Campaign idea

[puje]

I've been thinking about making a small campaign inspired by Afghanistan documentaries such as Restrepo and Taking Fire.

It would revolve around a couple of platoons stationed in remote COBs in a mountainous environment. I'm thinking I'd like to make one large map (maybe 2km x 2km), and have all the missions (or most) play out on the same map, just in different areas. It would mainly be infantry focused, so getting to remote places would be time consuming, and discourage going too much of course. 

Missions would mainly be patrols in the AO (I have a few ideas), and not so many pitched battles.

Do you think it would make for a good campaign? Especially the one map idea, would it get too boring?

Edited January 16, 2019 by puje

[contact wait out]

Do you have something similar to MOS´s TOC for CMBS in mind where its up to the player to decide how he uses his resources in order to respond to emerging threats on a big map?

I don´t think focusing on one map or your idea in general is boring. I´d say go for it 

[Zveroboy1]

It doesn't sound boring at all to me. I'd play it for sure. Actually I have been working on something vaguely similar :  a patrol in Afghanistan but in the green zone of the Helmand province, so not the same type of terrain at all. And it is just a single mission.

[Combatintman]

3 hours ago, puje said:

I've been thinking about making a small campaign inspired by Afghanistan documentaries such as Restrepo and Taking Fire.

It would revolve around a couple of platoons stationed in remote COBs in a mountainous environment. I'm thinking I'd like to make one large map (maybe 2km x 2km), and have all the missions (or most) play out on the same map, just in different areas. It would mainly be infantry focused, so getting to remote places would be time consuming, and discourage going too much of course. 

Missions would mainly be patrols in the AO (I have a few ideas), and not so many pitched battles.

Do you think it would make for a good campaign? Especially the one map idea, would it get too boring?

Yes it would make a good campaign if you execute it well.

Your issue with the map is that CM doesn't do persistent map damage. That means that your 2x2 map, in campaign terms is not very big at all. Happy to exchange PMs with you to discuss some of the details and get you started if you want.

[sburke]

Definitely possible. I think the issue is less the map than a good campaign concept and intriguing scenarios.  You could consider expanding the basic map and then slice it down for specific scenarios.  Also if it is mostly infantry persistent damage isn’t as important. As long as you aren’t leveling structures......

[37mm]

5 hours ago, puje said:

Would it get too boring?

It would probably have the opposite effect for a low-intensity campaign like you propose.

The player would become familiar with every ford & nook & cranny and probably remember those features from earlier times in the campaign.

The map would have history... even without permanent damage (which, as pointed out, is not a major issue for infantry only).

If you were willing to expand the concept with some mod tags (or if you collaborated with a modder) you could even simulate the changing of the seasons. The CMSF2 editor allows you to set conditions from Extreme heat through to cold & very dry throught to wet.

People have already tried out their snow mods in CMSF2!

[Combatintman]

Back to the persistent damage and infantry only points … I disagree mainly because infantry only fights in Afghanistan for the most part operate in an environment where offensive support of some form or another (air, aviation, mortars, rockets and conventional artillery) is on tap. Generally the CONOP won't get signed off unless this kind of support is in place so it would be unrealistic in the majority of cases for any unit to step outside the wire without the capability to whistle that kind of support up when required. Inevitably, and I made a mission depicting such a circumstance, there were some well-known occasions when the offensive support either wasn't properly teed up, arrived late or the coordinating HQ misread the reporting that was coming from the ground leading to non-arrival or confusion. However, for this to happen to the unit in the proposed campaign every time it steps outside the wire is stretching credulity to the limit and therefore killing immersion.

There are of course techniques that can be applied relating to realistic concerns about collateral damage and the policy of courageous restraint implemented towards the back end of the NATO involvement but ultimately that firepower is still going to be on call and will be used where ROE permits which means that buildings and compounds are going to get dropped. All of this ignores dynamic compound entry using breaching charges which is another thing that is going to create persistent map damage.

A perfectly viable way to nail this campaign is to have the unit newly arrived in its newly established FOB and then have a series of missions where it extends its security bubble. In the schematic below, there are nine separate maps which would be say anything between 1km x 1km and 2km x 2km. Mission 1 sees the unit securing its FOB properly and then the remainder are extending that bubble by patrolling or knocking over the insurgents in the villages (or outside them if you prefer) in each box. Each mission doesn't have to be of this type and could involve things like a hard knock on an identified insurgent commander's compound or maybe doing route clearance and security for a resupply convoy coming up a route leading to the FOB or whatever else takes your fancy. The bottom line though is that you get realism without bumping up against the persistent map damage issue, which certainly for me is an absolute immersion killer.

[Erwin]

This idea looks good.

[puje]

1 hour ago, Combatintman said:

Back to the persistent damage and infantry only points … I disagree mainly because infantry only fights in Afghanistan for the most part operate in an environment where offensive support of some form or another (air, aviation, mortars, rockets and conventional artillery) is on tap. Generally the CONOP won't get signed off unless this kind of support is in place so it would be unrealistic in the majority of cases for any unit to step outside the wire without the capability to whistle that kind of support up when required. Inevitably, and I made a mission depicting such a circumstance, there were some well-known occasions when the offensive support either wasn't properly teed up, arrived late or the coordinating HQ misread the reporting that was coming from the ground leading to non-arrival or confusion. However, for this to happen to the unit in the proposed campaign every time it steps outside the wire is stretching credulity to the limit and therefore killing immersion.

There are of course techniques that can be applied relating to realistic concerns about collateral damage and the policy of courageous restraint implemented towards the back end of the NATO involvement but ultimately that firepower is still going to be on call and will be used where ROE permits which means that buildings and compounds are going to get dropped. All of this ignores dynamic compound entry using breaching charges which is another thing that is going to create persistent map damage.

A perfectly viable way to nail this campaign is to have the unit newly arrived in its newly established FOB and then have a series of missions where it extends its security bubble. In the schematic below, there are nine separate maps which would be say anything between 1km x 1km and 2km x 2km. Mission 1 sees the unit securing its FOB properly and then the remainder are extending that bubble by patrolling or knocking over the insurgents in the villages (or outside them if you prefer) in each box. Each mission doesn't have to be of this type and could involve things like a hard knock on an identified insurgent commander's compound or maybe doing route clearance and security for a resupply convoy coming up a route leading to the FOB or whatever else takes your fancy. The bottom line though is that you get realism without bumping up against the persistent map damage issue, which certainly for me is an absolute immersion killer.

I do plan on doing something sort of like this. One of the early missions will be to escort an engineer squad to examine possible locations for a new COB.

I will of course have artillery be an important part of the arsenal available to US troops. I'm thinking I'll get around the building damage mostly with barring the unit from causing collateral damage to buildings (I dont remember what the order is called in the editor). I probably can't make continuity 100% perfect, but if a wall comes down people rebuild, right?

[Combatintman]

44 minutes ago, puje said:

I do plan on doing something sort of like this. One of the early missions will be to escort an engineer squad to examine possible locations for a new COB.

I will of course have artillery be an important part of the arsenal available to US troops. I'm thinking I'll get around the building damage mostly with barring the unit from causing collateral damage to buildings (I dont remember what the order is called in the editor). I probably can't make continuity 100% perfect, but if a wall comes down people rebuild, right?

Set your desired building that is not to be attacked as Preserve objective but you are right, you can never legislate for what players will do in a scenario. People of course do rebuild but if some comedian flattens a Preserve objective compound, it is probably unrealistic to expect that it would be rebuilt in the timeframe of your campaign.

[MOS:96B2P]

On 1/16/2019 at 5:28 AM, puje said:

I'm thinking I'd like to make one large map (maybe 2km x 2km), and have all the missions (or most) play out on the same map, 

Missions would mainly be patrols in the AO (I have a few ideas), and not so many pitched battles.  

If you stay on the same map (basically a very long scenario) this is sometimes referred to as a static campaign.  A static campaign will also get you around the problem of persistent map damage since the damage from previous ambushes, artillery strikes, demo charges etc will always be present.  They will be a constant reminder of past successes and failures.  However, the maximum length of a static campaign is four hours.  The way outlined by @Combatintman will also work and will allow for briefings for each operation/scenario.  The static campaign is more of a sandbox with one long briefing.  Multiple scenarios of a true campaign (added together) can be much longer than four hours and can have different environmental conditions Light vs dark vs rain etc.  

I like the idea of not having everything a pitched battle (like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan).  IMO scenario / campaigns where the player has choices to make that effect the possible outcome of various tactical problems can be very interesting.  To meet with a village elder do I follow a goat path through the mountains or do I take the long winding dirt road?  If a goat path which one?  Or do I split my forces and take some combination?  What type of intelligence do I have to base the above decisions on?  This type of situation often makes me want to play just a few more turns (before I take a break for RL stuff) to see how my decision plays out and if my analysis of the intelligence was accurate. 

You already have some good, interesting, ideas and I look forward to playing your scenario/campaign.  Below is a link to a thread about a static campaign where some of these ideas are discussed.  It may give you some more ideas. 

   http://community.battlefront.com/topic/126574-new-scenario-tactical-operations-center/

 

   

[Erwin]

6 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

various tactical problems can be very interesting.  To meet with a village elder do I follow a goat path through the mountains or do I take the long winding dirt road?  If a goat path which one?  Or do I split my forces and take some combination?  What type of intelligence do I have to base the above decisions on?  This type of situation often makes me want to play just a few more turns (before I take a break for RL stuff) to see how my decision plays out and if my analysis of the intelligence was accurate. 

That is what is so great about your TOC scenario. If developed as a campaign with branching storylines the play value would be even more addictive.

[sburke]

6 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

I like the idea of not having everything a pitched battle (like the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan). 

Exactly - One of the strengths of the TOC scenario is you don't start right at the beginning of a battle in a set up zone with known objectives etc.  Battles spring up throughout the 4 hours sometimes unexpectedly when your convoy is moving and opfor units pop up.  Even a regular style campaign doesn't deliver that.  That static campaign was a unique experience I hope to see others emulate.  I found myself organizing ad hoc battlegroups that were specific task oriented constantly.

Edited January 18, 2019 by sburke

[Erwin]

1 minute ago, sburke said:

One of the strengths of the TOC scenario is you don't start right at the beginning of a battle in a set up zone with known objectives etc.  Battles spring up throughout the 4 hours sometimes unexpectedly when your convoy is moving and opfor units pop up.  Even a regular style campaign doesn't deliver that.  That static campaign was a unique experience I hope to see others emulate.  I found myself organizing ad hoc battlegroups that were specific task oriented constantly.

Couldn't have said it better myself.  Hope more folks here have a go at playing TOC and we see more similar style scenarios (or campaign version).   

[sburke]

On ‎1‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 5:40 AM, Combatintman said:

Back to the persistent damage and infantry only points … I disagree mainly because infantry only fights in Afghanistan for the most part operate in an environment where offensive support of some form or another (air, aviation, mortars, rockets and conventional artillery) is on tap. Generally the CONOP won't get signed off unless this kind of support is in place so it would be unrealistic in the majority of cases for any unit to step outside the wire without the capability to whistle that kind of support up when required. Inevitably, and I made a mission depicting such a circumstance, there were some well-known occasions when the offensive support either wasn't properly teed up, arrived late or the coordinating HQ misread the reporting that was coming from the ground leading to non-arrival or confusion. However, for this to happen to the unit in the proposed campaign every time it steps outside the wire is stretching credulity to the limit and therefore killing immersion.

There are of course techniques that can be applied relating to realistic concerns about collateral damage and the policy of courageous restraint implemented towards the back end of the NATO involvement but ultimately that firepower is still going to be on call and will be used where ROE permits which means that buildings and compounds are going to get dropped. All of this ignores dynamic compound entry using breaching charges which is another thing that is going to create persistent map damage.

A perfectly viable way to nail this campaign is to have the unit newly arrived in its newly established FOB and then have a series of missions where it extends its security bubble. In the schematic below, there are nine separate maps which would be say anything between 1km x 1km and 2km x 2km. Mission 1 sees the unit securing its FOB properly and then the remainder are extending that bubble by patrolling or knocking over the insurgents in the villages (or outside them if you prefer) in each box. Each mission doesn't have to be of this type and could involve things like a hard knock on an identified insurgent commander's compound or maybe doing route clearance and security for a resupply convoy coming up a route leading to the FOB or whatever else takes your fancy. The bottom line though is that you get realism without bumping up against the persistent map damage issue, which certainly for me is an absolute immersion killer.

Definitely think this is the way to do it as a standard campaign.  The key here is you'll have to really work the map.  For this to be more of an infantry based patrolling map, it needs to have a really good natural feel. Spend some time looking through images of Afghanistan for the area you intend to be the AO.  Google Afghanistan look through the images.  If you see something that looks like what your mind's eye view of the terrain is then dig in, figure out where it is.  What NATO forces may have been based there, what are the crops, get a feel for how the construct their villages etc.  The more you feel grounded in knowing the place the better it will work.

Edited January 20, 2019 by sburke