Operation Market Garden

[tzor]

(*) Note OMG doesn’t mean what you think it means … read on

I have but two humble claims to online gaming fame (and if you know either one of them I’m going to be massively surprised). I programmed two games for the short lived Multi-Player Games Network (mostly known for its Kingdom of Drakkar game that is now owned by the creator of the game and is still online). The first was a train game adapted from a game from Mayfair Games. The second was a war game adapted from the war game “Operation Market Garden” by Avalon Hill.

For an understanding of Operation Market Garden an Allied military operation, fought in the Netherlands and Germany in World War II, check out the Wikipedia link. Rather than going for a complete historical recreation, I would like to look at, for a moment, the interesting feature of what made that game interesting and fun to me and how I was able to test my game for hours at and end without dying of complete boredom. Many features are just not possible at CC, but some are and they would make for a most interesting map if done in the spirit, (if not the complete historical accuracy) of OMG.

At the ultra high level view of OMG, the board game, I believe the following factors were the most important. Note not all of these can be incorporated into CC.

1. Limited time frame
2. Round to round weather conditions
3. Different troop types including engineering troops
4. Hex map with terrain features that limited movement
5. (ALLIES) Air dropped troops and supplies (gliders, paratroopers and runways)
6. Maintaining supply lines was vital
7. (AXIS) The ability to destroy bridges to cut supply lines
8. (ALLIES) The ability to repair bridges and runways

Clearly 1-3 are not possible with CC so I’ll just throw them away immediately. One of the things that I really liked was the notion of supply lines and air supplies. In OMG it was literally possible to overstretch yourself because while you could air drop troops far into enemy territory you still needed ground troops to march through to provide lines of supply.

4 is somewhat possible but not completely. I would recommend that the initial deployment be only in areas of starting points with most of the map covered in neutral combatants. Difficult terrain could be represented by a larger initial level of neutral troops.

Lines of supply could be encouraged by two notions. The first is the “decay” of the territory (-1 to troops in all areas except base locations; Axis cities, Allied air starting points (*) and Allied ground starting points) and second a stronger reliance on Automatically deployed bonuses (on the above three mentioned types of locations although I would recommend no deployment bonuses on the air starting points) as opposed to place your own bonuses; requiring most troops to be moved at the reinforcement section of the turn.

Air starting points have one way attack far into the northern portion of the map.
Ground starting points are all from the south portion of the map.
Axis cities are mostly on the northern portion of the map.

(*) One idea is to allow decay at the air starting points and do not have deployed bonuses there. This would encourage swift deployment of air power
Bridges are another interesting idea. In OMG they were represented as the ability to cross from one hex into another. I think in the CC this could be represented by making the bridges actual territories. Bombardment from Axis cities could “destroy” the bridge, and a stronger level of decay could be placed on the bridge to prevent the Allies from simply placing enough troops on the bridge long term that the Axis could not bombard the bridge to break supply lines.

Naturally with the CC attitude the game ceases to be a two side war even though the advantages of both sides are still in the game. Multiple players could battle each other from the German cities and through the troops moved from the southern supply lines, each trying to cut off the other’s supply.

So anyway, that was my rough initial idea for the map. Unfortunately I can’t find a simple image of the old Avalon Hill game. Here is the map from Wikipedia:

[00iCon]

From my small experience from Company of Heroes, I like the idea and it should work.
If I remember right, there were a few important hills which could provide an advantage of bombardment as well as one way attacks and the only way to get on the hill is a single (or two) two way path(s).
pehaps some players could start as German where their defences were heaviest and the others can begin in the major airdrop zones. In that case the map would be a field of small neutrals. (hills and towns could have a few more neutrals)
On the topic of towns, perhaps they could have a high bonus but be more susceptible to bombardment.
minefields could have killer neutrals or be -2 when held.
Roads and fields do nothing.
Forests give a minute bonus.

Feel free to reject/accept any of those ideas.

[tzor]

I’m still thinking about this idea and hopefully I will have some more fleshed out ideas in the near future. In the mean time, I have a question for the coders in the group. One of the biggest things in the game was the notion of supply lines; in fact the whole war was fought over dropping troops beyond the supply lines and the frantic attempt to move supply lines to the advanced troops or parachute drop supplies to them.

So my question is, since there is a portion of the code that can determine chained line of supply (reinforcement) is there a way to have static bonuses to a location based on a reinforcement line from a given location? I’m thinking it could be combined with a natural decay so that unless you have a LOS you would start loosing troops.

The game play result is that trying to cut the supply lines of the opponent would be a viable tactic.

[TaCktiX]

Please change the title. I know it's an appropriate acronym, but everyone is thinking you're going hardcore internet fanboi.

The idea is straight fantastic, no joke, no kid. Operation Market Garden was one of the first large-scale uses of airborne infantry, and even though it failed due to overplanning, showed the potential of changing the lines of battle. As many WWII maps we have, very few of them actually deal with specific battles (Ardennes, Australia, Iwo Jima are the only ones methinks). Add into that your desire for some good complex map features, and it certainly has a good niche.

So my question is, since there is a portion of the code that can determine chained line of supply (reinforcement) is there a way to have static bonuses to a location based on a reinforcement line from a given location? I’m thinking it could be combined with a natural decay so that unless you have a LOS you would start loosing troops.

The game play result is that trying to cut the supply lines of the opponent would be a viable tactic.

Technically, no. What you could do is have, as you noted, all non-important territories with a small decay. Then, have overriding reinforcement bonus continents to make up for the lost men, to represent supplies. It wouldn't be a perfect analogue, but it'd be somewhat close.

Another thing to look out for is Lack's promise to add new XML features over the coming months. If he adds the long-requested conditional auto-deploy, you could modify the above to give you a +1 auto-deploy, effectively eliminating the decay when there are proper supply lines.

And welcome to the Foundry.

[tzor]

I'm still thinking about this idea and I will post some more ideas when I have the chance to write them up. My biggest problem was going from memory from the old map I used for the Multi-Player Games Network when I worked at Tantalus. I finally found one of my portable hard drives with the original map. Photobucket shrunk it because it was too tall, but you can get the idea from the image.



Obviously, we can't use this map as is, but it does show the potential for the theme of the map; the arrangement of the various types of terrain including whole areas of polders; the use of hills (bombardment options), towns, rivers (with bridges and ferries), roads, and airports.

[Industrial Helix]

Well, i'd like to see a draft and I'm hoping that it wouldn't be 'hive-style' but I suppose it might suffice.

[MarshalNey]

Hex maps were quite common for old battle simulations (SSI stuff). Actually they were quite good gameplay-wise, even though graphically they were mediocre.

I'm interested to see what you can do with this idea; it'll be difficult to modify the gameplay to fit the CC engine, but you could probably come up with some good stuff.

What terrain types are there? It's impossible to see from the picture.

[natty dread]

Hex maps are more logical in the sense that each hex is equidistant from each adjacent hex, unlike square grid maps (where squares have longer distance to diagonally adjacent squares than they have to horizontally/vertically adjacent squares). I think this is the reason why hex maps were used in so many old strategy games (both computer and board games).

However, in CC gameplay the distance between territories does not need to be utterly realistic, so there's less advantage in using hex maps.

[army of nobunaga]

Im not a huge hex fan, although back in the day I was. I would like to see what you can do with this though... Maybe make it have a cool old "retro" look and feel.

[tzor]

Here are my map thoughts so far. (It has been a busy week and I wanted to draw some examples but I haven’t had the time.)

The use of the small hex map is ideal in a game where units have movement and where movement is impacted by terrain. (You can go real far down the road, less on the open fields and less through polders.) This is a territory game, one at a time. My first thought would be to map movement (or the lack thereof) with the number of territories. So a polder would be one territory per hex, but a field might be three hexes wide and a forest two hexes wide. (Note you can’t exactly map the map this way but I don’t want an exact map.) Roads would be a winding territory that connects many locations allowing really fast “movement.” This would mean that you would control large portions of the road at a time which was not a part of the original game. Territories on either side of the road can attack either the road or each other. (There is a light / dark aspect of the map for small road / off road but that is used mostly for infantry / tank considerations and thus we can completely ignore that feature of the map.)

Legend: Picture trail condensed the map: I have the original: I cut and pasted it into a new graphic.

[MarshalNey]

wow I actually get it. I had to read it three times before it made complete sense, but I see what you're saying.

So, instead of allowing a road to give fast movement by allowing a road territory to attack 2 territories away, for instance, the "movement" would be represented by making a long, thin territory that connected to a lot of other territories along the way that had lesser movement- like fields, polders, etc.

This is a very useful concept, since it gives terrain a more realistic function of bogging down actual movement. Instead of using an impassible to stop someone dead, the map just makes the going tougher.

I've had a very similar idea in some crude sketches for Gettysburg (too bad Gettysburg wasn't an April battle or it would've been in the competition ). In my sketch, hills acted as barriers to movement b/c they were broken up into many smaller territories, while the trenches allowed quick lateral movement by having only several territories that spanned the length of the map.

And hexes are a good rule-of-thumb method of granting each terrain type a standard movement allowance. Presto! I like it.

[carlpgoodrich]

Ok, I think I get it too, and it does sound cool. Any chance we can see a really rough sketch of what it would look like? The map you posted above is really cool but obviously you are proposing something a little different. I get the concept, I am just trying to get a better feel for what the gameplay will be like.

Also, so you don't run out of room and get get enough territs (this seems like it should be a big map), maybe you can break the a "hill" hex up into three diamond shaped territs.

[army of nobunaga]

like it... a lot.

[tzor]

I’ve decided to get this down to a visual level to appeal to the visual sides of our brains. (It being understood; my graphical skills are horrible.) So the idea behind my mind is to take the hex like feel of the original map, but instead of having a hex “grid” each territory would be a composite of connecting hexes. Some (like roads) would be long and snake like, while others would be various collections of hexes to form larger blobs.

I can’t draw that well quickly, so here is a bunch of ovals.



In order to simplify the game there are 4 allied forces and 4 axis forces. Allies start at the bottom and need to work their way to the top. There are three points of major interest for each “allied” player; the starting point at the bottom (where static bonuses are granted) the goal at the top (getting both a top and a bottom of the same color results in a win) and a “air drop” point where their air dropped troops start from.

I’m still working on axis win conditions. My original idea was to have the axis resupply from the top left of the map, but having the axis resupply from the top of the map is an interesting idea as well, providing a little symmetry to the game. (The game can’t be symmetric, because the axis have cities near their start point of the map and no drop locations.) Axis forces will also have a “starting city” to start from as well.

On the crude drawing, the roads are represented by black lines. The scale of the drawing makes these things somewhat useless; obviously the map needs to be at a better scale in order for everything to gell together.

Airports are important because they will have significant auto-deploy.

I’m stuck on converting the ferry points. In the game you had to stop, cross the ferry, and then proceed, but that works in a movement system. I might just have them be one hex bombard conditions.

[mattattam]

hmm, I do like this idea that your going with. It's still quite rough around the edges and it's hard for me to see the completed version since I haven't played the game. I like the idea of crossing the ferry and that taking a turn to do. Having multiple territories that can bombard the ferry would be cool.

Certainly unique game-play to C.C. Starting at the bottom and working to the top or vice versa is a cool idea as well. I look forward to seeing this idea grow. I think it could be a very fun objective game-type to play.

[tzor]

As I think about it more, I think an inverse strategy for the Allied and Axis would be best. The Allied would start at the bottom and at drop off points near the upper middle of the map. The Axis would start at the top and in city hexes within the upper middle of the map. (Note that this would require a minor redesign to the current model to get four good cities in this area of the map.) The Allies would need to advance north, the Axis to take out the advanced troops and move south. The Allies have greater earlier penetration but the Axis has a better chance to not only get supply lines, but a lesser need for doing so.

Static bonuses are given at your starting field on the top or bottom of the map. One problem is that they are, for each “side” all together. There is a real threat they would simply attack each other’s starting point; allies attacking allies and axis attacking axis to get this static bonus. This is a similar problem to what was discussed with Siege II. My current solution is to have these base territories only attackable from the airports.

With that in mind let’s review the territory types:

• Hill: Bombard 3R
• Clear: -1 Decay; Large size territory
• Woods: -1 Decay; Medium size territory
• Polder: -1 Decay; Small size territory
• Marsh: -2 Decay; Small size territory
• City: No Decay; Small size territory
• Airfield: Static Bonus; Bombard starting points; Small size territory
• Highway: No Decay; highways between cities or bridges or intersections count as a single territory.

(You know, for the life of me, I can’t remember the difference rule wise between a canal and a river; I suspect it was just details on the map.)

Bridges and ferries were important in OMG, but that importance can’t be done here. There were engineering units that could build and repair bridges. The Axis could also blow up bridges. (Still the canal on the lower left portion of the map was simply stupid.) I’m thinking about having a 2 radius bombard against all bridges and ferries (or rather the hexes on either side) and having an increased decay on the hexes on either side of a ferry (except those ferries that touch city hexes).



Here is this idea in graphical form. I’ve divided the map into zones although these are just for reference sake. The basic concept of a highway is in brown and the rivers/canals in blue. “A” gives airports and “C” cities. The four starting cities and air drop locations are only vaguely indicated here.

[00iCon]

Are you still thniking in hexes? I think you could merge with some good graphics with good gameplay here.
The autodeploy must be huge to compensate for the decay. Also, with so many decays, why attack? keeping an enemy on a decay is better than attacking it.
Are you thinking that any of the territories will be killer neutral?
Also, to compensate for the lack of ferries, perhaps have docks which can attack other docks on the river up to 2 docks away.
The map could be wider as well.

[Industrial Helix]

The more I think about it the more I think hexes would be a cool way to go. As it is, Hive scares the crap out of me and plus I don't like that its anything but a bee hive. Using the same principles as hive in a historical setting could be a definite win.

[carlpgoodrich]

I think the hexes would work well too.

[MarshalNey]

Hexes get my vote. Also, instead of making the roads just one big territory, I think a standard hex length of road would be nice.

Actually, my impression of the idea was that each terrain would have a 'standard' size in hexes, so that the "faster" that one could travel on a terrain, the more hexes it would have and thus more borders/options for attack.

I think that idea could make mapmaking kind of fun, like piecing together a jigsaw puzzle.

Anyway, I say use hexes.

[carlpgoodrich]

Actually, my impression of the idea was that each terrain would have a 'standard' size in hexes, so that the "faster" that one could travel on a terrain, the more hexes it would have and thus more borders/options for attack.

This was my initial impression, and the reason I got really excited about this map. A road would be a string of say 4 or 5 hexes. I actually think a city could be a large territory, maybe three adjacent hexes (in a circle, not a line) so it can be attacked (and attack) more places. Then mountains could be, say, a third of a hex... etc. I really do like the original map you posted, and I think something much closer to that would work.

(This is the map I mean.)

Click image to enlarge.

[jefjef]

Try to work "Market Garden" objectives into the bonus structure. For historical and theme purposes.

[General Brock II]

Please change the title. I know it's an appropriate acronym, but everyone is thinking you're going hardcore internet fanboi.

The idea is straight fantastic, no joke, no kid. Operation Market Garden was one of the first large-scale uses of airborne infantry, and even though it failed due to overplanning, showed the potential of changing the lines of battle. As many WWII maps we have, very few of them actually deal with specific battles (Ardennes, Australia, Iwo Jima are the only ones methinks). Add into that your desire for some good complex map features, and it certainly has a good niche.

So my question is, since there is a portion of the code that can determine chained line of supply (reinforcement) is there a way to have static bonuses to a location based on a reinforcement line from a given location? I’m thinking it could be combined with a natural decay so that unless you have a LOS you would start loosing troops.

The game play result is that trying to cut the supply lines of the opponent would be a viable tactic.

Technically, no. What you could do is have, as you noted, all non-important territories with a small decay. Then, have overriding reinforcement bonus continents to make up for the lost men, to represent supplies. It wouldn't be a perfect analogue, but it'd be somewhat close.

Another thing to look out for is Lack's promise to add new XML features over the coming months. If he adds the long-requested conditional auto-deploy, you could modify the above to give you a +1 auto-deploy, effectively eliminating the decay when there are proper supply lines.

And welcome to the Foundry.

I say, spiff choice! Market Garden was the largest Western Allied campaign led by Monty after the storm of Normandy. Overplanning wasn't why it failed. lol Though it lost the Allies the initiative. But anyhow, I hope to see this thing in the maps before long! I'll be one dedicated player.

@TaCktiX, I agree with Industrial, though, if you could modify the hexes, it would be a lot better.

[tzor]

The multi-hex territory is a major design feature, in my opinion. I took the original map, and worked on a visualization of this idea for the top section. It’s a rough idea.



Territories are marked by yellow and the river blue. With a few minor exceptions the easier terrains all are larger (an occasional large terrain might have one swamp or forest). The bottom left shows one of the longer roads as the middle right. This radically changes the “threat” of decay as it is per territory not per hex.

The objective will be worked into the map. The problem is two fold. The first was that the original game had a time limit. The second was that the original game was one sided, it was the goal of the allies to have a supply chain from the top to the bottom of the map; it was the goal of the axis to prevent this from happening. I don’t think we can do a line of supply at this time.

Instead I’m thinking of the goal is to have control of an allied starting point and an axis starting point (not including the allied drop points and the axis city points). Since starting points can only be assaulted from the airports, this would mean that the airports get more attention than they normally did, but this has to be a 8 way symmetric game and we need a good way to keep the four allies from just fighting the four allies and the four axis from just fighting the four axis right off of the starting gate for the auto-deploy units.

Again, this is rough; I think the map needs to be tweaked to get the right balance of the territory types. Some of the map features were clearly more historical and gratuitous than functional. (The road at the upper right is a good example.) Others need to be tweaked to give each player a more or less equal advantage. (The original game was by historical design not balanced.)

[TaCktiX]

I've got an idea to make sure the map still looks aesthetically congruent when you're done with it. Since "fast" territories are going to be multiple hexes, they are bound to look a little weird. Create the full map with hex, then fudge the borders to be slightly more organic and perhaps mute the Weird look. It might work, it might not, but we can always find out, right?