[CMBN Operation Carentan]

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Man I just wish BF would make an add-on for CMBN like a CMC. There has to be demand for something like this?? I would take this before some or even any of the other add-on modules planned for CMBN. A basic operational system with an excellent tactical platform would indeed be revolutionar.... like CMBO was in its day.

Even the click fest like TOTAL War does something similiar.....mind you their tactical system is nothing like BF's.

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Second, 3 to 1 point odds in CM fights typically result in blowout wins for the side with 3, regardless of tactical role or terrain. If the side with 3 arrives staggered, the weaker side might live, but not normally.

Given that i will not be creating CM battles that are staggered what ratio do you suggest ?

2:1 in favour of the attacker ?

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Second point, a point of history. The Americans definitely didn't get to St Lo from the beaches in 48 hours. More like 40 days. For the first week ashore they did push south toward that area, but the assault southwar stalled in that week, and the front stabilized, while all US logistic effort was directed to support the western drive across the Cotentin *****ula to isolate Cherbourg, and then to drive north to that city, and storm it. There was then an operational pause of several days as forces and supplies were redirected back to the St Lo area for the drive south, which commenced in early July, a month after the initial invasion

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.

Third point - you are not going to be able to recreate or follow even the whole of US forces ashore for even the first week, with tactical CM resolution of every battle. The scale of forces involved is simply way too large for that - an entire army. Ignoring the *****ula, Utah, most of the paras etc can cut that down to a corps sized operation initially, but it grows quickly even in that first week

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.

Fourth point - your stated rule envision tying tactical commanders to specific operational formation and each of them fighting every op move, and imagine letting those not engaged watch the other fights will be a kind of second prize for those not fighting. This won't be what actually happens, remotely. For two reasons, operational incentives within the campaign and player availability realities.

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 ?

Forces in CM battles frequently lose a third to half of the engaged force even on the winning side. Sometimes the engagement is relatively inconclusive and the losing side losses are similar, but frequently they will be near 100%, total force kills. If op commanders pushed to engage everywhere along the frontage in every op move, the forces involved would evaporate completely in 3 to 5 operational moves

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.

The next comment is about the passages on your site that mention that attack defend fights will always be 3 to 1 point odds supposedly to compensate for the strong defensive terrain. Um, if the odds don't depend on the op moves the overall commanders make there is no reason to have an op layer in the first place. If every fight is at the same odds, what the heck are op moves supposedly accomplishing? The whole point of the op layer is to let the overall commander seek a local odds edge here rather than there, and the like.

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.

Overall, I'd say the set up still needs work. I hope this helps.

Yes it does need more work and yes it does help, thanks for your input

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

That's what I'm trying to do.

A player have a KG, or a Task force, with (for exemple) 3 Inf Battalions and 3 Tank Compagnies (1 sheet = 1 Inf Bat or 1 Tk Co on the operational map) that he can move as he wants to.

Each Battalion (or compagnies) have a CM points:

ex: Inf Battalion is 1200 Inf Pts and 300 Support Pts

Panzer IV Co is 2200 Armor (only Pz IV) pts

...

According to the operational rules (simple is better), when a battle have to be resolved, a CM QB is creat.

Even if there is a lot of sheet on this battle, the CM OOB is made with few units (as 1 inf compagnie with support, depending on the available operational units on this battle)

It's represent only a few part of a big battle on the operational map.

So if 6 inf. Battalion (player 1) are assaulting a simple Inf. Battalion with a Tank compagnie (player 2) in the operational map, the CM battle will be a QB with 500 inf. pts against 500 Inf AND Armor pts.

the CM result is equal to a roll dice on a classic CRT (Combat Result Table in wargame words) as: total defeat is a 1, a draw a 3 ... and a total victory a 6.

If Player 1 have a total victory (player 2 is strongly pull back as the operational odds want) and if Player 2 have a Total victory his forces was abble to repulse the Player 1 assault, according to the CRT result.

Casualties in CM is the base to calculat the total casualties for Player 1 and Player 2 operational units and in a futur battle, this units will have less CM points to make a CM OOB.

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Yes for sure, just depends a little bit on how my work pans out as to what Internet I have (I work in the desert) but I'd be keen to be involved in someway, sounds like a fun set up and even with crap Internet I can help with admin.

What do you mean specifically by "crap Internet" ?

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Yes for sure, just depends a little bit on how my work pans out as to what Internet I have (I work in the desert) but I'd be keen to be involved in someway, sounds like a fun set up and even with crap Internet I can help with admin.

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 ?

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Probably true enough but that does not preclude the notion of starting with a smaller group in the "off season" to get the system up and running for the main event.

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

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

Or you could just start it in the Southern Hemisphere as we'll all be inside.

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

I understand the enthusiasm - campaigns can be a lot of fun when they work. Best of luck with yours...

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

I have often made the point that it is not the size of a battlefield that adds complexity it is the number of units. I should add - and the tactical complexity of the scenery

JC saysFirstly it is disingenuous to say every minute. Orders are only required every time something is required. Ordering a platoon to advance 200 yards say is just one order that may take 3-4 minutes to be executed. Playing with 50 tanks a side in the desert is absolutely no stress compared to moving 25 platoons through a dense landscape on a 1km square map.

I have spoken to the odd player who feels an hour a turn is the correct time for a CMAK turn. Personally I think that even in large games 10 minutes is the average order giving time. But then I play for enjoyment not because my psyche demands I win every battle.

Vehicle heavy is fun, infantry heavy is unfun, is a rule that seems to apply most of the time. For your campaign it is going to be infantry heavy which I reckon does mean that it will be heavy work for the players. But no doubt rewarding in the end : )

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Also remember that in the Northern Hemisphere, with Summer right around the corner, the nice weather leads to people venturing outside more, as well as more vacations, etc. I know here, those 9 months of dark, gloomy and perpetually wet weather get me more enthused with playing something like CM, but when the sun actually comes out regularly, I'm off camping or doing other stuff. If you start you campaign in the next couple months, you may run into some problems with people having a lot more going on away from home and the computer.

Perhaps a slower pace to start would be good- especially as everyone will still be getting used to the game, and as the Summer starts to die, things could speed up...

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

noob - it really has approximately nothing to do with computer specs or file sizes or the complexity of the operational layer or any such factors.

2 km by 2 km fights between full battalions and up just stink as CM games. They take too much command attention time to be fun rather than work and in PBEM form they take way way too long to resolve. An individual commander has to give orders to every squad every minute. That and only that sets the playable scale. Not computer anything, human attention.

As for pretending that it will all work easily because you'll be doing it full time, sorry, doesn't remotely work that way. All your tactical players will not be doing it full time. They don't want to, they won't keep up anything remotely like that level of interest for more than a week or two and then only if events are moving along briskly. As soon as one gets married or fired, you will hang fire for half a week now and two weeks then. Real life means in any group of 10 or 20 people, such occasions will come up for somebody or other and often. "I'll just get a replacement player". Yes you will. A lot. With delay at every turnover. It is a social dynamic issue, not a computer-technical or game system issue.

No doubt YMMV. But I think 6 months in (and that's a minimum for one of these to get anywhere), you will find I was right...

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

I took part in both Jasonc's kursk campaign and CMMC2.

Honestly the small Kursk campaign that Jasonc did was the only campaign I've ever played that accually got completed because of the small manageable state. It was also the most fun because OP turns were progressing and tac battles generated at a good pace that it definately kept my interest.

The CMMC2 campaign (the eastern front operation mars cmbb version) i was in seemed cool when i signed up, but it was so big and complex that it took a year to get going, then another year to get through the first few op turns and initial battles. Then it just collapsed, fell apart and never finished.

Something to think about if you want your campaign to be completed.

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Another thing to factor in to this is the size of the PBEM files when you have huge maps and many units on each side. Most mail clients won't handle the size (Googlemail tops out at 25mb I think), so you may need to investigate ftp or a file sharing website.

It all sounds very interesting though!

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Therefore i would say big and huge battles are great- IF the players on both sides have enough tactical experience to handle big forces on big maps and have enough knowledge about the opponent. Therefore i wouldn't recommend big battles for beginners, but for very experienced players with enough patience they are very entertaining.

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.

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

Changing the saturation levels in Photoshop (or any graphics editing software) would do the trick if you want a less colorful look to the game. I'm pretty certain the mod squads will be working on the graphic aspects of the game as soon as they/we are done with the download.

I did it by changing the settings on my NVIDIA GFX card.

I posted the settings i used on this thread.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Turn around in CMMC as one of the GMs was two days or so, Allied GM and Axis gm had to call for map, from map makers, check boundaries, deliver maps with units set up on map with Battle order on map if movement is involved, Prep fires had to be ordered , etc then reset map after prep fires, then send on to attacker or defender for first turn. TCP/IP was quickest turn around, PBEM had to be completed in like five days time. The most complicated thing was orders for both sides, we needed detail orders to interpreted units that were involved.

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

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

Well, considering my to-do list not really. I probably won't be able to try it for quite some time. But I *could*.

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

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

Question for those with more CM experience than I have: Are full battalion-on-battalion scenarios on 2km x 2km maps even playable? fun? I realize they take forever as WEGO PBEM battles, but is the experience worth it if both players have the time and interest?

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.

[Operational Game to go with CMBN]

noob - from running several operational campaigns in CMBO and CMBB, I can tell you that the rate determiner is referee time, and the other difficulty is herding cats to round up players to execute the tactical battles.

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.

They basically need to be done TCP-IP because PBEM turn around is way too slow. For the campaign to keep moving, all the tactical fights generated by a given operational move need to be resolved in parallel by separate pairs of tactical commanders, and basically on a weekly time scale.

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.

With some allowance for slippage some weeks for real life reasons (especially on the referee side, in my experience). I also strongly recommend keeping operational commanders to one per side. They need to generate their operational orders on a quick turn around of 2 days tops, for the rest of the schedule to move.

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.

As for the scale of tactical fights, even one battalion on a side is way too large for an average. If occasionally the largest fight of the week pits a single attacking battalion against a defending company or two and change, that is about as big as you can afford to go. And there need to be operational rules that prevent local giantism, from the op commanders shoving all their strong assets into a single location and then trying to win by stringing those together in sequence. The right scale for the average tactical battle is much smaller - one company on a side or two companies against one.

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.

It is simply a matter of tactical command attention and the time it takes to get results from all the fights that can happen in one op move, at several locations on the map. If you try to have 2 km x 2 km tactical maps with a battalion on a side, you will wait around for 2-3 weeks to hear what the results were. And half your players will lose interest and quit in the meantime.

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.

The way I ran it, I tried to keep tactical maps well under 1 km on a side most of the time, depending on forces engaged, with 1 km on a side the largest allowed. In addition, I penalized local "overstacking" by requiring large forces to arrive piecemeal. The first company on the frontage would always start on the map, but the second would be roughly five minutes delayed, and the next 5 minutes more. Stacking more than a battalion on the frontage would result in a stream of reinforcements but not an appreciably larger initial force. And I did not up the time limits for those larger forces, so the late arrivals would often have difficulty closing up to get licks in before the buzzer. By design. This also has force to space effects, and basically allowed a company on a single "op location" to act as a normal and adequate defensive screen.

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 )

I modeled the forces at the operational level by platoon as strength or "steps", but only allowed platoon redeployments for armor or specialists. Artillery by battery usually, occasionally section for rare types. The infantry forces had to be company commands, but a company might be 4 platoon strength or it might be only 2.

My comment about a battalion being the largest you want to allow means you need to reduce the scale several steps. Im my campaigns I typically tried to depict roughly a regiment sized force attacking a similar sized enemy, though the defenders might start with only a battalion and change for the whole operational frontage and rise to more like regiment strength in the aggregate, only counting all the reinforcements they'd receive over the course of the operational campaign. The attackers might total 2 regiments or one and attachments, depending on the operational situation being depicted.

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.

Trying to do full division or even worse, corps level battles or upward, with literal force structures, is a mistake and will result in unplayable epics that just try player patience and lose continuity.

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.

I hope this helps.

It has, thanks

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

Very cool. I gotta try that one of these days. Thanks.

Alternately I could test it with the copy of CMBN that I'm working with at the moment.

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

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

Very cool. I gotta try that one of these days. Thanks.

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

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

Just by looking at the cinematography you can tell a 1960s movie from a 1970s movie from a 1980s movie. What's the chance three years from now people are going to roll their eyes over that absurd dated washed-out high contrast look?

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 ?

[Changing the colour of the CMBN battlefield]

There was a looooong debate over just this topic, whether to do their best to match the real world or to match the 'Saving Private Ryan'-style *movie universe*. They came down on the side of the real world. The goal is to place you in Normandy 1944, not in a movie about Normandy 1944.

There's another issue too. Tastes in movie effects can become very dated very quickly. Just by looking at the cinematography you can tell a 1960s movie from a 1970s movie from a 1980s movie. What's the chance three years from now people are going to roll their eyes over that absurd dated washed-out high contrast look?

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