Meta Campaign for CM:SF?

[Cpl Steiner]

How about this for an idea.

1. Someone does an Operational-level hex map of Syria, like you'd see in an old SPI wargame, with key population centres and terrain shown.

2. Some simple Operational-level wargaming rules are invented (or ripped straight out of another game) to cover movement of units of approximately battalion strength (or Regiment strength for the Syrians) on the map, including rules for supply and strategic warfare such as carpet-bombing of units (as opposed to use of air power and artillery in a ground battle).

3. Someone makes a load of counters using the map that came with the Deluxe edition of the game as a guide plus research on the web to identify all units involved.

4. We game the whole war, with battles being resolved using CM:SF

Would be great fun, but a lot of work (more than I could handle for sure). I just thought I'd mention the idea and see if it sparks any interest. Maybe there is a wargame of the 2003 invasion of Iraq out there that could be used for the counters and rules? All we'd then need is the map, which wouldn't be that hard to do in Paint.NET or Photoshop using some resources on the web. Once this was all put together, players could take turns resolving some or all of the battles in CM:SF.

[EDIT] Here's a free downloadable game of OIF that could be adapted for such a meta-campaign. It has a VASSAL module as well, so could be played by email if a Syria map could be got into the module.

OIF Game from ArmChairGeneral

[ChrisND]

Well, if there enough interest I am happy to help w/ graphics.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Cpl Steiner]

Well, if there enough interest I am happy to help w/ graphics.

Nice one! Have you downloaded that free game from "Armchair General"? I've just been looking over it and it would be ideal as a basis for a Syria game. It's really simple with few units, so would give just enough info to determine what sorts of CM:SF battles to fight. In the downloadable game, the "Coalition of the willing" side has 10 turns to capture 5 key towns and must not lose more than two "steps" (partial counter losses). It's pretty simplistic but for something like this that's what you need IMHO.

Already in the works

Cool! How far have you got?

[missinginreality]

Nice idea - happy to put in some time, sounds like a great idea. Kind of like Falcon4 Allied Force; the forces are planned and moved around on a big overview operational map and the player chooses which ops to fly himself, the outcome of which directly affects the campaign.

From a CMSF point of view this could work HUGELY well. Kind of like a ladder tournament in a way. Players choose which scenario they want to play that re in current "hex range" of their units and the results each turn are shown on a big overview map. Each hex could have a different scenario assigned to it.That way one wouldn't need to code a huge campaign as one file, just lots of different scenarios and the masterplanners could then send the next scenarios on.Would probably need a dedicated website and someone to upodate the map after each battle and distribute the scenarios to players.

[Cpl Steiner]

Here's a screenshot I did playing around with that VASSAL module for OIF. Only took me seconds to figure out how to load the module and place the units. I thought I'd post it as an example of what might be possible.

[missinginreality]

Nice one - maybe if the scenarios were designed "on the fly" so to speak? e.g when two opposing units move into a hex together that would generate an "on the fly"scenario? others could be "hidden"in hexes that only the master planners know about e.g UNCON scenarios etc?

[Cpl Steiner]

Nice one - maybe if the scenarios were designed "on the fly" so to speak? e.g when two opposing units move into a hex together that would generate an "on the fly"scenario? others could be "hidden"in hexes that only the master planners know about e.g UNCON scenarios etc?

The rules for that OIF VASSAL game offer quite a few interesting ideas for a CM:SF Syrian Invasion meta-campaign, as follows:

1. Syrian random event card drawn and played each turn.

2. Some cards represent Syrian "Uncon" activity - e.g. "Place Uncon Fighters counter on nearest Coalition stack to Tadmur". Uncon units cause a US counter to become "shaken" if not playing it as a CM:SF battle, or trigger an Uncon battle if playing the event in CM:SF.

3. Some cards represent sandstorms which ground US air support for a turn and allow more than the normal number of Syrian forces to move (usually restricted to only a handful of forces per turn, possibly elites like Republican Guard or Airborne).

Luckily for us, the terrain of the Middle-East isn't that varied, and a large-scale game like the Armchair General one means battles will be pretty similar, e.g.:

Overrun (US units only).

Hasty Attack (unit moved this turn).

Deliberate Attack (unit didn't move this turn).

Counter Size - US forces on operational map are brigades (mech inf, armour) and battalions (recon, artillery). Equivalent Syrian forces are all divisions or Uncons "markers".

Stacking - 2 divisions or 6 brigades per hex (ignore recon, artillery, Uncon).

Translation to CM:SF battle:-

- Choose map that approximates terrain type attacked into.

- Reduce Divisions to Battalions, Brigades to Companies, and Battalions to Platoons

- Example, US Mech Brigade plus Recon Battalion vs. Syrian Infantry Division translates to US Mech Company plus Recon Platoon vs. Syrian Infantry Battalion in CM:SF.

[Double Deuce]

The thing with CM:SF is that there is no random map generator so either you have to re-use the available ingame maps over and over or someone needs to build the maps manually as they are needed.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[missinginreality]

Would kind of be like one of those big wall operational maps you see in the old WW2 films I guess? Wouldn't it be just a matter of moving counters across the board on that level? Have it as a web-based graphic that is updated as and when battles happen with AAR's on the site etc. rather than needing any kind of coding or software behind it? But people and brains yes indeed, to make the scenarios as they come up.But if there were two sides played by humans then that'd make things a lot easier hey? There'd need to be a "dungeon master" or two or 10 to run the behind the scens stuff obviously.

[Apocal]

Would kind of be like one of those big wall operational maps you see in the old WW2 films I guess? Wouldn't it be just a matter of moving counters across the board on that level? Have it as a web-based graphic that is updated as and when battles happen with AAR's on the site etc. rather than needing any kind of coding or software behind it? But people and brains yes indeed, to make the scenarios as they come up.But if there were two sides played by humans then that'd make things a lot easier hey? There'd need to be a "dungeon master" or two or 10 to run the behind the scens stuff obviously.

I've recently gotten into scenario making, anything up to around company (or two) in terms of scale.

[sdp]

Well, I've started working on something too... Perhaps we should get a dedicated site/forum to focus our efforts? Here's a rough outline of what i've been working on;

- My plans for a MC would probably be based on the rules (simplified/modified) of Gulf Strike, a hex-based, operational, booardgame. It would be set in Syria.

- Using Vassal to manage the operational level and CMSF to resolve battles on premade-maps. These maps would have to be made from scratch and/or existing scenario maps - with the permission of the designers of course...

This is what it looks like at the moment - very tentative...

- The campagin would advance in 2week-turns; 1 week for the GM:s and the divisonal and Corps commanders to issue orders and set up battles. Possibly also resolving political issues on the Op map (civil unrest, insurgencies), 1 week for the players fighting the battles and reporting in. Battles that don't have any players to resolve them in CMSF would be possible to resolve on the OPmap. Every turn equals 1 day in the campaign.

- Units would have a combination of CMSF and Gulf Strike "values" to accomodate both operational and tactical resulotion (read CMSF battles) - perhaps something like this;

- Units involved in CMSFbattles -and Losses - would be "extracted/extrapolated" from/to the OPmap. I.e; 1 battalion on the OPmap - 1 coy on the battlefield. You loose 7% of the coy in the fight - you loose 7% of the battalion...

- Players would normally command a brigade, 3 battalion+ - and would have the possibility to design their taskforces based on the orders issued by their superior commanders.

- Counters on the OPmap symbolize battalions and in some "rare" cases companies (Special Forces, Irregulars)

- Corps and divisional commanders can issue artillerysupport and CAS to their brigade commanders as they see fit.

Now, this is still in its very early stages. Seems to me it would be wise to syncronize our efforts - better to have one good Campagin than several that just die away due to lack in players and support. I'd be very happy to help out in the development of a campaign - not necessarily the one I've been working on; any campaign really.

regards/

sdp

[JohnO]

sdp, what program is that your displaying? Is that VASSAL?

[sdp]

yes it is

/sdp

[Cpl Steiner]

sdp,

Wow, that's amazing! Is that the "Gulf Strike" module for VASSAL then, or something you've cooked up yourself? It looks a lot more in-depth than the OIF module I've been playing around with - which is either a good thing (detail) or a bad thing (effort) depending on how you look at it. Either way, it's a detailed hex map of Syria, which means no-one will have to make one from scratch. I must say, you've kept all your hard work very quiet, unless I've missed some threads!

In my opinion, what you've got there looks like a very good starting point for what I'm sure a lot of people on the forum would be happy to contribute to and participate in. My advice would be to keep it simple initially otherwise it might take too long for turns to be processed.

I think we both agree that the Op Map needs some basic rules such as Terrain Effects on Movement (how far can I go) and some limited combat resolution rules to keep the number of CM:SF played battles to a manageable level, but other than that, GMs could throw in lots of interesting on-the-fly events such as units surrendering and having to be rounded up for the MPs, suicide attacks behind the lines, riots etc., to make life difficult for each Coalition unit commander. The size of each unit controlled would really be dependent on how many players wanted in - i.e. Divisions and Brigades for a small number of players; Brigades and Battalions if more players were involved.

To my mind the best way to play the Syrians would be to GM it. There might be some players who would enjoy controlling an Iraqi Division but I'm not one of them!

Airpower assets could be bid for and/or dished out each turn to the various commanders. As with the scaling down of ground assets for CM:SF battles, the same would apply to the air assets. In other words, dozens of squadrons of F15s acting in a CAP role for a brigade might result in a couple showing up in any one CM:SF battle in the vicinity.

[JohnO]

This is something that I have been working on for a long time. It is called Modern Operations Campaign Tool, MOCAT for short.

MOCAT is a PC tool created from the original COCAT II program to help players and gamemasters to run campaigns. This tool was initially intended for the CMMC only, but with permission from its original programmer Pål Woje, Chaim Krause and I made a version to be used for the modern era. This program helps the users keep track of various types of information on the campaign-map, such as unit’s placement, artillery barrages, logistics and so own.

I can send the pdf that shows what it can do to anyone who wants to read it.

JohnO

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Now this really is exciting stuff… .

Congratulations to all that are having a go at a Meta Campaign…

“The way” to play CM….

John… great… congratulations on taking it forward… good luck…

Good luck to everyone involved in these projects… hope to be allowed to follow how things go as Meta Campaigns are all about “lessons learnt”.

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Don’t forget guys…. you always end up needing more umpires/game-masters than you anticipated…

[kipanderson]

John, hi,

“I can send the pdf that shows what it can do to anyone who wants to read it.”

Yes… please… hugely interested in how things are developing… one day when I have time am “very” keen to take part in a CMMC type game again… strangely… more so as an umpire or organizer than player…watching it all unfold from the inside will be fun one day.

kip@su76.com

All the best,

Kip.

[sdp]

JohnO:

- I'd very much would like to have o look a the MOCAT, please send me a copy of that pdf! sdp@molnhavet.se

Cpl Steiner:

- it would basically be an adaption of the Gulf Strike ruleset (with the expansion "Desert Shield"). The word adaption is kind of crucial - Gulf Strike is very complex.

Some more info;http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/2076

In the end it's a question of balancing between complexity and keeping it manageable. A MC will of course have to have a number of GMs as well "tactical players". You might even be able to participate as a corps commander in one area and at the same time as a brigadier in another - if you have the RL time, that is...

To keep the MC winnable for the Syrian side the victory condition could be assymetrical, like in the OIF-module for Vassal.

regards/

sdp

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Double Deuce]

This is something that I have been working on for a long time. It is called Modern Operations Campaign Tool, MOCAT for short.

Hi John,

Have you guys made any revisions since the last copy I got from you?

[jenrick]

One thing, make the tac games either defined as RT campaings or WEGO. I'd love to participate, but having to butt heads with not only the WEGO interface but also my opponent would drive me bonkers. Conversely I know a lot of people aren't going to want to play RT.

-Jenrick

[sdp]

SDP,

Would being responsible (with whatever help you recruit/want of course) for the entire land side be something you'd be interested in?

- I might very well be! Bear in mind though that the ruleset I'm working on is still in its very early stages. You reach me at sdp@molnhavet.se

-Jenrick; Good point! The way I see it both modes would be possible, just as long as there is a finished battle to report in to the GMs at the end of the "tactical phase" of the turn - this phase might have to be 2 weeks to suit all (most...) players.

regards/

sdp

[Cpl Steiner]

Hi again,

How complex do people believe the Op Map part needs to be? I've looked at the MOCAT stuff and whilst it looks very well thought out it uses rangefinders and grids etc. over a proper map. To my mind, this adds unnecessary complexity when a simple hex grid could be used to control how far you can move, what you can see etc. I know others will disagree and say that a hex grid distorts the true geometry of the map but I've grown up with hex boardgames and have a soft spot for them.

To my mind, the Op Map part should be like a mini boardgame with its own rules, so the GMs have less to think about other than just applying the rules of how far each unit can go and the effects of terrain etc. A grid superimposed over a real map would require a lot more management and interpretation than I'd be comfortable with. That's not to say you couldn't use a real map with a hex grid. For such an arrangement you could superimpose some notation to make it clear where river-boundaries where and what terrain (rough, marsh) etc. was in any particular hex.

Anyway, I'm happy to chip in with anything others are doing. I quite like doing graphics so if anyone wants some counters or markers making I'd be happy to give that a go? Although I started this thread several people have prototypical Meta-Campaign systems in the works already so I'd be better of helping them than starting a new one!