noob

I've had a massive rethink of my CMBN Omaha to St Lo operation after numerous discussions with the BF community and i have changed and greatly simplified the game system, the scale of the operational area and the setting. Attached is a link to my new website, the game will be a beta test for the system i have devised. Thanks to everyone that commented on this project, i am looking forward to recieving feedback about this new idea.

What you say is true, such a thing is surely the "Holy Grail" of wargaming CM.

Given that i will not be creating CM battles that are staggered what ratio do you suggest ? 2:1 in favour of the attacker ?

Well i for one am not going to argue with you over the historical events of this particular theatre as i'm not qualified to do so and also i am not trying to recreate history, the main reason for my venture is to create a simple easy to use system that allows players a chance to play a two player CM game that has future consequences as opposed to the stand alone scenarios we are used to so if the title of my operation is provocative to seasoned historians it was unintentional and i will change it to avoid misleading people if as you say its impossible to achieve the stated goal in the time frame i am using. I am not trying to, i just want to create a game that incorporates CM as a tactical resolution engine so historical force sizes arent a necassary factor anymore. I would like you to clarify this point if you may ? If the non participating players during a CM combat phase can watch the unfolding of a tactical battle that they have some sort of indirect investment in, isnt that better than just letting them hang for the two or three weeks it takes the participating players to resolve said battle ? Well thats not an issue now im dispensing with historical numbers, i can adjust the QB allowance pool accordingly once i get CMBN and work out the maths that would allow the game to last longer than the first couple of rounds. I agree with your implication that achieving force "imbalance" should be the rationale of an operation and in fact im leaning toward a system similar to chequers where the players get "bumped" to the rear areas of the map if they lose a CM battle rather than "taken" which would then give an operational raison d'etre for the CM games "if" the victory conditions were tied to aquiring territory in a certain time frame. However the efficacy of such a system will stand or fall on the victory conditions applied which i will have to ponder on. Yes it does need more work and yes it does help, thanks for your input

Have a look at my website, ive done a re write to accomodate my new CMBN operation QB battle rules.

What do you mean specifically by "crap Internet" ?

Thanks for the offer but hopefully the beauty of this system is that the admin work is negligable, however i am thinking of allowing access to the video files for public consumption in the form of Video AAR reports if the participants give permission so someone to help create those would be good as i dont know the first thing about the technical side of videos, i cant even workout how to post screenshots on the BFC forum, any advice ?

Thats another good point, i could create a mini operation to do just that, im assuming you would be interested in participating ?

There will be probably be more Americans playing CMBN than any other nation i suspect so that could determine the start date but please correct me if im wriong

I have had a re think about the CMBN side of the operation and i refer you to a reply i have made to a later post in this thread by diesel taylor about using QBs to resolve the tactical side of teh operation, i think the idea would cut down some of the work and make it more interesting for the players. Also i might implement a series of victory conditions for the operation instead of one that lies far off into the distance, basically if i can work out a victory condition for each operational phase or phases and allocate a point system for them the teams could accumulate points as the game progresses like a sports game. For example if i say that the Allies have two turns to get off the beaches and cut the Primary Road that is inland to score "X" amount of points it could be likened to scoring a touchdown in NFL and if they fail treat it like an interception return touchdown for the Axis If there are a series of these point objectives it could keep the teams interested as they would have viable goals with rewards after each or every other operational turn. Anyway just some thoughts, i would value your opinion on the things i have mentioned if you dont mind, especially the QB tactical resolution idea.

Actually ive a had a re think of the CMBN side of the operation after reading all the responses about the venture i think i will be going to implement a QB method to the tactical resolution side of things, For example instead of giving each player a set amount of troops that have to be tracked gthrough the game they will recieve a point allocation for the whole operation (to be worked out later) and every time they take part in a CMBN game after contact on the operational map they will fight a QB where they buy whatever units they want (rarity permitting) with the map and deployment parameters conforming to the terrain and battle type. There will be a single battle points limit to avoid ungainly force sizes for the purposes of fast CMBN turn rates. This would remove a lot of work for the Admin and give the players an added element of interaction and avoid the infantry heavy battles you mention. If the battle is a stalemete and the forces involved wish to carry on contesting the map in the next operational turn the QB can reflect the combat effects of the participants in a generalised way with losses being made up with the spending of more points from the individual players points allowance. Of course this is all dependant on getting CMBN and messing around with the QB system to test it out but i think its an elegant way of circumventing a few pitfalls

Really good point, i may wait till the summers over and get the the project fine tuned.

I agree with you, i sometimes forget that not everybody lives the way i do and given that i am not going to a/ pay people to play this operation and b/ interview people to weed out the ones with good health, jobs and relationships i guess a compromise is a necassary evil. I was going to try and get round the big battle problem by allowing more than one player per side on the CMBN battlefield but that will create even more problems as the player who can process his moves quicker will get frustrated at the one that cannot as they will be joined at the hip so to speak. Also my insistence that the CM side will be played as PBEM makes it more necassary to scale down. My imagination is fertile and my optimism boundless but they will not blind me to the fact, as you kindly pointed, out that an epic failure is still a failure and a modest success is always a success Thanks for your input.

I am familiar with CMMC and saw the level of complexity first hand, it was more a simulation of being in the army than a game to play CM at the operational level, thats partly why i came up with a more simplified version. Until i run it im not going to know how long things are going to take but as this is an experiment and i want to learn the pitfalls the hard way so the next one i set up will be an improvement, but there are so many variables its impossible to predict whats going to happen, and one thing to bear in mind is that becuase this is going to be simpler players can have it simmering in the background whilst they get on with other things, its not going to consume their lives like CMMC, so time isnt necassarily a factor, read my rules and tell me what you think.

Good points, i need the game to test the file size and im going to use File Convoy to shift the files, 100 GB capacity and a 7 day hang time for the files.

Playing CM at an operational level in my opinion is the ultimate expression of the game or wargaming in general for that matter, unequal battles are then nothing to do with scenario design and all to do with players strategical skill, the player knows he has the option of choosing the location of the tactical engagement and the forces involved and also having the option of being able to retreat out of an unequal tactical situation if neccassary, allowing a fighting withdrawal type game or holding action which when played as one off scenarios are fine but when you know there are consequences to your tactical play that could affect the strategic situation it makes the games that much better irrespective of tactical battlefield size. So with that in mind would you be you interested in participating in the CMBN operation i will be running ater this year, see the link at the bottom for details.

I did it by changing the settings on my NVIDIA GFX card. I posted the settings i used on this thread.

I'm familiar with CMMC and thats why my version is simpler

Hey, those Video card sliders are really easy to move you know, i tried it and even a wimp like me managed it in seconds

I guess this would be dependant on the performance of a players PC, i have a good system that can run CMSF battles on a large scale and quickly and the load times are negligable, but the best way of finding out is to try it when the game is released, that will be the first thing i do when i get it as it will have a huge bearing on the scale of any operation.

The reason i did this project was to come up with a simplified system so that one referee could manage the whole thing if neccassary, as i do not work i spend all my time at the PC so i am uniquely qualified to run such a venture. If i get enough players wanting to play this i intend to have as many participating as possible and have a reserve pool if posssible to allow for substitutions in the case of drop outs or in case i have to remove a player that persistently fails to return their CMBN game turns at a reasonable rate. It has to be PBEM as the part of the payback for running this is for me to vicariously partake in the PBEM battles that occur Also any players who are not involved in actually fighting a CMBN battle will have access to the PBEM video files and passwords of their respective teamates who are fighting one, thus giving them the chance to spectate and thus retain a "connection" with the operation. My real life is CM ....The operational orders side is extremely simple, just a matter of drawing arrows on a map with or without some text, checkout my rules and see. The time consuming part as pertains to the operational side will be the initial strategic movement plans as they will need to be discussed amongst the team members but given the terrain layout and the limited movement space in the initial stages this will not be a problem, and even in the case of a breakout it will be the usual go for the high ground, bridges and the crossroads i imagine so i cant see there being much delay as far as the operational orders go. I agree, i will have to make some enquiries into the participants PC performances when the time comes to find out who can actually run the scale of the battles at their largest and also have a capping system for participating units as you suggest which i will have think about as i havent broached that subject in the rules as of yet. I disagree with you in this department, as i stated before anyone not involved in a CMBN battle will be able to spectate and thus feel connected to events in the operation, if not they can get on with other things and have the operation running in the background so i am not worried too much about time. And if this filters out the impatient players that is fine. I must refer you to the Engagement Rules section which i think covers this exact situation albeit allowing it to be done voluntarily ( i will think on enforcing the aforementioned criteria as you have said ) Thanks for the advice, this is a subject i have yet to address or think of but i am now at stage to do so , so watch this space. With this in mind i am considering reducing by at least a third if not half the total forces involved however this initial attempt at running an opertion by the rules i have created is an experiment and if the things you warn of happen i will have to revise them but i would like to try things myself before i change anything too drastically. It has, thanks

The phrase "one of these days" was bit misleading then

Well you can test it by watching the CMBN AAR video posted on this site, thats what i did.

Do you think that when most people watch 60's and 70's movies they are thinking "What poor quality film?" in fact i would argue that the dated "look" of films enhances the aesthetic experience as it augments the milieu as much as the actors and the clothes.......would Dirty Harry be "improved" if it was cleaned up to look like it had been filmed in 2011 ?

I agree with what you say and at least by giving it a real world colour scheme you have satisfied both parties as i can now get a "Private Ryan" look by changing the settings on my video card