Campaign System

[Easymeat]

Thats the point of the campaign system. The computer deals with the oobs, battlefields, etc. This takes the workload off the person or persons running the campaign, so that time spent on day to day tasks can be used more productively.

You could even have another module (program) which updates a website with results. If anything more substantial needs posting then the campaign manager could update the website.

The above posts would need a campaign system. It all depends on preparation and how the campaign is run and played.

[Mad Russian]

I don't think that balanced battles are the issue as much as each side getting a chance to perform a task that is important to that side's overall objectives. If the attacking side has overwhelming odds, then when playing the battle have the attacking side perform more tasks to gain more levels of victory, like multiple flags, or ensuring a bridge stays intact, or a shorter time frame to accomplish the tasks. This way the defender can get his butt kicked yet influence subsequent battles by denying the objectives of the attacker. And the attacker can do the same, by overachieving the tasks required like taking more flags then the minmum required in less time with higher enemy kills for example. You are not fighting a battle to see who wins, we know the attacker will, but lets fight for time delays or extra casualties on either side by interpalating some company vs company size battle over an attempt to blow a small bridge before the attacker gets there.

Victory is simple. Each battle area is a 2km x 2km square. Inside that square in a pattern making a square are four flags. Control more of them than your opponent and you control the battle area. Equal numbers and you have a draw. If neither side wants to pull out then the battle continues with reinforcing the battle area an option to both sides depending on their force dispositions on the operational map.

Do you as the defender that gets your butt kicked want that game reported here on the ladder? We all fight battles to win.

If the games are played in real time then holding out for another day means something.

Let me explain real time. We have a month of 30 days in it. You have 20 turn PBEM's.

Three battles start on Day 1.

(1) Battle A is finished in 9 days ( 18 game files - 6 turns). This releases the Side that initiated that battle to initiate another battle. RIGHT THEN! There are no rounds to be contended with!

(2) Battle B is finished in 12 days ( 24 game files - 8 turns) This now releases the side that initiated this battle to initiate another battle. RIGHT THEN!

(3) Battle C is finished is stopped on day 30. The game is set for 20 turns with fixed ending. ( 60 game files - 20 turns) This battle went the whole distance.

If at the end of Battle C there is not one gamer with more flags under control than the other OR if neither side wishes to leave the battle area, the map is reset and another battle started in that location with both sides being allowed to reinforce according to their force dispostion on the operational level map.

The battles that are then started would look like this for the Axis forces.

Battle A - started on day one. Concluded on day 9.

Battle B - started on day one. Concluded on day 12.

Battle C - started on day one. Concluded on day 30.

All battles MUST be finished by day 30 or they are called by the administrator. It is up to the commander for that side to ensure that their files are returned on time...1 file per day unless an agreed to schedule change. TCP or shotgun files on Saturday...whatever...

Battle D - started on Day 10 after the conclusion of Battle A.

Battle E - started on Day 14 after the conclusion of Battle B.

Battle F - started on Day 3 of Month 2 after the conclusion of Battle C. This is a continuation of Battle C.

The commanders would decide how long between battles to start new ones. This system would make holding out on a map where you are heavily outnumbered sometimes imperative and every day counts for other battle locations.

For instance, if the loss of that location would close a pocket on two others battle locations. You may want to take heavy losses in that one and stop combat in the other two and then re-initiate combat in an attempt to get out of the forming pocket.

You absolutely fight each battle to see who wins. Battles are fought for a reason in real life and the same thing would hold true here. Or else why bother if there was no reason to win the fight?

The sole exception that comes to mind is to tie up the enemy's reserves in a fight to help you win in another location.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

When I was working on my Rikonovo Campaign battles, I was actually breaking out of CM conventions and dropping flags... the results of battles will be patently obvious...

Also, players will not fight according to where flags are, but more realistic orders, like: Hold the village... Capture the bridge...etc.
You won't know if your opponent has orders to blow a bridge... you just know that capturing it at speed is essential to prevent this.

If your defending force has been virtually wiped out and no reserves are available to hold your position, you obviously pull back your remnants.... if the attacking force has been bled white, it advances at it's own peril without a refit, but that decision would be up to the overall CO.

Example, while testing the Rikonovo concept a while back, a small advance force of T-34's, T-60's with mounted infantry and some halftracks propbed a village off the march... ran into a wall of PzIVH's in hulldown positions in the village, half the soviet armour went up in smoke... soviets pulled back to lick wounds, regroup and await reinforcements for a perhaps a renewed attack at night?... battle was over in about 8 turns... and the result patently obvious without any Flags, and the same principle could be applied to any size battle.
The battle setup was determined by command decisions by the CO's of each side sending forces to specific locations with orders.
The Germans orders might've been to ambush the soviet advance, if the soviet force was too large, give it a bloody nose...lay smoke... hotfoot it out of the village.

But that said, the results of this kind of campaign system would be worthless for any ladders etc... hence my saying, this would need a set of dedicated "out-of-the-box" participants.

In Op CM the side initiating the battle would determine time of day.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

Issues of Balance and withdrawal are all decided by how the strategic layer is implemented.

There must be strategic incentives for one side to stay and fight even if forces are unbalanced. Also, it should never be totally clear due to fog of war exactly how unbalanced any battle is until it is underway and both forces have eyes on in the field.

There are several ways to give strategic incentives, road net and supply for example. Road net allows you move forces quicker and in good order and arrive at any destination unfatigued and supply, well that is obvious.

Op CM is setup using an actual operation. The objectives are the same as in the actual operation.

I think playing wargames that have companies as the base unit size help in the vizualisation of how battles evolve. I would say HTTR and COTA would be the best examples.

Op CM uses battalions as the basic unit. These can be broken down into any size units for movement or combat.

In one battle there was an infantry battalion attacked by two other infantry battalions. Bootie had assigned an NW Bde to support the defenders and the outcome was not pretty.

In any campaign lasting over several days, the first few battles are messy as recon by fire takes place, after a few meeting engangements between random elements bumping into each other, lines form and then attacks are made to try and secure objectives that either facilitate supply for friendlys or frustrate it for opfors. Other objectives will be clearing the road net and to take high ground and good defensive positions. After this jockying for postition has taken place then the battles proper begin to try and secure the campaighn objectives.

Recon is the least of your worries when a battle location you have with an infantry battalion in it gets hit with an infantry battalion, a company of tanks, all supported with a 150mm FO.

The battles proper begin right away. The operations are setup on actual operations and you have some idea of what the enemy has and where it is.

Recon elements actually do their intended purpose in Op CM. If they get within a specific distance from the map edge they can report what is in the adjacent location. That and report what is in the location they are in obviously.

If the only strategic level objective is the destruction of enemy forces, then you will have withdrawal after withdrawal, however the destruction of enemy forces must in fact be a secondary objective. The primary objective must be the taking or securing of some strategic objective and thus the destruction of enemy forces must be in a sense incidental to this. This will cut down on withdrawals.

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.

In essence the ground being fought over must provide some benefits to those that hold it. Thus even if a force is outmatched it may seek to hold the ground to maintain those benefits for its own regiment/division etc and also to frustrate for as long as possible the enemy in receiving those benefits.

I have yet to see a battle fought without a reason. The attacker wants that location. And if he does he generally brings enough toys to the party to make sure he gets it. Now the defender is not toothless and can move troops into the battle zone as reinforcements depending on their disposition on the operational map.

A campaign system that can create the above conditions should lead to a rich playing experience. I mean if all you want is balanced battles CM fulfills that need excellently. I personally would like to see the engine break out of that niche and explore some of its more diverse possibilities, which 99% of the time are ignored.

The issue is how many battles are you willing to fight where the outcome is determined by turn 8? The attacker wants that battle location and from what I've seen so far they normally get it. That means the defender is retreating or taking very high casualties. Not always. Sometimes the defender deals the grief. Again, not in a balanced game but a lopsided one. In real life situations, and Op CM mirrors those fairly closely, there are few balanced fights. Both sides strive to avoid a balanced fight in RL!!

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

I agree with one aspect of the balance issue -- for something like this to really work, you need players that can think and play outside the regular CM Ladder box.... it would be more of a case of players willing to "roleplay" their commands without keeping a constant eye on their Blitz ladder averages.

Maybe the games are not reported on the ladder individually. Maybe only campaign ribbons or something else are given out.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Copper]

I agree that an operational and historically functional campaign system would not be a ladder player's wet dream. The simplicity of a solution to that is as easy as just not recording campaign system games.

I for one am interested in becoming engrossed within the real strategic, logistical and operational elements of what a campaign system could offer the players: realistic simulation of battle conditions that develop from the overarching generation of long term strategy.

This does not rule out the fact that extremely interesting and even balanced battles would take place.

Assume a map that has several terrain obstacles that do not allow for the rapid advance of an attack, such as marshes, forest, or even cities. The impetus would be very much focused upon the actual variables that operational commanders would face when making decisions with regards to troop movements, troop quality, troop unit diversity, fortifications, attack/defense and other things.

You would not send a panzer KG to attack a marsh, nor would you send an SMG regiment to defend an open steppes.

I think the emphasis must be solely concentrated on the aspect of reality that ground the functioning of the campaign system to a set of criteria that is designed to simulate the strategic factors that were the mainstay of world war 2 divisional commanders.

I for one would take part in a campaign system that gave me the strategic choice to make logistical decisions, even if it meant that some extremely lopsided battles were generated. I think that the severity of these unbalanced engagements are being overexaggerated IMHO.

Cheers!

Leto

[Mad Russian]

Leto]
I agree that an operational and historically functional campaign system would not be a ladder player's wet dream. The simplicity of a solution to that is as easy as just not recording campaign system games.

That works for me as well.

I for one am interested in becoming engrossed within the real strategic, logistical and operational elements of what a campaign system could offer the players: realistic simulation of battle conditions that develop from the overarching generation of long term strategy.

Bootie and I have discussed this some. Not sure if you have an overall operational commander, have the TOAW guys play the generals giving their subordinates the assignments, have a committee command group or how we would want to do the operational unit movement and attacks. Who would determine the support assigned to each, what units to move and where...all of the higher level decisions.

This does not rule out the fact that extremely interesting and even balanced battles would take place.

Some will. Not nearly as many as most people think.

Assume a map that has several terrain obstacles that do not allow for the rapid advance of an attack, such as marshes, forest, or even cities. The impetus would be very much focused upon the actual variables that operational commanders would face when making decisions with regards to troop movements, troop quality, troop unit diversity, fortifications, attack/defense and other things.

The playtest map had different terrain types on it. The operation we were/are working on is Khar'kov winter/spring 42/43. There is mostly steppe terrain in the area. Not exclusively though. It is winter and all rivers are frozen.

You would not send a panzer KG to attack a marsh, nor would you send an SMG regiment to defend an open steppes.

I think the emphasis must be solely concentrated on the aspect of reality that ground the functioning of the campaign system to a set of criteria that is designed to simulate the strategic factors that were the mainstay of world war 2 divisional commanders.

That is the goal.

I for one would take part in a campaign system that gave me the strategic choice to make logistical decisions, even if it meant that some extremely lopsided battles were generated. I think that the severity of these unbalanced engagements are being overexaggerated IMHO.

Cheers!

Leto

Ah, but who will make those decisions? Just you? A team of players? All of the players on a particular team?

We playtested six battles, that Bootie and I generated. Of those six only one went beyond 10 turns. That battle would have been a continuation battle since it went all 20 turns and was still undecided.

You can think I am overexaggerating if you like but I'm the one that ran the test not you....lol...I'm the one with the actual results. :whis: :smoke:

Good Hunting.

MR

[Copper]

We playtested six battles, that Bootie and I generated. Of those six only one went beyond 10 turns. That battle would have been a continuation battle since it went all 20 turns and was still undecided.

You can think I am overexaggerating if you like but I'm the one that ran the test not you....lol...I'm the one with the actual results. :whis: :smoke:

Good Hunting.

MR

I never stand in the way of valid and reliable empirical data. Nevertheless, I would presume that we haven't exhausted all our options. I'd like to take a closer look at your framework. I doubt I can add anything helpful, but an extra set of eyes never hurts.

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.

LMK if there is anything specific that I may be able to do to help.

Cheers!

Leto

[Fullhouse]

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.

To refer back to HTTR/COTA again. When defending a valuable location, one dosnt do it by placing units slap bang on the top of location, but on good defensive terrain through which an enemy must pass to reach the location.

This might be a tree line with flat empty terrain in front of it, high ground or any number of permutations etc.

It is up to the defending unit to find terrain which grants it force multipliers so it can withstand attacks from superior forces.

I dont know how your campaighn system generated the terrain and ability to manouvre and set up within it, if it dosnt allow for the above then that would be a problem.

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.

In CM terms then:

The way to counter an attack by an unbalanced force is to fight them on an unbalanced map.

So a campaighn system would have to have a strategic layer that allowed defenders to seek out unbalanced maps to defend from and attackers (or those with the intiative) seeking to counter this by either overwhelming force or manouvre to better routes of attack.

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.

[Easymeat]

If you want more possibilities in the campaign. The players send there last turns to the campaign manager. The battle analysed to find the positions of all the units. Any units which have been killed will be left out. A new battle created, units put back in the same positions, same parameters (unless they need altering), any reinforcement could then be added. The battle sent back to the players to resume battle. The only problem would be immobilized units, I cannot immobilize them at the moment.

If this functionality is required just say. If the battlefields are 2km by 2km or less then the program would not be difficult to write.