Edge of the Table Effect

[Cpl Steiner]

Will CM:SF still show maps as rectangles with definite edges, rather like a miniatures wargaming table?

If possible I would prefer it if this effect was somehow removed but I don't know how it could be done. Perhaps if the map area was larger than the play area and there was a limit to how far you could zoom out?

[Other Means]

How about random casualties at the map edges, low level but persistent, to model off-map harassment and discourage gameyness?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Other Means:
How about random casualties at the map edges, low level but persistent, to model off-map harassment and discourage gameyness? I posted a detailed work-up on this this some months ago, and I actually don't think I was the first.

There was a long, detailed discussion. I'm sure a search will turn it up if you're interested.

Quick and dirty is that Steve (and, presumably the rest of BFC) thinks the idea is pretty much a non-starter.

FWIW, I still think it could work, but I can see why it would be very tricky to implement properly. Given that BFC has no lack of demands on their development time, and we've already been waiting for this game for three years, I guess it is probably best to let this one lie.

Best substitute is good map/secenario design; this can go a long way towards preventing unrealistic map edge issues.

Cheers,

YD

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi guys,

Sorry if my question wasn't clear but I was thinking more of the aesthetics of the map edge than the gameyness issues, which I admit are considerable and worthy of a separate discussion.

I was just hoping that the map edges would not spoil the sense of imersion that the extra polygons and smoother, more realistic terrain are going to provide.

[Cameroon]

Hmm... I like your idea, Other Means.

Or combining both ideas: larger than playable area the ability to actually move into those "off-map" areas, but with growing casualties and/or VP loss cost. Make the cost relative to time and quantity of troops "off map", so that you can't just take the VP hit to move your forces through terrain they shouldn't be in.

With the right balance, I think it could provide playable map edges without the gamey-ness.

Well, just a thought off the top of my head. Feel free to poke holes ;)

[Cpl Steiner]

As this discussion has moved into an interesting area (despite missing my intended point) I may as well chip in with own opinion.

Map edges are rather gamey at present. To some extent this can be minimized by having each sides setup area be towards opposite corners of the map rather than a map edge. That way, the attacker has to cover more ground to use the edges of the play area, which might cost him more time.

However, as I'm sure others will agree, this is not really a great solution, especially with fast moving motorised or mechanised forces on each side.

Perhaps the usable frontage for the attacker should be narrower than that of the defender. That way, the attacker is unable to avoid fire from the left and right flanks of his direction of attack, whilst the defender has the opportunity to flank the attacker's newly formed "salient", as in real life.

An explanation for the restricted frontage of the attacker would be that this is his/her designated area of operations and he/she is not permitted to stray out of it for very obvious reasons (blue on blue airstrike accidents etc).

[flamingknives]

Don't put interesting terrain along the edges.

[Cameroon]

A perfectly valid solution flamingknives, just really kills the immersion factor ;)

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by flamingknives:
Don't put interesting terrain along the edges. In CM:SF's Middle-East environment this is a serious contender for an easy solution but I don't see it working in WWII:ETO or any future settings like Vietnam.

It might also not make much difference as the defender won't be able to position forces on the flanks either, making the break between interesting terrain and not-so-interesting terrain an effective map edge for both sides.

[Homo ferricus]

i think i can deal with the board look in exchange for not having to have my video card process all that useless extra space. But on the other hand, games like Rome:Total War use a good system in which the camera can't zoom beyond a certain limit, and soldiers can't enter it either (unless they're routed). But the point remains that it is an exchange of performance (which is seeming to become more and more of an issue with this game to players like me) for a a bit more immersion. This exchange doesn't really seem all that reasonable to me.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, I for one refuse to get dragged into the 523rd discussion about map edges and if and how they are gamey. I will, however, comment on the purely graphical question which started this thread.

The only way to diminish it is to at least quadruple the amount of polygons being used for the terrain. It also requires the scenario maker to invest a ton of time making stuff that nobody can play on. And if it is there, and it is shown, people are going to whine and complain that they can't use it (see why I don't want to get into another map edge discussion? smile.gif ).

I can assure you that we spent weeks trying to figure out ways to diminish the "tabletop" feel. Charles tried a bunch of stuff and none of it made it any better. In fact, it had a huge negative impact on the gameplay in the opinion of the few of us that were playing it at the time. Since we could not figure out anything better, and believe me we tried VERY hard to do so (Charles nearly blocked our emails over this smile.gif ), the code Charles put in was ripped out.

Suffice to say, it is what it is and it won't be anything different.

Steve

[Cpl Steiner]

Steve,

Fair enough - at least you're honest! Only time will tell how big an issue this becomes (I suspect it won't be much once people get used to the idea that, however pretty it looks, it's still basically the CM we know and love).

[flamingknives]

Non-interesting terrain doesn't mean empty terrain. Just not tactically useful.

[Drusus]

Would it be possible to add to the scenarios areas where units aren't allowed to go? This could be used for the map edge problem if the scenario designer so chooses, or it could be used for other stuff. Like there is a hospital somewhere on the map or just orders from higher levels of command.

[Pete Wenman]

Guys hi

I think the problem with gamey tactics can be solved with well designed scenarios.

Given the recent bone about groups, orders, plans etc I see the following (hopefully) being possible for player vs AI.

Player is given detailed orders re his objective at the same time being given bounderies for his forces within which he can operate (a very necessary real life part of orders). At the same time the scenario designer can make a wider defence than the attack frontage with fixed units place on the flanks, perhaps with more powerful weapons (ie ATGMs). If possible the destruction of these units can be removed from all VP measures so the attacker gets no bonus for destroying them, but at the same time should the attacker stray to close to map edges (and possible gamey tactics)then the fixed units can fire into his forces, causing causulties he may well not have otherwise incurred had he stayed within bounds.

Obviously the maps used would need to allow this kind of set up from a width and terrain point of view.

But hey what do I know, I could be talking out of my rear.

[Aacooper]

One theme of the CM series was to try and reduce gamey tactics. For the most part, if you can do it in the game, it isn't gamey. If the map is available, you have to let people use it. So, don't play (or create) scenarios with, say, river fords on the last terrain tile on the edge. If it's there, people will use it and there's nothing at all wrong with it.

[aka_tom_w]

Other Games use "artificial" edge constraints like steep canyon walls and the like. Given the freedom in the new terrain editor, I am guessing it would be possible to design steep rugged cliff faces ALL around the edges of the playing area, but that would be a gamey way to fix a potential gamey problem, and does nothing to add to the asthetics of the look of the game or the battle field edges.

just a thought

-tom w

[ February 17, 2007, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously people can make enormous maps in CM:SF which have its objectives in the middle. This doesn't eliminate map edges or the associated realism issues (that is impossible and why I don't want to get into that discussion again!) but it does give the attacker a lot more room to maneuver (which isn't necessarily more realistic, which again is why I don't want to get into that discussion again smile.gif ). The tradeoff is, as I've said above, framerate. It's a simple equation... the more terrain you have, the more impact on the framerate. There is no way we can significantly reduce that equation through tricks.

Steve

[Drusus]

Giving the scenario maker the _option_ to "disable" some areas of the map is _just_ an option. _If_ it could be easily added to the game, it could be used by the scenario maker to "soften" the map edges. And there would be other uses for this as well. All the default scenarios could be built without this.

But now I know what is the optimal solution: when more than two players multiplayer is added, use AI players on the both sides of the player. Now, that would be something...

[jeffsmith]

In most CM battles by good designers the action is so focussed
I never have taken any thought of the edge at all
(except in exit scenarios)

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by jeffsmith:
In most CM battles by good designers the action is so focussed
I never have taken any thought of the edge at all
(except in exit scenarios) My experience as well. Perhaps exit zones can be reduced so they don't take up an entire edge of the map.

[rune]

Guys,

Break out of the mold and quit thinking in cmx1 victory conditions. The conditions are quite different and each side can have their own objectives as Steve has already stated.

Rune

[Battlefront.com]

Marking terrain out of bounds only has an impact on how the battle looks, not plays. We see it as a waste of processing power and therefore aren't interested in supporting such a feature until someone figures out how to give us more CPU and graphic card power than we can possibly use. And that day, gentlemen, will happen just after pigs fly over a frozen over Hell ;)

Rune is correct, though. The new Objectives and Victory Conditions greatly reduce the chances of "gamey" tactics of "edge hugging" doing much of anything. Even if you are someone who subscribes to the notion that such tactics are indeed "gamey" (I for one do not, which is again something I don't want to rediscuss for the nth time smile.gif ).

Steve

[Other Means]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Other Means:
How about random casualties at the map edges, low level but persistent, to model off-map harassment and discourage gameyness? I posted a detailed work-up on this this some months ago, and I actually don't think I was the first.

There was a long, detailed discussion. I'm sure a search will turn it up if you're interested.

Quick and dirty is that Steve (and, presumably the rest of BFC) thinks the idea is pretty much a non-starter.

FWIW, I still think it could work, but I can see why it would be very tricky to implement properly. Given that BFC has no lack of demands on their development time, and we've already been waiting for this game for three years, I guess it is probably best to let this one lie.

Best substitute is good map/secenario design; this can go a long way towards preventing unrealistic map edge issues.

Cheers,

YD </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough, and from what Steve says it's not going to change.

The only other thing I can think of is make the map a cylinder :D

[gibsonm]

Well sort of on topic / off topic but the following is a solution I’ve implemented in some scenarios currently being playtested:

1. Create a largish map.

2. Issue a “trace” based on the map indicating boundaries (which lie within the area of the “map” - a bit like the Area of Operations (AO) Vs the Area of Interest (AI)).

3. Position around the area between the outer boundary of the AO and the map edge a series of fortifications (which are “locked” on the map so neither side can incorporate them into their forces).

The end result is that the player has an area where they are supposed to operate in (the area inside the trace), a small margin (to represent people getting navigationally challenged) and then if they wander further, they hit the fortification belt (mines, wire, even 88mm Pillboxes, etc.).

As for the graphics issue, if its too hard in terms of development workload or CPU processing then I’m happy to see the “edge of the world”.

[RSColonel_131st]

Originally posted by Drusus:
Would it be possible to add to the scenarios areas where units aren't allowed to go? This could be used for the map edge problem if the scenario designer so chooses, or it could be used for other stuff. Like there is a hospital somewhere on the map or just orders from higher levels of command. This sounds like a very good idea with multiple uses.

[Canada Guy]

I am not too worried about the edge of the world but perhaps areas off the map where retreat or reinforcements etc could be placed. It would take 5 turns to get from one off board box to the map but they would have no terrain and just be a holding box (including no fighting).

If it took x amnount of turns to get from the holding box to the main map, you could counter edge creep and create a basis for CMx2 Campaigns.

Just a thought.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by CanadaGuy:
I am not too worried about the edge of the world Knowing that you come from Saskatoon makes that ring so much more truly. :D

[J Ruddy]

I'm for the giant index finger of God popping out of the sky and pish-tooking the troops / vehicles back into the play area.

Can you think of a better solution? I thought not. It's because God is perfect, therefore God's index finger is perfect, therefore any system of moving troops via Gods index finger must also be perfect.

I'm telling you... PISH-TOOK!!!!

Now, forget American versus European birds, what colour should God's index finger be? White? Brownish tan? Black?

[gibsonm]

Obviously Albatross colour.

Or perhaps Norwegian Blue.

[MikeyD]

Like several other aspects of the new game engine we've had all these exotic fantasies about terrain generation in CMx2 (like scrolling real-world high resolution topographic maps based on satellite data?). When we finally discover the end product is going to more-or-less resemble CMx1 (boards-with-edges) it actually comes as a kind of a relief! I don't know about you, but I rather liked CMx1. The concept that CMx2 will bear even a passing resemblance to CMx1 is considered good news. My worst fear was that the game would be ruined by too many gratuitous attempts to be 'clever'.

Having said that, I think I'll fire-up CMBB for a rock-em-sock-em game after supper tonight :D