Forums

Before I start I want to clarify that this post is in no way directed at any one individual or team.Just a short collection of my thoughts from what I have observed while running the various campaigns.

First of all a special thanks to all who have played and offered thoughts and suggestions on how to improve and run the system. Over the years the campaigns have evolved into a highly playable and realistic form.Still limited somewhat by the game engines but we have found ways to simulate many things heretofore not possible with regular scenarios or even with the stock linked campaigns.

Playing a linked campaign by e-mail is the most difficult way to play the CS games.Players have to plan for the long term and a future.There are no defined objective hexs and no finite number of turns.There are no victory levels to watch.There is no last charge on the last 2 or 3 turns to achieve some magical major victory by expending all available resources.I think it is quite possibly the most realistic way to play the game.Of course I am a bit prejudiced cause it's my brainchild and I also have never been able to play much.

There will be times when you will be frustrated and feel you can't possibly win.There will be times you will lament the loss of your troops.There will be times you will feel tired and burned out and just plain spent.Now you have a small inkling of what it must have been like for the actual commanders of these battles.There is always the option of surrendering and the beauty of that is there will be no POW camp(or firing squad) and you can always begin another campaign with a fresh start and new challenges.

I have had many CICs complain they do not have enough to do.Frankly that statement amazes me.You have command of up to an armies worth of assets.There are 3 field commands to keep track of and of course the all time most difficult thing to do is get all the players to at least try and do what the plans and orders call for.A CIC with not much to do better have the best field commanders ever found.CIC has to have an eye for detail.

So,yes the campaigns are tough.They are supposed to be.I think this is the narrow path of CS gaming which is less traveled because it is so difficult.There is a very small percentage of players doing it for that reason.

Lastly, remember "If it was easy; anyone could do it"
I thank each and every one of you for at least giving it a go.It's a great way to dance.

von Earlmann

PS: Longest post I have made for quite some time.I am now off the soapbox.

Comrade Earl:

There is no way I'm letting off the :soap: that quickly without at least accepting a hand shake and a great deal of gratitude that you have given me over these last 6+ months of some of the best gaming time I've ever experienced... now that has to be a record length sentence! ;)

Your very unique style of playing the CS games has really broken some new and exciting ground. As you had mentioned it is also one of the toughest and most realistic way of war gaming that I've ever experinced in the 30+ years that I've been an "Armchair General". Now I'm showing my age... :rolleyes:

If anyone at the Club ever gets a chance to play your campaigns... really enjoys a challenge... likes Team games and wants to experience a whole new way of playing the CS game you got to try it!

THANKS EARL :thumbs_up:

Earl,

Thank you for all efforts you put in developing CS playability. I tried one of your battles long, long time ago and that was great experience. Only limited time and my infrequent activity in the ladder prevent me from participating in new campaign (or at least trying to get into )...

The only thing comparable with your campaigns are (or should say were, as I don't know how they look now) your impressive scenarios!!!

Thank you

Slawek

Earl,

Your linked campaign style is absolutely fantastic. In the current Bulge campaign I eagerly await the next turn from my opponent to see what has transpired. The lack of objectives changes gameplay immensely, terrain is king, and the value of the terrain is measured in its tactical and strategic value. I must admit the enormity of the concept was initially lost on me and I played the game as if I was playing any scenario with a limited scope..This made me forget about the overall strategic situation..I began to realise as the ammo got lower that my troops just simply could not sit in their forward positions on neverending supply, morale and cohesion. It was only then that I realised the brillance of the concept. I had to treat them like real soldiers, failure to retreat meant no ammo, lowered morale, disruption and eventually death. The lack of objectives lets me focus the overall strategic running of the campaign, I have to plan when to retreat when to fight and often when to die, trying to assemble and rally my forces, resting them so they can fight another day.

This all brings a new dimension to the game, which continuously surprises me..Outstanding work

Matt ~Digger

Earl,

I would also like to learn how to design linked campaigns. I have many ideas for campains but never realized it was possible to make linked campaigns suited for human vs human pbem matches.

keep up the good work!

Huib

i would like to get on board here..where do i enlist

:conf:
sorry for my ignorance!
I tried searching for these linked scenarios but couldnt find them?
can someone enlighten me please?
regards
Peter

Hi Earl,
I

Hi Earl,
I too applaud your campaign style format and I enjoyed creating a linked scenario style game of a particular operation of WW2 and watching the players battle unfold until their enthusiam waned away.
However as CiC in the latest campaign I found it boring to say the least if I cant play as I lose interest rather quickly which is a particular trait of mine. I found that in that role a game like Operational art of war or similar titles give a more hands on role and I would like to explore the new Battlefront game coming up which puts a general more in touch of the real thing.
This is not a slight but I hope constructive criticism which I feel that an actual player has more immersion than a watching player hence my decision to give one of my commanders the decision making ability which in turn is conclusive to enthusiam and keeping thing rolling.
Also I think that a 3-5 linked scenarios is an excellent way of making one scenario and If I had more time I would do so but that then takes away my playing time which to me is what it is all about.(Huib would be good at this)
Keep up the good work Earl, we need you.

P.S
The only way to play this game is blind, but with a good briefing/intel of the general situation and a glass of red.Hmmm, that means I play blind drunk....no wonder I often lose:)