 |
|
Campaign System - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Combat Mission (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=10) +--- Thread: Campaign System (/showthread.php?tid=42387) |
RE: Campaign System - Mad Russian - 10-02-2007 Fullhouse Wrote:Quote:Few people are going to sit and watch a battalion get cut to pieces on a map without withdrawing. Very few locations are worth the severe mauling of a unit. This is true. I'm not saying in the least that the attackers get off casualty free in the exchange. More that they deal death and destruction to the smaller defenders forces. These forces are not willing to look at an attacker with supporting tanks, being hit by artillery and seeing waves of infantry coming to stay on the map and take the heavy losses. The accounts you read about where the Germans kill 3 T-34's out of 20 and the Soviets stop attacking is viable here. Even understandable. When you know that you might have to fight with this very same unit again later. (Commanders are NOT assigned units but battles in the campaign.) Quote:It is up to the defending unit to find terrain which grants it force multipliers so it can withstand attacks from superior forces. Each battle location had a map that was made for it specifically. The operational map was to be made from actual German tactical maps. Quote:I may not mind if my battalion gets cut to ribbons if it can deal out what it gets before bighting the bullet or it can significantly delay or hold up enemy forces. The problem with that supposition is that you won't know if you've done that or not until AFTER the battle and if it looks like you are just going to get pounded you won't just sit there. Quote:In CM terms then: While of course this is sound tactical advise that worked well for the Germans in Normandy and the US in the Battle of the Bulge it wasn't working well on the steppes of Russia. Quote:This would counter another pretense of the average CM battle that often gets overlooked, not only are the forces "fair" but the terrain is "fair" also. Where is in reality most battles would never enjoy the above conditions. Coming from my scenario making background where my battles/operations are all set on historical events that is less true. I have to work with the maps, OOB's and situations, to try to get my scenarios as close to the original situation as possible. The issue that rapidly showed itself in the CM resolution of Op CM is that the generals are striving for unbalanced battles. The attacker isn't going to take a fight where he thinks it's anywhere close to an even fight unless he doesn't have a choice. The defender is going to try to unbalance the fight with reserves, reinforcements and counterattacks. The end result seems to be a series of actions where one side has pretty much overwhelming local superiority against a weaker opponent. Sound familiar? Of course it does. When you play higher level games it's what you do. You stack Six American divisions around St. Lo and blow through the defending ONE German Regiment there. You will do the exact same thing here. What that translates into are an almost endless series of actions where the defender is retreating off map almost as soon as they can. At least that's what the playtesting has shown so far. Maybe the we have the wrong operation to try this with. An operation where the terrain can be a factor like Normandy or the Bulge would certainly be better for the defender. Good Hunting. MR RE: Campaign System - Mad Russian - 10-02-2007 [hirr Wrote:Leto] One of the things that was not done was to see what would happen in later battles. For one thing the defender cannot run forever. You can only give up so much ground before you have to defend SOMETHING or give the attacker his objectives and he wins. So what is happening here then? Why not just play it out and watch the battles start to take on more and more combat? There is that factor. What I see happening is an actually realistic event. The defender starts piling more and more troops in the line. He pulls back and consolidates. As he does he gets more troops in defensive positions at the start of the battles instead of later/not at all. This will have the effect of the battles getting larger and larger as the campaign moves further towards completion. There is a set limit to the size of battles that an administrator will accept. When that limit is hit then the battles are fought with those forces. The attacker determines what goes into this battle from his side. The defender may send in reinforcements depending on the map location of his un-engaged units. The question is... are you all willing to fight through a series of extremely unbalanced actions in the beginning to get to the more fierce fighting later on? While battles will not take more than 30 days under any circumstance!!! That still leaves a period of several months(actual time) of withdrawls possibly before the actual heavy fighting starts up. The real operations come in three phases. 1) The initial assault where specific points in the enemy defense are overwhelmed. 2) The exploitation of the broken line normally with mechanized forces of some sort. Move as far and fast as you can before the enemy responds. 3) The re-establishment of another defensive line with the enemy bringing in fresh troops, use of terrain, your own losses limiting further offensive action. That should happen here as well. The playtesting we did modeled only the first phase of this process to see if the system would work. It does. Quote:With regards to the decision making structure, I would hope that it would be team based with an overarching team leader or Field Marshall (complete with at least one batman of course). Further to that, there isn't much more I can add. In this particular case Bootie and I were the single commanders. We sent out the battle orders and assigned them to players to fight. I should have thought about the need for a Batman!!! It was discussed that the TOAW bunch of gamers be brought in to do that level. I personally would rather the CM players get to do that part as well. If there is enough interest we can continue to develop the system. The maps are not an issue. Both the tactical maps and the operational maps can be done without much problem. Once a battle location has a map then it keeps that map from then on until the operation is over. Good Hunting. MR RE: Campaign System - Easymeat - 10-02-2007 Choosing the campaign to play and setting up the campaign are all part of the preparation. Some will transfer well to CM some will not. Setting objectives is ok but scripting the campaign every twist and turn could possibly stifle creativity. The campaign can be balanced or unbalanced. As long as the players have a good time. RE: Campaign System - Mad Russian - 10-02-2007 Easymeat Wrote:Choosing the campaign to play and setting up the campaign are all part of the preparation. Some will transfer well to CM some will not. Anytime you use an actual event to set your wargaming experiences up with you are scripting to a small degree. Nothing after the first shot in Op CM is scripted except the armies abilities to respond historically. For instance the Russian forces aren't going to have unlimited supplies to attack as often as they want. They will be limited to a more reasonably historical number. If the battles are unbalanced then at least half the players had a good time huh? :bow: Good Hunting. MR RE: Campaign System - Easymeat - 10-02-2007 Mad Russian, could you send me the rules you used to play your campaign and any programs used to help manage it. There is a difference between choosing a campaign and intervening in every battle to make sure all is balanced. Whether an actual event is chosen or not scripting takes place. All we are trying to do is add something to CM. If 50% of the players are enjoying the campaign that just leaves the other 50%. Shall we give up at the least problem or find solutions to these problems. The campaign will have objectives for both sides to achieve. In the end a campaign will end as a win, lose or draw. Winning conditions will be set (scripting) for both sides. The campaign will come to an end. Lessons will be learnt. If they are terminal then thats it for a campaign system for CM. RE: Campaign System - Mad Russian - 10-03-2007 Easymeat Wrote:Mad Russian, could you send me the rules you used to play your campaign and any programs used to help manage it. of course. Quote:There is a difference between choosing a campaign and intervening in every battle to make sure all is balanced. Whether an actual event is chosen or not scripting takes place. All we are trying to do is add something to CM. We have been discussing a campaign system here. One that has been written, playtested and modified. You asked about it and I'm telling you. We have SCRIPTED nothing. The battles were not made balanced. That is the entire issue we have been discussing in this thread. I believe that I happen to agree with you about adding something to CM! Since we started this a full year before you ever even asked a single question about it. Quote:If 50% of the players are enjoying the campaign that just leaves the other 50%. Shall we give up at the least problem or find solutions to these problems. Who said anything about giving up? We are here in this thread discussing what we have and where that might lead us. Quote:The campaign will have objectives for both sides to achieve. In the end a campaign will end as a win, lose or draw. Winning conditions will be set (scripting) for both sides. The campaign will come to an end. Lessons will be learnt. If they are terminal then thats it for a campaign system for CM. Usually the long term objectives for an operation are mutually inclusive. What one side wants the other side tries to deny. Winning conditions in my campaigns will be the historical ones. Not something I make up. Or script as you call it. Good Hunting. MR RE: Campaign System - Vulture - 10-03-2007 Guys Been reading this thread with interest. I ran my own CMBO Campaign for two years Apr 2004 - Jul 2006. http://www.667.hab.dsl.pipex.com/Wargaming/CM/Finished/2004-Campaign/2004-Campaign-Homepage.html The scope of it was pretty limited, but not with standing that, there were some really exciting battles. The campaign was organised to run over five rounds, and I'm proud to say that with a great bunch of players, we played all five, and got a result. I see lots and lots of great ideas being kicked around on this thread which is great. In addition to my own campaign observations on the web site, my advise, for what its worth, is not to be too ambitious, and pick your COs with care. My own story, is that flushed with the glow of success after completing my first campaign, I felt I could expand the system slightly, and quadruple the number of players (to 80). With my campaign and tournament organisational experience I felt sure I could manage it. How wrong I was... :( Sadly I fell flat on my face (something I'm very unhappy about). Massive workload, comms problems with players, and several COs (there were 5 per side) who were just not up to the job, sucked all the energy and determination out of me. Cheers Vulture RE: Campaign System - Easymeat - 10-03-2007 Vulture, you say massive workload, could you expand and say what the workload consisted of? RE: Campaign System - Easymeat - 10-03-2007 In the campaign that you run and I was one of the players, I asked if there was any way help. What could a computer do in order to reduce the work load? RE: Campaign System - Vulture - 10-03-2007 Easymeat Wrote:Vulture, you say massive workload, could you expand and say what the workload consisted of? Easymeat To run a good campaign, the system your going to run needs to be well playtested, certainly mine did. In the CMBO campaign, I did two tests with single players, then announced the start of the campaign. Whilst I then trained up two COs, to keep the other players interested I ran what I called a Recon round. This all worked fine :) When I tried to run the second Campaign 'The Battle Of The Bulge', I used the same formula, but with four times the number of players. So what I had was 40 players per side organised into 4 Divisions. Each Division had a CO and a 2nd IC, plus there was an overall Corps CO as well. So there were 22 players who need to understand the game system. To do that, what I tried to do was run a virtual game with me randomly deciding the outcome of battles (by dice). In addition to this I was at the same time running a Recon round for all players to participate in, so you get all the normal stuff associated with running an 80 player event: - Players drops off the face of the earth without any warning. - New players have to be recruited. - Some players think it okay to only do 1 turn per week, and so need to be hassled (not something I enjoy doing) - Players experience comms problems, so I need to act as a post office - Web site updates are required. The rule playtest went very badly. Not that there was anything wrong with the system, but the amount of time it took for players to process the playtest turns was ridiculous, plus one or two dropped out as well. Some of them were sooooo slow, and a couple just could not get their heads round the concepts at all, in spite of repeated E-Mails. It (sadly) became apparent that I had bitten off more that I could chew frankly. At the heart of the system I used was the requirement for players to have (reasonably) balanced games to play, so that the outcome was not already pre-determined when they started their game. The system works, it's just that I was too ambitious with 80 players, and frankly speaking some the COs were not up to. Would I run another campaign using that system ? Yes, I would, but with no more than 15 players per side. I hope that gives some insight. Drop me an E-Mail if you want a full copy of the rules I developed. Cheers Vulture |
){kind=link}