Robert Olesen

Thanks, Stoffel, but that's a meta campaign with several players. Mine is a single player campaign - on purpose. And I like the feel of moving through the war, even though I recognize that my campaign is not a historical simulation.

RobO's Quick Campaign (ROQC) is out in version 0.96 Get it here. I'm very happy with the state of the campaign, but it needs to be proven in real combat, so I'm looking for people who would like to give it a spin for a few games. And I'm sure it is good for some fun and interesting gaming even if you don't want to provide feedback. I'm esp. looking for feedback on how well the concept works, how the experience progress is, how much Favor you're able to accumulate and spend and balancing issues in geberal. There's no real need to sign up for testing, but I'd still appreciate an email at robo_at_tele2adsl.dk so that I know what to expect. There are many differences to previous versions, but the most important is the introduction of operational orders, designed to lift each battle from yet another quick battle to something more interesting and challenging. Here's the rundown of what it's all about: In ROQC you play the role of a commander who leads a Core Force through the east front campaign. You can go through it all from Operation Barbarossa to May 1945, or you can play a shorter campaign by starting later and/or finishing earlier. You can play as German or Soviet in this version, in the southern region. There should be on average one battle per month, amounting to ca. 50 battles to complete the full campaign. This rate of battles is obviously not realistic, but it is a design decision to allow you to proceed fairly quickly and try out different campaign forces. The battle parameters are determined randomly and you use the editor and quick battle generator to set up the game. Don't despair - it's all explained in detail in the rules. The aim of each battle is not just to win, you also need to satisfy the operational orders given by your superior commander. Succes in this regard earns you Favor points, which you can use to alter conditions in your favor and/or upgrade your equipment. Your men will also gain experience along the way, and you'll get replacements (usually inexperienced) for the men you lose. ROQC aims at providing an entertaining and educational experience (in that order) while being as simple to use as possible. And for the historically inclined, here's a link to the previous thread [ September 05, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

Actually, it appears that you can't even import the "Eligible to exit for points" setting, nor can you import the fact that a map edge is en exit edge. Also, it seems that a partial ammo setting is overwritten with a full load. Does anybody else have experience with these things?

I'm redesigning ROQC and in that process I would love to be able to import reinforcements as well as starting troops with a map into a quick battle. I set up a "scenario" with a randomly generated map, my core force available at start and some reinforcements appearing after 10 turns and imported this "scenario" as a map with troops into a quick battle. They never shoved up. I then tried a test setting reinforcements to appear with 100% chance after two turns. They didn't show up either. So, it doesn't appear to work. Does anybody have a trick up his sleeve?

I spend a lot of time modding, so I only have time for one game besides CMBB: Civ3. Actually, the Double Your Pleasure mod (which is the one I'm working on - apart from ROQC). Civ3 in itself is rather boring however. DyP turns it into what it should have been as far as possible within the limitations of the editor and game engine.

Interesting discussion - thanks. 88mm, you just gave me a way to - possibly - add some spice to my own campaign (which incidentally I don't think you'll like much more than BCR): Adding a strategic (or divisional) objective that affects the amount of favor you get from a battle on top of the ordinary QB result. Things like, Rapid advance, Hold at all cost, Delay that would affect the amount fo favor you get for causing/having losses, holding flags and exiting units. I need to think it over for a while, as there is the problem of perspective that Seahawk brought up: How applicable is a strategic/divisional objective to a single small scale battle? But it should add interest and give the player a more interesting job to do than just beat the AI.

Just for the record, though I gather that the amount of interest for this is currently limited: ROQC is in a somewhat different state than the one posted on the download site - I found a need to refine it and straighten it our. Drop me an email if you want an updated copy, stating your preferred file format. I'm currently testing the rules, which takes some time as I don't have all that much playing time at the moment. I'll get an updated version out as soon as I'm satisfied with the quality.

I'd love to be able to do that too. But I fear it is impossible. Probably has to do with protection against hacking QB games. I think you might be able to load the map into another QB, though. But that probably doesn't help you.

Well, Waddya know So, Rarity does apply to infantry after all. Unless that is indeed a bug. Thanks, Lee. I should have tried that myself. I just assumed that infantry costs did not depend on rarity.

I didn't use the loss feature (I assume you're talking about the dropdown menu just below fitness. It was set to Full). Thanks, Scarhead. Will be interesting to see the result.

Same unit (Soviet mechanized, june 1941. Green Rifle company from a Tank battallion, Fit) Having rarity off in the editor makes sense, I guess the listed rarity is just for show then. But in this case the difference was for infantry squads, and I think :confused: that they should cost the same. Perhaps someone else can replicate this effect? I did try every check I could think of.

Rarity is not an obvious explanation. In the case of the infantry company mentioned above, the differenc of 24 points is made up of a 2 point difference on each infantry squad (there are 12 squads, and they cost 22 in the editor and 24 in the QB generator). Rarity should not AFAIK apply to infantry squads. Also, all eligible units have a rarity percentage listed in the editor. In fact, It's not obvious how to turn rarity off in the editor, but I guess there's a setting somewhere.

I found some unexplained differences btw. the editor unit costs and the QB generator costs. Take a look in this thread. This is probably not restricted to 1.03c, but it would be nice to know if it is a bug or a feature, and - if it is a feature - why. And if it is a bug, will it be corrected?

An example: Soviet mechanized, june 1941. A green Rifle company from a Tank battallion costs 415 in the editor and 439 in the QB generator. T-38 is also different, while a platoon of BT-7 Model 1935 costs the same. This is 1.03c Is this a bug or a feature :confused:

I don't want simplicity at all costs, it is obviously a tradeoff. But I have made simplicity a major goal for this campaign, and I try to go for it if possible. There are so many ways you can add complexity to a campaign like this, they all take up time and don't all add a lot of value. I think the QB generator randomness will work reasonably well, though I'm sure it could be improved. This is a game feature after all, it is the kind of battle you get if you do a random QB at a specific date and region. Testing is probably the best way to check it, and that takes a good deal of time.

I did a search too before deciding to go with the QB settings. I also posted a question but didn't get any response. The search told me that there has been problems with the weather settings, but they have apparently been patched. I have not seen any apparent problems with the weather in the games I have set up. I am more worried about the other settings. I suspect that terrain is based on region only, not month and year (i.e does not take the progress of the frontline into account). And I'm unsure how casualty and fitness is randomized. Same goes for force selection. I recently got a Soviet Naval force in the southern region in June 1941. I'm not sure how appropriate that is - perhaps they were located around Odessa. The problem is that providing appropriate tables for rolling up these values would require a lot of information and expand the rules considerably. I try to go for simplicity whenever possible.

Great, Daffy, looking forward to that.

I have a shameless request for the map editor I'd like to be able to set "Random" for all the map parameters in the random map generation in the map editor. Just like you do in the QB map generator. This would then generate a completely random map, presumably suitable for the date and region set in the battle parameters. This has come up in connection with my campaign, when making rules for tracking your core force in the editor. Editing the core force implies that you need to import the core force into the QB generator, and that means that you must import a map with it. The casual player has no simple way of coming up with a suitable map. The feature I'm proposing would be a good and simple way to generate a random map that it suitable for the time and place of the battle. I know how BTS stands on the campaign issue, but this could - just possibly - by a simple request to implement. If not, well, the only way to find out is to ask. And it is in fact possible that map makers might want to use such a feature. If not for CMBB (presumaby not) then perhaps for CMAK.

Those changes I proposed will actually differentiate ROQC more from BCR. The changes I'm proposing should produce v 0.9. I expect this ruleset to be final (as far as that is possible), and go into v1.0 after some usage/tuning - that is if they work out as intended. Not at the moment. I'm not even sure when I will buy CMAK. I expect that CMBB will still have play value for me at the time CMAK is released. We'll see. One of the god things about the changes I propose for v 0.9 is that it will make it a lot simpler to extend the rules to different nationalities and regions in CMBB and - I expect - port them to CMAK. That is because the number of tables that are specific to the region/nationality will be reduced a good deal. I will instead rely in the preprogrammed settings of CMBB to a larger extent. You could hire someone to mow your lawn

Version 0.8 released. Get it here (same link as above ) Changes: ? Player Experience: You can now be demoted as well as promoted. ? Favor loss incorporated if you lose your CO ? Enemy ammunition (19/20): Attack modifiers added. ? Handicap die rolls (24) changed to decrease handicap slightly. ? Favor loss limited to -80 in a single battle. ? Optional Full Package rules added, i.e. rules for using the editor to track each unit in your core force in detail (for those that don't mind the workload). Looking forward, I'm tempted to change direction somewhat. JasonC's reply to my question about logistics made me realize that, given the timescale I'm using, it might be better to eliminate most of the replacement rules and simply resupply everything. I'm all for simplicity if the focus of the campaign remains clear. The quality of the replacements would still be an issue, so the focus would be on the quality of your force and on upgrading your equipment. You would need to keep your men alive to have experienced troops (replacements are usually worse than your own troops) and you would need to accumulate Favor to afford upgrades. I would then make kills and casualties by the core force more important in gaining favor, forcing you to into a choice between experience and favor. I think this would give the campaign a clearer focus (and show more clearly that this campaign is emphasing the game aspect more the simulation aspect). I'd like some comments if there's anybody out there who has an opinion on this, or even uses the thing Is this a good way to go? I would probably throw in a roll for ammo to add spice (more than to simulate real ammo supplies) and perhaps casualties as well, though it is tough to see half your core force disappear before it even enters the battle, and casualty handling also presents problems when you use the editor to track your core force.

Aah, the old campaign subject again I actually went ahead and did a Panzer General type of campaign, obviously because I think it is worthwhile. I do not expect BTS to support that project, however, nor do I expect them to program something like this themselves. My main reason for making this campaign is that I expect to have a lot of fun using it. And ofc. have fun making it I fully realize that it is not in any way a realistic simulation of what happened to a unit during the east front war. I'm using the simulation aspect of MBB to expand on the gaming aspect. Nothing wrong with that IMO, you don't have to use it if you don't want to. The only reason I can think of for BTS to do such a thing would be to sell more games to the mass market. Frankly, I'm glad that they seem to prioritise the simulation aspect instead. he suggestions to provide some export (and possibly import) facilities are good though, provided they don't take up too many of the scarce programming resources.

On HQ abilities, I have come up with a simple system for my campaign that you might find useful. The HQ get a roll on a table at regular intervals (I use a specific experience increase, you could also use the number of battles). It could look like this using 1D10 (no modifiers): 1 : Command increased 2 : Combat increased 3 : Stealth increased 4 : Morale increased 5-10: No effect You lose the effect if you roll up an effect you can't use (e.g. Stealth for a vehicle commander or an ability that is already at +2). This is a simple system and it should keep the increases at a reasonably low rate.

Thanks, Jason, that was excellent. Much appreciated. I guess your comments can be summed up to conclude that in a campaign of my scale (ca. 1 battle per month), keeping track if which equipment is replaced is an unnecessary complication. The exception could be when you get a battle in the same month (just to add spice). The same goes to a large extent for ammunition allocation, though it might be interesting to use that to give a feel for the tight spots as it is simpler to implement and use than equipment replacement. [ April 21, 2003, 04:02 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

I assume you're talking about BCR here? I wouldn't recommend eliminating the extra QB from ROQC. Probably. Don't now what, though .... And please excuse my ignorance, but what is CMX2? Not CMAK, I presume? Sure. Thanks. [ April 19, 2003, 02:26 PM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

Kevin, Thanks a lot OBJ, I want to go the other way around. The scenario editor does not have a random setting for the map parameters. The QB generator does. I'd like to (re)use that randomness. Perhaps I should clarify my intentions. I want to allow people to keep track of their core force using the editor. It allows you to track much more detail. To do this, you need to load the core force - with a map - into the QB you will be playing. The main problem is getting thap map set up. Thw QB generator provides me with a random map, but I can't find a way to import that into the editor. I don't really have the necessary info to duplicate that random map layout through die roll tables that are appropriate for all regions and all months from june 41 to may 45 ø that's why I'd like to reuse the randomness that is already coded into the QB generator. Another way - which I have currently settled on - is to read off the map parameters from the random map made by the QB generator in the first - phony - QB (as well as possible, they are not available in text form anywhere) and reuse them to generate a map in the editor. [ April 19, 2003, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]