Going outside the Boundries of the map.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Is walking out around the enemys troops by exiting the edge of the map and re-entering at a different location cheating or fair?

[admin]

is it possible?

[admin]

can you make a short video please?

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Its very simple to recreate. Draw a circle around a group of Brigades. Take the furthest brigade from the edge of the map and drag them into the edge of the map and down and around the enemy swinging in a circle you bring the Brigades back into the map. Only the one one brigade you move with your cursor will not cross into the edge. All the other brigades will. You can press halt on the one brigade that will not cross into the map as to not give your position away.

[R.E.B.Blunt]

Like this. As you can see Anderson, Texas Brigade and Benning simply walked around the map and came out behind the enemy. I had this tactic used against me in multiplayer and I thought it was genius. Since then I have used it against people who like to camp on multiplayer and get a big kick out of it. I did not see no harm in it as it is a way to get around the limits of the map and those who camp on the edge . From what I have found it is 50/50 on my friends list of people who find the tactic ok and those who say it is cheating. Just wanted to get the forums opinion.

[David Fair]

It looks more like a game design flaw than a question of fairness/cheating by players.  

 

I'm not a fan of "false flanks" created by the map edges.  Players should not be allowed to anchor on the edge of the map in the first place.  The game design should allow the map to scroll to allow players to play the battle on the battlefield map of Gettysburg.  

 

Sigh - I know - it is impossible with the current game design.

 

The problem I see with this strategy is that a "real flank" can be obviated by a move than can't be countered by on-map units.  

 

With this move it would be possible to take a cavalry force as the most central unit then circle an infantry corps in addition to the cavalry unit.  Move the cavalry unit so it stays on the map - thus allowing an entire corps to move around a flank off-screen that might be protected by units that are outside the scope of the particular scenario.  Thus you can move freely on a flank that might be protected by troops deployed on that same flank in another scenario.  

 

For example, the CSA could flank Cemetery Hill by moving off-map around the Culp's Hill area - even though Culp's Hill is currently occupied by Union troops that aren't in the current scenario.

 

Hopefully that statement is not as clear as mud.  

 

Another example may help - Custer plus the Union VI Corps moves off-map to the east, then north of Gettysburg to land on the Confederate flank/rear.  Custer stays on the map and moves quickly to the desired location; then he can evade the CSA counter-moves and wait for the VI Corps to arrive.  There is no way for the CSA to counter this move until the Union VI Corps arrives back on the map later in the scenario.

 

I really like the idea of keeping on-map units in a position where they can be added to the next scenario.  It actually makes the game have more of a campaign feel rather than a disjointed series of vignettes focused on VP's. 

 

Suggested game mechanics modification:  Perhaps the game needs to have a map-edge "flank status" that would prevent this type of move if the flank is secured by off-map units while allowing the move if the flank is not secured by off-map units.

[No Pasaran]

REB the way i see this Flank thing is simple when battling on map you should able to see enemy units/flags if unit exits from map then they stay off!

Don't know how they can go off map but not fair game-wise as this smacks of sliding a hidden ace card down sleeve!

PPL look and see what's set up arrayed before 'em and play the game accordingly.

Total agreement regards David Fair strategic movement of units but not in this game as we know it!!!   I have long suspected other ppl/opponents have done this tactic on me not nice feeling know ur opponent has to resort to extra curricular activities. Understand ur frustration regarding 'camping'.    

[Koro]

This video shows it: 

- and yes, I got a bit upset.

From 16.00.

 

I think it's blatant abuse of game mechanics.

 

Blizzard defines the difference between clever use of game mechanics as something like: Clever use is using a skill from a player that may not have been intended for the purpose to counter a mechanic from a boss. Cheating is when you take a lowlvl item that for whatever reason destroys the point of the entire encounter.

 

Moving of the map like that, as No Pasaran says, leaves the other player in a state of not being able to counter it.

 

What's the point of having flanks protected or making a line if the opposing player can just move around it and appear in any location on the map. It isn't even remotely realistic. This move in this scenario would have you cross Cemetery Hill, that the Union is holding and there would be troops there had it not been for the limits of the map. It follows logically that the limits of the map are then where the borders are.

 

It's not about camping on the hill as you put it. One side is defending, one side is attacking, as it usually were IRL. Your personal need to always be on the attack is not a fault of the game . It's still very possible to get a defending force of a hill or the high ground, even when "camping".

[R.E.B.Blunt]

This is a game about the civil war right? Were these tactics ever used in the civil war? Did the confederates ever march around the flank of the enemy unseen and appear in the rear? One word Chancellorsville So as to being realistic I would say yes 100% realistic.

 

Now the issue of the limits of the maps were discussed in the early stages of development of the game. The problem. You have a 2D map  that does not move and units that interact as if it were 3D. It was Darths idea to open up the edges of the map. I distinctly remember this conversation. It did happen and it was a community discussion many people voiced their opinions and that is the solution Darth and his developers came upon. Tell me if I was mistaken.

 

When this moved first happened to me it was Hammurobby that used it against me. Surprised the hell out of me. I thought the move to be genius. I still think the move is genius. I give him full props of discovering it and I wish I had discovered it.

 

In real civil war battles the key was to maneuver. When the enemy anchored his army to a static location. The first thing a general would do would be to extend his line if practicable around the flanks of the static line. Having a fixed map with edges that allow no maneuvering around is in fact the issue that is 100% un realistic.

 

This is the point that I argue. What Koro said I should do is I should dig in and wait for him. But That is against my gamestyle. I am reckless, I attack and I am not sorry. I never said I was the best person at this game. I wouldnt even say Im in the top 10. Many of you including Koro is better at this game than myself. The clan rules as Wizard said who runs the clan battles. The rules did not specifically say you could not do what I did in battle. The rules in the clan battles now DO say that. But there were no such rules before the battle. Even though, had I known that any such rules were even remotely close to what I did I would not of done that. I just never actually read the clan rules.

 

 

And as a side note. You seemed to counter it just fine. Hence throwing away your argument that a cheating move would be something "that leaves the other player in a state of not being able to counter it."

[Lolopush]

What a surprise move. This is definitely something what I miss in my MP battles. I roughly know the terrain, enemy brigades and their initial placement, timing of the reserves, their entry points and most successful enemy strategies for all MP scenarios. No surprise at all, no reality.

 

This was unexpected like the real life. I suppose that both of you will remember this game long after many another MP battles.

 

In spite of this I voted for cheating but only because the one of you was unaware that something like this is even possible to do.

 

The same question is if it is fair to protect the flanks by the edges of the map.

[No Pasaran]

Who would have figured that by playing in close Beta testing this Off Board maneuver was sanctioned by the Devs and not made for public consumption, why...why ...why were we the playing members not advised of this new 'solution'.

Just cause the rules don't state a certain clause does not mean it's right and proper to exploit said maneuver, try and justify/slice it any way you like REB it's still cheating in my book. 

[R.E.B.Blunt]

 I dont think this move was sanctioned by the devs. This move was not discovered until recently. What was decided, was to leave the edges of the maps open so that troops could still be moved if out of bounds.

 

But it adds to the usual predictability that this game has. The unknown element that lacks when we memorize the maps by playing them 100's of times. Who wants to play the same thing over and over? Having troops appear from different areas. Hidden units appear for ambush or assault. It adds another element to the game.

[David Fair]

Keep in mind at Gettysburg Meade's best intelligence was the the ANV was 90,000 strong - roughly equal or slightly superior in numbers to the AoP.  Yet, in UGG, no player is under the same intelligence misconception.  

 

Reb Blunt's observation that 100% knowledge of the OOB makes the game stale is valid and should be considered to ensure the game retains elements of excitement/variability.

 

Everyone has learned a lesson and placing blame on the fairness/unfairness is a toxic subject.  Accept the lesson and move on.  

 

Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, and there is not an obvious right answer or moral high ground.

 

The primary problem with the move is that many players (and the devs) didn't know this was even possible.

 

It is one thing to move around an open flank.  It is something quite different to know a game mechanic/design flaw that can be exploited in a Tournament that people are competing to win (and seem to care about the result).

 

A sound game manual would be vastly helpful and resolve the conflict.  

 

In my book this is why we agreed to test the game in the first place - to understand what is possible.

 

Fussing about the results of a particular Tournament seems premature - as the game is still in flux.

 

The thing I really like about the move is players can't put "it all on the line" with troops running from map edge to map edge.  Reserves once again enter the equation and force players to address tactical mobile reserves at Gettysburg.  

 

UGG is not intended to be a game of WWI trench warfare with the flanks anchored on the sea and the Alps.  The map edge "anchored flanks" turn Gettysburg into something it was not - the siege of Petersburg.  

 

In fact it is interesting that in all of the "next game" choices players would like to see Petersburg is not on the list anywhere.  And yet, by allowing the map size to troop concentration ratio to enable troops to be deployed from map edge to map edge that is precisely the situation that devolves UGG Gettysburg into UGG Petersburg.

 

Perhaps the design team might think about scenarios of smaller scale with more of the map on the open flanks represented to allow "fair" flanking maneuvers while precluding off-map flank moves when there are real flanks that are not open.

 

 

PS - Chancellorsville was an exception in the Civil War.  Most battles were fought with the armies attempting to discover open flanks only to run into mobile reserves that protected open flanks (e.g., Gettysburg).  Battles more frequently resulted in head-on collisions because the armies were either evenly enough matched, or poorly commanded, so that flanks were not often exploited (e.g., Antietam).

[Lolopush]

Just imagine what the multiplayer could look like with this possibility of offboard manoeuvres. It brings the fresh element of surprise, uncertainty and fear just like in the real battle. That is something what was fade away from MP long time ago.

The videttes would be used in a way what they were intended for. For scouting around the map for enemy moves from unexpected direction. The same for fast skirmishers. They would slow down the enemy movements to gain you the time to rearrange the defences and react on the new sudden threat. Cavalry would be used for fast redeployments to support the areas under imminent attack.

It brings many new tactical possibilities and decisions. Should I keep some brigades in reserve to guard already captured VP location and what exactly or should I risk and throw them to attack to leave them unguarded? The more VP I occupy the more I will be weakened in next advance just like in the real battle. Or should divide forces and send some of my troop offboard to surprise the enemy and where exactly. They can’t fight while offboard so I will be weakened for some time and the battle could be already lost when they reappear on the map just like in the Koro’s video.

It is definitely big leap in approaching to the feelings and situation of a commander in real battle. The history can stay in singleplayer. I hope I will find someone willing to play with this new rule. 

[David Fair]

There is a certain amount of comedy in this fair/cheating thread.  

 

By taking half of his army off the map the CSA defense was crushed - losing all of the VPs on the map and suffering more than two to one casualties.  

 

Dividing the CSA forces reduced their defensive firepower by 50%.  Bad idea in a timed scenario.

When the remaining half of the CSA army returned to the map it was crushed.  

While the tactic caused consternation it was militarily foolish.  

Not only did the CSA fail to hold any key positions - their army was decisively beaten and suffered more than two to one casualties.  Can't do much worse than that in this game.

 

If I was in Koro's shoes I'd be cheering for any opponent that performed such a silly maneuver in this situation.

As Napoleon said: Never interrupt the enemy when he is making a mistake.

 

Thanks for sharing the video.

[Koro]

I guess you have a fair point.. no pun intended . I dont think the results would have been the same had I committed all my forces, especially the Iron Brigade. So lucky I was playing carefully I guess.

 

The last comment I will make on this matter is that if it were intented behavior, it would be possible to make this maneuver without having to use a brigade separated from the rest. Right now the arrow stops at the edge if you attempt to do this. How can it not be exploitive behavoir to have to deliberately place a brigade apart from the ones you want to move in order to perform a maneuver?

[David Fair]

Koro,  three of my daughters are named: Laissez, County,  and Un - so we are immune to fair-puns.

 

If flanking in the game was as effective as it was on the ACW battlefield I'd maybe agree with your characterization of this move as exploitative.

However, getting on an enemy's flank has minimal impact in UGG.

(See Koro's video above as a prime example)

In UGG troops simply turn to face the threat.  When units rout they rout by brigade and each brigade fights on until it's condition is destroyed.  Thus, you never see a Corps collapse as I and XI Corps both did at Gettysburg resulting in 6,000 Union POWs.  

 

Bottom line in the UGG design Chancellorsville would be difficult to replicate.

 

The game designers might want to consider the impact that friendly units routing should have on other friendly units in the proximity of the rout.  

This would make the game more about battlefield tactics/planning/coordination/reserves rather than getting every unit on the firing line and plugging holes as they occur.

[Koro]

I am laughing a lot right now . What's your Steam name?

 

You are right about getting on the flank is not as deadly as it probably were in real life but it's still very useful to attack the enemy flank. If you can extend your line around the enemy 

 

Moral is inderectly affected as troops have higher moral is their flanks are covered. Thus, if a unit next to them routs, the remaining will be lower too though perhaps not as much as I could have.

 

I've found it a bit silly as I get better at using reserves that I just walk a 100 % moral brigade through a routed unit. Imagene their thoughts: "OMG RUN AWAY WE'RE BEING OVERPOWERED" vs. "LET'S GIVE THEM HELL BOYS".

In that sense you are right and moral should be more corps wise than unit wise.