Sgt Bilko
-
Posts
18 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Sgt Bilko
-
-
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
-
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.Originally posted by Urban Shocker:What we do not have (that I am aware of) is a game that integrates the different levels of war allowing a player to jump between levels as desired. Think of CM meets Operation Art of War. A game where one is able to move divisions, regiments, or battalions around on a larger map (board, for the old timers) and then jump into tactical scale battle (ably modelled by CM) would, I think, be a breakthrough type of game.
Both types of games have been developed tactical and operational (or strategic) they just need to be integrated to provide a novel yet realistic experience.
A concrete example...
You hold a front with three infantry divisions, a tank destroyer task force, and an artillery battalion (forgive my lack of proper TOE). You have arrayed your forces at the level of battalions or regiments, registered your artillery in likely avenues of approach, and placed your TD's to deal with any armored breakthrough. Your opponent strikes on your left flank, you now have to decide whether you want to fight the battle or several battles at the tactical level (e.g., CM-style) or duke it out TAOW-style (and the style of many other war games)...the choice is yours because the software would let you do it.
Some advantages to this type of game are:
(1) There is a game within the game (nice cliche, I know) that you can fight or not.
(2) Sheperding your forces is important (campaign-style) depending on the scenario.
(3) Increased realism due to the increased levels of play opportunities. Also, increased command flexibility as you can be a 2nd Lt, a Colonel, or a General.
(4) Combines the tactical with the operational or strategic. To date, games either do one or the other.
Is this a tryptophan-induced dream or something that is appealing and in the realm of the possible?
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 ]
-
Originally posted by Holien:
Hi Bilko,
I got your e-mail and I am interested but holidays have taken their toll. Back at work today and have a chance to respond.
I am interested and will take you up on your offer. I got the Sicily game before Christmas but still have not loaded it onto the PC. I will try to do it this weekend. I know this is not necssary but I want to see how Tiller works his games.
In truth Lou has been taking all my gaming time with "Our Backs to the Volga" which is an absolute stonking scenario and anyone reading this I recommend as a great double blind scenario. A big scenario but very entertaining and life draining....
So when I get back from drinking too much I shall sit down and force myself to respond to you and Lou on his ideas for other things. I am making these as New Year resolutions.
Nice one, i will make you the allied commander and send you your maps and briefing as soon as possible.
Good idea to mess about with the Sicily game,you will get a better idea of how your units will operate in the Campaign and what sort of tasks you can get them to do in a particular time.
Have a good new year
[ December 31, 2003, 08:59 AM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]
-
Originally posted by Holien:
Hi,
Have you had any take up on this yet?
I was thinking along same lines for a game based upon the invasion of Sciliy.
If there is a space I shall order a copy of the game?
Cheers
I am looking for 2 commanders for a campaign on the John Tiller Tobruk 41/CMAK game,it will start mid January....you do not need to own the John Tiller game to play....if you are game i will give you more details.
Cheers
Sgt Bilko
H
-
Originally posted by Holien:
Hi,
Have you had any take up on this yet?
I was thinking along same lines for a game based upon the invasion of Sciliy.
If there is a space I shall order a copy of the game?
Cheers
I am currently thinking along the lines of a suggestion posted below.
It requires only the GM to own the JTPC game.
He creates a Hot Seat scenario and then posts screenshots of the map,unit positions,objectives, OOB and unit parameter files to the commanders and subordinate officers.
They devise a plan,with the Officer having the final veto, which will be represented diagramatically on the screenshot with a text file attached for more detailed instructions.
The screenshots are then posted back to the GM who inputs them into the JTPC game and then runs the turn.
Once the game is underway the new screenshots showing the new locations of units will be sent to the officers only,not the commander, and officers will only recieve a screenshot of their units.
The commander will have to gather info from their officers i.e. if communication at the start of the next turn is established with the officers then the commander recieves a screenshot of their new position and status,and a message from that officer if required.
If the communication fails then the officers carry on without deviation from the initial plan,or if no new orders get through and the officer has reached the end of their pre planned route,they remain static unless new orders get through.
This will not apply to the Germans as their officers were required and trained to act with their own initiative so Axis officer can send their own new moves to the GM if required.
This means that a battle plan will be best if it covers the whole movement from start to finish as further communication will be restricted according to FOW rules which the GM can apply.
This process is repeated until a CM battle/s occurs.
To represent communications FOW i propose to allow no direct contact between team mates apart from through the GM.
This allows the GM to impose a modified dice roll
to determine if a message gets through.
If you have any suggestions or questions i would appreciate your feedback....i will probably be running something like this with Tobruk so you are welcome to play when i am ready.
I have a few players who want to play so i will be probably using the players familiar with JTPC to be commanders...if you want to do it.
Andy
H
-
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.Originally posted by Blazing 88's:Sounds like a good idea. I own JTPC Tobruk 41, not sure if I can commit to a multiplayer session like this though. Might look into trying out something for solo play, With JTPC T41. Or maybe Steel Panthers WaW Mega Campaign, Desert Fox 41.
First however, I am patiently waiting for Canada Post to stop using my CMAK and just send it to me already. No CMAK in Manitoba, yet. :mad:
Second, I am going to enjoy CMAK the way it is for a while. Then I will start probing the possibilities of the idea's above.
I will be paying attention to this thread for your's and other's updates.
-
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.Originally posted by Urban Shocker:I like the idea although I don't have the game you speak of. Let me know how it goes I might be tempted to get it.
What you are suggesting is exactly the kind of thinking I and a few others are trying to convince BFC to try. Maybe BFC and John Tiller need to collaborate!
-
Great,i certainly will be in touch when i am ready......I am going to do a small scenario using Tobruk 41.Originally posted by Breakthrough:I play the PzC games as well as CM. Let me know if you are looking for an Allied player when your ready to try this campaign.
-
[ December 11, 2003, 09:11 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.
I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game but 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)
-
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.
I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game but 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)
-
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.
I am currently planning to start testing this method in the new year with the Tobruk 41 Tiller game but 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 11, 2003, 08:29 PM: Message edited by: Sgt Bilko ]
Yes, I bought CMAK, but am I happy?
in Combat Mission: Afrika Korps
Posted
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>