Campaign Series II?

**Big Ivan** · 02-21-2015, 07:47 PM,

I agree with Ed,
scale should win out here.

There is only so much one can do with this game engine, and the map scale plus the platoon level dictate that.

Years ago I commented about splitting units and I still kind of like the idea if not for the problem of doubling/tripling units on the map! More so than splitting I like the idea of being able to recombine lesser strength units back into a platoon. Combat effectiveness in the game is based on strength points so being able to recombine to a stronger unit is more appealing to me.

Fuel shortages, not really sure how one would do that w/o some type of variable Fixed status!?

We have to accept the fact that long ago, Panzerblitz was way different than Advance Squad Leader based almost exclusively on scale. Here too CS is way different than Squad Battles or CM.

I'd really love to see a computerized version of ASL, I really would! But I imagine the computer coding alone would be a real nightmare.

Ivan the Big

Nitram Draw · 02-23-2015, 02:52 AM,

(02-21-2015, 07:47 PM)Ivan The Big Wrote: Fuel shortages, not really sure how one would do that w/o some type of variable Fixed status!?

I wonder if your base AP's could be modified by the ammo level? If it could then maybe it could be set up like visibility in the scenario header so that the levels could go up and down on certain turns based on the ammo level.

**Big Ivan** · 02-23-2015, 09:15 PM,

Interesting idea Nitram!

However, AP's affect firing too and not just movement. Most units have a minimum of 2 shots w/o movement in any turn. That factor shouldn't be lost. The coding would have to be setup in such a way that at the scenario design phase you could pick for vehicles "low on fuel" or "low on ammo" or both. In this way the bases might be covered at least for vehicles. Whereby some turns they could move and others not but at least shoot twice per turn. As for other units, fuel doesn't matter in game terms and "low on ammo" already kind of exists in supply rules.

Hmmm, makes one wonder a bit if its easy to do in the coding.

ItB

dgk196 · 02-23-2015, 10:20 PM,

Hello...

Fuel supply... well one way would be to have a 'range' factor. Like the range of a weapon, this instead would be the range of the unit. How many hexes you are going to allow it go in this scenario. Wouldn't matter what speed (though it probably should). You would simply set a units 'range' as to the maximum number of hexes the unit can move at what ever speed it is moving at.

So, for example, I set the range of a unit to 80 and its maximum movement rate is 8 then it could move 10 consecutive turns at that rate ( 80 / 8 = 10 ). Basically a 'countdown' system. This would take into account the extra expenditure of terrain and such. The number of movement factors in used in a turn would simply be subtracted from the 'range' allotment for the unit to get the remaining range allotment. This should be a variable that can either be set by the players in the scenario design or imposed on existing scenarios.

Additionally, for really 'long' scenarios, you could also have a 'refuel' rate. Once a unit needs to 'refuel' you could set the number of 'range' factors it regains for every turn spent 'refueling'. So, if you set the refuel rate of or example unit to 20 per turn, then it would take four turns to refuel back to its maximum range of 80 ( 80 / 20 = 4 ). So, the factors for movement would be Range... Speed ... Refuel rate... which would be for our example... 80/8/20. That shouldn't be too hard to handle in a scenario, eh?

I get the idea that allowing units to 'breakdown' into their sub-units would increase the 'load' on the players. But only if they perform that activity. I think once used, you'll find the players using such a feature in specific instances, such as patrolling ahead or used for outposts or observation. One thing I don't understand is how the unit size fits the 'scale'. So long as the 'units' are not oversized for the hex size, such as having 'battalion' sized units trying to occupy a 250 meter hex in a combat deployment situation, what difference does it make? If you have a 'countdown' system, number of units remaining in the parent unit, isn't that the same as having sub-units of a smaller size? Just a thought.

Dennis Jester

dgk196 · 03-02-2015, 04:45 AM,

Hello....

Seems like the thread is dying out... or taking a nap...

But in the meanwhile... I'd like to see a map similar to the Panzer Campaign Series in the aspect of terrain height. Different terrain heights are represented by a different color.

Dennis Jester

Schwerpunkt75 · 03-02-2015, 01:45 PM,

Someone brought up the idea of breaking units into smaller sub-units mid-scenario. It's important to keep in mind that allowing this will decrease the effect of indirect fire, which will impact virtually every scenario.

I'm actually in favor of allowing units to be amalgamated during a scenario, i.e. having two 3-SP infantry platoons combine into one 6-SP platoon. This was frequently done in order to preserve combat power. Under the current rule, however, breaking down units to smaller and smaller subunits is a bad idea.

dgk196 · (This post was last modified: 03-03-2015, 02:59 AM by dgk196.)

Hello...

I completely agree with you that just 'breaking down' units into their sub-units would, on the surface, would probably be a bad idea. But, if there where more restrictive effects for doing so then maybe it would be more reflective of such an occurrence. Such as unit cohesion. Such units that did not maintain a position or establish communication relative to the 'parent unit' or other sub-units of the same should incur some relevant and possibly significant limitations as to their abilities to perform specific functions.

Without imposing some sort of operational limits to the practice of breaking down into sub-units the game would turn into a free for all, which sometimes happens already. For instance... lets say that you have to assign a specific attribute to a deployed sub-unit or task that it is to perform. Sub-units where usually deployed with this in mind...

Such as establishing security pickets... recon patrols... spotting for artillery support... or just plain old early warning. These then should be specific to the units limits or functions as to when it is in such a status as deployed from its parent unit. Lets say you send out a recon unit to scout ahead in a forest... then that's all it should do, other then being able to fire to attack or defend itself of course. If the units involved don't have radio's in the recon unit, then it has to send back runners to relay the information as to the recon and what they observed. This should take time in accordance with the terrain movement cost and the distance from the recon unit to the parent unit. A somewhat different situation then the current 'spotting' that takes place in the game currently (!?).

Say you send out a unit to perform 'spotting'. Without portable radios they either rely on 'runners' or telephone or signal devices to relay information as to the spotting taking place. If no radio is available and phones are, then the unit can only 'spot' from the position it established for that task. Keep in mind if the unit is only spotting and not an artillery observer, it cannot directly call for indirect, or directed, fire support. This must be done by 'passing' the information on through the parent unit. Which then has to meet the requirements for passing the information on further. Once that has been done, to say a superior unit, that can call for fire support, the relative 'delay' for the organization supplying that support must be met in order to provide the fire support.

Admittedly all of this would 'complicate' things, to say the least. But, then... welcome to the real world of commanding and coordinating operations on a tactical level. We played a game the other night and it was amazing. We where able to move virtually anywhere relative to our own units and the enemy units without repercussions, other then being fired on. No effects for being out of communications with the parent unit or other units in the command. And indirect artillery support that would be the envy of modern military forces. In my opinion, having sub units and a task / ability situation would go a long way to simulating the activities of units at this level, it would also provide a challenge to using such an organization effectively.

There are of course many more examples and types of sub-units and their assigned tasks / abilities. But these are just a few examples. Does this scale support this? Not only does it 'support' it, it should be mandatory ( nah, that's a little over the top) in order to be able to perform operations at this level.

Just my opinion

Dennis Jester