Plea to scenario designers re-setting up reinforcements

[Iconoclast]

While I generally love the feeling of immersion you get playing CMBB (OK, so you're *not* really cold, in danger, or any more hungry/tired/dirty than you choose to be, but you know what I mean! ), sometimes the way reinforcements are set up to enter really breaks the "believability" of the game. You've probably seen this-- a whole column of reinforcements enters the map, and is so large that the front edge of the column starts hundreds of meters into the map. I suspect this is usually not a big deal, but it can be if the scenario has played out differently than the designer envisioned.

It just happened to me in a scenario that shall remain nameless ('cuz I'm not picking on any designer in particular, just trying to make a point). I had opted to be very aggressive and gamble on a risky flanking manuveur in my setup. It worked phenomenally well, with the result that I was all the way to my opponent's map edge/victory locations by the time the scenario was only a third of the way through. I secured the victory locations and set up for a counterattack, especially from the direction of the road leading off-map. My forces flanked and in some cases were on the road, in a situation where in "real life" they would have had plentiful shots at any on-coming adversary, even if the LOS was assumed to be obstructed immediately off-map. What happened in fact was that my opponent received a full company of AFV's as reinforcements in a single turn, and the resulting column stretched over 200 meters in from the map edge. The effect was very gamey-- it was like having a column of "stealth tanks" suddenly uncloak in the midst of the defenders.

I wish scenario designers would be a little more careful with their reinforcement entry arrangements. Now that you are no longer limited to four reinforcement events as in CMBO(it's now 30, I belive), there's less of a reason to bring a whole company of armor on in a single turn at a single point. It looks bizarre and stretches plausibilty when units literally spring into existence hundreds of meters in from the map edge. Bringing a platoon on at time --or using multiple (even if adjacent) entry points to get a company on simultaneously-- is less likely to cause the game system to produce odd results like units "teleporting" into position. Arguably it better mirrors route security or air defense dispersal by troops advancing into contact as well.

It's just another factor to consider in scenario design, but one that if ignored can spoil an otherwise impressive scenario. Am I the only one to be bothered by this teleportation effect?

Jim

[ November 16, 2002, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: Iconoclast ]

[MikeT]

I tend to agree about this and would also like the ability to preload infantry onto vehicles.

MikeT

[Pvt. Ryan]

Originally posted by MikeT:

I tend to agree about this and would also like the ability to preload infantry onto vehicles.

MikeT

I believe in CMBB the AI does its best to load infantry onto vehicles when reinforcements appear. I've noticed it is much better than CMBO.

[Sitting Duck]

I remember a similar situation with a certain (awesome) CMBO scenario. I believe the scenario designer recognized the issue and issued a revised version.

I mention this because you might want to let the scenario designer know what you experienced. They might be pursuaded to issue an update.

I've not designed any scenarios myself, so forgive my ignorance, but does CMBB offer a way to make the reinforcement location a variable? It's really impossible to predict the way a human opponent will choose to handle a given scenario (part of the fun), so there is always going to be a chance for inappropriate (in a game sense) reinforcement location unless there is such a variable.

Perhaps there is some rule that BFC could implement that would eliminate the appearance of reinforcements if their appearance location is under enemy control.

Best,

Sitting Duck

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sitting Duck:

Perhaps there is some rule that BFC could implement that would eliminate the appearance of reinforcements if their appearance location is under enemy control.

Best,

Sitting Duck

A better solution would be to do what ASL did...extend the mapboard temporarily and give reinforcements an "offboard" setup zone. Prohibit any units but the reinforcements from moving on these tiles, and give the attacker one or two turns to move off of them before the setup zone "disappears" - and all units still on those tiles with it.

This gives the player the option of putting infantry in vehicles, outside the vehicles, determining order of march, etc.

[ November 16, 2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by Sitting Duck:

Perhaps there is some rule that BFC could implement that would eliminate the appearance of reinforcements if their appearance location is under enemy control.

[/QB]

I thought about whther this could be coded for in the game engine, but it seems too dynamic a nut to crack this way. "Control" might be 10m. in the case of infantry near an entry point in dense woods, or 1000m. in the case of a Tiger platoon overlooking an entry point on the steppes. Better to leave it to the scenario designer to be aware of. Since you can't always anticipate what a player will do (that's how I think I "broke" this scenario), I believe as with so much in this game you're better off going with historical practice.

In the case of reinforcements, I doubt that many commanders would drive a concentrated (company size or better) road column straight into action, hence my suggestion to break reinforcements down either temporally (stagger a company's platoons at one minute intervals) or spatially. It seems more realistic and won't produce large scale 'teleportation'.

[Hans]

or if the reinforcement area (like a victory flag) is controlled by the enemy the reinforcement doesn't come in and should be shifted to another location at 'x' distance away. The x distance being set like the buffer area in operations.

It would be even better to have a dynamic reinforcement set up that would allow for up to three possible entry locations based on:

random

enemy control of the initial location

enemy nearness to the other locations, ie the one fartherest away. Or if all were controlled, no reinforcement until the location is cleared.

[PeterX]

I wish scenario designers would be a little more careful with their reinforcement entry arrangements.

Ain't that the truth. I'm PBEMing a canned scenario in which THREE reinforcment platoons of pop gun panzers where plopped down on a road right in the gunsights of my opponent's hull down T34s. They were lined up like tin cans on a fence and he proceeded to rip them apart. (Scroll down to the bottom of this post if you want to know the name of this battle)

I feel strongly that the designer should make an effort to ensure that reinforcements arrive in sheltered areas and, for God's sake, not all at once. This is important. Geez!

*

*

*

*

*

*

'Directive no. 3'

[ November 16, 2002, 11:38 PM: Message edited by: PeterX ]

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by PeterX:

Ain't that the truth. I'm PBEMing a canned scenario in which THREE reinforcment platoons of pop gun panzers where plopped down on a road right in the gunsights of my opponent's hull down T34s. They were lined up like tin cans on a fence and he proceeded to rip them apart. (Scroll down to the bottom of this post if you want to know the name of this battle)

This is truly ironic-- we're both talking about the same scenario, but with opposite battlefield results!

Peter, imagine what would have happened if your opponent had advanced fast enough to have his T-34's camped *on* that road between the church and the map edge?! I can tell you from firsthand experience that your "popgun" panzers do OK when they appear all around the T-34's and outnumber them by 3:1. Plus, some of them aren't quite popguns (long 50mm's). It was a massacre--my T-34's were dead within 30 seconds, and managed to only kill one and cripple another of the "teleporting tanks". And this was with supporting fire from another Soviet tank platoon in overwatch from a ridge off to the flank.

Still, the moral remains that staggered entry times and sheltered entry hexes are probably the most neutral way to go.

[Pzman]

The biggest problem is that other than where the general area where the reinforcements apear, we (scenario designs) have no control of how the troops are deployed.

[ November 17, 2002, 02:35 AM: Message edited by: Panzerman ]

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by Iconoclast:

In the case of reinforcements, I doubt that many commanders would drive a concentrated (company size or better) road column straight into action, hence my suggestion to break reinforcements down either temporally (stagger a company's platoons at one minute intervals) or spatially. It seems more realistic and won't produce large scale 'teleportation'.[/QB]

The problem with that at the moment is using randomness when setting reinforcement arrival turn. If you break a big group of units into smaller ones, at the moment you can't say "Bring the first platoon at turn10 + 30% probability, then second platoon one turn after first platoon" Ie. arrival turns can't depend on arrival of some other reinforcement.

[Nolloff]

On the arriving On transport issue:

When using tank/transport/infantry reinforcements arriving at the same marker, at the same time, the AI will load as many units as there´s transport capability on HTs/tanks etc. At least that happens to me when creating something in the designer.

Nolloff

[ November 17, 2002, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: Nolloff ]

[Egan]

I'd like to be able to use the operation level " battalion reserves," etc in normal battles, I'd prefer this quite often to the normal reinforment selection, so rather than having reinforcements appear on a regular basis you would only get them if you neaded them badly. it would certainly be a useful option to have anyway.

[Iconoclast]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

[The problem with that at the moment is using randomness when setting reinforcement arrival turn. If you break a big group of units into smaller ones, at the moment you can't say "Bring the first platoon at turn10 + 30% probability, then second platoon one turn after first platoon" Ie. arrival turns can't depend on arrival of some other reinforcement.[/QB]

You're right for random arrivals, but there seem to be a lot of scenarios which leave the probability of arrival set to 100%. These are the big groups I'd break up.

Even in the case of random entry, breaking the groups down reduces the likelihood of one of these odd 'teleportation' entrance scenes even in the absence of the ability to generate conditional entry setups (A must arrive before . Let's use your example of 30%; if the company PeterX and I were talking about was broken into its constituent platoons and slated to nominally arrive on consecutive turns (let's say, turns 10, 11, and 12), the odds are less than 1% that all three will enter at the same time (turn 12-- the odds drop even further in later turns).

[manchildstein (ii)]

if i'm not mistaken cmbo would load as many troops as possible onto trucks/halftracks but would not load them onto tanks. i'm not sure how this is handled in cmbb.

for the time being, one way to simulate random scenario arrivals would be to make a bunch of identical or 'semi-identical' small groups and have them come in at various places, each with a 5 to 10% chance that they might enter...

the problem with random entry times and such is that they play havoc with scenarios which might be chosen for tournament material. in other words, i believe that tournaments usually avoid any scenarios with random reinforcement entry percentages (rrep) <grin>....

[Sgt. Schultz]

In my meager experiments in design, I have found that one never wants more than a Company of troops or a large platoon of vehicles to show up at any one point at any time, unless there is no way for the enemy to have reached a point where he could see any of the entry area.

Anticipating the maximum reasonable forward advance for the enemy is hard to do but still must be reckoned with by designers. If you play the AI with lots of bonuses for your side, nothing will prevent teleporting reserves, as you will have inbalanced the scenario beyond its parameters. On the other hand, some scenarios are also historically inbalanced to the point of needing bonuses for one side to compete in a human v human game. That could lead to one side running up on teleporting reserves as well.

CMBB does a great job of filling up all available transport, but it can still be a bit scattered and confused as to who is riding where. Possibly setting the troops to arrive on one turn, and the transport to arrive 1 or 2 turns later would be a good compromise. Then the troops can mount up in good order and proceed. Turns must be added and/or the reserves must be placed on an early turn number for this to work well, but it relieves a lot of confusion, as well as compressing each individual entry area. The troops, by entering first, can also be used as a screening force to ensure that there is no teleportation of the armor at least.

Moving reserve entry areas back farther down the map as the battle progresses is hard to do in an attack/defend battle, but can lead to fierce constant combat. Just feeding in all reserves from one main support line in the far rear is usually safest, but the defender has to protect his line of support in a realistic way, or you run into teleporting again.

Any scenario that has reserves coming in should have some way to communicate where as well as when said reserves are arriving to the individual players. This allows players to know where they have to protect without them having to go in the editor and peek. Peeking blows it for both parties. I use T(number) and (direction)(number). reserves marked in the briefing as so ... T19/E2 would be coming in on Turn 19 on East Road 2. If you don't have roads, use Area. Mark the map with Landmarks in all appropriate spots and then a few more to throw off the enemy.

This way both players know exactly what, when, and where everything is happening, for their forces only.

[Nolloff]

Originally posted by manchildstein II:

if i'm not mistaken cmbo would load as many troops as possible onto trucks/halftracks but would not load them onto tanks. i'm not sure how this is handled in cmbb...

Infantry gets loaded on tanks in CMBB.

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

A better solution would be to do what ASL did...extend the mapboard temporarily and give reinforcements an "offboard" setup zone. Prohibit any units but the reinforcements from moving on these tiles, and give the attacker one or two turns to move off of them before the setup zone "disappears" - and all units still on those tiles with it.

That does seem like a good idea, and we already have some of that ability, more or less.

I played a scenario where, although I can't know the intention of the designer, it worked out just that way, for precisely the simple reason that the map was much longer than it would otherwise need to be.

My reinf appeared, way way back there... That seems like a good solution to me- "Reinf are coming! Ahh, there they are now- I can barely see them..."

Why not just make the backrow longer, and have reinf appear way back there, at an earlier time?

Eden

[Guest Mike]

It's not a new problem - I remember playing a CMBO scenario where I decided to sneak a couple of Stuarts around a flank (I was defending) when lo and behold a LARGE group of German reinforcements appeared in front of them!

I lost both Stuarts, but by heck the rear armour of those Hanomags, P-4's and Stugs took a hammering while their turrets and guns turned...sooooooo......slloooowwwwlllleeeyyyy...... he he he

Looks like something that might take an engine rewrite, OR.......

in the mean time when designing a scenario with reinforcements arriving on the map edges - just make teh map wide enough and concentrate the objectives away from the edges?