Idea for BIG multi player/campaighn/battle game.

[Fullhouse]

I was wondering if by using multiple players on each team you could create say a regiment sized conlfict on a single fixed (V large map) with fixed flags.

Each side could have players in controll of say a inf battalion and maybe an armoured company or two/three. 3 inf Battalions per side. (thats a regiment isnt it?)

Instead of having fixed turns all battles would be fought to a ceasefire, but would be in the time frame of a certain day. So you would start at dawn then day etc etc.

At the end of each battle a GM would determine resupply according to pre agreed parameters, and perhaps controlling certain points on the map would add to ressuply thus giving Flags/roads/terrain/towns as such a real strategic purpose. Units that were cut off would be severly restricted supply wise and thus there would be purpose to tactical encirclement.

Rules could also be established for determing fatigue also thus creating the nead for tactical reserves.

Battles would have to be saved at the point were they ceasfired and then adminsterd by a GM, but that admin wouldnt be to intensive I dont think.

Is the above feasible?

[Copper]

Anything is feasible in regards to running things like this.... what I find is if the players will give you 100% commitment.

Bootie

[Colonel Talvela]

Personally it would be hard for me to get involved in something like this while I am hoping that CM Campaigns will be realeased some day.

Of course that is seeming more unlikely all the time - but I still have hope.

But if Campaigns does get released, I am planning on making on my CM friends join with me in a game against somebody. It sure would be nice to actually fight with somebody, rather than just against.

[Fullhouse]

Well I am realy looking forward for CMC but it is looking more and more like vapour ware.

Most games that have a strategic and tactical layer have a Strategic map that then resolves sites for tactical battles.

With the CM engine you could feasibly remove the abstraction of the Strategic layer if you had a map big enough to have strategic elements whilst playing on that map at the tactical level (this is what I am suggesting above does I think). The places you would be fighting for on the map wouldnt be arbitary but would have some real effect on the next battle.

Whilst I am in no position to do the above as I have no clue about map making I would def take part in such a game if it were available.

[Copper]

Join the FGM... LOL

[Zemke]

[Fullhouse]

That sounds totaly different to what I am proposing, In that there is a strategic map from which tactical battles are then determined.

I am proposing that you have a vlarge CM map with about a regiment deyployed for each side on the actual CM map. You would play teams with each commander in controll of say a battalion or an armoured company. There is no strategic map. This is the whole point.

There would be no timer set, battles would be fought till ceasefire and then strategic factors like ressuply would be worked out by actual conditions on the battle field, such as proximity to roads, wether the roads were blockaded, proximitiy to towns etc.

[Larry Thorne (FGM)]

See here
http://www.webandofbrothers.de/campaigns.htm
I think the wintersport thingy is just what you are thinking of doing. Try to visit their board the link is underneath the picture and info and contact the tourneymeister via email/pm if it is possible. Ask him how it is doing. Looks to be rather slow thing to run but as long as players enjoy it well...coulld be very fun.

Hope this helps
Cheers
LT

[USS Wyoming]

Here's a formula for such a campaign I've conjured up.

I think the biggest challenge falls on the shoulders of the campaign manager.

It appears that a large campaign map could be created.

Then that map could be sub-divided into manageable smaller combat maps. These smaller maps wouldn't neccesarily have to be the same size, but instead be centered (figuratively speaking) on specific objectives.

The campaign manager would then have to determine what would be the strategic result based on the outcome of that battle for that objective.

The battles could be ME, advances, assaults or whatever. Some could be larger, while others could be small to tiny.

It wouldn't have to be historical.

You could have a small battle for a piece of high ground, another medium to large engagment for a series of roads or other objectives, and so on. ( These different sized engagements may be preferrable to the players?)

The trick would be for the campaign designer to create the next series of battles on the map that would reflect the positive or negative outcomes of the previous battles.

Perhaps a job better suited for a combination of Tom Clancy, Cornelius Ryan, Stephen Ambrose and L. Ron Hubbard !