a game like CM.

As I mentioned before, back in the pen-and-paper wargaming days, myself and the people I used to play with came up with several "house rules" designed to discourage "edge hugging", and they worked pretty well. Most of them involved some kind of small chance of a random event occuring that would damage or temporarily reduce the utility of a unit very close to the map edge, such as the player temporarily losing control of the unit, or whatever. None of them took a long time to design, nor did they require a large number of additional die rolls and calculations while playing.

So they worked well enough that we thought they added to the fun of the games, and we continued to use them. It's difficult for me to believe that some kind of similar abstraction couldn't be applied in a game like CM.

I do think it's noteworthy that a fair number of forum members have piped up about this issue; this suggests to me that perhaps there are a significant number of players out there who would appreciate some kind of Active Map Edge system.

But consider my disagreement with Steve on this matter in much the same way I consider it when I disagree with a judgment call made by, say, Joe Torre (Manager of the NY Yankees) -- in my heart of hearts, I may believe that he's pulling the pitcher at the wrong time, and I now better. But objectively I must admit he's got far more experience and knowledge in the field than I do!

So, when CMX43 comes out, and it finally has an active map edge system which becomes one of the most appreciated features among grogs and casual gamers alike, I hope I'm still around to say, "I told you so." Until then, I think I'll leave this one and go argue about firing Bren Guns from the hip er sumfink.

Cheers,

YD

[Battlefront.com]

Scale for CMx2 is planned to be about the same as CMx1. There are no deliberate plans to shrink or enlarge anything.

YankeeDog,

So they worked well enough that we thought they added to the fun of the games, and we continued to use them. It's difficult for me to believe that some kind of similar abstraction couldn't be applied in a game like CM.

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.

The problem with the Active Edge concept is that in its most simple form it is highly abstract. That wouldn't be a problem for if the rest of the game is highly abstracted (like a paper/dice game), but it is a big deal when the rest of the game is highly complex and geared towards realism. For things to be in balance the Active Edge system would have to be refined to complement the rest of the game's level of realism, and that is where the Pandora's Box issues come up. In other words, trying to flesh out the Active Edge abstraction so that it works in harmony with the rest of the game system.

I do think it's noteworthy that a fair number of forum members have piped up about this issue; this suggests to me that perhaps there are a significant number of players out there who would appreciate some kind of Active Map Edge system.

True, if it worked as you imagine it would. I am saying that it wouldn't and therefore a lot of effort would have been invested in something that people would ultimately be dissatisfied with. See previous my previous post.

But objectively I must admit he's got far more experience and knowledge in the field than I do!

I'm always happy to hear people's comments and suggestions when it comes with this sort of attitude. Good stuff Discussions here generally only get derailed when this is forgoten.

Interestingly enough, Battlefront and its customers are like ying and yang. We have the experience and expertise to make a great game instead of a crappy one. You guys have the experience and expertise to know the difference When the two are comibined everybody is (relatively) happy and things are steadily improved. And that's the way we all like it

Steve