Sgt Bilko

Too nice to be true.. I guess that BF just wanted to satisfy the various interest-groups. Why am I interested in Western Front, more specifically the Ardennes? Maybe because I lived nearby. Why is someone interested in the desert war, maybe his grandfather fought there and told exciting stories.. Maybe, you have read Anthony Beever's book about Stalingrad and you got hooked on by flamethrowers in sewers, who knows? What!!!...satisfying various interest groups....the filthy swine.........Maybe im just a nerd who likes problem solving, the more diverse the problems the better, the only theatre i got emotionally involved with was the American Civil War after reading Shelby Footes Trilogy, i played that to death as the Confederates on every concievable format. All the best. [/QB]</font>

Please could you explain why the Russian Front is not a suitable theatre for company sized units and tactics, and why the terrain is too boring. Surely a small battle is just a microcosm of a large battle so the same tactics apply irrespective of the fact that CMBB incorporates both small and large? Terrain is terrain, how can one differentiate between intersting and boring terrain, each terrain type poses its own problems that need a certain tactic or/and attitude to exploit. CMBB offers the same terrain types as CMBO, built up areas , open , woods , hills etc. In fact you get the open Kursk type scenarios which force you to adapt to new tactics that are just as exciting as any. The battles rely more on timing and deployment rather than manouver, CMAK creates even more problems as some scenarios offer literally no cover, this just adds to the diversity of the series. I suppose if you like playing in just one particular way you may be dissapointed but gaining an overall mastery of all the permutations of the battlefield seems the rationale behind the CM game concept and it does this perfectly. [ May 02, 2004, 03:31 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

Here are some thoughts about using the John Tillers Panzer Campaigns (JTPC) series as a strategic layer for Combat Mission (CM). It contains a scenario editor that allows you to create any battles related to the particular theatre it represents so with this tool the JTPC game can always be updated to reflect the CM battles. There are a few ways CM could be integrated into JTPC but the simplest way is: Have a Games Master who owns JTPC ( Korsun 44 ) for example. At least two opposing players. The GM chooses a scenario to play then sends to each player a screenshot of the map,briefing,unit locations,victory objectives,OOB and any parameter data files pertaining to JTPC. The players come up with orders which they represent diagramatically on the map screenshot and any other information the players think necassary to communicate their intentions. This is then sent to the GM who inputs the data into a hot seat game in JTPC. Once the moves have been done the GM sends a screenshot of the map with the new positions on. If a contact is made a CM battle may take place with the GM building the map. Once the battle has been resolved the losses sustained by the forces must be transferred back into the JTPC game. This is done in the scenario editor by making a replica of the map with the new positions ,updated time,and modified fought units added. The game then proceeds using the updated JTPC game until the next contact...etc. Having a GM will allow all sorts of additional rules for communication FOW, team play,intel gathering ....etc. Below is a link to the John Tiller Games site so you can checkout the different theatres available http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html

Here are some thoughts about using the John Tillers Panzer Campaigns (JTPC) series as a strategic layer for Combat Mission (CM). JTPC contains a scenario editor that allows you to create any battles related to the particular theatre it represents,so with this tool the JTPC game can always be updated to reflect the results of any CM battles that are fought using it. There are a few ways CM could be integrated into JTPC but the simplest way is: Have a Games Master who owns JTPC ( Tobruk 41 ) for example. At least two opposing players. The GM chooses a scenario to play then sends to each player a screenshot of the map,briefing,unit locations,victory objectives,OOB and any parameter data files pertaining to JTPC. The players come up with orders which they represent diagramatically on the map screenshot and any other information the players think necassary to communicate their intentions. This is then sent to the GM who inputs the data into a hot seat game in JTPC. Once the moves have been done the GM sends a screenshot of the map with the new positions on. If a contact is made a CM battle may take place with the GM building the map. Once the battle has been resolved the losses sustained by the forces must be transferred back into the JTPC game. This is done in the scenario editor by making a replica of the map with the new positions ,updated time,and modified fought units added. The game then proceeds using the updated JTPC game until the next contact...etc. Having a GM will allow all sorts of additional rules for communication FOW, team play, intel gathering ....etc. Tillers games cover other theatres that could be used with CMBB and CMBO. Here is a link to John Tillers Games site for an overview of Tobruk 41 http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/PZC/PZC_tobruk/panzer_campaigns_tobruk_41.htm [ January 05, 2004, 08:28 AM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

I have posted a couple of thoughts on the CMAK Battlefront forum about using John Tillers Panzer Campaigns series as a strategic layer. It contains a scenario editor that allows you to create any battles related to the particular theatre it represents so with this tool the JTPC game can always be updated to reflect the CM battles. There are a few ways CM could be integrated into JTPC but the simplest way is: Have a Games Master who owns JTPC ( Tobruk 41 ) for example. At least two opposing players. The GM chooses a scenario to play then sends to each player a screenshot of the map,briefing,unit locations,victory objectives,OOB and any parameter data files pertaining to JTPC. The players come up with orders which they represent diagramatically on the map screenshot and with whatever other information the players think necassary to communicate their intentions. This is then sent to the GM who inputs the data into a hot seat game in JTPC. Once the moves have been done the GM sends a screenshot of the map with the new positions on. If a contact is made a CM battle may take place with the GM building the map. Once the battle has been resolved the new data of the forces must be transferred back into the JTPC game. This is done in the scenario editor by making a replica of the map with the new positions ,updated time,and modified fought units added. The game then proceeds on the updated JTPC game until the next contact...etc. Having a GM will allow all sorts of additional rules for communication FOW, team play,intel gathering ....etc. [ January 01, 2004, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

[ December 31, 2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

You need at least 3 people to play it.As long as you have a non playing Games Master who will build the maps for both formats and the battles for CM then all you need is 1 more player who has JTPC Tobruk 41 and you can play head to head PBEM JTPC with him and resolve the tactical battles with CMAK.

Below is an idea for playing Combat Mission in a campaign format that will cut out a lot of the "Paperwork" and the need for dedicated forums and hordes of GMs. It is achieved by combining John Tiller's Panzer Campaign games ( JTPC ) with Combat Mission ( CM ) It can be played with at least 3 people or more, at least 2 players and 1 Games Master / Post Master. All parties have to own a copy of the Tiller game (Pz Camp Tobruk 41 for example) A scenario from the JTPC game is chosen and the player that starts first plots their moves in the game....saves the file and sends to a team mate or the GM depending on team size. In the case of multi players per side the forces are divided up as agreed by the team and each player in turn plots their moves and sends the save file to the GM who will then forward it to the next player in the team (This is to circumvent the temptation to ask a teamate to send a turn back for re doing if the original sender has changed their mind about the moves they had plotted,each member of the team will not have the e mail address of their teammates as all communication goes through the GM...the same applies for planning discussions..... this would allow the GM to create their own rules about exactly how easy it or hard it is for the whole team to communicate to each other before and during the game) The last player in the team then creates the turn into a PBEM file and sends it to the GM who then forwards it to the opposing team who repeat the process. This goes on until a contact is made that warrants a CM battle map to be created (Tiny actions can be resolved within the JTPC game) The GM then builds the battle and the players involved play a CM battle as normal. After all the contact battles have been resolved in CM the results are put into the JTPC game. This is done by the GM who uses the scenario editor to create a new JTPC game that mirrors the positions and time of the current game with one exception....the units that have fought will be modified to reflect the result of the CM battles played. Once this has been done the JTPC process begins again until a new contact and new set of CM battles is created and then the above process is repeated. This goes on until the game reaches its turn limit or one side surrenders...victory conditions will be determined by the Victory flags gained in the JTPC game and/or by an appraisal by the GM of the remaining forces condition and position. To me this would be the best compromise between complexity and simplicity. An alternative way of playing would be to have only players that are commanders playing JTPC and then their subordinate team mates fighting the CM battles that occur. This would mean only the commanders need to own and play the JTPC game i.e. one commander on each side playing a JTPC game by PBEM with their teammates resolving the contacts in CM, where the subordinates would have none, or a limited knowledge of the big picture,and would have to fight their corner of the game along the lines of their initial briefings,or any new intel that is passed to them via game briefings once the game is underway.Likewise the commanders would know the big picture but will have none or a limited effect on how they advise their subordinates once the game is underway. Chain of command and communication FOW rules could then be introduced to a level of realism agreed on by the participants. I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game and i am looking for participants that are familiar with the JTPC games and own a copy of Tobruk 41.If anyone tries this before then i would appreciate any thoughts on the possible pitfalls of the method. Enclosed is a link to the John Tiller Games Ring,their are games for most of different theatres of WW2. http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html UK players can order the games from this site http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html Sgt Bilko (Andy) [ December 12, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

Below is an idea for playing Combat Mission in a campaign format that will cut out a lot of the "Paperwork" and the need for dedicated forums and hordes of GMs. It is achieved by combining John Tiller's Panzer Campaign games ( JTPC ) with Combat Mission ( CM ) It can be played with at least 3 people or more, at least 2 players and 1 Games Master / Post Master. All parties have to own a copy of the Tiller game (Pz Camp Tobruk 41 for example) A scenario from the JTPC game is chosen and the player that starts first plots their moves in the game....saves the file and sends to a team mate or the GM depending on team size. In the case of multi players per side the forces are divided up as agreed by the team and each player in turn plots their moves and sends the save file to the GM who will then forward it to the next player in the team (This is to circumvent the temptation to ask a teamate to send a turn back for re doing if the original sender has changed their mind about the moves they had plotted,each member of the team will not have the e mail address of their teammates as all communication goes through the GM...the same applies for planning discussions..... this would allow the GM to create their own rules about exactly how easy it or hard it is for the whole team to communicate to each other before and during the game) The last player in the team then creates the turn into a PBEM file and sends it to the GM who then forwards it to the opposing team who repeat the process. This goes on until a contact is made that warrants a CM battle map to be created (Tiny actions can be resolved within the JTPC game) The GM then builds the battle and the players involved play a CM battle as normal. After all the contact battles have been resolved in CM the results are put into the JTPC game. This is done by the GM who uses the scenario editor to create a new JTPC game that mirrors the positions and time of the current game with one exception....the units that have fought will be modified to reflect the result of the CM battles played. Once this has been done the JTPC process begins again until a new contact and new set of CM battles is created and then the above process is repeated. This goes on until the game reaches its turn limit or one side surrenders...victory conditions will be determined by the Victory flags gained in the JTPC game and/or by an appraisal by the GM of the remaining forces condition and position. To me this would be the best compromise between complexity and simplicity. An alternative way of playing would be to have only players that are commanders playing JTPC and then their subordinate team mates fighting the CM battles that occur. This would mean only the commanders need to own and play the JTPC game i.e. one commander on each side playing a JTPC game by PBEM with their teammates resolving the contacts in CM, where the subordinates would have none, or a limited knowledge of the big picture,and would have to fight their corner of the game along the lines of their initial briefings,or any new intel that is passed to them via game briefings once the game is underway.Likewise the commanders would know the big picture but will have none or a limited effect on how they advise their subordinates once the game is underway. Chain of command and communication FOW rules could then be introduced to a level of realism agreed on by the participants. I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game and i am looking for participants that are familiar with the JTPC games and own a copy of Tobruk 41.If anyone tries this before then i would appreciate any thoughts on the possible pitfalls of the method. Enclosed is a link to the John Tiller Games Ring,their are games for most of different theatres of WW2. http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html UK players can order the games from this site http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html Sgt Bilko (Andy) [ December 12, 2003, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

Below is an idea for playing Combat Mission in a campaign format that will cut out a lot of the "Paperwork" and the need for dedicated forums and hordes of GMs. It is achieved by combining John Tiller's Panzer Campaign games ( JTPC ) with Combat Mission ( CM ) It can be played with at least 3 people or more, at least 2 players and 1 Games Master / Post Master. All parties have to own a copy of the Tiller game (Pz Camp Tobruk 41 for example) A scenario from the JTPC game is chosen and the player that starts first plots their moves in the game....saves the file and sends to a team mate or the GM depending on team size. In the case of multi players per side the forces are divided up as agreed by the team and each player in turn plots their moves and sends the save file to the GM who will then forward it to the next player in the team (This is to circumvent the temptation to ask a teamate to send a turn back for re doing if the original sender has changed their mind about the moves they had plotted,each member of the team will not have the e mail address of their teammates as all communication goes through the GM...the same applies for planning discussions..... this would allow the GM to create their own rules about exactly how easy it or hard it is for the whole team to communicate to each other before and during the game) The last player in the team then creates the turn into a PBEM file and sends it to the GM who then forwards it to the opposing team who repeat the process. This goes on until a contact is made that warrants a CM battle map to be created (Tiny actions can be resolved within the JTPC game) The GM then builds the battle and the players involved play a CM battle as normal. After all the contact battles have been resolved in CM the results are put into the JTPC game. This is done by the GM who uses the scenario editor to create a new JTPC game that mirrors the positions and time of the current game with one exception....the units that have fought will be modified to reflect the result of the CM battles played. Once this has been done the JTPC process begins again until a new contact and new set of CM battles is created and then the above process is repeated. This goes on until the game reaches its turn limit or one side surrenders...victory conditions will be determined by the Victory flags gained in the JTPC game and/or by an appraisal by the GM of the remaining forces condition and position. To me this would be the best compromise between complexity and simplicity. An alternative way of playing would be to have only players that are commanders playing JTPC and then their subordinate team mates fighting the CM battles that occur. This would mean only the commanders need to own and play the JTPC game i.e. one commander on each side playing a JTPC game by PBEM with their teammates resolving the contacts in CM, where the subordinates would have none, or a limited knowledge of the big picture,and would have to fight their corner of the game along the lines of their initial briefings,or any new intel that is passed to them via game briefings once the game is underway.Likewise the commanders would know the big picture but will have none or a limited effect on how they advise their subordinates once the game is underway. Chain of command and communication FOW rules could then be introduced to a level of realism agreed on by the participants. I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game and i am looking for participants that are familiar with the JTPC games and own a copy of Tobruk 41.If anyone tries this before then i would appreciate any thoughts on the possible pitfalls of the method. Enclosed is a link to the John Tiller Games Ring,their are games for most of different theatres of WW2. http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html UK players can order the games from this site http://www.hist-sdc.com/webring.html Sgt Bilko (Andy) [ December 12, 2003, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]

Thanks for the feedback,I certainly will update you on the results of the test game.....good luck with your petition to BFC,and you are right, collaboration between BFC and Tiller would be excellent.

Great,i certainly will be in touch when i am ready......I am going to do a small scenario using Tobruk 41.

[ December 11, 2003, 09:11 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]