seowhq.net

This is pursuant to a conversation with 4Shades and JG26 Badger the other night.

In dealing with the combined campaign concept with both IL2 and Arma scenario resolution activated some problems arise insofar as thinking as an overall campaign commander are concerned.

If the Arma maps are activated and the DMZ is considered an exclusion zone in the MP , the Arma maps become an artificial "terrain" that by definition restricts movement on the overall MP map.

In addition , where the Arma Maps are in close proximity , the small areas between the DMZs become artificial "Kill Zones".
Please see for example the gap between Arma maps in AC-11 and AB-12 and -13 of the Zhitomir campaign map.
If commanders of both sides know that the enemy must traverse through the narrow corridors between the DMZs , they can create defensive "kill zones" easily with a few key units , perhaps where there would be no defense normally.

I must say that not having Arma installed myself , and with no immediate desire/ability to do so , I am biased to the resolution by IL2 concept. But honestly as a campaigner , it seems to me an artificial constraint to decisions and plans to have these exclusion zones , especially those that have been created (with good reason!) right in key areas of the campaign map.

Also consider Arma maps across key road or railroad sections. If a commander has need to move units through such a sector in a timely manner , and cannot do so , then his units may be compromised in their effectiveness or even survival solely due to the Arma map , which may not even be used.

The ideal resolution would be (it seems to me) to be able to plot the campaign moves normally with no constraints , and then to determine if and where the resolution would be appropriate or desired in the ARMA format.
Whether this can be achieved I do not know , but as "exclusion zones" , the areas mapped as Arma maps currently restrict what is normal and logical movement viewed as a military commander.

I have no problem seeing these areas on the MP ; my issue is with them restricting command choices of where to move and fight.

I guess one of the primary things to assess with this inaugural joint resolution campaign is to brainstorm for a mechanism which serves the easy determination of what can be an ARMA map area , without interfering with the normal considerations of military command choices in a given campaign.

Hopefully some of you other guys will have some creative thoughts in this regard.

Kopfdorfer

Thanks Kopfdorfer, all sensible comments. This is how we test and build better systems together. In response to the issues you and Tanker have noted, we can do a couple of things:

1. Use work-arounds to help the situation in the current campaign.
2. Consider new features that may avoid or streamline issues in future campaigns.

Let me first present some ideas on the second point.

New Feature Idea 1: Code-Assisted IF Zone Identification
This is an idea mooted by Badger and Brandle. Basically, there are no IF maps identified on the MP. Then, after everyone makes their movement orders and just before the DCS Build is executed, the admin pushes a button on the MP and a piece of code is run that analyzes the battlefield and identifies the "best" places for IF action, given all the unit locations and plotted moves. The admin somehow chooses the top places, builds the associated maps and hosts the missions. The point here is that the "best" criterion for IF map location needs to be quantified somehow and then put into code. Then, the code would need to "handle" what to do for any long movement orders that may intersect the chosen IF zone(s).

New Feature Idea 2: Scheduled/Random IF Missions
Kopfdorfer suggests that a campaign design option could be to set a ratio between IL2 and IF action, e.g. 70:30. This would mean that 70% of missions would be run solely as IL2 and the remaining 30% run as IF only. The DCS would have a randomizer that would select which game would be used for the following mission, and would enable/disable display of IF maps accordingly. Alternatively, sides could get a "free pick" of the location of the IF map in each designated IF mission. Allies and Axis would take turns at free picks as the campaign clock moves forward.

Maybe people have other ideas - I'd love to hear them.


Work-Arounds for Zhitomir Situation
There are some things we can do to reduce the constraints on planning imposed by displaying the IF maps on the MP.
1. Simply turn off display of all the IF maps. Easy. Then choose if/when/where we want to play IF mission by mission.
2. Reduce the number of IF maps on display, just leaving the map or maps where we collectively want to play IF in the next mission.

Again the real issue is choice of IF map location. Should we do it before commanders plan moves, or after? Each method will change the campaign in its own way. Then, how do we choose the locations of the IF maps? Do we have a pre-defined set of locations that we all vote on using a forum poll? Or do we just select an interesting location and (possibly) build a new map each time as the battlefield ebbs and flows across the landscape?

Now that we all have greater awareness of these kinds of issues and considerations, I want to propose the following set of actions:
1. All IF maps be disabled from MP display, except Dabryn for the 0500 mission. This will give us one map to play an IF mission for 0500 and see how it works in SEOW. Dabryn has been contested throughout the Korosten campaign and remains in contention, so it is not a bad choice to start with.
2. Following the 0500 mission we can review and either change the IF map strategy, or continue on with this approach by allowing Blue to designate an existing (or new) IF map of their choice for the 0600 mission.

Finally, let me say that I welcome these discussions. From my point of view one of the most appealing parts of coop wargaming is the brainstorming of ideas etc from everyone involved. I actually don't want to be "campaign leader" who makes decisions to drive everyone down a particular path. However, I also know that if decisions are not made in a reasonable time nothing ever happens. So if I don't hear from people I will make suggestions/proposals to keep things moving. The timezone difference doesn't help!

Cheers,
4Shades

I am looking at the remaining IF map (Dabryn) on the Zhitomir Campaign Map and have some more thoughts on this issue.

I am biased as my inclination is to withdraw all Axis forces in this area to a more defensible one further west.
Further , a couple of my own units are "trapped" in an IF World over which I have no control - neither fighting (my choice to not have IF installed) , nor moving (MP precludes planning any movement within/out of/into an IF Map) ; nor can I provide them with supply.

A majority of the Axis units on this IF map , and especially the Axis units in the DMZ , would in no sensible military consideration stay where they are.

The bulk of the units are poised around the Dabryn Rd heading SW to the Korosten-Zhitomir highway to the W and S of the oncoming Reds with a clear egress out of trouble. Almost any Military Commander would send them in that direction , if only to establish a sound defensive position further down the road , but more likely to withdraw to rendezvous with stronger friendly forces.

If they are prohibited to move it seems to me a very artificial means of creating an IF scenario "just because you can".
The limitations of interaction with the MP (from my perspective) remove all these units and choices from the context of the campaign , ie they no longer relate to my own , or my sides other units or plans.

I have a couple of other thoughts which may lead to some ideas of potentially useful mechanisms.
First , perhaps commanders of units in a DMZ should be given an option immediately before the building of an IF Mission whether to include them in the IF Mission , or to exclude them from it.
In the instance of inclusion , these units would be transposed into IF units as per the campaign design , and placed on the IF Map proper at the point nearest the map edge to their position on the DMZ.
In the instance of voluntary exclusion , these units would be placed at the outside edge of the DMZ on the MP map at the nearest position.
Units on the IF map area proper , when resolution by IF was determined , would be REQUIRED to be transposed to IF terms , and be involved in an IF resolution.

Second , IF Map Areas could either exist on the MP map (though with no exclusion zones restricting normal campaign movement and other planning) , but only be ACTIVATED as IF Maps when determined by the admin - this could be by some sort of random mechanism , or by the choice of one or both Sides command.

In this way , I think that IF maps would have a more realistic relationship to the overall campaign , which it is my belief was the intent of the IF inclusion in SEOW.

This by no means would exclude the possibility of an Iron Front Only resolved SEOW Campaign , which is an idea that appeals to me as well (what about you other guys?).

Looking forward to hearing other ideas.

Kopfdorfer

This is a campaign that is designed to use both Iron Front/Arma 2 and IL2 and the purpose of this campaign is to use both. For those that do not want to use both the options are simple they can choose to not enable the option in the SEDCS for Iron Front/IL2 and only use traditional IL2.

I really do not see what your issue is as the commander. If you do not want your units to appear in a potential Iron Front/Arma mission simply move them out of the area where the map will be made. This takes two plots one from the meta map to the DMZ. Then one from the DMZ to the mission planner IL2 map outside the exclusion zone. And yes I realize that you can't cross the DMZ so that just makes it one mission to plot from the Meta map to DMZ and one mission to plot from DMZ to outside the exclusion area.

Since you already stated that

Kopfdorfer wrote:I must say that not having Arma installed myself , and with no immediate desire/ability to do so , I am biased to the resolution by IL2 concept. But honestly as a campaigner , it seems to me an artificial constraint to decisions and plans to have these exclusion zones , especially those that have been created (with good reason!) right in key areas of the campaign map.

The designer of this campaign is interested in seeing if we can resolve conflicts using Iron Front/Arma2 combined with IL2.

It is no different for any of us, the fact remains that to move the units into the Metamap from outside the Meta/DMZ area you have to make one plot to the DMZ . When the Iron Front mission is generated you can move the units into the Meta area as a Iron Front player. If not you have to wait one more mission to plan them to the Meta area using the mission planner. The vice versa is the same to remove them from the Meta Map area either by using the mission planner to move from the Metamap to the DMZ area or have a Iron Front player move them to the edge in the direction you wish to go. It is really that simple and I don't see the problem with the mechanism presently.

So my advice to you would be either get Iron Front/Arma2 installed so you can actually see what is taking place or just plan to remove your units from the Iron Front/Arma2 map areas over the next several missions. If you do not want them in those areas then plan accordingly and stay away from those maps. we all realize that we have to make two moves and this may take either one mission or two to move them. Nothing is prohibited from movement if you have Iron Front you can move your forces with Iron front even if you do not have a CC unit around them. Remember CC units are only used for planning movement in IL2 mission planner. So in Iron Front a player can have the option to select/ jump into a unit and move them wherever he/she likes.

At any rate I think we should just play it out using the system as it is take some notes to see what is working when we have more data which we will have at the end of the campaign. If you have problems with planning your units I will certainly try and assist you anyway I can with you being relatively new to SEOWHQ campaigns.

S~:
Badger

Hi guys,

Some clarifications might be needed.

Further , a couple of my own units are "trapped" in an IF World over which I have no control - neither fighting (my choice to not have IF installed) , nor moving (MP precludes planning any movement within/out of/into an IF Map) ; nor can I provide them with supply.

This is not correct. The MP does not preclude moving units into or out of an IF map. It just enforces a rule that things take an extra turn to do so when planned via the MP. The MP also allows units to move within an IF map in an unrestricted fashion, pick up or drop supply/freight etc. You do have control, it just takes a little longer to interact with the IL2 world outside via the MP. The red side has already moved some units out of Dabryn.

If they are prohibited to move it seems to me a very artificial means of creating an IF scenario "just because you can".

They are not prohibited to move - see above. So the comments about the blue strategy to withdraw being prevented do not actually apply.

Cheers,
4S

Apologies if my comments ruffled feathers.

I am throwing out thoughts and observations - clearly some may be valid , others not.
For those that are based in my ignorance of the system , each time they are answered , my knowledge accumulates.
No questions and answers , no accumulation of knowledge.

My overall intent (and desire) is to contribute in some small way to furthering the development of SEOW as a campaigning mechanism.
To me the mechanisms should serve the overall campaign. All I was aiming for with my previous comments is to have other minds (most that understand the system better than I) consider how this might be streamlined.

My mistake on the movement regarding the Meta maps and the DMZ.
I still feel , however , that the limitation of movement with the meta maps and the DMZs in the MP creates a sense of artificiality when considering the fluidity of planning in the pure campaign sense. Not the IL2 sense , in the "Campaign" sense.
Because I don't intend to personally immerse myself into the IF solution right now does not mean that I don't consider it valid as a campaign resolution ; I just don't think an IF area should affect how movement is plotted in the MP. That is just my opinion.
To me the elegant development would be a MP where you just plot the moves , and some mechanism is available to decide whether and where to resolve by IL2 or by IF - after the rough movement is plotted.

I did a little further exploration with the Dabryn MetaMap. I noticed that I am able to reposition units except that the MP Compass does not function within/over the Meta Map. I don't know if this is intentional or not. To me having the Compass feature function over the Meta Map would be a useful tool.

Kopfdorfer

Kopdorfer maybe I am missing something but in the posts you made in this thread I did not see any questions you asked. I only read some comments that you posted, which is fine. So when people responded to the posts, there is no need to make a comment that you are "ruffling feathers". I am sure that 4Shades and others at SEOWHQ, myself included encourage discussion because this is what our development is about. I assume you posted in the forum to get some feedback from others that may have some more knowledge, understanding, or a different point of view than yourself. That is what the SEOWHQ was created for advanced and developmental IL2 campaigns. However, what I do think you maybe missing is there is an understanding that we have developed to try and campaign in the way and spirit that the designer of the campaign has created. In this area Il2/Iron Front is totally developmental. That is why we are trying to see how this works to get the data and utilize the tools that 4Shades or anyone for that matter has produced.

Think of planning like you would when you take your drive to work. You plan your route and know the time it takes to get there under normal conditions. But what happens if there is a traffic jam or an accident. It may take you twice the time to get there or you may have to deviate to go around the traffic. That is how I think of the SEOW Mission Planner with campaign planning even before we introduced the Iron Front concept with the MetaMap and DMZ areas. I plan to go there it just takes a little more time due to the traffic or whatever. That does not make the planning less fluid or less elegant to me. Just a little delay or a detour on my intended route of travel.

Regarding the compass not showing in the MetaMap area, I am sorry but you are not correct. All you have to do is to Toggle off the MetaMaps and then Toggle of the Exclusion zones and the Compass works fine. You can plan and move units accordingly. I myself do not use the compass that much the MetaMaps are not that big, so I get the coordinates of the units from the pennant that appears and move them east, west, north, south, etc by adding to the longitude, latitude coordinates. If you want to be precise, open up your full mission builder and place objects where you want on the map, with the precise orientation and save the file. If you open in notepad you can copy your coordinates to the mission planner. This is the best way to position static units like guns, artillery, bunkers etc. You can even do test missions and put cameras down and run to see if you have good line of site. So the mission planner as is provides all that information with and without the toggle compass being used over the MetaMap and DMZ areas.

Finally all the SEOW Mission Planner, SEDCS is open source code so anyone can get the code and develop whatever they want if they are inclined to do so. The repository is linked to the WiKi I think and if one chooses to recreate or make a better system, or improve the current system nothing is stopping that individual to take that project.

S~
JG26_Badger

The drive to work is a good analogy.

Thank you for the info regarding turning off the MetaMap and Exclusion Zone. I was unaware of this function.
Perhaps I should have noticed the change in the tool tips but I did not.

When I consulted the Wiki I did not find any reference to turning the MetaMap or the Exclusion Zone on or off , or how they affect movement.
There is no reference to these tools in the "Plotting a Land Mission" page to the MP User's Guide that I could find.

I guess it is unrealistic to expect these changes to be documented before testing has been completed.

The issue that (seems to) remain (s) is that only 1 waypoint can be plotted into or out of (and not within) the DMZ which is problematic if you are trying to utilize or avoid terrain or roads or to avoid enemy units.

Kopfdorfer