Operational game to go with CMFI?

[JasonC]

The best operational game is Bitter Victory 1943 from Avalanche Press. Regiment level game of the whole fight for Sicily, in a solid, simple, playable game system. (Elements of Panzergruppe Guderian plus chit pull activation of formations a la "A Victory Lost"s system - other games in the series cover Gazala 1942, Bulge and Alsace in the ETO, and Operation Mars in Russia - "Red God of War" being the name of the last). This is a board wargame, not a computer game, however.

You can find the games BGG page here -

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24013/bitter-victory-the-invasion-of-sicily-1943

[Sixxkiller]

This is one of the best things about the CM games. You guys are so willing to work on extra stuff to better enjoy the game. If it wasnt for stuff like this, I cant see BFC being around for as many years as it has been.

[Broadsword56]

The best operational game is Bitter Victory 1943 from Avalanche Press. Regiment level game of the whole fight for Sicily, in a solid, simple, playable game system. (Elements of Panzergruppe Guderian plus chit pull activation of formations a la "A Victory Lost"s system - other games in the series cover Gazala 1942, Bulge and Alsace in the ETO, and Operation Mars in Russia - "Red God of War" being the name of the last). This is a board wargame, not a computer game, however.

You can find the games BGG page here -

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/24013/bitter-victory-the-invasion-of-sicily-1943

That would be excellent JasonC -- the only caveat would be that the scale is above what some might consider best for operational-tactical CMFI campaigns. If you try it you'll see what I mean. The higher the scale, the more "fudge factor" and fill-in-the-blanks guesswork you have to do to interpret boardgame situations into CMBN maps and OOBs, and vice-versa. I find this true even with battalion-scale boardgames, but at least there the actual units can go into battalion scale CMBN battles. Still, thanks for listing it and contributing to a constructive thread. Good Sicily boardgames are harder to find than, of course, Normandy, Bulge, Stalingrad, etc.

[mjkerner]

BS, you could do what the fellas over at FGM did with their Normandy Campaign, also based on a regimental scale board game (forgot which one), and reduce each regiment to battalion scale: one regt = HQ, 3 line companies and 1 weapons company, etc.

[JasonC]

I'd recommend reducing even more than that, actually.

CM plays best at the company level, and is getting unwieldly already at the battalion scale, particularly when you need multiple games resolved quickly to move the operational situation along.

In a regimental scale game, a typical fight on the operational level will have 1-2 defending regimental units attacked in unfair fashion by a significantly larger force, a division or more, ganging up on them and throwing in artillery, air, armor, maybe naval gunfire support. This can create the conditions for a CM scenario certainly. You use the force types, terrain, odds etc from the operational picture. But the actual force composition is not going to reflect that whole picture, there is no way it could. You can't play out WW II with single man counters and simultaneously plotted movement - you'd need 500 million players and 4 years.

So you double step reduce the forces involved, or more. If the defenders have one regiment of italian infantry on the map, all they get is one infantry company, and whatever terrain it is on. The attackers get --- more.

What having an operational layer typically "cures" is the tendency to have "fair" fights at the tactical level. Nobody works for those. At the operational level, the sections of the front where everything is fair is where nothing happens - the two sides look at each other and think better of getting out of their holes, and make another cup of coffee. Not riveting game play, that.

Anyway...

[sburke]

What having an operational layer typically "cures" is the tendency to have "fair" fights at the tactical level. Nobody works for those. At the operational level, the sections of the front where everything is fair is where nothing happens - the two sides look at each other and think better of getting out of their holes, and make another cup of coffee. Not riveting game play, that.

Anyway...

This is one of the things I like about the TCS system. You really do not know when you will have a fair fight and then how long will you be stuck with one that isn't fair until you can actually implement an OP sheet to reinforce etc. I agree with the overall view though that trying to fight out the op layer on a divisional and higher scale is .. well kind of a life long commitment. Broadsword's method of using the Op layer and looking for interesting battles to play out in CM has been very rewarding. I am actually looking at a lower level, a campaign that covers only a couple days at most and a few battalions spread over a couple sq kilometers..

[Broadsword56]

Life's just too short to play the NON-interesting battles...and op layers give you a lot more interesting battles to choose from. We've seen some setups and situations and tactical/terrain challenges I'd never have been able to think up on my own.

[76mm]

I find a different approach to be most enjoyable, although I'm sure it would be anathema to some...

I find playing historical campaigns kind of dull--most of the battles are too large, you already know who won the campaign, and the situations tend to be kind of repetitive (take this hill or that crossroads...). I like much more open-ended situations, so I basically create a fictional war in a fictional country using the German and Sov forces.

With CMx1 (and ASL before that) I had campaigns where both sides started with small forces, made up of a couple of dozen platoon-sized units, limited to infantry, light guns, and armored cars (all of them green). The campaign lasted for months or years, and gradually the forces increased in size, acquired more powerful weapons, gained experience, etc. In CMx1, I was able to start with 1941 OOBs, with periodic (and randomly timed) upgrades to 42, 43, 44, and finally 45; obviously that won't be possible with CMx2.

The war itself is wide open, with either side able to win. In my CMx1 campaign, I fought more than a hundred battles, including partisan ambushes, tank battles on the frozen steppe, Stalingrad-esque city fights, meeting engagements, night attacks on rural villages, in sun, snow, rain, blizzards, mud, night--you name it. Some of the battles were truly epic, some small but decisive, but almost all of them interesting in some way (but not all of them, so I want to retain the ability to resolve battles in the op layer as well).

The resources available to each side (necessary for replacements and new units) depended on how the war was going, and units gained and lost experience as battles were won or they were diluted by replacements, etc. Individual leaders improved, were promoted, or killed/wounded. It is much easier to get attached to units and individual leaders.

Obviously, it would be a stretch to call such a campaign "realistic", although I tried to keep it as real as possible by limiting the number of super units such as Tigers, etc. The biggest challenge is coming up with a good map and having the right unit density. At first most of the battles are platoon-sized, but as the armies grow the battles grow larger as well, until at least one side had a battalion or more.

Previously the big drawback was lack of an operational layer and the need to manually import/export all battle data to/from CM. I'm playing around with Panzer Campaigns now, and think I'll be able to use it to create an editable op layer, although I'm still trying to figure out which map would be best. I'm trying to create a database front end that will make it simpler to manage the PzC layer, but the CM layer will still be manual unfortunately. [EDIT] Another difficulty is the time commitment necessary to make all of the maps for the CM battles, and I'm afraid that this will be even worse with the increased difficulty of making maps in CMx2, although I can't say that I've tried it yet.

[Sgt Hill]

This is good stuff been thinking along the same lines.

Have an L2DesignGroup "Streets of Stalingrad"...

Best remake of a classic ever, and the best boardgame

map ever IMO. Due to its scale coming up with an operational

level interaction with CM would awesome. Also have the ADC

Module so have the Map in .bmp...

New to the Scenario Building so will have lots of questions.

One is how well do ASL/Tobruk Scenarios convert to CM..?

Also in going through some boxes looking for Reference

type materials I found something that I'm sure someone

here will really Like.

An Unpunched Virgin Copy of the Original Nova Games

"Battle for the Factories" circa 1982

The map and counters aren't as pretty as the L2 version,

but is in Mint condition. Except the Box its taken some hits

over the years..

Want to make a few bucks..storage fees and all...

Not sure how to proceed, maybe auction it off but I

don't want it to go overboard. Any thoughts...??

*Warning* Any reference to FREE will eliminate said

soldier from further consideration...:eek:

[Broadsword56]

Wow -- that brings back memories. I recall standing in the back corner of a game store in Palo Alto, circa 1982, and just marveling over the scope and detail of the "Battle for the Factories" map -- well, from what I could see on the unopened box.

[noob]

I like 76mm's idea of a non historical CM H2H operation to create a true FOW, and it could be combined with the 20,000 point QB idea of ian leslie and dungeontiger, then the outcome would be purely down to the players involved.

Once i have finished a few turns of the CMPC Normandy 44 operation, which is ostensibly to come up with a workable set of operational rules, with the DAR serving as the manual, i will probably create one using Panzer Campaigns and run it as an umpire.

[76mm]

I forgot to mention a couple of the other reasons why historical campaigns tend to bore me:

--usually one side or the other is generally on the offensive, and the other on the defensive. Sure, there may be an occasional counter-attack, etc., but generally the US will be attacking in Normandy, etc.

--in any given campaign, the terrain is going to be pretty much the same (in Normandy--bocage and small villages), and you really don't get the full spectrum of potential battlefields.

--most campaigns are too short for there to be much variation in weather; it is a summer campaign, or winter, but most do not continue year-round in all weather conditions.

A properly set up fictional war solves all of these problems.

[noob]

I forgot to mention a couple of the other reasons why historical campaigns tend to bore me:

--usually one side or the other is generally on the offensive, and the other on the defensive. Sure, there may be an occasional counter-attack, etc., but generally the US will be attacking in Normandy, etc.

--in any given campaign, the terrain is going to be pretty much the same (in Normandy--bocage and small villages), and you really don't get the full spectrum of potential battlefields.

--most campaigns are too short for there to be much variation in weather; it is a summer campaign, or winter, but most do not continue year-round in all weather conditions.

A properly set up fictional war solves all of these problems.

Why don't you use Strategic Command WW2 Global conflict as your op layer then ?

[noob]

Life's just too short to play the NON-interesting battles...and op layers give you a lot more interesting battles to choose from. We've seen some setups and situations and tactical/terrain challenges I'd never have been able to think up on my own.

Are there any non interesting CM battles an operation could create ?

Any CM battle within an operational framework has consequences, which means the CM battle would be IMO, interesting, even if one side was heavily outnumbered, this is because the victory conditions would be relative.

For example, there is a CM battle coming up in my operation that pits 5 Green Allied companies with High motivation against an under strength Axis company of Green troops with Low motivation, they have no artillery support, however they do have 3 88's, so as a one off CM battle it would be ridiculous, but as an operational one, any casualties i inflict on my opponents forces are worth something, so rather than just getting another method to resolve the battle, if i use CM i could catch some lucky breaks or just outplay my opponent and inflict disproportionate casualties on him.

[noob]

I find playing historical campaigns kind of dull--most of the battles are too large, you already know who won the campaign, and the situations tend to be kind of repetitive (take this hill or that crossroads...). I like much more open-ended situations, so I basically create a fictional war in a fictional country using the German and Sov forces.

Aren't all WW2 campaigns, historical or fictional, about capturing and occupying the high ground, bridges and crossroads

[Broadsword56]

Are there any non interesting CM battles an operation could create ?

Any CM battle within an operational framework has consequences, which means the CM battle would be IMO, interesting, even if one side was heavily outnumbered, this is because the victory conditions would be relative.

For example, there is a CM battle coming up in my operation that pits 5 Green Allied companies with High motivation against an under strength Axis company of Green troops with Low motivation, they have no artillery support, however they do have 3 88's, so as a one off CM battle it would be ridiculous, but as an operational one, any casualties i inflict on my opponents forces are worth something, so rather than just getting another method to resolve the battle, if i use CM i could catch some lucky breaks or just outplay my opponent and inflict disproportionate casualties on him.

Bottom line: If it's interesting to you and makes you want to see it in CMBN, then it's an interesting battle. My point, though is that some battles I see develop in an operational level make my hair stand on end, and I feel like I just can't wait to play them out tactically. Other battles don't, even though they all have consequences of one sort or another on the operation.

Yes, they all have consequences on the operation. But no, they don't all have to be played in CMBN. That's why the boardgame has a CRT.

In a good operational game, just like IRL, a particular unit can get an impossibly sh**ty mission. If it were a stand-alone CMBN battle, I might say I got a raw deal as a player and not want to play it. But in an op campaign, when I put on my Corps commander's hat, I see the bigger picture: That unfortunate company has to occupy and fix the enemy with a feint frontal attack while the rest of the battalion hits them in the flank/rear. That still doesn't necessarily make me want to experience the mission of the sacrificial company in CMBN. So I can let the boardgame CRT handle that one, while my live opponent and I decide we'd have more fun using CMBN to play out the action of, say, the final phase of the attack 2 hours later, when the flanking attack goes in and the enemy has to make a desperate last stand to hold a vital crossroads, etc.

[sburke]

Bottom line: If it's interesting to you and makes you want to see it in CMBN, then it's an interesting battle. My point, though is that some battles I see develop in an operational level make my hair stand on end, and I feel like I just can't wait to play them out tactically. Other battles don't, even though they all have consequences of one sort or another on the operation.

Yes, they all have consequences on the operation. But no, they don't all have to be played in CMBN. That's why the boardgame has a CRT.

In a good operational game, just like IRL, a particular unit can get an impossibly sh**ty mission. If it were a stand-alone CMBN battle, I might say I got a raw deal as a player and not want to play it. But in an op campaign, when I put on my Corps commander's hat, I see the bigger picture: That unfortunate company has to occupy and fix the enemy with a feint frontal attack while the rest of the battalion hits them in the flank/rear. That still doesn't necessarily make me want to experience the mission of the sacrificial company in CMBN. So I can let the boardgame CRT handle that one, while my live opponent and I decide we'd have more fun using CMBN to play out the action of, say, the final phase of the attack 2 hours later, when the flanking attack goes in and the enemy has to make a desperate last stand to hold a vital crossroads, etc.

Not to mention the time factor involved. Our campaign is waiting on a battle or 2 to finish. Poor Noob has I think got the next 40 years of his life planned out. Not that he won't enjoy it, but part of a campaign is knowing you have actually affected it. A battle that is too one sided simply becomes extraneous effort to set up and play out if you have no hope of truly affecting the OP layer. Even then you can have some disappointments. I am still mourning my men from Hamel Vallee.

[noob]

Our campaign is waiting on a battle or 2 to finish. Poor Noob has I think got the next 40 years of his life planned out.

Hehe, how right you are....sometimes i need reminding that most people that play CM have other things to do, whereas i don't, my kids are grown up, i'm divorced and loving it, and i'm on welfare due to an illness, so bring on the workload

[Broadsword56]

Not to mention the time factor involved. Our campaign is waiting on a battle or 2 to finish. Poor Noob has I think got the next 40 years of his life planned out. Not that he won't enjoy it, but part of a campaign is knowing you have actually affected it. A battle that is too one sided simply becomes extraneous effort to set up and play out if you have no hope of truly affecting the OP layer. Even then you can have some disappointments. I am still mourning my men from Hamel Vallee.

Ahhh, they never knew what hit 'em once those Thunderbolts came down on them. At least they didn't have to suffer additional days of hedgerow warfare only to die in the rubble of Saint-Lo...As for me, I'm still mourning the entire US company that surrendered when cut off and surrounded at Choisy Crossroads!

[76mm]

Why don't you use Strategic Command WW2 Global conflict as your op layer then ?

Too cartoony for my tastes, doesn't really qualify as a wargame in my book; plus it is strategic rather than operational in scale. Right now I'm focusing on PzC but also looking at TOAW (as much as I hate the interface). As I said, I want my unhistorical campaigns to be "realistic".

[sburke]

Some books Amazon just flagged that I might be interested in are I think potential examples for creating campaigns that are interesting and odd at the same time. Granted they aren't theaters we have available yet, but the ideas are thought provoking.

Red Christmas - The Tatsinskaya Airfield Raid 1942 Soviet 24th Tank Corps advances toward Tatsinskaya to seize the airfield on Christmas Eve and cut off 6th Army at Stalingrad.

Knight's Move - The Hunt for Marshal Tito 1944- On 25 May 1944 800 men of the 500th SS Parachute battalion descended on Drvar, a town behind enemy lines in north-western Bosnia; their aim was to kill or capture Tito. Airborne drop in Partisan territory.

[sburke]

Too cartoony for my tastes, doesn't really qualify as a wargame in my book; plus it is strategic rather than operational in scale. Right now I'm focusing on PzC but also looking at TOAW (as much as I hate the interface). As I said, I want my unhistorical campaigns to be "realistic".

I don't know of any game that has a decent map for this, but I have been thinking of an alternative history campaign for some time. The scenario is plausible and probably fairly easy to come up with a decent OB for both sides. I don't think you need an actual boardgame for an OP layer, just a map and OB.

Premise is, MG never happens. Eisenhower does the right thing and tells Monty "Antwerp and the Scheldt first before any consideration can be made for a thrust to Germany". Third Army is therefore not quite as short of supplies, but Ike is still reticient about how far to let Patton go. However a crossing of the Moselle and siezure of Nancy is still desired so the plan is to drop the 82nd to sieze commanding terrain for the Moselle crossings and possibly isolate Nancy. Probable drop date maybe the night of Sept 4th (IRL the 80th ID attempted a crossing on the Moselle on Sept 5th.) So you have a whole mix of German units (92nd LW, 3rd PzGr, 3rd FJR and 553rd VG are all in the vicinity) as well as American Airborne and once the crossings are siezed American Infantry and Armor. Depending on the scale you want, your campaign could be the whole shebang or just the story of one regiment of the 82nd holding it's ground (or not) until link up.

[JonS]

Premise is, MG never happens. Eisenhower does the right thing and tells Monty "Antwerp and the Scheldt first before any consideration can be made for a thrust to Germany". Third Army is therefore not quite as short of supplies, but Ike is still reticient about how far to let Patton go. However a crossing of the Moselle and siezure of Nancy is still desired so the plan is to drop the 82nd to sieze commanding terrain for the Moselle crossings and possibly isolate Nancy. Probable drop date maybe the night of Sept 4th (IRL the 80th ID attempted a crossing on the Moselle on Sept 5th.) So you have a whole mix of German units (92nd LW, 3rd PzGr, 3rd FJR and 553rd VG are all in the vicinity) as well as American Airborne and once the crossings are siezed American Infantry and Armor. Depending on the scale you want, your campaign could be the whole shebang or just the story of one regiment of the 82nd holding it's ground (or not) until link up.

The problem here is that you're writing the campaign script, not setting the starting conditions.

CMMC2 (or 3?) never got off the ground, but the premise for that was /intended/ to be "Low Countries, mid Sept 1944. What are you going to do?" Each side was going to have very detailed and quite (but not completely) historical OoBs, and each side would have objectives set by the Game Master. How they achieved those objectives would be up to the players on each side. As I recall now, the top level Allied objective was to get across the Rhine, in the area of Wesel (maybe?), and they were to have 1st Allied Airborne Army (or part of it - I forget now exactly) available. But they didn't have to use them, and in particular they didn't have to try and re-run Op MARKET GARDEN. The airborne troops could have been used as regular leg infantry, if that's what the Allied player decided they wanted.

Starting a fictional campaign with "... and you have to land 82nd AB exactly here ..." seems too constraining, and too artificial.

Pick an area, set the scene, derive some objectives, make some forces and resources available, then get out of the way.

[sburke]

The problem here is that you're writing the campaign script, not setting the starting conditions.

CMMC2 (or 3?) never got off the ground, but the premise for that was /intended/ to be "Low Countries, mid Sept 1944. What are you going to do?" Each side was going to have very detailed and quite (but not completely) historical OoBs, and each side would have objectives set by the Game Master. How they achieved those objectives would be up to the players on each side. As I recall now, the top level Allied objective was to get across the Rhine, in the area of Wesel (maybe?), and they were to have 1st Allied Airborne Army (or part of it - I forget now exactly) available. But they didn't have to use them, and in particular they didn't have to try and re-run Op MARKET GARDEN. The airborne troops could have been used as regular leg infantry, if that's what the Allied player decided they wanted.

Starting a fictional campaign with "... and you have to land 82nd AB exactly here ..." seems too constraining, and too artificial.

Pick an area, set the scene, derive some objectives, make some forces and resources available, then get out of the way.

Depends on your scale. LOL I wasn't trying for Western front 1944. I was figuring an OP layer of anywhere from a single regiment of the 82nd to maybe a corp level game. Anything beyond that to me is just too unwieldy for an OP layer. Personally I like the idea of a campaign centered around a single regiment trying to hold terrain till being relieved. I am figuring a number of months commitment by very few, not a labor of years by many.

[JonS]

Depends on your scale. LOL I wasn't trying for Western front 1944. I was figuring an OP layer of anywhere from a single regiment of the 82nd to maybe a corp level game. Anything beyond that to me is just too unwieldy for an OP layer. Personally I like the idea of a campaign centered around a single regiment trying to hold terrain till being relieved. I am figuring a number of months commitment by very few, not a labor of years by many.

Sorry, yes: you are correct, it depends on the scale. And I think that regardless of the scale, the same approach applies. The GM should;

* pick an area (time and space - location, boundays, date)

* set the scene (what is the oerational picture 'two-up' in outline and 'one-up' in detail? What is 'may side' trying to do? What does the enemy consist of, and what are they trying to do?)

* derive some objectives (what does *my* force need to accomplish, by when, and why. Mission orders and a mission statement - who, what, where, when, why?)

* identify the forces and resources available,

* then get out of the way and leave the players to it

"Resources" includes, well, pretty much everything. Ammunition. Time. Transport (ground and air). Fire support. Air power. Terrain boundarys. Reinforcements. Replacements. Etc.

How the two sides use their resources to create and execute a plan which achieves their objectives is - in my mind - a large part of the point in having an operational layer. And I think that all applies whether the operation revolves around a regiment or a corps. (Incidentally, I think the same thing applies to individual scenarios too - designers should set the scene, define the objectives, then get out of the way. How I achieve the set objectives with the resources available is my job, as player,)