MLR and the Map Edge Problem - SOLUTION

[Steiner14]

There's a lot of talk how CM could model certain fine details of tactical combat, but one of the huge main problems of CM as a tactical simulation, has not yet been solved: the problem with map-edges if a scenario-map shows a fraction of a MLR (HKL).

The possibilities of scenario-design are quite limited, when it should be simulated, that the best position for an attack is the middle of the map. In case of terrain, the designer has free hands, but what if a real geography should be modelled? Or what if the terrain is flat and open and the map edges are in LOF of adjacent enemy units?

To prevent players from using the map-edges as gamey support, since there can be no threat from outside map-edges, scenario designers work around that limitation by designing the map accordingly. That can be a problem, if a real-world battle, or real-world terrain should be modelled.

The not so elegant solution with what CM offers already is, that scenario designers use mine-fields or obstacles.

But not everyone likes that. It creates a quite artificial impression, that the scenario designer tries to prevent you from moving at the map's edge.

And another problem is IIRC, that they are not bound to the map. So in case of QBs, the map-edge problem persists.

The idea to overcome this problem softwaredesign-wise:

New terrain elements, that represent incoming fire from outside the map (and that create these effects).

Two types should be enough to cover most situations:

a) Fire against soft targets only - in case it should be simulated the adjacent MLR contains no AT-capability - for example only a few infantry and HMG.

Fire against soft and hard targets - in case the adjacent area contains PAK/TDs/tanks.

One additional variable of the fire-zone-element, say from 1 to 10, determines the probability, that a unit in this area will suffer losses (the amount of incoming fire).

The lowest level would represent a very weak adjacent MLR. The attacker can move units in this area (or whereever the map-designer has placed these areas) and may suffer a few losses.

At the highest level of incoming fire the attacker will most certainly lose all units in that area within a minute or two. The adjacent MLR or units off the map are so strong, that movement in that zone is suicide.

[scottie]

Interesting point , well put. When i design a map i tend to make them extremely wide with the objectives in the middle section to allow for freedom of movement. I understand this is not possible under all circumstances but feel this is the best way to represent real world maps and tactical solutions within the current framework.

[DaveyJJ]

Interesting point , well put. When i design a map i tend to make them extremely wide with the objectives in the middle section to allow for freedom of movement. I understand this is not possible under all circumstances but feel this is the best way to represent real world maps and tactical solutions within the current framework.

Agreed. I've done tactical WW2 map designs for board games, miniatures games, and computer games ("See, dad, my double major in art and geography all those years ago with a huge interest in history did pay off!") and that's the route I tend to take given boundary limitations.

The maps and scenarios I plan to provide the CMBN community will be smaller scale (platoon and company), fairly accurate historically and geographically realistic, as that's the scale I like, but will generally follow this idea.

Can't wait for the editor. Wish I'd maintained contact with Steve and the BF team after my Combat Ranger CM chat program got sidetracked to have been able to volunteer 17 years of beta testing experience to this effort, but soon enough now, we'll all get it in our hands.