Gamey Edge Hugging and Conditional Reinforcement Groups

[PzKpfwIII]

So, I guess the longer we have to wait for Beta Testing to go into high gear (anyone else have an Excel spreadsheet yet in which they are tracking the date and number of posts in the Beta Forum?) and the game goes gold, I guess we are left to amuse ourselves with hypotheticals from the sublime to the ridiculous.

Here's one; and like all the other wildly original suggestions cropping up, I do hope the design team and beta testers have already thoroughly considered this.

But I was wondering if conditional reinforcements would be possible?

I think it would be a great campaign designers tool, and can think of a couple of examples of their use.

By "conditional", though, I mean reinforcements that don't come into play unless some condition is met, as set by the campaign designer. We've not yet seen this in the CM system to any real degree; so far the only condition we've been able to set is a random chance of entry.

I am speaking operationally in any event, not in the tactical battles themselves.

a) as an example, say that a reinforcement group of Partisans/Conscripts/Volkssturm are only activiated in a 2 km tile when enemy units attempt to enter it. This would represent hastily mobilized defence forces that will only fight when their homes are directly threatened.

I'd like to see the campaign designer have control over how easy it is to "spot" these units on the operational map.

to stop that well known tactic of "gamey edge hugging" - and we've seen it discussed for use in the tactical CM game though it was never implemented - how about the ability to active reinforcements only when your opponent advances along the outermost tiles of the operational map? Would simulate neighbouring formations and create some "friction" for units operating on the far boundaries.

A possibility would be restricting these reinforcements to only operating on the flanking map tiles, or perhaps appaearing and disappearing as necessary?

Just some more ideas while we bide our time waiting for our chance to sink our teeth into things.

[JasonC]

Seconded. Moreover, I think a page should be taken from the CM concept of "reserves" in operations, to model the way higher level formations reinforce against local failure. It is a basic fact about the war that the side doing better locally, tended to draw down more than its share of opposition. In game terms this also would tend to balance campaigns and make them harder to win decisively by just killing off the local enemy force.

So, in addition to the edge hugging point, if a side fell below half initial strength it might receive a sizeable reinforcement (up to a third the size of the original force, say). Winners just don't get any. Makes for some realistic defense dominance on a grand tactical scale.

[walpurgis nacht]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Seconded. Moreover, I think a page should be taken from the CM concept of "reserves" in operations, to model the way higher level formations reinforce against local failure. It is a basic fact about the war that the side doing better locally, tended to draw down more than its share of opposition. In game terms this also would tend to balance campaigns and make them harder to win decisively by just killing off the local enemy force.

So, in addition to the edge hugging point, if a side fell below half initial strength it might receive a sizeable reinforcement (up to a third the size of the original force, say). Winners just don't get any. Makes for some realistic defense dominance on a grand tactical scale.

I kind of like this idea, but it will encourage gamey bastards like myself to memorize the parameters that trigger the reinforcements, and hug the walls accordingly.

SC has a gimmick like this for the Russians. Works pretty well. I guess if they manage to find a way to do it right . . . .

[JasonC]

WN - just give them a fuzzy, probabilistic onset. Below this level, no chance, then only a small chance, way out here virtually certain. No step function trigger. You could try to stay clear of any chance of it but it would be quite restrictive. Also, if the scenario designer sets it and the players haven't played that one before, you won't know the exact condition. (Which might be losses beyond this, or forces have reached river line A, etc).

[zmoney]

Man this is a really good idea I think it would be great if they looked into it. It is pretty realistic too, because big defending armies always have reserves to throw in, in case of a deep penetration.

I also like the idea of partisans poping up in certain villages. I think if it happened in every village though it might not be so good or realistic. But still a very good idea.

[Renaud]

IMO, the best way to marginalize edge-hugging in CMBB scenario design was to 1) make the maps big enough relative to the objective areas that moving along the edge takes you far from the action; 2) set the scenario time limit so that there is not enough time to hug the edge and still make your objectives; 3) Make the edge(s) of the map conform to a more-or-less impassable terrain border which constitutes a natural non-gamey 'edge', such as dense woods, escarpment, wide river, seacoast, swamp, ravine, soft sand, mud, urban area, mountain, etc.

You could do the same in CMC Op map design. In many historical situations I can imagine recreating in CMC, there would in fact be some sort of natural edge, Typically wide rivers or forest impassable to vehicles. In the Kerch Peninsula, Crimea 41/42, the Parpach front was only 16-18 KM wide between the Black Sea and Sea of Azov. Not too large to simulate coast-to-coast in CMC. Other than the assault boat landings by both sides, pretty much a hard 'edge'. YES, those gamey bastards did hug the coastline.

I guess what i'm suggesting is solve the problem by borrowing from reality, not slapping a gamey patch on it (fighting fire with fire, so to speak).

edit:

marginalize edge-hugging

hey that's an oxymoron

[ November 02, 2005, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

[simovitch]

IIRC there is currently a reinforcement triggering device in (non-static) operations based on advancement of the map such that when the reinforcement tag appears on the newly advanced map, the forces associated with that tag come into play at the onset of that battle.

Or am I missing the point here?

[PzKpfwIII]

Originally posted by simovitch:

IIRC there is currently a reinforcement triggering device in (non-static) operations based on advancement of the map such that when the reinforcement tag appears on the newly advanced map, the forces associated with that tag come into play at the onset of that battle.

Or am I missing the point here?

We were discussing CMC, not Operations, and Conditional RGs. What you're describing is similar but not directly related. JasonC's point about "reserves" is also related to Operations, though, and would be another good use of conditional reinforcements.

How best to implement "reserves" will yet to be seen. Both players in a CMC campaign could conceivably prolong a campaign many times by bringing in (or having invoked) "reserves". One would probably need artificial restraints put in since the greater context (ie the entire war) would not be directly seen. Perhaps a randomization would be effective (yes, general, we would love to reinforce your division and realize it is getting trashed, but corps is up against new priorities to your south and can't release another regiment...we may be able to in two days if the situation stabilizes...)

[JasonC]

To clarify, my proposal would not leave any of it up to the players. The designers would simply put in conditional reinforcements, without telling the other side the conditions or amounts. One might not even know it for one's own side. Then, if side A trashes force B or advances past area W, side B gets a large reinforcement.

A finds that instead of success automatically "snowballing" as the enemy runs out of local troops, there is a "restoring force" from outside the locality. Conditional reinforcements would only be triggered again, if the fight see-saws, and side A is also forced below some loss threshold.

This is quite different from just upping the forces on each side. A side doing OK does not get help. In fact, the better it is doing the more likely it is to face steeper odds than the initial set up, over the course of the campaign as a whole. Yes this is modeled on the way "reserves" work in operations now - though in practice I find those nearly always appear, which would not be the idea here.

[citizen]

I like this idea a lot. When defending a river a commander would often have a mobile reserve held way back to smash any crossing before it could dig in. Such a force should not be "on map," but should only trigger when an enemy unit reaches a certain point on the map, or when the local forces have been trashed enough that a breakout could occur.

This reserve force should not count towards the "points" of that team, as it is in the end a balancing feature to avoid, as JasonC said, the snowballing effect. This would also serve to discourage the "edge-hugging-deep-penetration-force" as it could trigger unexpected reinforcements on the operational map.