Campaign System

[Ratzki]

Could something be done like small modules that fit together. Start out with, say, the ability to move counters on a .jpg image map and then add little bits that it seems would be usefull. Maybe next a stat tracking system or whatever there is a need of. That way no one is biting off more then can be chewed and it slowly gets finished little by little with those that are interested being the testers(by fire). This also helps to spread some of the workload out as there would potentially be many of us that could help here and there without a giant time commitment. A committe would be a logical place to start and help with direction of the project.

[Mad Russian]

Leto]
I think it would be better represented by giving commanders certain real war divisions that fought at a certain time in a certain area of the campaign. Those divisions would be managed by the QB generator in terms of whether one had certain nationalities, mechanized, infantry only or tank divisions, depending on the OOB of the division. This could then be broken down into battalion and regimental assets commanded by players.

The nature of war lends itself to inequality and very little balance with respect to how the ebb and flow of campaigns change.

There has to be a decision based on whether we want that kind of operationalization, or more of a domination type game where you should fight over squares based on fair generated QB's.

The immensity of the task of designing a scenario based campaign would break the backs of our entire CM development and design corps of volunteers.

I suggest that a commitee be established to work on this problem, create a framework based on criteria and objectives and then move forward introducing it to designers who can give feedback.

Perhaps a section somewhere devoted to this so that committee members can work and share ideas.

If there is enough interest and demand, then we may even think about looking for capital from volunteers to support it.

Cheers!

Leto

There already is a committee working on this issue. There has been for some time.

The OOB is setup on battalions with Divisions starting the game with as close to actual OOB's as possible.

The rules for the operational part are for the most part simple.

The issue is the complete imbalance of the battles this system generates. These battles have maps made for the battle zones (hexes, squares, whatever area you like).

The maps are then kept for future conflicts in that area. The OOB's are then adjusted and the the general in charge generates new orders. Either ordering movement or combat.

Again, the issue that comes up is that every battle at all levels of actual warfare are an exercise in big ratio attacks. 3-1 or higher.

Who wants to be on the receiving end of those????

Do you????

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Could something be done like small modules that fit together. Start out with, say, the ability to move counters on a .jpg image map and then add little bits that it seems would be usefull. Maybe next a stat tracking system or whatever there is a need of. That way no one is biting off more then can be chewed and it slowly gets finished little by little with those that are interested being the testers(by fire). This also helps to spread some of the workload out as there would potentially be many of us that could help here and there without a giant time commitment. A committe would be a logical place to start and help with direction of the project.

When we discussed this before there was exactly ONE volunteer here from Blitz IIRC. That was RD and he pulled out later. So, while the all volunteer corps sounds wonderful so far it hasn't materialized.

I count Booties participation as coming from FGM.

Good Hunting.

MR

[McIvan]

Again, the issue that comes up is that every battle at all levels of actual warfare are an exercise in big ratio attacks. 3-1 or higher.

Who wants to be on the receiving end of those????

Do you????

Good Hunting.

MR

Nope, because CM's god view of the battlefield and borg spotting means that the attacker suceeds with far less odds than in real life......which is reflected in the usual 1:1.4 to 1:1.6666 odds given for quick battles. So perhaps most of the problem is finding the right battle when some sort of parity existed or one side did an attack followed by the other side counterattacking.

The Battle of Lauben is an example, in March 1945....there is a CMBB meta-campaign being conducted right now, and there are a number of pitched battles being very determinedly fought in only the second round as reinforcements from behind the front line move to shore up the gaps.

[Copper]

Ok is there anyway we can set up a section here at the Blitz for people to discuss this... possibly similar to Koens area. That way people can see what is going on and possibly the discussions will interest them and encourage them to join in... remember it wont be long until the long dark nights are upon us and the CM communities activity seems to crank up a gear as people play instead of having BBQ's on the patio!!

MR has rightly said we were working on an idea but due to imbalance issues it got bogged down.

I like the idea of working out the very unbalanced battles without guys actually having to ground through them. However I feel we should do a write up or something to acknowledge what happened in these battles rather than just dismiss them with 'Allies lost 40% but retreated'... these bare statistics will drive people away as they may have fought hard to attempt to get through to them (possibly an encircled unit) then they get given a scrap of information.

Its all about getting interest up and people involved. If we can harness the DB system and adjust it to cater for the pre-made plans MR has put together we can have a workable system straight off. What is needed then is for someone to configure how these 'unfair' battles are going to work.

[Copper]

I also think if each player plays a particular character it will add spice to the campaign as generals argue about where to fight and when... it will also provide an interesting side story to the narrative of the campaign. The campaign is the core of course and no one has to get into character but I think it would make for an interesting aside.

[Rico (FGM)]

Been tossing various campaign ideas around with Mr Yormsha for months now and we came to the conclusion the main issue ISN'T the imbalance of battles, as this can be screatively solved with mission parameters and adjusted victory conditions given to the players before each battle.
Example: You're defending and your unit's mission is to delay the enemy's attack... you might be eventually overrun, but if you leave enough smoking wrecks on the battlefield to blunt the attack, mission accomplished!
MAIN PROBLEM is TIME!!
The time it takes to even get through a small 24 turn PBEM ME QB makes these campaigns unfeasible... and even one little hiccup like a player dropping out due to RL problems, vacation time slowing down play... and I take it the idea would be to have even larger battles.

Perhaps if this was ONLY played TC/IP, then something like this won't turn into a neverending epic with no end in sight...

[Copper]

Great points Rico.

[Copper]

I do believe we already have the perfect (from a fun perspective) campaign going on over at the FGM which is free for any members of the Blitz to join in on. It may be unreaistic as the majority of battles are balanced but it is keeping everyone interested and has been running smoothly. At present 33 players have had at least one battle with 46 games being reported.

Go to the Few Good Men and check out Domination.

However I too like the idea of a campaign where one discusses tactics as a team and then tries to implement it on the map via CM battles. Regarding the unbalanced battles.. this will become a game in itself as we ponder where to push our forces and trying to second guess the enemy. A mini game of chess outwith the battlefield.

[Easymeat]

Forgot to mention that for the program to work CM needs to be run in a screen mode of 1024 x 768 at 32 bit.

I will upload the full program next week. All that needs doing is moving the matrix here and there to get the additional info.

As far as a DB game with battles settled in CM would make the programming a lot easier. On the right you could display the CM units contained in a game counter on the map. And on the left the map with road, rail networks and other interesting goodies to fight over. Artillery could be represented on the CM map by artillery spotters. Any airfields in range of the battle could have the aircraft included in the CM oob.

As far as even battles goes you could limit the oobs to a specific number of points. All taken care of by the computer (players play, computer does the bookkeeping). So you could have one side with 3000 points meeting the enemy who has 6000 points. In this case the computer could be progammed to limit the points to 3500, 4000 you get the idea. The only problem would be what to leave out, does the computer decide or the player.

If two sides meet and one side has an advantage a slight advantage should be carried over to the CM battle(s). You could even make two battle and have two separate battle to resolve a conflict.

The big problem would be the time it takes to complete a battle or battles. If more than two players are invovled, you don't want the rest waiting a month to move units on the operational map or fight a battle.

DB style adition to CM is all well and good but the time it takes to resolve battles is the big issue not is one side going to have 3-1 points advantage.