No Retreating, no sense.

[dieseltaylor]

Given the claims to realism I am suffering a lttle despair that in one scenario where my force is designed to loose the Germans are forced on keeping lots of soft-skinned vehicles on the map.

A child of five would realise that unarmed unarmoured transport vehicles should skedaddle away from people bent on making holes in them. But no scenario designer man insists for unknown reasons presumably unrelated to realism or common sense they hang around.

I understand BF designed it by default that the boundaries are rigid [why?] but believe designers can use exit hexes in their bag of tricks. So the question must be why don't/can't they?

[Peregrine]

Hasn't popped up lots for me but there have definitely been times when I wished I had a friendly map edge exit zone.

[womble]

Given the claims to realism I am suffering a lttle despair that in one scenario...

Which scenario?

It's entirely possible to make daft scenarios, or scenarios with daft aspects to them. That doesn't in itself invalidate BFC's claims to realistic modelling of the environment.

[John1966]

A few of the scenarios I have played have featured soft-skinned vehicles being left about to be shot up by my chaps. I agree that they would most likely have left area once they had fulfilled their use and the lead started flying.

Unless this is an elaborate ruse to get my lot to waste ammo and give their positions away...

[Chainsaw]

in PT's campaign there is a mission where you are doing a delay with paratroopers, there you get exit zones which works well.

BFC provides the tools, the scenario makers decides wether to use it or not to use it. Daft scenarios are upp to the maker.

reminds me of a post a while back of someone bitching that units of 352:nd Inf Div had MG42 and BFC had ****ed it up... When its actually the scenario creator that ****ed it up giving the germans to high quality equiptment setting so they got 42 instead of 34s...

[dieseltaylor]

I read your comments about scenario designers but surely the default position for BF should be that in RL people/vehicles do leave the battlefield.

Map edges have always been a problem with accusations of gaminess, In some ways the desire to use the edge of a map, knowing that your troops will not retreat off-map and can only take fire from a certain quadrant, must appear attractive. Here is a mechanism that would actually work to deter such tactics. It is a great shame it has not been thought through as to what is preferable as the default.

I suspect it is not just scenario makers who forget that retreat has to be engineerd in. I would bet a very large sum all the supplied maps will also stop retreats. What is the rationale for hard edges?

[LarsS]

The problem lies in combining exit zones and destroy unit objectives. In most scenarios it makes sense to award inflicting casualties on the enemy. This is done by assigning destroy unit objectives to parts of, or the entire, enemy force. Usually it's done for both sides. But, if one side has an exit zone anywhere on the map, ALL his units that the enemy has as a destroy unit objective will count as destroyed if they haven't exited the map when the scenario ends. So, adding an exit area at the friendly map edge, actually means unit destroy objectives can't be assigned for the enemy, if the scenario is to work, since it makes no sense at all for one side to reatreat all his units at the beginning of the battle.

[dieseltaylor]

I understand that particular case. However it does not change what should be the default as that is the most realistic. The exceptional scnario design can do as per CM*1.

[MikeyD]

If there were no historical record of trucks being caught in a fight and being shot up you might have a case.

[xian]

The problem lies in combining exit zones and destroy unit objectives. In most scenarios it makes sense to award inflicting casualties on the enemy. This is done by assigning destroy unit objectives to parts of, or the entire, enemy force. Usually it's done for both sides. But, if one side has an exit zone anywhere on the map, ALL his units that the enemy has as a destroy unit objective will count as destroyed if they haven't exited the map when the scenario ends. So, adding an exit area at the friendly map edge, actually means unit destroy objectives can't be assigned for the enemy, if the scenario is to work, since it makes no sense at all for one side to reatreat all his units at the beginning of the battle.

As you mention - NOT every unit needs to be included as a unit objective - leaving it free to leave the map with no penalty to either side.

[dieseltaylor]

If there were no historical record of trucks being caught in a fight and being shot up you might have a case.

Normally I respect your remarks but I have to say your comment seems a peculiarly lame and lightweight defence of the current situation.

I would suggest that 95% of all known cases in World War 2 the defender does not park his trucks with 800 metres of a known attacking enemy and refuse to move them as the enemy approaches. It is patently absurd.

Even if I was told the points from their loss does not matter I am offended by the sheer idiocy that I am meant to be in command and yet cannot even order a vehicle to flee destruction.

For ***** sake I even have mortar crews with no shells and I have trucks that could get them to safety but no I have to sit there like an idiot to be killed or captured. What part of realism am I being introduced to?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

As you mention - NOT every unit needs to be included as a unit objective - leaving it free to leave the map with no penalty to either side.

But that doesn't solve the issue. Take an example:

Your force consists of a motorized PzGren company and its trucks. Now, you can assign unit objectives only to the Panzergrenadiere themselves, but that doesn't fix the issue; as a matter of fact, it exacerbates it, since it gives you a reason to exit the Panzergrenadiere rather than the trucks.

In the future, I'm going to include exit objectives in all of my scens for any sides that don't have unit objectives assigned to them, where possible.

[Michael Emrys]

Is it not possible to assign exit objectives to the trucks only? I have not got into the scenario editor as yet and am completely ignorant about how it works.

Michael

[xian]

Is it not possible to assign exit objectives to the trucks only? I have not got into the scenario editor as yet and am completely ignorant about how it works.

Michael

It is. But maybe not if they are part of a formation. I have assigned unit objectives to trucks, but as independent units.

[LarsS]

Is it not possible to assign exit objectives to the trucks only? I have not got into the scenario editor as yet and am completely ignorant about how it works.

Michael

Technically, what you do is give the ENEMY a destroy unit objective for your trucks. Then if they are destroyed on map, he scores. If they haven't exited when the battle is done, they count as destroyed and the enemy scores. If they exit as planned, no points are awarded. So, you don't give one side an objective to exit a particular unit, you give the opposing side points for destroying it or preventing it from leaving the battlefield.

But the problem is that ALL units that the enemy will get points for destroying MUST exit the battle or count as destroyed, if there is an exit zone anywhere on the map. Therefore, if you use exit zones when making a scenario, you can't award points for destroying enemy units other than using the much blunter parameters tool. Exit zones are basically not designed to be at a friendly map edge.

[dan/california]

There are ways to work around the problem with exit zones. They all basically come down to thinking through the scenario victory conditions such that pell mell retreat doesn't work. It hasn't won many wars after all.

Units that are out of ammo and have no reasonable hope of resupply really should be able to leave, especially if they are on the side stated to be defending.

Maybe what it comes down too is that attackers shouldn't have destroy units objectives, at least not ones they cannot win without.

It makes a great deal of sense to give destroy objectives to defenders, though. They should be rewarded for making that hill or road junction just too )**%$###ing expensive.