Campaign System

[Mad Russian]

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...

Not actually. The idea is to have the battles be 20 PBEM turns long. If they last longer than that you reset them. A 20 turn battle would generate 60 emails and with a return rate of 1 file per day could be finished in a month. With a team of gamers if one gamer dropped out another could cover for him. That would be up to the TEAM to determine how it is finished or that TEAM takes the loss.

There would be a very finite ending. The battles move forward in real time. Starting up again as they finish.

For instance, you have 3 battles going. One does TCP and finishes in 2 days. One goes for 15 days and one goes for 30 days.

The next three battles could be initiated the very same day that the original 3 battles were completed. On days +2, +15 and +30.

Any battle that is not completed to BOTH players satisfaction is reset and continues on.

I don't care what happens in RL. Once that battle starts your TEAM has 30 days to finish it. If you don't then you are the loser and the location goes to your opponent. PERIOD!!

You don't seem to understand. If your unit is destroyed on the battlefield that's one thing but very few gamers will accept that result.
Are you going to want to put about five of those up on the Blitz ladder in your name? Major Defeats all in a row because you retreated off map to save your forces for later battles?

That brings us to an entire truckload of withdrawls. One side or the other is wanting to withdraw. To fight again later, when they have the odds in their favor, at which time it is the other gamers turn to withdraw.

Not very exciting stuff is it? Not why most of us play CM...

Good Hunting.

MR

[Mad Russian]

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.

That's why you use a real time system. The battles are important and they will generate their own urgency.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Easymeat]

As far as maps go, if a custom map was not made for a campaign what could be done is catalogue a load of user made maps. So for example a hex on the operational map has a bridge. What could be done is find a few maps with a bridge which roughly represents what is in the hex. Give all the maps a key so that the computer knows which map to use for a particular hex. So if the operational map has 500 hexes, find maps that already exist, and rate them for the computer to use.

So what would happen would be: two units meet on the operational map, the computer sends the battle parameters to CM, date, weather etc, the oobs are sent to CM, and finally the map is chosen. The resulting file is sent to one of the players to set up. You could even set the password for the first player before sending the file.

If the work is split between a few players it should not take long to find and rate the maps. It is either this or generate random maps, alter existing maps or make custom maps. The ideal is a custom map.

[Mad Russian]

If the work is split between a few players it should not take long to find and rate the maps. It is either this or generate random maps, alter existing maps or make custom maps. The ideal is a custom map.

Making custom maps isn't that hard. In a week I made all six maps for our playtest of the Op CM system. 3 guys inside a month could make a 100 maps for you.

We used the same system you are discussing. A map was assigned a location and that map was always used for battles at that operational location from then on.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Easymeat]

So, is it agreed that artillery within striking distance of a battle about to take place can have artillery spotter(s) incuded in the battle. Same with aircraft. If a few battles are about to start the computer or player(s) could decide which battle is to have the support.

Artillery and aircraft units on the operational map can only provide a specefied amount of support. The support cannot be limitless.

This will be easy to implement. A simple equation to determine the distance to the battle. A few other checks, if all is ok, the units are included in the oob.

If the operational map is only small then artillery and aircraft can reach any hex, therefor any battle could be supported.

I think there should be a limit to how many aircraft are include in an oob. If 6 aircraft flew, it is possible that 6 to 12, possibly more of the enemy units could be destroyed.

Obviously if an aircraft is destroyed in a CM battle it is destroyed on the operational map. If artillery units are destroyed in CM, the artillery on the operational map is not also destroyed.

What size hexes are going to be used? How fast can units travel? Lots of checks can be done but the rules for the operational part need to be agreed upon.

I will start on the database, get data into and out of CM.The database is nothing special, just a mirror image of CM with lots of data added to allow an op style game to be played. Once the database is done it is there forever and can be used for other things. We are using it for an operational addon to CM.

If it works out and op style campaigns are fun all well and good. If not then we know.

Another good question: are we infringing on Battlefront in doing a CMC style game using CM data?

[Mad Russian]

So, is it agreed that artillery within striking distance of a battle about to take place can have artillery spotter(s) incuded in the battle. Same with aircraft. If a few battles are about to start the computer or player(s) could decide which battle is to have the support.

Artillery and aircraft units on the operational map can only provide a specefied amount of support. The support cannot be limitless.

This will be easy to implement. A simple equation to determine the distance to the battle. A few other checks, if all is ok, the units are included in the oob.

If the operational map is only small then artillery and aircraft can reach any hex, therefor any battle could be supported.

I think there should be a limit to how many aircraft are include in an oob. If 6 aircraft flew, it is possible that 6 to 12, possibly more of the enemy units could be destroyed.

Obviously if an aircraft is destroyed in a CM battle it is destroyed on the operational map. If artillery units are destroyed in CM, the artillery on the operational map is not also destroyed.

What size hexes are going to be used? How fast can units travel? Lots of checks can be done but the rules for the operational part need to be agreed upon.

I will start on the database, get data into and out of CM.The database is nothing special, just a mirror image of CM with lots of data added to allow an op style game to be played. Once the database is done it is there forever and can be used for other things. We are using it for an operational addon to CM.

If it works out and op style campaigns are fun all well and good. If not then we know.

Another good question: are we infringing on Battlefront in doing a CMC style game using CM data?

The system supports artillery and air assets. The units depicted in the operation are battalions and as such have several FO's and aircraft units available for assignment to battles.

The unit was given a TO&E. From that the number of units assigned to support a battle location was up to the higher level commander. Losses are tracked. Units that get caught in exploitation have units put on the map. Twelve 105mm howitzers put on map for instance. If you lose them you lose the ability to have them available for later.

We used 2km by 2km squares for the battle areas. The operational map is the least of your worries. The CM part of the operations are the hard part to make work.

At this point I think we pretty much already know. That's why we playtested the system already..to find out how well it worked.

For me at least, it wasn't going to have battles that were balanced enough, to offset the expenditure in time and effort.

Good Hunting.

MR

[Rico (FGM)]

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.

[Ratzki]

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.

[Rico (FGM)]

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.

[Fullhouse]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.