Play-Them-Where-They-Lay

[MPK]

I seem to remember that this concept
[voluntarily and honestly restricting
the re-positioning of ones forces between
battles in an Op]was recently discussed
in some part of the Forums, but I can't
find it...

I'm interested to see what the consensus
of opinion was...e.g are Night battles
considered differently, should reins have
to make their own way to the FEBA,
and other questions...

If someone can point me in the right direction
it would be appreciated...

thanks,
Matt

[lucero1148]

I hadn't realized there was a play them as they lay attitude towards playing operations? It wouldn't seem logical to me as usually the following battle is a different time of day or night. So logically even from dawn to midday there are several hours after the end of the first battle to the next. During that time in a fluid battlefield nothing would be as it was later on.

Maybe it might seem the right thing to do for some but at least not to me.
All best
Patrick

[MPK]

An example, Patrick, that might help
to explain why some are interested in
this idea:

I'm currently playing a huge Op, in which
my opponent's Panzers have broken through
my gun line and advanced about a kilometre.

Large amounts of my infantry (and a tank
or three)were left behind in forested areas,
from which they have been conducting hit-
and-run attacks on German HT's and soft
motor transport over the last 3 battles

Just as actually would happen, they are
running out of ammo (especially Molotovs).
It would be unfair and unrealistic for me
to be able to pull those troops back behind
my own lines (magically passing through the
German forces) just because the CM Op system
allows me to.

Therefore, I have launched a counter-attack
to push the frontline to where my beleaguered
infantry are...

If one thinks of the first couple of months
of Barbarossa (for example) where the Panzer
Divs cut off huge amounts of Soviet troops
that continued to fight on from the forests
(see Paul Carell, 'Hitler's War on Russia'
for several illuminating accounts) then this
needs to be simulated...

[George MC]

I've a copy of these 'play as you lay rules' that I've been using (with some adaptations). If you like email me at gmcewan@totalise.co.uk and I'll send them on to you. I think there is a discussion about this over at The Proving Grounds. I'm just going to work but if I have time latter I'll post the link here.

I'd echo the comments made by MPK - and add some ops don't represent consecutive days. They may represent a series of short sharp actions seperated by short periods of time while boths sides refuel/rearm/reorganise etc without neccesarily breaking contact. Hence 'play as they lay' simulates that, whilst overcoming some of the shortfalls of the CMBB operation system. Might be worth adding the AI never plays by these rules smile.gif

[MPK]

Thanks George Mc,

email sent.

chers,
Matt

[George MC]

Hi MPK
Slaving away at work smile.gif )

Link for the discussion about 'Play As They Lay' at The Proving Grounds is http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/tip_results.html?sku=235

I think my version of the adapted rules comes from Bannon DC so all thanks to him :)for the original idea.

Cheers fur noo
George Mc

ps I'll post my version to you this evening when I get in from work.

[MPK]

Thanks again, George Mc

Slave On!!!

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by MPK:

Therefore, I have launched a counter-attack
to push the frontline to where my beleaguered
infantry are...From what I understand,if the operation is an assualt operation,the defender can regain ground--but I am not sure if you can make the map scroll backward.If it is an advance operation,the defender can only barely affect the "frontline".

I have moved an entire battalion of men across a river under the cover of falling snow.I spread them out as best I could to try and bring the bridge back into my setup zones.I think it made the "frontline" regress about 20m :mad:

[MPK]

That's a good point, no_one...

According to the CMBB manual, if the
defender in an Advance or Assault Op
can reach the enemy's map edge it's
Game Over.

I've never done it, so I dunno...

When I said that I was trying to push
the frontline to where my cut-off infantry
is, I meant the area in which troops are
supplied...my Forward Edge of the Battle
Area, i.e that if I can link up with them,
they will be resupplied.

[MPK]

should be easy to test...make a skeleton Op
in the Editor, and play around...

[MPK]

To clarify (sorry, I'm doing too many
things at once...got more windows than
a greenhouse) I don't need to make the
map scroll backwards in this situation...
all troops,supplied or otherwise, are
within the battle window;indeed, how
could they not be.

An interesting related point is that
byallowing my opponent's Panzers to
bypass my troops perhaps also means
the battle window won't advance...
again, I'm not sure if this is how
it works, because the battle window
is pretty big for this Op...

[lucero1148]

Ok now that makes a lot of sense. Under those terms that seems quite reasonable. It would make the operation more realistic and more of a challenge for both players.
All best
Patrick

[MPK]

Basically it's all about dealing with
well-recognised problems with the CM
Op system and the never-ending search
for Realism and Fun -which are not
always mutually exclusive...

No doubt CMx2 will address some of
these issues, and equally certainly
We the Players will find new problems
and ways to work around them.

[end of speech, cue applause, catcalls]

[imported_no_one]

Originally posted by MPK:
When I said that I was trying to push
the frontline to where my cut-off infantry
is, I meant the area in which troops are
supplied...my Forward Edge of the Battle
Area, i.e that if I can link up with them,
they will be resupplied. Yes,I know,that is what I was talking about.You are trying to counter-attack to move the setup zones forward so that you can link up with the cut-off troops.

If you are playing an advance operation you will be wasting your time trying to do what you are wanting to do(read the example I posted about what I did in an advance operation as the defender).

If it's an assualt operation,it may work,but you need to make sure to do it with "over-kill".What I mean by that is that you need to send alot of troops up to link back up,and hopefully the enemy will not be close by.You will have to completely affect the setup zones so as to regain ground.Understand what I am saying?

[imported_no_one]

In regard to 'play where they lay':

I do not understand why a FO WITHOUT a radio gets to teleport about the map.To me this is much more of an exploit than bringing up reinforcements.

My other complaint IS about reinforcements.In a scenario,reinforcements can show up at any time--which is realistic.In a huge operation(which can sometimes be 20-30+ turns)all the reinforcements have to arrive all at once and in a giant wad--this is NOT realistic.We all know that reinforcements in any battle should arrive at any time,and rarely every single possible reinforcement will arrive all at the same time.Therefore,why is either the attacker or defender punished for what has to be an abstraction?At the very least,a percentage of the reinforcements should be allowed to setup in a more forward position.I would think especially any wheeled or tracked vehicles.Infantry and support units should have to ride something,or be walked up.

[Bannon DC]

Glad to see someone started a thread dedicated to this topic. The other thread got a bit off topic on this tangent (Who's still playing operations? in the CMAK forum).

Regarding the "Play Where They Lay" rules that I developed (not saying I invented the concept), they were designed for a small operation that was set to take place over one day. In my brief, I stated that the period between battles was very limited -- 15 to 30 minutes or so, and the battlefield was under enemy observation. Given that situation, it makes sense to keep your units where they are. (Assume runners are moving up ammo and relaying orders).

Many good cases have come up in discussion where the rules I made should be bent or don't apply (night battles for example).

Regarding the movement of the FO "anywhere" between battles -- I made this exception so as not to limit the "fun" factor. I didn't make a distinction between for "radios" or no radios. The FO is such a powerful unit and essential to the operation, I felt limiting its placement between battles was too picky and would interfer with the planning of the next battle. Theoretically, I think with all the men on the battlefield, a couple of guys could be tasked to help the FOs with running a spool of wire across a street.

The premise of PWTL is to consider what is realistically possible. You would need to have an idea of how much time there is between battles. Even if a couple of hours between daylight battles, could you move a company of infantry across an open field without an enemy response (MGs opening up, mortars being called in, etc.)? Also, the idea is to earn the ground you take. Instead of the computer deciding you can advance 300m on part of the map simply because there are no enemy forces in the vicinity (you may not have actually known this), now you have to take the risk and actually move into that area not knowing if you are advancing into an ambush.

Since some operations can include over a hundred units, it would get tedious to move all that stuff during a battle. Place reinforcements where realistically possible to move forward without an enemy response. Also, in games where it would limit the players' ability to actually accomplish objectives over sticking to PWTL rules (for example 15 minute battles), playing the game and having fun takes precedence over the rules.

PWTL adds another level of challenge. If the rules do not make sense to the operation you are playing, you need to amend them. Since this is all done on the honor system, you need to work out the rules with your opponent before hand. Hopefully he won't be a stickler if a situation arises during the op where the rules need to be bent.

BTW -- the operation I developed these rules for was called "Bleeding and Mopping Up" for CMBB. I recently release an AI version of it which needs a playtester. :D :D Here's a link (http://www.the-proving-grounds.com/scenario_details.html?command=search&db=scenarios.db&eqskudatarq=786) link over to The Proving Grounds.

I'm interested to hear other thoughts on the subject.

Bannon

[MPK]

No_one wrote:

"If it's an assualt operation,it may work,but you need to make sure to do it with "over-kill".What I mean by that is that you need to send alot of troops up to link back up,and hopefully the enemy will not be close by.You will have to completely affect the setup zones so as to regain ground.Understand what I am saying? "

Yep. And it is an Assault Op...the battle
(6th of 10)is almost over (we are in Extra Time)
to be followed by a non-combat Night turn...I'll
post when I see the setup zones...

As Bannon DC makes clear, PWTL is just one
face of a concept: play around with the game,
and tailor rules to fit SPECIFIC scenarios.

Years ago, when I spent all my time
playing 'Duke Nukem 3D' (this was in
the early Triassic era) my buddy and
I used to play 'Angry Co-op'-which
meant that you started the game in
co-operative mode, kill all the
Aliens, then turn on each other...
the 'G' key in co-op mode enabled
you to see the other guy's POV...
now, when you're hunting each other,
that can be a lot of fun...we both
used tricks like looking at the
ground as we ran along, so no back-
round terrain features would ID
our position...

The point? it's your game now,
have fun.

[Alternate analogy: in chess, not
everyone plays the en passant rule...
you have to agree on it...]

[MPK]

Bannon DC, does the AI version of
'Bleeding & Mopping Up' allow for
playing the Soviet side?

If it does, I'll playtest it with
pleasure...

[MPK]

For that matter, if any Yumans out
there want to playtest Bannon DC's
Op and ruleset with me, send me an
email(address in profile) ....

[Bannon DC]

Originally posted by MPK:
Bannon DC, does the AI version of
'Bleeding & Mopping Up' allow for
playing the Soviet side?

If it does, I'll playtest it with
pleasure... Hello MPK --
Yes, the AI version is designed to be played by the Russians. If playing H2H, the Russian side is far more challenging. (Be sure to get the H2H version if playing against a "yuman." It is at TPG, but not the same version as in the link above.)

Good luck! Let me know if you start it. Since it is a small map, it can play quickly.

Bannon

[MPK]

Will do, Bannon DC.
Already looked at H2H version...
mmm nice.

[MPK]

Promised I'd post when the battle ended-

Result:
(1)the map scrolled towards the attacker's end
by about 120m (variable across wide map).
(2)the setup zones were adjusted so as to
allow me to resupply SOME cut-off troops,
but not many.

I didn't have overwhelming force, and my
opponent was close by in the contested area
of the map(like 75m away with 7+ AFV)or
else I believe I would have made even
further inroads.

After the next battle, I should be able to
reach the rest of my cut-off troops, and
they too will be resupplied (assuming the
rest of the 18th Panzer Div doesn't show up).

As far as I can see, using PWTL in this
particular Op has made for a more realistic
experience. I enjoyed the added challenge.

[Sgt AA]

Hi!

Me and a trusted friend have a lot of fun by playing an "OP" by combine a huge scenario with a series of QB. We started off with a scenario that simply is to much to accomplish in one round, with the designed goals, time and resourses. The scenario map has setup zones at the ends of the map.

We save the AAR and import map with troups for a new round. Then we have PWTL (+ reinforcement at the ends of the map)- unfortunatly with knowledge of the opponents positions but he can always choose to withdraw them.

The big problem so far is to decide when to stop - "give me more points in the next round and I sweep the floor with you!"

[ August 31, 2005, 01:22 PM: Message edited by: Sgt AA ]

[Soddball]

I include a modified 'Play where they lay' set of rules for the big operations I create. My latest, Alpine Summer, is 40,000 points per side on an 8km x 3.6km map, 15 battles of 40 turns apiece. The scale of the map and the additional rules mean that the further one side advances, the further away their reinforcements are and the more work they will have to do to hold their position.

I only allow setup anywhere on the field if both players have chosen to skip a night action.

I find it works very well, forcing players to preserve their transport assets and pool them, and forcing them to provide AA cover against air attacks against their vulnerable supply lines.