A Crazy Idea in re: Map Edges

[Battlefront.com]

Jon,

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.

You are correct about the morale hit. However, this presumes being taken under fire. Nowhere in CMx1 does a unit suddenly freak out just because someone MIGHT be on his flanks. If that were the case all units would be freaked out all the time every time

Again, the problem boils down to simulating a POSSIBLE threat on the edge vs. an ABSOLUTE threat on the edge.

GaJ,

This is another good argument agains the proposal

It is one of the strongest, that's for sure All of the work on an active edge is supposed to eliminate a gamey tactic, yet if not applied fairly it will simply just produce another gamey tactic. Remember that game tacticians always take what is given and try to find the loophole. Plug one loophole and they likely will find another. The trick is to continually marginalize the gamey loopholes by making them more brittle and less universally relevant. While edge hugging can be a benefit to the attacker, it is not an assured thing.

Going way, way back I can remember my first PBEM game with someone from outside of Battlefront. It was a meeting engagement and I was playing the Americans. I rushed forward in a broad front with support weapons in good positions to cover my advance. My guys got to within the objective area and set up a broad defensive line. I kept my armor more or less in the middle and out of sight (I hoped). My opponent, a legendary ladder Tourney player, raced his armor along the map edge with his infantry behind it. He hammered my infantry with artillery. When the artillery lifted my positions were intact but damaged in places. His infantry was hung up by my support weapons and my own artillery, partly because they were all nice and bunched up along the edge. His armor, including at least one Tiger, made it to my flank. But whadda know... my armor took him in the flank as he got near and I busted him up pretty bad because not only did I get flank shots but he had basically nowhere to go but backwards or forwards. The game ended with a victory for me and I'd say it had a lot to do with his chosen path of advance, though there were some other factors.

Boy... that was a long time ago, but it was my first experience with a CMBO edge rush and I found it fairly easy to defeat even though my opponent was a grizzled "gamey" veteran player.

Steve

[JonS]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

You are correct about the morale hit. However, this presumes being taken under fire.

Erm, isn't that why the game is called "Combat Mission", not "Nature Ramble Mission"

[Battlefront.com]

Yes But here is the difference:

The way it is now... no unit has a morale penalty unless shot at. Threat to flanks is not the same as fire at flanks.

The way it was proposed for the active edge concept... units in the magical middle only suffer a penalty if shot at, units in the enchanted edges automatically get a penaltiy as if they are being shot at all the time. Threat to flanks for one is situationally dependent, threat to flanks in the other is assumed to be actual all the time.

Again, it is the same old problem as all the other active edge suggestions. And that is, going about treating units in one part of the map inherently differently than units in another part of the map for no other reason than where they are in terms of x,y location. This is illogical since the problems a unit MIGHT suffer should have nothing to do with arbitrary grid coordinates. Instead, what MIGHT happen to a unit should be based on solid, realsitically simulated events which can be realistically manipulated by the player.

Steve

[Dook]

From the personal recollections of the platoon sergeant, 3rd Platoon, Company L, 157th Inf. Regmt, 45th ID, during the Battle of Anzio:

The machine gun section was caught in the fires of the three machine guns and could not move. The 3rd Squad had not yet come under the direct fires of the machine guns, but was receiving ricochets. I could not reach Lt. Nation since he was caught in the fire of the machine guns. Thinking I would be able to flank the German gun position by using the cover afforded by a small drainage ditch approximately 50 yards to the left, I moved the 3rd Squad to the left. As the Squad reached a position on line with the 1st and 2nd Squads, a German machine gun in 1st Battalion sector opened fire. The Squad was caught in the cross fire and two men were wounded.

So what does this historical example tell us? The 3rd Platoon of Company K was on the left flank of the Battalion's attack. It received fire from a German machine gun in the neighboring battalion's sector. So fire from neighboring defender units could affect an attacker's actions.

I don't think anybody really debates that though. The real question is what would be the best way to model such a real life incident?

- Create some active map edge that would provoke fire if 3rd Platoon approached too close or lingered too long?

- Or place a HMG on the flank of the defense and locate the platoon's objectives closer to the middle of the map?

I think the latter is preferable. As Steve has suggested, if the active edge is meant to simulate the involvement of neighboring units, why aren't those neighboring units able to engage attackers (or defenders) across the width of the map? In the example above, the German machine gun should be able to fire on any units within range that it can see rather than being limited to firing on units that may or may not cross some arbitrary edge boundary.

[Battlefront.com]

Dook,

As Steve has suggested, if the active edge is meant to simulate the involvement of neighboring units, why aren't those neighboring units able to engage attackers (or defenders) across the width of the map? In the example above, the German machine gun should be able to fire on any units within range that it can see rather than being limited to firing on units that may or may not cross some arbitrary edge boundary.

Correct. And something else I haven't mentioned... if phantom units adjacent to yours (defender

s) are firing at the attacking enemy, why then shouldn't your units obligated to fire at phantom attackers off to the edges? I mean, if this is a wider battle, then why should your sector get all the benefits of others while at the same time not being obligated to "help" other fictious battles going on in your neighboring sectors? Rather egotistical to think that your sector is the only one that matters

Yup, I can just see the howls of abuse hurtled at us as one of your carefully emplaced, critical HMGs starts firing at something that isn't even on the map, only to attract the attention of some on-map asset like a mortar or a tank. BOOM... your HMG is now dead and you have NOTHING to show for it in your battle. Yeah, so 2 phantom bad guys in a make-believe battle off to your flank are limping rather hard, but what good is that to you?

Again... active edges might be a simple theoretical concept, but man is it easy to poke holes in even at the theoretical level. It would only get worse at the implementation level, which is why we aren't going to go down that route!

Steve

[David Chapuis]

I havent been following this thread at all, since back on page 1 Steve said:

Therefore, we will be making no special map edge rules in CMx2. That's a certain point not subject to change.

However, since the topic is still around, I might as well throw in the easy answer to all of this. Dynamic map edges. Basically, every time a unit gets within 50m of a map edge, the game automatically ads an extra 10% (or 20% - whatever) of the total to that side. The game also would randomly insert units for either side when it does that 5% of the time.

So you could start with a 500m x 500m map and a company size force, and by the end of the game have a 5km x 5km map with a couple of battalions each.

I cant think of any reason that would be hard to program.

Dont forget to make it an option - because I personally like it how it is right now.

[aka_tom_w]

The map edge just GROWS larger as you approach it.

So..... logically

If I am the defender and the attacker tries to hug the map edge to sneak up on me do I see the map edge growing?

Can the map edge grow for one player only?

I "suppose" this "might" work if the new dynamic map edge would grow ONLY for one player and the other player would not see the map getting larger on on side. BUT that might lead to OTHER problems.

How about this.....

If any player approaches a map edge ALL 4 sides of the map grow by %10 AND both players see the map grow? NOW the only FOW info given away is that your opponent is approaching the map edge somewhere on the map.

BUT I think Steve was serious when he stated this: "Therefore, we will be making no special map edge rules in CMx2. That's a certain point not subject to change"

-tom w

[ March 16, 2005, 06:51 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

BUT I think Steve was serious when he stated this: "Therefore, we will be making no special map edge rules in CMx2. That's a certain point not subject to change"

-tom w

Yeah, I know. I was bored again after unsuccessfully trying to find a tcp/ip opponent, so I posted that as a joke.

I hoped my last couple lines made that clear - but apparently they didnt.

[Battlefront.com]

David,

I cant think of any reason that would be hard to program.

Funny... I can think of several To avoid elongating this thread another 10 pages I'll skip over the reasons why. But in short, I like the "Dynamic Edge" concept even less than I do the "Active Edge" concept It has all the conceptual problems as Active Edge, but now we have to actually simulate this stuff "in the flesh". Blah

Steve

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

David,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I cant think of any reason that would be hard to program.

Funny... Steve </font>

[Philippe]

When I think of the edge problem debate, I dream of large maps with the AI controling an on-map force to the left and the right of you. So you can edge-hug all you want, but you'll have gone far out of your way to get to that edge, and will be tripping over units from your own side that you don't control the whole time. Or you can move along the inner flanks of the units to the left and right of you and get shot at (and shoot back at) AI opponents. Every scenario would have to be three times as wide as it is now.

Doesn't sound very practical, but co-operative play with the AI against another AI/human team is a nice dream.