nathangun

Received the Holland '44 game yesterday.  Setting up the board to look for an area that would be good for a "Bridge Too Far" mini campaign game. 
Some details:
Each hex is 2 km. You can stack up to ~2 battalions per hex. So if we just used a small portion of the game map, maybe around 9 hexes, each hex could be broken into smaller squares to make sure the battles stay small. A battle could be the entire hex if just 2 commanders would be involved. (Huge map, with a relatively small force). Really struggling over how much of a force a company commander should control.  Somewhere on the order of 1-2+ reinforced companies. Working on rules governing how each battle starts.  What constitutes a meeting engagement vs a probe vs and attack etc... Each turn of the game is broken into morning and afternoon and there are rules for weather.

Operation Market Garden Multi-Player Campaign (Holland '44)
Today, I am supposed to get a physical copy of Holland '44 in my grubby little hands to use in testing VASSAL for our first prototyping campaign game.  We thought it would be wise to iron out the rules above and find the best location in the battle/map for the campaign.  It will be ~3 short turns of intensive testing and feedback to get us ready for the full campaign ~next month in 2021 (no way I'm starting anything in 2020!).
Thanks to everyone behind the scenes who have helped us get this far.
So now I am officially asking for VOLUNTEERS for the proto-multi-community-campaign-mini-test-game (PMCCMTG).  No. No. No.  I'm a government engineer,  I can do way better than that for an acronym.  Hmmmm.....
CM2PTG - Community-Mini-Campaign-Multi-Prototype-Test-Game.  There, much better, anyway,
If you are interested please PM me which position(s).  Here is what we are looking for in our Victims Volunteers:
1. 🥇Field Officer - Axis Forces
  a) Operational Command 🗺️
  b) Orders 🧧 to Company Commanders
  c) Take over temporarily for ☠️KIA, 🤕MIA Company Commanders under certain conditions.
2. 🥈Company Commander 1 - Axis Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
3. 🥈Company Commander 2 - Axis Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
4. 🥇Field Officer - Allied Forces
  a) Operational Command 🗺️
  b) Orders 🧧 to Company Commanders
  c) Take over temporarily for ☠️KIA, 🤕MIA Company Commanders under certain conditions.
5. 🥈Company Commander 1 - Allied Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
6. 🥈Company Commander 2 - Allied Forces
  a) Lead their company size forces into battle 💥 against overwhelming odds.
7. 🥉2nd Lieutenant(s) - Faceless Pixeltroopen
  a) Field promotion to Commander for (☠️KIA. 🤕MIA) Company Commanders. 
  b) ☠️KIA - Permanent, 🤕MIA - Temporary, but axis/allied designation will stay the same.
  c) This will happen🤞 in our test game a few times to test the substitution rules.
Patience and feedback will be required.  Competitiveness is optional during the testing.  We are looking for "devils 😈 advocates" but any criticisms should always be accompanied with solution(s) and work arounds.  Our motto will be 💋KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid 😃
Thanks!  This is going to be a blast!!!

I wouldn't mind getting involved. 

@Probus
The GMT 40,42,43 & 44 games are great but with battalion size battles/formations will drag out the campaigns as @Erwin mentioned, which usually fizzle out.
You might want to narrow your focus to smaller engagements, check out the Standard Combat Series from Multi Man Publishing (MMP) they're company size battles (for the most part).
There's an interesting one for the battle of Bastogne called 'Bastogne: Screaming Eagles Under Siege'  (Vassal Link).
I had started to build a Vassal Module for the Noville battle, details can be found over at the FGM here, it's not a finished project, there's still work to do.
One tip I'll give you before you start any campaign, have the CM battle maps built beforehand, it'll will make life a lot easier.
I'm currently using vassal for a small campaign using CMBS, small unit engagements, it's in it's testing phase but early indicators look good.

PM sent.

Thank you!

It can be used instead of Vassal, but it is completely different. 
You set the date and time and place units on a map, give the units checkpoints to travel along a route setting their speed and then press play. 
You really need to fiddle around with it. 

Everything is in flux so nothing is set in stone. We are just going to use a small portion of Holland '44 right now. The battalion size counters break down into companies. But please keep feeding ideas. 

Link to a copy.

it is a LOT of maps. I converted every single map over 2x2km from every single title and module. Adequate proof of purchase would be orders page on battlefront.com. Kindly censor any personal information, order numbers whatever if you want.
 
I just wish to be fair 

I am able to, however it isnt OK for me to be distributing these. Some belong to diff titles. Pm me with a screenshot of proof that you own the series and then I'll zip up my files when I get home later. 
I used to hand these out, but its not right imo. Unless I get permission I will refrain from pushing their buttons. Hope you understand. 
I will send maps for the titles you own. 
Also, I have a thread in Combat Mission General Discussion titled "The official map conversion thread" or whatever. It has all the instructions in there to do it yourself in the meantime

I remember those campaigns foundly, I still have a copy the Geccos program that the campaign ran on.

Give them the shortest covered arc.  Note that this means that they will ignore enemy units or fire from outside that arc (unless that got changed again in an update).
My SOP is to have scouts use a combination of QUICK and HUNT (depending on how close they are to expected enemy) with a HIDE command and another unit close enuff to see what happens to the two-man scout unit.  The HIDE command will help the scout to survive if it runs into LOS of an enemy unit that can fire at it.  Hiding is often enuff to have the enemy unit lose contact.  (Otherwise in CM2 being a scout is usually suicidal.)

I play all titles, but CMBS is my favorite and the one I play most often in my spare time.
of course, modern is not everyone's cup of tea, but yes, there is a terror and fun factor in modern not present in WW2 titles.
The big reason I enjoy it though is because it seems the title most well suited to MP play. Russian and Ukrainian forces are similar in terms of organization, equipment and capabilities and make excellent opponents in PBEM matches.

I really hope not! 

It really was. I didn't take part in it, but followed it and did get all the maps of the Lauban area, which were absolutely stunning. Played on them for months and months. I must admit I never had so much fun (anymore) as playing CMBB. At first I hated the looks of it, but soon enough I realized it was most enjoyable game I would ever play.

I played in several CMMC's (Combat Mission Mega Campaigns) back in the day.  CMBB and CMAK.  Quite a few players and a team of umpires made it the most fun ever.
The limiting factor is having enough people to umpire/gamemaster it all.
Trying to involve BFC will be a non-starter imho, they won't have the time to deal with it in any way.

Thank you. 
Obviously the question of a specific solution, versus a generalised "correct" one is a different one.

My actual solution to the problem assumed that the correct way about this was to be bold, and to use the platoon to "attack" the left hill, and if there was anyone there, they'd make contact, find out what they could, then break.

Route in:

The "South Yard" is the only viable covered rally point, so that's where the "run" part of hit-and-run is going.

At the orchard, using the low walls as cover for the low BMPs. Started to pick up contacts,  which the BMPs opened fire on.


 
Progressing the attack across the orchard and finding some AT-14's.

The nice thing about the Russian smoke launchers is that the BMPs can cover the retreat of the recon platoon - their smoke will travel forward enough to give them cover.


Obviously, this is accepting a large amount of risk for that asset, but it does give a very good picture of what forces are actually present. I think this kind of thing might actually be the way the asset is intended to be used, but that was the question really - what's the intended purpose of the infantry battalion recon platoon.

Just read this from start to finish, very enjoyable and well produced.

A new fictional scenario for CMSF2: “Coup d’etat” is in Beta testing now and is intended as player vs AI.  The player will lead rebel (Syrian) units in an early morning (0400hrs) coup attempt to overthrow the governing regime (also Syrian).  It is set in the fictional third world country of Abbudin and takes place in the heavy urban terrain of the city of Al Mout.  The city of Al Mout is a heavily modified portion of the Ramadi-Government-Center map created by @LongLeftFlank.  Approximately 1072 meters by 592 meters. 
The scenario has a variable end time.  The optimal scenario length is two hours and 15 minutes however it can be played to four hours.  If the scenario is played longer than two hours and 15 minutes the regime AI is awarded an extra 200 Victory Points.  It requires all the CMSF2 modules to play since it features US Marines (guarding a US Consulate & later an amphibious force), a British SF unit (hunting for WMDs) and Canadian advisors (assisting the local city police).
The scenario was created with the idea of taking a small, under equipped, rebel force and using in-game intelligence and insurgent tactics to expand the combat power of the rebel force until the rebels controlled the city.   Below are some daylight screenshots of the urban part of the map.

View of the 4th December Bridge.

Slums in the south west area of the city.

Looking east on Al Jazeera Boulevard from the area of Asfarr Taksi Company.

An Agricultural Specialist, looks east out a window from Hotel Mout.  In the distance is the Mayoral Residence along the bank of the River of Martyrs. 

 

The scenario provides in game intelligence to help guide the decision-making process. The two types of intelligence are Human Intelligence (HUMINT) and Tactical Site Exploitation (TSE). HUMINT is collected from fugitive aldermen who were members of the old regime and wish to return to power.  The HUMINT intelligence is in the name field of the fugitive aldermen and includes an intelligence code, grid coordinates and time. A quick glance at the intelligence code sheet (included in the briefing) allows the player to know what, where and when something will occur or where something is located. Some of this HUMINT is time sensitive. The TSE is provided by touch objective notifications at the top of the screen.  The grid coordinates are created by a pattern of grid lines placed on the map using a blue occupy objective. The grid numbers are displayed on the map edges using landmarks. A brief explanation of this modified military grid system and how to use it is provided in the briefing.

The player can, if he decides to, use IEDs, VBIEDs, assassinations, bribery, mercenary units, radio propaganda, extra scenario time and foreign assistance.  As the Coup d’etat progresses the player must decide which methods to use and when.  All the methods have advantages and disadvantages.  Some methods cost Victory Points (VPs).  Want to hire mercenaries?  4 VPs for each mercenary.  Want to use IEDs? 25 VPs per IED explosion.  VBIEDs? 50 VPs per VBIED explosion.  Want to bribe a regime commander to withdraw his unit 100 VPs.  Want up to an extra hour & 45 minutes to take your objectives? 200 VPs.  Want 100 VPs in foreign assistance?  Meet with the US Agricultural adviser at the location designated in the briefing.  The Agricultural adviser can also make arrangements for demo teams, triggermen, spies and a UAV.    
Some methods are triggered by activity on the battlefield.  Capturing the Air Defense HQ will cause the regime’s AAA units to exit the map allowing the player the unhindered use of a foreign UAV and allow rebel aircraft to conduct bomb runs in the city.  Following up on intelligence leads and locating WMD evidence will earn 100 VPs and will trigger the release of a British SF unit to the player’s control.  Use intelligence to locate and Assassinate the Minister of the Interior and earn 150 VPs.  This assassination will also lead to some regime troops deserting their posts at the Ministry of the Interior Compound and facilitate the freeing of rebel troops, held at the compound.  Free political prisoners held at Fisbuk Prison and trigger the release of a police unit (and their Canadian advisers) to the player’s control.  Use demo charges to gain access to supply trucks.  Make a Rebel propaganda broadcast from WTF Radio station and trigger the release of a unit to the player’s control.  However if the rebel broadcast is made while the above mentioned political prisoners are still in prison the prisoners will be executed.  Follow up on intelligence to locate the regime leader and earn 250 VPs.  Restore democracy by returning the 20 surviving aldermen (10 of whom are in prison) to the city council building and deny the regime 200 VPs. 
The player’s HQ team also has a 100 VP bounty on its head.  To keep the regime from collecting the 100 VPs the HQ team will need to request asylum inside the US Consulate (BluFor exit zone) prior to the end of the scenario.
US Consulate

SF Unit

Taksi! 
I didn't think it would be possible to design a scenario that would be significantly more sophisticated and elegant than TOC.....But then CM:SF2 came out.  And @MOS:96B2P bought it.  And then he did it again, but better, on 'that map'! 

There are a ton of ways to do this. One option would be to GM this as an Engle Matrix game, with the GM creating battles to suit the situation (you could use existing maps, so this creation process doesn't need to be that long. You'd want to standardise on a points system for the battles, but that's fairly straightforward to do.)

Briefly. Matrix games are gm-run things, where each turn the players submit Arguments, and reasons why these will succeed. 

This is a quick example of a matrix-only game, but you can see how it can be used to generate meaningful battles:
https://balagan.info/missing-general-an-engle-matrix-game-battle-report


A practical (small) CM example off the top of my head:

Situation, turn 3 (this is mostly narrative fluff, but since that's what Matrix games are all about, that's important).
German player lost the previous battle and needs to regroup and re-arm. Their AT ammunition is getting significantly low, and their supply lines are in jeopardy. The town of Fullofpixeltruppen is on a key supply route. There is a simple sketch map of the surrounding area that both players have access to, and both players will have clearly defined campaign goals, that aren't important for this example. Both players will have a TO&E at the start, which is not tracked explicitly, but in terms of vague percentage losses, or removed entirely.
 
(US player)
Change to matrix:I send 2nd platoon to conduct a probing attack at night into the village of Fullofpixeltruppen
Specific benefit desired: We will learn of the enemy strengths and weaknesses, and take out key assets (AT guns) in preparation for the main assault.
Support from matrix: 2nd platoon is well-rested. The enemy are fleeing in disarray following the last battle. The initiative is ours.

(German player)
Change to matrix: My focus will be to get the supplies through safely. I'll bring up 2nd company to halt the retreat in a safe position and send out a force to take hill 217 with artillery.
Specific benefit desired: My forces can resupply, and set up artillery fire and TRPs onto key terrain over the surrounding area - the village, the river crossing and the crest of hill 312.
Support from matrix: My artillery is untouched, my men are well trained and the supplies are in really fast trucks.

(submitted in secret)

The GM takes these arguments and considers them. It's important that the arguments should not be mutually exclusive. The US player has no forces on hill 217, and hasn't mentioned it, so it's reasonable to rule that this move from the Germans will succeed. The rest of the German argument is pretty weak, and more or less reads as "I stop running away when I can".

Since the US player is not explicitly pursuing the Germans, it's reasonable to suggest that the fleeing forces will drip out, but won't take much of a part in this battle. This means that the generated scenario here will be:

Probing attack. Night mission, weather will be randomised with a die roll, but weighted towards being fine.

US forces:

- Rifle platoon, with priority of fires from the company mortars (no other action is happening here, and they're available)

German forces:

- Stragglers and malcontents, not quite a platoon in size.
- AT Gun platoon
- Artillery with a TRP

All German forces will be low on ammunition and motivation. German infantry stragglers will also have some percentage losses.

The mission objectives will be Spot and Destroy objectives for the US, centred around the AT guns. There will also be some points for killing Germans. Priority are the guns and minimising losses.
German victory will be for destroying US forces, and occupying the town.

Assuming standardising to 1000 points, then something like:

German:
Destroy (all) 800
Occupy 200

US 
Spot (AT Guns) 200
Destroy (AT Guns)  400
Destroy (Remaining Germans) 400


In practice, the GM would choose a sensible looking map, and set up the objectives and choose units to match the above. Stick them in the setup zones, which will be determined by the map - in this case, the German setup zones will be a lot more restrictive.

GM then sends the scenario file and briefings to each party. It's probably useful if both players share their PBEM password with the GM, and all three players share a dropbox folder, so that everything is GM-accessible if needs be (but particularly the outcome).

***

What's worth defining before you start though is:

What are you trying to achieve?

Campaigns have multiple purposes - they can provide context for battles, produce a narrative, they can force you to make longer term decisions about preserving forces, etc.

Campaigns can be fully fledged wargames all by themselves, but they can also be pre-set tree campaigns, or fluffy narrative campaigns just as easily. What I really like about the Matrix game concept is that it's a powerful tool for applying some structure to an otherwise arbitrary narrative.

POST COMBAT REVIEW
 
To begin, I’ll start by reiterating a few points:
Logistical/Misc Notes on Scenario:
The map is taken from the mini-campaign “Forging Steel” by George MC. The mini-campaign was originally made for Shock Force 1. None of the terrain was modified at all. However, both sides force compositions were completely changed by myself.
The goal of this scenario was to create a plausible force on force engagement. US forces were based on the modern armored brigade combat team TO&E. OpFor forces were based on the formational organization of a Soviet era tank division, though the equipment is not meant to be a 1:1 representation of Soviet forces.
When I first put this scenario together, I wanted to give OpFor armored vehicles (specifically tanks) that could go one to one with US armor. I had done some testing prior to the battle that revealed that the T-72AV TURMS-T is capable of destroying M1A1HC’s frontally at combat ranges. However, I did not want the OpFor tanks equipped with the thermal sights, as those types of sights are relatively rare for the type of force depicted by OpFor in this scenario. It turns out that the T-72AV TURMS-T fires better ammo than the T-72AV. I only discovered this after the battle was well underway. Because of this, OpFor was slightly understrength in their armor from how I meant to depict them. While I certainly think OpFor would have fared somewhat better, I do not think the results of the battle would have been drastically different.
A note on C2: unfortunately the way the Syrians are organized in game hinders some of their units from benefiting from a full C2 circuit. Tank units have to be purchased as individual companies to form a battalion. This means that, unless tanks from two different companies are next to each other within ear shot, they do not share information. Again, I do not think this drastically altered the results of this battle. I was attacking down a fairly obvious and open bit of terrain (the MSR) which was covered from multiple angles, all with good line of sight. It is still worth mentioning though. Perhaps Syrian tank battalions will be added in a future patch, or there is some editor magic that can be done to solve this issue?
A final technical note: OpFor got target reference points (TRPs) in this battle, but I forgot to give the US side any. In an attack like this, both sides would have pre-registered fires, simulated in CM as TRPs. This was a minor omission on my part and did nothing to hinder my overall efforts in the battle.
 
Combat Analysis 
What did I do wrong?
The real life point of an AAR is to examine what happened and why, and how to improve for future engagements. In my case, I think the single biggest issue I had was maintaining unit cohesion, especially among my tank platoons. My mechanized infantry managed to stay together for the most part throughout the battle. This is in large part because they are married to the Bradley’s they ride into battle with, making them easier to keep from mixing with one another. Tanks are another story. By the end of the battle, all of my tank platoons were mixed up. The smallest tactical unit for infantry is the fireteam. The tank equivalent of the infantry fireteam is a section, or pair. As the battle began to stretch down the MSR, and with the enemy tank ambush, my tanks had to pair up with whatever was closest to them and run with it. Luckily, this did not end up being a major combat concern for me, though that kind of disorganization and unit confusion can be exploited by an enemy to great effect. Its definitely something I have to work on.
The other mistake I made was committing the first Apache against a suspected armor concentration early in the battle. I knew the enemy would have local air defense assets and still risked sending in the Apache. As a result it was shot down, and I could not rely on my significant air power until the end of the battle. Even then, the A-10’s took fire from a remaining Igla team and luckily managed to defeat the missile. Proofing air space before committing vulnerable and expensive air assets is another thing I have to work on.
If anyone else thinks I committed a tactical error feel free to mention it.
 
The Tank Battle:
This was certainly the most exciting part of the whole battle. It all could have been over for my task force right then and there. If the enemy tank ambush was just a bit better timed and hit me simultaneously from two angles at once, I could easily have suffered twice the casualties in half the time. Further, many of my Bradley’s were in the open, loaded with infantry. A few volleys into these soft assets could have knocked me out of the battle completely.
That said, given the circumstances I think I did everything correctly. While I did have soft assets exposed in the open, at no point were any of those soft assets, or any assets in the open left uncovered. I had multiple pairs of tanks in overwatch, covering different angles all at the same time. Covering units in the open, and just in general is extremely important, especially in the highly lethal environments found on modern battlefields. A single unchecked volley of enemy fire can be enough to destroy an entire unit in the open before it has a chance to turn itself and engage. In the end it was this simple tactical principle that saved my task force from being decimated early in the fight.
 
Hill 113 and Route Blue:
At one point I was asked why I did not attempt to take Hill 113. I identified it as key terrain, especially early in the fight where it had dominating lines of sight over my entire task force as it deployed along the MSR. The main reason I decided not to put my forces on the hill was because I did not want to divide my combat power or distract from my main objective. While it is true that Hill 113 was key terrain, it was not an objective. Further, taking the hill would not aid me in taking my main objectives, it would only have helped my task force in the early part of the battle as they deployed. After that, it would have been a slog through urban areas and forests to get to the far side of the hill and assist with the capture of the two bridge objectives. If I had a third company team then I would have committed it to taking the Hill and holding down my flank, but with only two company teams I decided I was better off concentrating on the MSR and the bridges. I believe I made the right decision here.
 
Closing:
Despite the lopsided end result, I hope everyone enjoyed following along and found the AAR both entertaining and informational. I think it provides a decent vignette on how company teams operate on a modern battlefield against a conventional enemy. As always, if anyone has any technical or tactical feedback feel free to share.  
If anyone is interested, I have compiled this AAR into a single PDF document. I can post a link of it to be shared if there is any interest.