L4Pilot

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by argie: And the aerodinamics? The air pressure must be higher with low temperatures, thus making the shell decelerating faster.<hr></blockquote> The air pressure isn't necessarily higher in cold weather, but the air density almost certainly is. This would cause projectiles to deaccelerate more quickly after being fired and alter the trajectory. I don't know if WWII AFV's took this into account, but I'm pretty sure modern MBT's have an "air data computer" to compensate for variations of air density.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JonS: I seem to recall one being based on HPSs' "Panzer Campaigns: Normandy '44", but don't know if it got off the ground.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I was the instigator of the abortive Normandy '44 campaign game. At the risk of drawing volumes of hate mail down upon my head, I'll share my experiences using Normandy '44 as a scenario generator for CM. As far as I got (about 4 turns), the HPS game, with a few minor adjustments, served admirably It fulfills many of the criteria requested in this thread: appropriate sized units, translatable terrain, and a time frame (2 hour turns) that seemed reasonable to wrap CM scenarios of 30 to 45 minutes within. With regard to maps, the small scale ones I ordered took much longer than anyone expected to arrive. So during the actual period I just used the abstracted terrain within the hexes of the Normandy '44 map as a guide to making the tactical maps, i.e. a village in the upper right corner of the hex and fields in the south, were reproduced on the CM map. A few buildings and areas of vegetation to add variety, and I think the spirit of the terrain was communicated. And the Normandy'44 units are editable for position and other details. So I was able to put back into Normandy '44 the results of the CM scenarios. Some other adjustments I had to make was that the unit sizes Normandy '44 were consistently slightly higher than those in CM. I just assumed that these were support personnel and when a Normandy '44 unit took casualties, I reduced the CM unit proportionally rather than arithmetically. Also, ammo supply, morale and physical condition are tracked in Normandy '44. When applied to the starting point of the CM scenarios, I used these factors as guides: low ammo in Normandy '44 meant reduced ammo loads in CM. fatigue and/or low morale in Normandy '44 meant reduced troop experience ratings in CM to reflect reduced effectiveness. Problem areas were of my own making. I tried to include too many people. This is probably been the undoing of many of the campaign games out there (with CMMC an obvious exception.) It was for the game in which I acted as player. Did I underestimate the workload? Yes, but not as much as you might think. Where I found the most unexpected work was dealing with people who's units were not actually on the map yet. As many of you know, there was an ongoing influx of units on both sides into the invasion area from H-Hour on. I found it very hard with commanders of units not yet on the map to communicate the situation without breaking the mood. They wanted to DO SOMETHING! I finally had to say in a couple of cases - Look, you're off the map, I don't know exactly where. You're going to be ordered to move, I'm not going to give away when so just sit tight. But it didn't made much difference in the long run. Things I think were well done was the detail I was able to give the players re: what was going on around them. By stepping through each action in Normandy '44 I was able to inform the unit commanders about what was going on around them: Near and distant fire, artillery attacks, things seen by scouts, etc. Had to make some judgments re: distance that action could be heard, but that was no big deal. Here was a typical report to a unit commander: OK here's what happens. As your men police up the area, you count your casualties: 2 KIA and 3 wounded. Your men find 6 German dead and over a dozen wounded. Plus your 2 prisoners. Dispositions? There is small arms fire going on all around your unit. W, N, NE and SW. About 20 minutes after the end of the firefight, you get a nasty surprise. Medium artillery starts pummelling your position. Your men scramble for cover in the German prepared entrenchments. It rains all around you, fairly accurately targeted, lasting five, no, ten minutes. It finally slacks off. After a few minutes of relative quiet, broken only by the sound of more distant artillery (like what you hear with ambient sound on in CM), you haul yourself out of the foxhole. The lieutenants and sergeants report no casualties. One of Lt. Winters runners arrives. Even in the darkness, you can see he is covered in dirt. "SIr, Lt WInters says there's a village just NW of here. Maybe half a mile. That's where those bastards were shelling us from, pardon my language, sir. I would have been here sooner, but they almost got me." He pauses as though trying to remember something. "Oh! And Lt. Winters says some Kraut infantry is moving north into the village over there." He waves to the west. "And the Lieutenant told me to tell you: "Not in good order", sir." He sounds a little sheepish. "Sorry, sir. That incoming must've scrambled my brains for a moment." While he is reporting a particularly sharp exchange of small arms begins north of you. You sense your men are tired. The adrenaline from the first fight is wearing off. They probably won't fight as effectively as they did until they can catch their breath, maybe get some chocolate bars into them. Ammo is also an issue - not so much for your riflemen as your mortar team. They fired all the HE they had with them from the jump. You look at your watch. It's 0535. You look up. Is the dim light coming through the broken cloud layer - is that moonlight? Or the first light of dawn? Maybe I went a little overboard with that one. Regarding the original campaign game, I developed a significant health problem between the time I announced the campaign and the time it got underway, but thought I would be able to continue in spite of it. Just over a week into the actual game, I got a "you're going into the hospital" ultimatum from my doctor. This devolved in to an in and out, better and worse, better and worse situation that required a total of 30 days in the hospital through the beginning of June. I should have been more communicative with the players, but the prognoses that the doctor provided gave me repeated hope that I would be able to resume the game. These hopes were unfounded, and, gloomily, I'm still in much the same health situation. I'd be happy to discuss my experience with the campaign with anybody via this thread or email.

Regardihng starting now or later, seems to be a pretty one sided, so: To our friends in occupied France: "Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone" repeat "Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone" L4Pilot

I just looked at the site and in addition to being a well thought out rules addition for campaign games, the site is beautifully laid out. Anybody with interest in this should definitely take a look.

Only "warbird" I've ever flown. Only "warbird" I'll ever get to fly.

Update, some responses and a question for the group. Moon is still looking into it but was disappointed with regard to immediate arrival of the maps. Ah, well. For those (Thermopylae, Boozer, Roberto) who most recently inquired, I'm adding people in date order of request. So it's certainly possible I can add you but it won't be at the beginning of the campaign. And I won't know until the campaign is under way for a while. I'm trying to be as inclusive as I can of both players and ideas, within the limits of my time. A question for the group: Should we begin this without the topo maps. They are (1:24000 scale) so the area covered by one 1km Normandy '44 hex will be about 4 cm x 4 cm on the topo maps - a little under 2 inches by 2 inches. Will I get enough extra detail off this sized area to justify waiting for the maps? Consider that the Normandy '44 map already gives generic terrain information for each hex such as elevation, and type: clear, forest, bocage, town, village, farmland, orchard, and several others. It also presents info on main and secondary roads, trails, watersheds, bridge capacities (!), railways, fortification levels, and other neat stuff. So will this suffice until the topo maps arrive or should we wait? Let's see if there is a consensus. And I've been hitting the D-Day books, looking for info and anecdotes to be able to add "color" to the unit activity descriptions I provide. Unfortunately for some of you allied volunteers, I found a neat book called Beyond the Beachhead (IIRC. I'll edit it if I find out differently) story of the 29th Infantry Division that landed at Omaha. Now I've just got to dig out my copy of Steel Inferno to refresh myself on the Axis side. Any other suggestions? And Thomas Norton, I think you've hit it. I hope I can make your analysis correct. John Tiller, designer of the Panzer Campaign series has already done the hard work. There have two other games in the series (Smolensk and Kharkov) already and HPS seems to be alternating between West Front and Russian Front. Maybe someone will want to try something similar with one of these when CM2 is available, although the Eastern Front PanzerCampaign games are battalion sized units. . We'll see. Stay tuned. L4Pilot

To avoid exhibiting troll like behavior: I appreciate everyone's comments on this topic, especially BTS's. In posing my original topic as a question, I really DID want to hear a variety of views. And something that Steve brought up, that I need to reinforce, is that this WAS an extreme case. I haven't seen anything like it in dozens of PBEM games. Abstractions tend to "fray" a little when pushed to the extreme. I wish Steve's (of BTS) hypothetical example in his first message HAD been the case. If defender fire and friendly fire had caused 30, as he suggested, or 20. or even 10 enemy casualties before being overrun I wouldn't have started this thread. But ZERO? (or 1 or 2?). Well, that's why I wanted people's comments. So, my conclusion is that, indeed, CM does "reward" this type of attack to the extent that it underrepresented the casualties of an attacking force operated this way. I think Michael emrys put it most cogently. Others are certainly entitled to their opinions. And Sarge, you're not the bad guy, you just found an effective way to use your forces. Just a little too effective in my opinion. CM was, is and will be my favorite game for the foreseeable future. Hands down. And if I want a game to behave differently, I'll just have to write my own. hehhehhehehheh....

First the good news: Moon has indicated that he expects to have the maps to ship any time now. I'm expecting confirmation of his receiving them any moment now. Re: Michael Dorosh's suggestion about player commander units, I think it's very interesting, though a little beyond the scope of what I can do. Let me suggest what I can do, based on his suggestions and solicit comments. I can customize the Company Commander. with each player's desired name. I will also give each player 4 "points" of command attributes to be allocated as they see fit among command, combat, morale and stealth abilities. So +2 in two categories or +1 in four, or whatever. This reflects the fact that anyone with the intelligence and foresight to sign up for this campaign is obviously a superior combat commander and his stats should reflect that! For armored companies, the V-1 vehicle will be the commanders vehicle and get a one level upgrade to the unit experience rating. But that is YOUR unit. You will be the last man standing in that unit, but if it's eliminated, well, ah, we'll see how your "recuperation from wounds" goes. And if it's captured well, ah, ...... Tracking performance to determine attribute increases is beyond me, I think. I can't think of any objective standards that would apply. And medals? Well, the same thing is true. Perhaps Michael Dorosh will act as the commendations and awards committee. Maybe players should write up "recommendations" for conspicuous bravery, and let him hand out the appropriate awards. How's that sound?

I recently had the enjoyable experience in a PBEM of having one of my dug-in US Paratroop (full strength, OK morale, not pinned at the beginning of the turn) squads charged by half a BATTALION of SMG armed German infantry. That's right - about 15 squads - 22-24 toal units counting squads and teams and Hq's My esteemed opponent used the devious tactic of having 2/3 of these units charge directly onto my squad, which incidentally was in a foxhole and in command range of a company HQ with the bravery modifier. The other 8 - 10 units hung back about 80 meters and provided "covering fire." Right through the 12 - 14 charging units. Here's a snapshot taken at the height of the attack. You can see a substantial number of German units virtually bathing in the targetlines of their compatriots. HREF = "http://members.aol.com/tailwheler/humanwave.jpg" I'm aware that what is represented graphically in CM is not necessarily what exactly is happening. But I'm hard pressed to figure out a rationale for what happened except for what the game showed. Which was 100 guys firing SMG's in several waves converging on a point that 50 more guys were firing SMG's at. Casualties to the Germans due to friendly fire? ZERO! I had ID on some of the charging units to watch their casualties "accrue" over the turn. Which they didn't. I watched one SMG unit receive 15 bursts of auto weapons fire (yes, I counted) through its unit symbol in about 8 seconds with zero casualties. Now the US squad in question certainly responded to the incoming fire as you might expect. It fired a few shots into the onrushing mass, which also didn't cause any casualties that I could determine. The German fire caused about 4 or 5 casualties to the men in foxholes (even though it didn't cause any casualties to the running, erect German units between the firing units and my squad) at which point the squad broke, ran and was slaughtered. So the US squad responded to the incoming fire to the extent you'd expect. It all arrived at their dug-in position - enough to make them, despite the close proximity of their bravery inspiring Company CO, decide they'd rather chance it than stay in the cover of their foxholes. So what's happening here? Marksmanship? Are the German units involved so good with their SMG's that they can fire them 80 yards through and around a hundred charging men and kill men in foxholes with no intervening friendly casualties? If so, Good Shooting! Geometry? Were the firing units perhaps holding their machine pistols over their heads so as to fire over the heads of their fellow soldaten and into the foxholes of the defending Americans? Or using high angle plunging fire? Well, probably not. I guess my ire is raised not by the final outcome, but by the results. Yes, 12 soldiers (despite being armed with semi auto and auto weapons) rushed from 100 yards by 10x or 15x as many enemies are likely to get overrun. Not certain, for we have all read of exceptions, but likely. What irks me is that it didn't cost the attackers more. Both from the Thompsons, M1's, carbines and BAR of the defenders and also from the "supporting" "friendly" fire of the attackers, that certainly pinned the defenders and made them break and run, but didn't faze the attackers at all as it went through them on the way to the US squad. So BTS my question(s) is (are), does fire impact "friendly" units on the way to the target, either in casualties or in "suppression" level? Are spray weapons like SMG's more likely to cause friendly casualties than rifles? And should enemy fire be attenuated at the target end, if not by the bodies of the intervening troops (which I would have liked in this case) but at least by the extra caution of troops firing through friendlies? And if nothing else, here's a new tactic - just line 'em up and send 'em in, No worries about lines of fire or friendly casualties. We can just go back to the Phalanx. Over the top, boys! Ooops, wrong war. [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-13-2001).]

The screwed up message above was supposed to contain the information that we're waiting for topo maps of Normandy from Moon at GamesofWar.de. I did the annoucement one month after placing the order for the maps thinking that would be enough time for them to be on the way. Turns out there was a glitch with the order so they should be on the way "soon" So 2 - 3 weeks?? I hope, at the most. Just pretend it's May 15th, 1944. [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-07-2001).]

Some interesting questions from Pascal DI FOLCO: Agreed it weould be very difficult to finish a PBEM in the time alloted. So almost all scenarios will be solo games against the A/I. So you'll have either 4 evenings or all of "le weekend" to complete a 30 - 40 turn CM scenario against the computer. Possible? There are two reasons why this should not be a problem. 1) In an evenly matched game, the difference between a good human player and the A/I is substantial. The good human player almost always "wins." But in this campaign, evenly matched scenarios will, I believe, be very rare. One side or the other will usually greatly outnumber the other. As in real life. Neither side will execute an attack without a much better than 1.4 to 1 or 1.8 to 1 advantage. Probably more like 3 to 1 or more.So the scenarios will NOT be evenly matched in the sense that a CM QB is evenly matched. and 2) In a campaign, the goal is not only to win but to win with minimum casualties. Every casualty taken in a scenario in this campaign will be lost for the entire rest of the campaign! (Yes, Normandy '44 does provide for some replacements, and these will be incorporated into your units as they become available.) Anybody (after some practice) can win a CM QB against the A/I if they are willing to take 30-40-50% casualties or more. But if you do that a couple of times in this campaign, you will "wipe out" your unit, for all intents and purposes. So even a mediocre A/I can "grind down" a superior unit led by a good, experienced player over the course of several battles. Long term minimization of casualties will be very important in this game and a real challenge to players (like myself) who are used to the "damn the casualties, take the flag" style of play. Have faith, mon ami. At the end of each player turn, I save the scenario. I can then load that into the Scenario Editor and edit anything about any unit, including strength, position, supply status, anything. I save it with the changes and load it for the next player turn. Simple, non? (Pardon moi, just having some fun revisiting my very bad high school French.) Indeed it would. Perhaps I can find someone who will help with this. I feel I must concentrate on refereeing the game until I see how much work it will be. Hope this answers some questions and concerns that many of you might have. L4Pilot

Update re: participation: Been working slowly but steadily on unit assignments for those who requested a specific unit. Most of those are done. If you have not requested a specific unit, here's what happens. When a "interesting" battle comes along in the campaign, I'll go to my list and assign the next available person (based on chronological order of original request) to that battle. I'll provide some info on the unit's history from the beginning of the campaign. And after the battle, you'll be able to "follow" that unit through the rest of the campaign. So if you have posted to this thread or emailed me at either tailwheler@aol.com or NormandyCampaign@aol.com, then you are "on the list." EVERYBODY who has responded so far will get a unit assignment and battle(s)in the order that you responded. I'm hoping that's a "fair" way to do it. And it's not too late at all for those with no preference to pick a specific unit to follow (and command). So break open those history books. Comments welcomed. "L4Pilot" [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-06-2001).]

A quick update: Definitely full, so just taking "waiting list" requests. Been doing unit assignments - getting 2 or 3 a day done. I have to match player preference with what's available, match it with the Normandy '44 OOB, look up and note arrival or release times and prepare a short note to the player regarding the details of the unit, current location etc. I'll finish those people with unit or national preferences first, see where that puts the player balance and then do the "any unit ok" people accordingly. I'm finding very close agreement between the stated unit size in Normandy '44 and the corresponding CM organization. But one unit where there is a substantial difference is the SS PzGrenadier (Mot.) company. CM shows 148 men (IIRC) and Normandy '44 shows 197. Anybody know enough about the TOE for this unit to enlighten me on the difference? And the latest word from Moon at GamesofWar.de with regard to the topo maps is: Lastly, a question for the group (or anybody) - what should be the turn length of the CM scenarios I generate, given that a daytime turn in Normandy '44 is 2 hours? My gut feel says about 40 minutes, given the necessity to marshall and approach. Is there any need or rationale for longer or shorter? Thoughts? [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-04-2001).]

Actually won't be using the QB generator. I will be using the random map generator in the scenatio generator to generate an initial map with the appropriate paramaters (village, rural, flat, gentle slopes as needed) and then tweaking that for specific terrain features I can glean from the maps I have of the area (hills, roads, hedgerows, etc.). Then I'll construct set up areas for each side based on the actuall tactical situation. If the player units are attacking from the northeast, then their setup area will be in the northeast of the map. Depending on time available I'll either do a quick and dirty setup for the defenders or let the computer do the setup. And of course, the players will always get to do their own setup within the confines of their setup area. So I can't say there will be no problems as you describe, but I think they will be minimal. Hope that helps. [patient mode off]

OK, need to call it with regards to participants. As far as I'm concerned, everyone who posted here or emailed me as of the time this message posted is in. And should be able to give everyone thier stated preference with regard to units. Happy to keep a waiting list for additional players as spaces open, or I determine I can handle the additional load. Now comes the hard work! L4Pilot

QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS (in no particular order) From: Culex Pipiens Agreed for the most part. I was a participant too, in one of the early CM RPG's. My impression is it is not only player commitment but also Referee workload that determines the endurance of the campaign. Referee workload is the thing I thought about the most in preparing to do this, and by using Normandy '44 with its associated mapping, operational A/I and as an overall environment within which the CM battles are conducted, I'm hoping to keep my workload within reasonable limits. Additionally, by choosing what elements are emphasized and what are de-emphasized, will help keep the workload manageable. The battles will be emphasized, role playing will not. Not to say that role-playing will be eliminated, just not emphasized. And there is the issue of what to do if players do "melt away." In other campaigns a player missing (temporarily or permanently) can gum up the works until a replacement is found. In this game "command" of the unit will revert back to the AI and the campaign will keep going. From: The_Capt "This is a clear chance to practice true Manoeuvre and see if it really works." Yes, more so than most CM games I've played. Here flanking and envelopment will definitely have combat benefit. If two units are attacking, one from the SE and one from the NW, the scenario I generate will definitely reflect that. There are maneuver benefits with regard to supply and "isolation" that the Normandy '44 game takes into account, as well. And see the "who is in command of the unit" discussion below. From: Stephen Smith "I am suspicious, though. I have (and am playing)Normandy '44. 1) My guess is that you are likely to have very few battles. Suppose you have 20 players (10 per side). As you know, there really aren't that many 'assaults'. The odds that 10 companies out of the whole axis or allied army are actually involved in an assault in a given turn are pretty small-are you doing the whole Normandy battle (in which there are probably 1000's of companies per side) or a smaller scenario with a few divisions per side?" You hit it on the head! That is what I "discovered" too, playing Normandy '44. And this fact (relatively few assaults per turn) is the only thing that made me even BEGIN to consider doing this. And, foolishly, yes I am doing the whole Normandy campaign. I've found it takes about two hours to process a turn and note what happened to several dozen units. "2) What are the victory conditions for a given battle? Capture a flag? " Victory conditions: I don't currently anticipate using VP's in the scenarios (that may change) . The whole hex (CM battlefield) will be the "VP" At the end of the scenario, the player will send the last turn to me so I can review the positions and casualties (and morale) on both sides. I'll evaluate that final turn to determine whether the hex was "taken" and edit those results ( and casualties) back into Normandy '44 with the scenario editor. "Is there anything stopping me as a company commander from either fighting to the death and losing my whole company (when you didn't intend it) or quickly withdrawing to save myself (when you wanted to hold the hex)?" Nope. Die or run away all you want. Of course since the casualties are put back into Normandy '44 at the end of the battle any losses will be carried forward for that unit into future turns. And any sudden, unordered "repositioning" is likely to earn a "What the hell are you doing?" visit from your superiors. "3) What about artillery/armor/engineers? When I play Normandy, the engineer bns and sometimes armored bns fight as one- you could have 45 tanks, or 500 engineers, or 40 scout vehicles, in a 1 km battlefield." You know I haven't found this much, most of the units really are company and half company sized, sometime even platoons for the schweere (spelling?) Panzers, Were you using the "combine units command?" Which doesn't mean I won't use the stacking. We'll have to feel this out as it goes, to keep the force sizes appropriate for the amount of terrain covered. From: Perhaps the players should take control of a battalion sized force instead of a company? From: Napoleon1944 "Where can I get Normandy 44? " Don't want to do advertising on the BTS BBS for another company but check under HPS in a search engine. Actually the discussion of using the PanzerCampaigns games from HPS as campaigns for CM has been mentioned before on this board. From: Walter "One thing I'm a bit confused about. Doesn't it make sense that since the invading armies were 2:2:1 American:British:Canadian, doesn't it make sense to keep the same ratio or at least approximately? Like 5:5:2? Just my thoughts on it." Don't know if the ratio matters too much. Plenty of units to go around and I'm trying to respond to preferences. And ALL of the units of the original campaign will be represented - but only a couple of dozen will have "Player Commanders." "OH, and will you plan on including the paratroop drops as well? Might be an added level of complication that you don't need, but something to consider I guess. " You bet! With all the problems of scattering, orientation after night landing and flooded drop zones! From: Michael Dorosh0 "I hope there will be a website to post info on the campaign, as well as AARs, screenshots, and other neat stuff..." Sounds good, and I would love for someone to tackle it. I'm not going to try until I see what kind of workload the refereeing will be. Everyone not volunteering take one step backwards. From: Paul Crocker "One idea: Have each player submit a map for the campaign. You could quickly build a map library, and when it's been decided to do a CM battle, you can look into your library for a representative map for that area. With enough variation, you should be able to account for a good number of the maps you'll need." Good idea, but I want to tackle the maps to begin with (I may regret this later!). I'm getting 1:24000 French topo maps from Moon at Games of War to help with the maps. A $140 investment between the cost, shipping and wire transfer fee. I'm only going to make maps of the areas where battles occur and based on the discussion above, that might only be one or two maps per turn. So lets see how it goes. From: Matt Hyra "One thing you might want to address is: Who are the leaders and how are move and assault orders generated? Does the Coy commander decide everything for his unit? Are their leaders or is the computer deciding strategy?" Each player commander will initially command a company sized unit. We'll see if there's a way to command a larger unit composed of company sized units as the game progresses. I, as referee, will represent the command structure above the company level . I''ll let the Normandy '44 AI generate a move or assault order (which is does) which will be issued as an order to the player commander, along with current situational info. Unless the player commander says otherwise, that order will be executed in the context of Normady '44. If an assualt is called for, the battle will be generated using the CM scenario generator and the player commander will fight the battle in CM. The results will be edited back into Normady '44 (which tracks each man, vehicle and gun) So yes the company commander decides for his unit, though repeated disobedince to orders is likely to have the results you might expect. And yes, in essence, the Normandy '44 AI is deciding strategy. I very much appreciate the questions: they have helped me clarify my thinking on this project. I hope I addressed them all. I'll continue to need your input and suggestions as we get this going. We're getting close to the player cutoff at least for the initial phase. I need to spend some time assigning units, based on expressed preferences, which I will do via email. And we're waiting for the maps. from France. Stay tuned and keep those shortwave radios tuned into the BBC. [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-03-2001).]

Great! Looks like Commonwealth is filling up fastest! I'm gratified by the response and will contact each of you via email, as well as those of you who contacted me at NormandyCampaign@aol.com. I'll also address the concerns above in an edited version of this message ASAP. Thanks for the interest. L4Pilot

<< EDIT - ok, Canadians are an option. If this is to start in June, I'm stuck with Third Division - preference would be Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, but I'd be happy with any of the other infantry battalions. >> Michael, That's the kind of request I'm set up to handle. Shall we say Coy. A? Not an easy assignment but you'll see PLENTY of action! You're penciled in, if that's ok. Just an example of how I'd like to do this. I'll contact most of you via email to determine preferences. I wont be doing "beach" scenarios for all the reasons BTS has stated. But up from the beaches is a definite! "L4Pilot"

Good points, Pak40. One of the purposes of this thread is to allow the intersted group to help anticipate potential glitches in advance of starting the campaign. <<1. The QB map generator never puts Bocage tiles on the map. I fear you will be spending a lot of time tweaking the maps for historical accuracy.>> I fear so, too. But as I mentioned in the initial message, I'm not striving for exact placement of each feature. If the Normandy '44 map calls for bocage in a given hex (which it can) I will definitely include hedgerows as part of the map tweaking. The topo's will give some indication of this too. (See the GamesofWar site for examples) Additional terrain features I anticiapte adding are waterways and ponds, settlements, roads and railroads and prominent hills - enough to give a representitive "feel" to a specific hex. <<2. How will you handle cases where two or more player's units are on the same 1km hex? Who will get to control the battle if one is called for. It seems that cases like this will be the norm because one single company gaurding an entire Km of front line seems awefully weak.>> No intrinsic limit on force size per hex. The chances of having more than one player commanded unit in a given hex will be small because I am going to spread the commanders out among different battalions and regiments. And a player in a given hex will be given command of forces in that hex. So even though you nominally are a company commander, you will end up commanding all the forces in a given hex as "senior commander on scene." Tou know - "Captain - the Colonel's pinned down. You've got to take command!" or some such. Hope that clarifies. <If Canadian units are an option, I would very much like to be able to participate.> Canadian, British, and their airborne contingents, American, American Airborne, Heer, PJ and SS units are all available. Basically the same list as on the CM force list. Choose your poison! And yes the game will start in June 1944. Shall we say JUNE 6th ??? And thanks for the warning Commissar. Well taken. That's why I'm going to limit the number of participants to begin with, emphasize the gameing rather than the roleplaying and provide for "temporary non-participation" of players to minimize hold-ups in the flow. Mike "L4Pilot" [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-01-2001).]

Yes, yes, it's Normandy, not Nomandy. SNAFU! Nonetheless: At the risk of what little free time and sanity I have left, I present for your inspection and approval the following: I am offering a campaign game using CM and PanzerCampaigns:Normandy '44 from HPS. The idea is that participants will pick or be assigned a specific unit in the campaign (according to their preferences for side and type of unit) Most of the units in Normandy '44 are roughly company sized - just right for CM. Then players will "follow" that unit on a turn by turn basis (Normandy '44 has two hour turns) while the whole Normandy invasion rages around them. Each commander will receive a report each turn about what their unit saw, heard and experienced. Sort of like some of the other campaigns but with more emphasis on history and less on role-playing and communications. If their unit is ordered to attack, or is attacked, I will generate a CM scenario based on their units current strength and map location. Players will have a few days to play the scenario and then return the results to me. I will then use the editor in Normandy '44 to put the results back into that game. And on to the next turn. Normandy '44 has a pretty good map, down to the 1 km scale with terrain, vegetation, waterways and transportation network. I also have topo maps on order from Moon to be able to provide even more details. I'm not going to be fanatic about it, but I want the scenarios I provide to be a "good" representation of the area in which the battles are occurring. I foresee this game being less Role Playing and more a big scenario generator within an overall historical context. I'll use the Normandy '44 game to handle supply, operational movement, command and control, replacements and morale. I'll use the built-in AI to do most of the unit movements. Based on what I've seen of some of the campaign games, I worried about "Referee Overload." So I have been practicing with Normandy '44, running the AI for both sides, editing unit positions and strengths, and following selected units to see how often they engage in combat. One thing I discovered is that most units rarely engage in intense CM style combat (what Normandy '44 calls assaults). More prevalent are skirmishes, arty bombardments and air attacks, none of which require CM to resolve. So a report for a 2 hour turn might typically be "Your unit was bombarded briefly by mortar fire from the southwest and suffered 2 casualties. Scouts in that direction encountered enemy infantry and skirmishing caused four more casualties. Your HQ says to stay put and await further orders." Or some such. Practicing with Normandy '44 has shown that are only a few "assaults" per turn. And the chance of a player controlled unit being involved in one of those assaults is not great. So my guess is that I'll only have to produce a CM scenario once every turn or two and this should be within my capabilities. When a CM Battle is called for, I'll use the random map generator to create a map for each contested Normandy'44 hex using the appropriate criteria, (hilliness, forestation, habitation). Then I'll edit the map to include any details (roads, water, bridges, etc.) that I can discern from the Normandy'44 map or the topo maps. The CM maps won't be precise representations of the battle area, but will be very close in spirit and give, I hope, a strong feel for the area. I'll retain the maps on a hex by hex basis so if an area is fought over more than once, the same map will be used. There are several caveats I've got to provide. One thing I don't expect is for this to generate nice, evenly balanced CM battles. Far more than Quick Battles or pre-gen scenarios, these will NOT attempt to balance play. So most likely players will either vastly outnumber or be vastly outnumbered. Just like in real life. I also don't expect that players will be inundated with scenarios. As I said, my testing shows that very few units engage in the kind of combat requiring CM on any given turn. So it might be weeks (of real time), or even months, between actual CM combats. But players should receive a "Unit Report" once or twice a (real) week. What I do believe players will experience is a feeling of participating in an historic event, with hundreds of thousands of other (virtual) participants. They should feel some continuity and identification with their chosen unit And I hope they feel some understanding of and identification with the men of both sides who were there That's my goal. I think I can anticipate some problems. If players don't return their results for a game, I'll use the results that Normandy '44 generates (possibly with a little referee induced penalty ). So the game will go on, one way or another. If for some reason a combat includes units from human players on both sides - they'll need to arrange and resolve the combat within the time limit via TCP/IP - but I don't think that's going to be very common. If both player and non-player units are on one side, then the human will be "promoted" to "force commander" for that battle. I'd like to start with 6 US, 6 Commonwealth and 6 to 12 German commanders. Most of the units in Normandy '44 are roughly company sized. Just right for CM. Part of the problem, especially on the German side, is that many of the units that are initially engaged will be the lower quality "fixed" units that made up much of the "up front" forces. But there may be enough PJ, PnzGr and Panzer forces to keep people happy. I'm going to shoot for two Normandy '44 turns per week. I'll do emails and scenarios Monday and Friday. Responses will be due back the following Thursday and Sunday, respectively. Possible improvements in the future are (obviously) more participants, and players commanding more than a single unit (battalion and regiment sized commands) . I'll have to see how things go before incorporating these. If the game goes that long and interest stays up we might even explore the early release of the Panzer units at the Pas de Calais. I'm going to place people three ways: 1) Request for a specific unit. Some people, by family affiliation or special interest, may want a specific unit. "the Band of Brothers" PI company or the Green Howards or some specific Panzer unit, or whatever. 2) A general request for side or type of unit: Axis. Allied. Parachute. Panzer. Canadian. Whatever. I'll assign people to a unit type of their choice and try to make it one of the more interesting and involving units of that type, if I can. 3) Wait on a list for an interesting battle to come up. Since I'm not going to "CM" every battle that comes along this might take a while. I also think it will be more fun to follow (and influence) a unit from it's entry into the campaign. But some people will want this so I'll allow for it. This will probably be the way I introduce new people into the campaign when (and if) I decide I can comfortably add more people. I have set up a new email address for this venture: NormandyCampaign@aol.com With BTS's forbearance, I'd like to use this Chat board for two more messages: 1) "Les sanglots longs des violins de l'automne" when Moon tells me the maps have shipped. The original meaning was and still will be, an invasion is expected within the next two weeks, and; 2) "Blessent mon coeur d'une langueur monotone" when the maps arrive meaning the invasion is expected within the next 48 hours. So please respond here to this thread or to NormandyCampaign@aol.com if you are interested or have any questions. [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 02-01-2001).]

"At some point we are going to introduce a sort of "preview" feature. This will allow the second player to see the settings the first player chose. That is really all that is needed, but we aren't sure when we are going to do it. Probably not until CM2. Conceptually it is easy, but it involves some involved coding and testing." Steve With regard to TCP/IP play, at least, could the host computer send the QB setup parameters to the connecting computer in the form of a chat message? I.e. a message like "1500 pt. German attack, modest hills, overcast weather, etc." generated by the host computer as though it were a chat message. This would let the non-host player double check the "accuracy" of the set up and might be simpler to implement than additional screens and coding. Yes? No? Maybe? L4Pilot

Yes, Zaraath is correct. I am lusting after an allied equivalent of the 150mm Hummel! And spotter planes and... Come on, BTS! You must know some of us guys would do anything for an extra 50mm, er, 2 inches... [This message has been edited by L4Pilot (edited 12-15-2000).]

I too acutely feel the lack of certain categories of units that are available to the Axis player. In addition to the M16 4x.50cal HT of which HPS "Encyclopedia of Land Combat" says "was extremely effective against lightly armed or soft ground targets...entered service in 1943, and served for the rest of the war with US forces in all theaters.", I would love to see the M12 155GMC SP gun included in CM. It was definitely used in a direct fire mode in some city campaigns and assaults. For me this is another case of "Axis armor envy" as the German player has the Wespe 150 SP gun. It's my understanding that both of these vehicles were left out of CM for time reasons and have been brought up as possible candidates for a vehicle mod pack. Oh please, oh please, oh please....

Did it. Said, in so many words: Combat Mission is not just the game of the year, but the game of the DECADE. It is the game I've waited al my life for. I've gotten more play time and play value from Combat Mission than ALL other computer games combined! So there.