Do you prefer more maneuver area?

[Dr Zaius]

After playing through just a few TacOps games and brieifly looking at some others, I'm curious about how most of you like to set up your games. Many of the situations I looked at took place on long, narrow maps. If you were a defender this automatically gives you the advantage of knowing the basic direction where the enemy's main advance will be (to a degree at least).

I've also looked at many of the extra maps included on the CD and these seem to be larger on average than the ones in the scenarios. This makes me wonder if a lot of people prefer to create their own games on larger maps with more ground to maneuver on. I know some wargamers hate the artificial "false flank" effect that a mapboard edge offers a defender.

Which do you prefer, larger maps with more room to maneuever or smaller maps with less room?

 

[CPangracs]

Small maps with varied terrain are always more challenging!

 

[Dr Zaius]

Small maps with varied terrain are always more challenging!

In what way? Are you saying they're more challenging because you have less options or what?

 

[Hub]

The boundaries of a small map are not that much different than the constraints imposed by unit boundaries in an OPORD's maneuver graphics...

 

[CPangracs]

In what way? Are you saying they're more challenging because you have less options or what?

The exact opposite! On a billiard table, there are no choices or decisions to be made,...he who has the toys that reach the farthest normally wins.

You give a player restricted and varied terrain, you force him to make a decision and they then have to live with that decision,...changing that decision in mid-stride may very well prove even MORE costly than sticking with the initial decision. I'm telling you, I have seen some of the best military minds at work, and the more options you give them, the more chances there are for mistakes.

If the map is wide open, it is essentially, like I said, who has the longest and most accurate range on their weapons.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

I disagree - I think more area allows for more operational maneuver instead of the meat grinder some TacOps scns can be. I mean having a company move a kilometre to flank the enemy is a bit different to sending that company on a long 20km jaunt to the flanks.

More maneuver pormotes more reliance on recon, and allows you to engage in more effective airmobile ops, rather than just fly to the fight.

I think more OPEN terrain is not a good idea, but larger maps with less forces are.

 

[Dr Zaius]

I think more OPEN terrain is not a good idea, but larger maps with less forces are.

And that really was my question. I wasn't talking so much about the type of terrain on the map, but the amount of area available for maneuver.

Hub's point about the board edge simulating operational boundaries is valid--to an extent. The reason I say that is this concept assumes that both forces have the same operational boundaries, obviously this doesn't happen very often. I would prefer to have larger maps with a system where the scenario author -- and possibly the player too -- could draw operational graphics onto the maps. Decisive Action currently does this better than any other wargame I can think of.

 

[MajorH]

Wanting more map for maneuver is a common comment - i.e. "if the map was just a little taller then I could go around and attack from the flanks or rear". It is very similar to the traditional complaint from WWII miniatures players of "if I had only had another Tiger company ...". Both comments are best answered by saying "well that just happens to be all you get in this situation".

In the real world, maneuver to one's far flanks is usually constrained by the presence of adjacent enemy and or friendly units. If you try to move too far laterally you just end up moving into a new tactical problem vs a new enemy unit. Or you move into the operational area of an adjacent friendly unit who will get considerably exercised about your interjecting all your vehicles, troops, and electronic emissions into his carefully laid out plan. And then there is the question of what friendly unit is going to plug the hole that you just left in the line of attack or defense.

I have often thought of adding a feature to TacOps that would illustrate this better. Something like zapping any unit that gets within one kilometer of a map edge with either succesive enemy MRL barrages or a message from higher headquarter that relives the player of his command.

 

[Ivan Rapkinov]

Major: I guess some of us (me! ) are just used to only having a battalion in theatre

any of the Aussie scns should be unrestricted maneuver - as the whole bloody army's on the map :laugh:

 

[Hub]

You can add maneuver graphics to TacOps: draw them up using MSPaint, and save them as a .bmp file into the Map folder for the map they are to go with. You can access them during a game by hitting F5...

 

[Dr Zaius]

You can add maneuver graphics to TacOps: draw them up using MSPaint, and save them as a .bmp file into the Map folder for the map they are to go with. You can access them during a game by hitting F5...

Thanks, I'll have to experiment with that.

On the issue of maneuver area, the major's comments are valid in many situations. There arew, however, any number of situations where a unit might be operating alone or "out of the line" from the main body of the force. A reconnaissance in force might see a battalion or more significantly separated from other friendly forces and with somewhat more latitude to maneuver.

Granted, commanders rarely have as much freedom to maneuver as they would like, but sometimes they do.