Barbarossa PBEM campaing

[seabolt]

-I suggest that the battles should be relatively smallish in order for the campaign to proceed in good order.

I agree that keeping the battles smaller will help move things forward...and also that a referee might come in handy.

I'd third that suggestion. Dividing by 3 would be unworkable. At a minimum, I would suggest dividing by 9, such that a battalion with attachments represents a real world division.

For instance, a mid-war panzergrenadier division scaled by 9 would fit into a nice 26-unit scheme as such:

A: HQ
B: Armored recon platoon
C-G: Pzgrndr company
H-L: Truck infantry company
M-Q: Truck infantry company
R: Armored engineer platoon
S-V: Panzer company
W: Jagdpanzer or StuG platoon
X: SP-AA platoon
Y: 4 105mm artillery tubes, on or offboard
Z: 2 150mm artillery tubes, on or offboard

That's a *big* force for SPWW2 (though with far less artillery than we usually deploy :whis:) and it's only a single division divided by 9. IIRC, Von Rundstedt had 60-odd divisions in Army Group South alone.

-- 30 --

[Vesku]

I'd fourth that suggestion. I'm very eager to participate but not if every battle has 9 plus battalions to play with, I simply have not enough time for battle of that scale.

[Von Bismarck]

Hi folks!

Nice to see the suggestions flowing in
Well, regarding size of forces and turns, this project was created considering a Division represented by one of its regiments and not as battalion strenght plus support forces.
Also the maps already designed are huge 200x200 ones and battle lenght for 60 turns....
Of course such figures will demand a lot of commitment by players but for those who play E.T battles we could see the evolution regarding game lenght that now are around 35 turns in avarage..
But also all suggestions are welcome and we will check which ones can be implemented or not.
Our goal is not to creat a thing to please ourselves only but to bring fun to the community

Cheers

VB

[Thexder]

Well, regarding size of forces and turns, this project was created considering a Division represented by one of its regiments and not as battalion strenght plus support forces.

Wow, regiment might be too large...It could take hours to maneuvre that kind of force.:conf:

Also the maps already designed are huge 200x200 ones and battle lenght for 60 turns....

It's beginning to sound like this is not my cup of tea

Of course such figures will demand a lot of commitment by players but for those who play E.T battles we could see the evolution regarding game lenght that now are around 35 turns in avarage..

That's right, a huge amount of commitment is needed in order to finish this kind of battle, not to speak of tournament with many battles this large! And - to be frank - commitment is a luxury we don't have enough here in Blitz community. But, on the other hand, who can blame us: we all have other lives as well and there's unforeseen developments in jobs, studies, partners, health etc. no one could've seen. I'd suggest you - and everyone who are doing great job in creating tournaments - taking this (relative - what other game demands such commitment?!) lack of commintment as a fact that cannot be circumvented.

But also all suggestions are welcome and we will check which ones can be implemented or not.
Our goal is not to creat a thing to please ourselves only but to bring fun to the community

You're doing a great job! I'm just afraid that you're trying to do something undoable now. But I'd be very glad to be proven wrong:smoke:;)


,
Thexder

[seabolt]

Ditto to everything Thexder just said. It's a great idea and more power to y'all for doing the heavy lifting ... but it would be much too much for me to commit to something that epic.

-- 30 --

[Thexder]

I'd very much like to see your idea applied in some smaller battle. There's plenty of books written about smallish battles in which maybe 2000-5000 men have fought for both sides. It could be a very good idea to choose a battle of that size (I thinks there's lots of info on battle fought in the western front 44 and 45), make maybe 4x4 maps (a grid) that represents the battle area and divide the forces in battalions who fight in these areas.

Both sides would have the actual historical forces (including reserves). Then those forces would be divided to players, about one battalion for each. At least 50% of the forces would be in reserve when the battle begins and the overall commander would give some of the reserves to his subcommanders after every turn.

The battle would be battalion scale and maps relatively small. There would be only a small amount of turns and losses would be carried to the next battle. Overall casualty figures would be kept for both sides.

There would be penalties for those who don't return their turns as quickly as they have promised when joining the tournament. For example there could be a rule "at least one turn per two days" and if that is not followed, 5% penalty would follow for each day. Or something like that.

Only sky, time of the tourney-masters (and of course game mechanics:smoke:) is limit for the amount of role play elements that can be added in a battle like this. If someone comes up with a tourney even little like this, I'm in: small battles, "real" casualties, role play elements, based on historical units.


,
Thexder

[seabolt]

If someone comes up with a tourney even little like this, I'm in: small battles, "real" casualties, role play elements, based on historical units.

Would you play it in H2H? After the excellent job that Vesku and Weasel did with the Squad Leader tourney, I've been enjoying the good old days of infantry squads that don't giggle like schoolgirls while close-assaulting armor ...

-- 30 --

[Von Bismarck]

I'd very much like to see your idea applied in some smaller battle. There's plenty of books written about smallish battles in which maybe 2000-5000 men have fought for both sides. It could be a very good idea to choose a battle of that size (I thinks there's lots of info on battle fought in the western front 44 and 45), make maybe 4x4 maps (a grid) that represents the battle area and divide the forces in battalions who fight in these areas.

Both sides would have the actual historical forces (including reserves). Then those forces would be divided to players, about one battalion for each. At least 50% of the forces would be in reserve when the battle begins and the overall commander would give some of the reserves to his subcommanders after every turn.

The battle would be battalion scale and maps relatively small. There would be only a small amount of turns and losses would be carried to the next battle. Overall casualty figures would be kept for both sides.

There would be penalties for those who don't return their turns as quickly as they have promised when joining the tournament. For example there could be a rule "at least one turn per two days" and if that is not followed, 5% penalty would follow for each day. Or something like that.

Only sky, time of the tourney-masters (and of course game mechanics:smoke:) is limit for the amount of role play elements that can be added in a battle like this. If someone comes up with a tourney even little like this, I'm in: small battles, "real" casualties, role play elements, based on historical units.


,
Thexder

To tell the truth we are already considering something like this for the years after 41.
This concept would be apllied in not such large scale as Barbarossa but for much smaller operations like case Blue,Kursk, Bagration etc..
Where the amount of forces involved were much smaller than almost 200 divisions at each side...
For Barbarossa all tables are ready from amount of supplies per province, factory production figures, Divisional OOBs, replacment charts and so on.
I'll talk with Jadpanther about change the scale and battle lenght.
The maps already made can easily be converted in small ones..

VB

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Sounds interesting. I'll give it a shot as Axis.

[Epoletov [SPR].]

I support already above told.

Huge fights will be excessive burden for many, including for my clubmates from S.P.R. :hissy: