OBJ

How about Nov 8, the TORCH anniversary?

Not many apparently. Where's the 'campaign community?'

Whoa, easy boys, just wanted some feedback on the idea of a campaign that follows the player’s choice of a historical division (allied or axis) and that division's historical war experience. Campaign forces would be reinforced company to demi-battalion in size, and made up of unit types available to the division. A series of operations would be designed to reflect the division's progress through the war. Attachments and reinforcements during operations would reflect the division's historical experience. Replacements would reflect the division’s historical experience. Campaign forces would advance in unit experience levels based on performance. New equipment and unit organizations would become available as they were historically fielded to the division. How many folks think this or something similar would be a feature worth clamoring for in CMX2? even if BFC has been adverse to the idea of a campaign feature in the past?

Biltong- I'm using excel and so modified the BG tab to calculate after replacements experience applying my formula. I've added a tab to calculate and record unit potential and starting experience, and leadership trait potential. I've added another tab to track unit/leader progress toward and crossing of experience/trait award thresholds. I use the editor before each battle to set individual leader traits and unit experience. Part of the reason I changed the replacement system was my armor gaining experience two or three times as fast as my infantry. My infantry keeps taking casualties and has few opportunities to knock out enemy vehicles or pillboxes. On the other hand my armor takes few casualties and has more opportunities to take out enemy vehicles, armor, and pillboxes. My impression is the casualties suffered are historically accurate but the lagging infantry experience is not. As I mentioned in the previous post, it's my thought the old system greatly understates the effect squad/team/crew veterans have on future unit performance.

Biltong- I'm using excel and so modified the BG tab to calculate after replacements experience applying my formula. I've added a tab to calculate and record unit potential and starting experience, and leadership trait potential. I've added another tab to track unit/leader progress toward and crossing of experience/trait award thresholds. I use the editor before each battle to set individual leader traits and unit experience. Part of the reason I changed the replacement system was my armor gaining experience two or three times as fast as my infantry. My infantry keeps taking casualties and has few opportunities to knock out enemy vehicles or pillboxes. On the other hand my armor takes few casualties and has more opportunities to take out enemy vehicles, armor, and pillboxes. My impression is the casualties suffered are historically accurate but the lagging infantry experience is not. As I mentioned in the previous post, it's my thought the old system understates the effect squad/ team/ crew veterans have on unit performance.

Biltong- Just wanted to throw out a couple ideas on leadership traits, unit experience levels, and the effects of integrating replacements for the BCR gang to chew over. The comments below are based on eleven games in a BCR '41 campaign. Leader traits - I've tried a system of leadership trait 'potential' tied to unit experience points. At the beginning of the campaign, or when coming in as a replacement, leader units roll for leader trait 'potential.' In each of the four traits at each of the two levels, leader units are assigned either 'no bonus possible' or a 'bonus award threshold' in terms of unit experience. In the case of leaders with a real talent in any trait, the bonus award threshold may be less than the starting experience, therefore awarded for the first battle. This system pre-supposes that individual leaders have strengths in different traits that emerge over time with experience. I’ve developed a formula based on unit experience potential, see below. So far bonus award thresholds have ranged from 10 to 39 unit experience points. Results have also included no bonus at one or both levels. I'm convinced I need to award 'leader trait bonus award points’ faster than unit experience points, but don't even have a formula worked out yet for a trial. Unit experience and experience levels - I'm trying a system in which each unit at the beginning of the campaign, or upon entering as a replacement, rolls for it's experience potential, veteran, crack, or elite. In this experiment, units have a 60% chance of topping out as veterans, 30% as crack and 10% as elite. Using this system I've left the threshold for veteran at 25, but set crack to 45 and elite to 60 on the theory that the men in the squad representing this potential will realize it after 20-30 battles. This system prevents the entire unit from becoming elite over time and reflects variations in the quality of the 'drivers' in each squad. I also roll at the beginning of the campaign or when a unit enters as a replacement for unit starting experience, which I set at anything between 10 and 20. This allows again for variation in individual units reflecting the effectiveness of each squad. Integrating replacements - I recall there was a lot of debate over this in the BCR group, one of the concerns being people throwing away squads with low experience hoping to roll for veterans. It’s also my impression the German Army did a very good job of integrating combat replacements. Through out the war units were routinely withdrawn to allow the cadre of veterans to train the replacements before going back into the line. Even without this very successful practice of integrating replacements, the veterans naturally have a lot more affect on a squad’s performance that replacements do. For these reasons I'm currently experimenting with two items combined. First, based on the BCR replacement quality probabilities, I've set a fixed replacement ‘bonus’ for each month; Jun-Aug replacement bonus = 0, Sep-Oct= 3 , Nov-Dec = 1. Second, I’ve tinkered with the ‘experience after replacements’ formula. For casualties < 30%, after replacements experience= after battle experience, Casualties >30%, < 50%, after replacement experience =.85*after battle experience+ replacement experience bonus Casualties >50% < 60% =.75*after battle experience+2*replacement experience bonus Casualties >60% < 80% =.65*after battle experience+3*replacement experience bonus Casualties > 80% < 90% =.60*after battle experience+4*replacement experience bonus If the unit’s wiped out, new unit experience = .5*after battle experience+5*replacement experience bonus. No company commander worth anything is going to allow a whole squad of replacements to go into battle without giving them at least one or two seasoned veterans to lead them. This system of integrating replacements is something I just recently worked up and has not been thoroughly play-tested at all. Hope these ideas give the BCR crew something to chew on. Thanks for all the great work you and the crew have done. Hope to see a campaign in the engine re-write. Until then, it's BCR all the way.

Rob- You are correct. I was referring to BCR. I plan to sit down with ROQC tonight. CMX2 is apparently one of the ways to refer to the engine re-write.

Rob- I'm afraid you're right. I don't know anyway to generate a 'random settings' map in the scenario editor either. Incidentally, I've been using the 'Biltong Parameters 41 South' tool in MS Excel to generate map size and parameters. Then I load the closest matching BCR map pack map from the QB map folder into the editor, purchase and edit my core force and attached units, save this file to the QB map folder, then start the QB generator, set the QB battle parameters, and load the map file with troops, purchase TF units, deploy and play. I've eliminated the extra QB generation step, but given up the computer generation of TF units. I decide what I want to buy within the parameter limits set by the QB. I mentally subtract my combined core and attached unit points from the QB battle total and only buy TF units up to that limit. It eliminates a couple steps and some of the paper work, but gives the player more control over the TF units. I'm one of those definitely hoping for a campaign feature in CMX2, maybe with historical higher unit selection (e.g. pick the actual division you want your core force to come from and follow through the war), historical operations from the selected unit's war history, leader potential, development, and succession, replacement, unit quality potential and growth to potential, replacements, equipment upgrades reflecting the selected unit's historical experience...anything I left out? Keep up the good work.

Rob- Try going into the scenario editor map editor and hit the 'Generate Random Map' button, edit what you want, then save the file to the Quick Battle Maps folder. Keep up the good work. Perhaps if enough of us express an interest in the campaign feature and can over come the realism questions BFC will change their minds.

Rob- 'If I could use the QB generator to make a map, then load it into the editor to purchase and edit the units, and finally load that into the battle itself, then I'd be willing to give it a go. But I don't know how to do that. The editor does not seem to be able to load QB files, even after the game is finished.' Re importing map to to the editor, just use the editor load function and pick a map from the 'Quick Battle Maps' folder. The map will load as a scenario. You can then buy core force units, edit them, save the file back to Quick Battle Maps folder, start a QB, set all the parameters as desired, load the map file (with edited core troops) and purchase TF troops according to the parameters you set.

Hi guys. I'm a long term lurker, but couldn't resist throwning in my two sense on the CM campaign issue. Probably nothing new here, but at least I'll keep the thread going. Maybe BFC will change their minds. Scale: Not sure what all the discussion on strategic and operational levels is about. In my experience 'campaigns' for tactical level games allow the player to influence and follow a specific group of units' experiences from a player set start to end date. Unless the results of each tactical engagement influence the course of history in the game, there's nothing strategic or operational about it. Realism: The added dimension of responsibility for long term unit viability a campaign feature brings to the game, increases realism. Near as I can tell, there are no last turn flag rushes in Iraq, nor is there a lack of consequences for sacrificing units to meet immediate objectives. I imagine the same was true in WWII. Feature trade offs: I would like more realistic modeling of indirect fires and close air support, and I REALLY would like to see relative spotting. If I had to make a choice, I'd vote for the relative spotting first, then the campaign, then the improved indirect and close air support modeling. Having been a combat arms officer, I know you don't stay with combat troops for long if you repeatedly get your unit wiped out, especially not if you're the only one that survives. On the other hand, commanders that repeatedly accomplish their mission while keeping their unit intact, do create units that are essentially elite at their level. These units typically are favored with first dibs on new equipment and replacements, and tend to be assigned the tough missions precisely because of their proven capability. I'm a builder, and would enjoy the opportunity to follow a core group of units through a series of engagements spanning major campaigns, if not the whole war, just to see if I could be one of those officers everyone that serves with universally looks up to and respects for their proven ability to accomplish the tough missions and bring their units through. Other than a campaign feature, I can't see a way to do that in CM. IMHO best case is a built in feature, second best is more tools/flexibility to support campaign designers. Bitlong and his crew have done a fantastic job with what's currently available in CMBB. tootle loo, past my bed time.

Sign me up coach.