Falklands in the Baltic

[Vesku]

I think a tournament would be very well served here. A tournament run like Klanx's Pacific Twilight tournament with different battles being fought simultaniously. The tournament i have run for the Battle For Iraq is different. But the battles Ulf is talking about is different battles being fought for the island, Klanx's style tournament would fit in great.

Like Epoletov said, you lose some of the flexibility when playing a tournament, even the one Klanx is running. Klanx is commanding the forces, we are only playing the battles resulting from his orders. That rules out the strategic decisions which are probably much more important than the tactical ones is in battles fought with SP. I can't see a good tournament coming from this but it is ofcourse up to Ulf and what he wants his Operation Gotland to be.

[Grumbler]

Why not both? Two teams, with the operational decisions being made by the team members, with the final decision by the overall commander. The Allies used this process to good effect in WW2.
Ulf, from the way everybody jumped you and stole your ball, it looks like there is a lot of folks that want to play. All we need now are a couple of goals. I would suggest asking for volunteers from the Bikini Team but I don'y know how that will affect the pace of the game, besides raising the shots on gaol numbers, of course.

[wulfir]

Friends,

...this is an experiment.


The Soviet mission is to capture Gotland Island, the Swedish mission is to defeat the invasion force.


Both sides will need some sort of command structure.


Then, they will need to make plans for how they intend to go about solving the problems of capturing or defending the island. I will provide the frames, such as overall OOBs to be used, political considerations, etc.

I then want the players to build their battle plan(s).
What units attack/defend where, will airsupport be split up in many directions or concentrated, that sort of thing.

Based on this I will then in turn build the scenarios.



What everyone needs to understand is that there is a chance that some games will be grossly unfair. You will not know the details of the enemy OOB, and you will seldom know exaclty what you are facing. In fact, when playing you might end up paving the way for someone elses victory or defeat. Fortunes of war, eh...

I also want to build the progress of the campaign on the results of the games being fought. This means I will take into account losses inflicted, terrain lost, terrain won, and some other stuff.


In addition I intend to bring some "friction of war" into your battle plans, things beyond your control such as political developments, supply, naval actions etc will affect the ground war. Again, there are no guarantees that it will be entirely fair to both sides.

Hopefully, this will lead to some interesting gaming - and that is really the big reward. If you are concerned about your Bliz ladder score this is a gamble, you might get a couple of easy wins, you might get crushed. Of course nobody will be forced to continue if they don't like it, have computer or real life problems etc. If someone needs to quit during a game there will hopefully be someone from that team to jump in. If not, I will decide on the level of victory for the opponent, the forces lost for the drop-out's side and log the result against myself.

[Vesku]

If you need tips for how to run something like this, ask DoubleDouce. He has plenty of xp on the matter.

[wulfir]

I know - this will not be quite as advanced as the Combat Campaigns however...

[Vesku]

Ok, may be a good idea :)

[Grumbler]

Ladder? Last time I looked I was on page 7, or maybe page 8. So count me in. It can't be as bad as the time I played the Iranians against the US Army in 2006 with the vis under 10. The only bright spot for me was not having any armor for my opponent to shoot up. That and killing a SeAL Team. A luckt shot from an 83mm Mortar, IIRC.

[wulfir]

Vesku,

..we shall see..., DD uses a very elaborate system with COCAT and separate forums etc.

I don't quite have the resources for that.

Instead I plan to basically provide you all with a map and the forces you can use and ask you what you want to do with them.

From that the scenarios will be created - but I am also going to insert some "friction" into the equation. Some forces might not be able to navigate correctly and will land at a wrong location or end up delayed because they have failed to read the map correctly, things of that kind...

I want the campaign to progress at a pretty quick pace too, thus I want a minimum of complications - I'll be more of a dictator than a referee...

[Epoletov [SPR].]

Completely I support on your ideas about campaign (by experience of the campaign - COCAT + forums).

Campaign with simple and clear rules is necessary as soon as possible to start and to lead dynamically it.

[Vesku]

I'm with Epoletov here, be a dictator if that's needed to keep things rolling.