Retreating off map PITA

[dieseltaylor]

I am not aware of the reasons why BF decided that troops could not retreat of map but I see it as a huge blow to realism.

So if designers would like to tell me why/why not I would be grateful.

However the continual idiocy of so many scenarios where troops bounce off the edge of the map to run into 105mm barrages, or a stack of vehicles just sitting around with nowhere to go,is really making me doubt the games claim for realistic behaviour.

So when designing PLEASE think carefully about this.

[Smeel]

weeeell actually, just put a exit objective without points around appropriate edges, and it works like a charm. Make a test scenario with some green fanatics vs Unmotivated conscripts, and watch 'em run back to mama!

[LarsS]

weeeell actually, just put a exit objective without points around appropriate edges, and it works like a charm. Make a test scenario with some green fanatics vs Unmotivated conscripts, and watch 'em run back to mama!

You don't assign points to an exit objective. If you have an exit area anywhere on the map all of YOUR units that the ENEMY has as a destroy objective will count as destroyed, and therefore award him points, if they haven't exited the map at the end of the battle. So, if you have a "retreat" exit zone, the enemy cannot be rewarded points for destroying your troops in a good way, and vice versa. Friendly side exit zones for one side and unit destroy objectives for the opposing side can't be combined without forcing the former to exit, i.e. retreat, ALL his units that the latter scores points for destroying. And it is only in the very rare scenario where it would make sense not to reward one side for inflicting casualties on the enemy. In my opinion that need trumps the need for exit zones for retreating units. Usually, building a map a bit deeper takes care of the problem described by dieseltaylor, but of course lower end machines might not like the larger maps.

[George MC]

Or assign a bonus to each side.

[dieseltaylor]

So the bonus a side for the troops could make a net no effect?

I am confused as I cannot understand the fundamental logic of making edges hard in the first place. I assume it was the same in CMSF - did not the absurdity get discussed then?

So explicitly the answer is

1. Make deeper maps, as in deeper behind the objectives. Placing objectives deep inti the map being definitely not helpful.

2. Make scenarios purely with objectives and normal points for kills. Make sides friendly ? Reading it I cannot see that any unit cannot exit the required area. So provided the opposition was not specifically tasked with killing certain units then this should work without needing bonuses. Have I summed this up correctly?

EXIT - friendly units may leave the map (permanently) after reaching

this objective. Any friendly unit may use the exit zone. There are no points

awarded for leaving the map! Instead, any unit that is part of a Destroy/Destroy

All Unit Objective for the opposing player and does not leave the map, is scored

as “destroyed” and the points are awarded to the enemy.

Exit Zones are a special type of Objective and may be a little

hard to grasp at first, since they work differently than

the other Objective types. Instead of awarding points

directly to troops that successfully exit the map, it is the

opposing player that gets points for any units that

should exit but don’t. The correct procedure to work with

an Exit Objective is to:

- paint a Terrain Objective on the map for Side A

- assign Side A units to a Unit Objective (SHIFT+F1-F7)

- in the editor, open the Unit Objective tab for the opposing

player (Side , set the Unit Objective to Destroy/Destroy

All, and assign points

- any unit that is part of the Destroy/Destroy All unit objective

has to exit the map. If it doesn’t, then Side B will be

awarded full points for the unit as if it was destroyed.

Units leave the map automatically upon reaching the objective area, - usually

within 60 seconds of eaching it - they do not need to be specifically ordered

to. Units about to exit first display an arrow icon and then simply disappear

from the map.

KNOWN TO... - player, enemy, both, none

Tip: If you do choose to use a hidden objective, it is probably a

good idea to make it a secondary goal and one that is

still fun even if known (through replay or peeking).

POINTS - assign how many points are awarded to the player who fulfills

the objective.

Note: as mentioned above, Exit Objectives cannot be assigned

points, so this option is not available for them. Instead,

after creating an Exit Objective, you would then assign

units to a Unit Objective (SHIFT + Funtion Key F1-F7),

open the Unit Objectives tab for the opposing player, set it

to “Destroy” or “Destroy All” and assign some points. In

this way the opposing player will be denied points if

enemy units leave the map that are part of his Unit

Objective.

NAME - assign a name to the Objective for easier reference (it’s also shown

to the player on the 3D map and upon completion)

[LarsS]

Assigning bonuses doesn't change the fact that, if the enemy gets points for destroying its opposing force, the best tactic would be to retreat all but the absolute minimum force required to secure the own side's objectives off the map. It just gets silly when you, to get a total victory, have to start rushing troops back and off the map when the scenario is nearing its end, just to deny the enemy points.

The map edges worked the same way in SF (well, the same way but without exit zones--they were added in CM:A), but they rarely led to the problem of retreated/broken units getting stuck on them. The Syrians had a tendancy either to get cut down when they started to retreat, or surrender (exclamation point surrender, not white flag surrender as in BN), so they seldom made it to the edge. Playing blue, you'd sometimes have a few Humvees you'd rather have retreated off the map, but that was about it. And the superior training and morale of the blue force usually meant that they were more likely to fight and die, than to retreat to a map edge.

Regarding 1, maps with a larger area around the objectives, and hopefully most of the fighting, in all dimensions, is IMO a good way of solving a number of potential problems. Retreating units won't get stuck on the edges, edge hugging gaminess will be less of an issue, the attacker won't get a super restricted setup area (ripe for pre-planned arty missions) and reinforcements won't magically appear too close to the actual battle. But big maps are performance heavy and take time to make.

Regarding 2, if side A doesn't get points for killing side B's forces, adding friendly edge exit zones for B wouldn't be a problem, and vice versa. But when would killing the enemy not be a good thing for either the German or American side and therefore rewarded in the scenario? Usually the units that you would be least likely to withdraw from battle are also the ones that would be most important for the enemy to destroy and therefore ought be assigned as a destroy unit objective. But then they have to retreat or count as destroyed. If A has an friendly map edge exit zone to allow exiting trucks and broken units, B can't be rewarded points for destroying his armor; if he was, A would have to retreat the tanks off the map or they would be counted as destroyed when the battle ends, and that makes no sense at all.

A very clunky way of getting around the issue is to use friendly edge exit zones and not award points for destroying enemy forces using destroy unit objectives, instead only using the parameters settings to give points for inflicting casualties and preserving your own force.

[Alan8325]

What if you just make the elevation lower at the friendly edge of the map, so that there is no LOS to units at the edge except from a few meters in front? This may not solve the issue of demoralized units "bouncing" off the edge and possibly running forward uphill and into LOS again, but it would be difficult for the enemy to target stuff at the map edge unless you are PBEMing against someone who intentionally does this. But you could agree beforehand not to target map edges, which you designate "retreat areas."