xIGuNDoCIx

Like I said I would prefer the players to work out how they want to complete their battles for the campaign turn. I do not want to say that they have to be this or the other as that will appease some and alienate the others. Players will need to be flexible and make compromises depending on circumstances. PM me you email Krause and I will add you to the growing list of players that I am going to contact this weekend about ironing out all the small details like this.

It would come down to the individuals participating in the battle for that particular week on how they want to play it out (PBEM vs TCPIP). I know some guys have a preference to play one versus the other due to the time constraints that each has. (some players don't like waiting for their opponent to mail his turn and some players don't have 2+ hours to dedicate to a full game, plus you have the added problem with players located in different parts of the world which in turn create a logistical problem of its own for both playstyles.

Guys, I will be contacting all of you this weekend in regards to getting this thing off the ground. I am looking forward to your input and making this something we can all be proud to be a part of.

It's nice to see the series get the credit it deserves. "Beware! Prolonged exposure to this dual-mode delight (turns are optional), and its siblings Red Thunder and Fortress Italy, may spoil your enjoyment of other, less rigorous WWII wargames. After a month or two of watching CMBfN’s death tractors trade shells, the shorthand that passes for armoured combat elsewhere can seem painfully crude. Battlefront approaches realism the way a bomb disposal engineer approaches a UXB. Weapon capabilities, armour thicknesses, force compositions... if you’re interested in the nitty-gritty of WWII land warfare, the CM titles are the best interactive encyclopedias money can buy. Fortunately, they work rather well as games too. Some fans still miss the randomly generated battlegrounds, bulging unit rosters and unscripted AI of the original trio, but progress in a visuals, spotting rules, infantry and artillery simulation make the shortcomings easy to bear. One day CM will get a strat layer, and grognards the world over will pinch themselves silly." ~ PCgamer Read the entire list here: http://www.pcgamer.com//the-best-wargames-of-all-time/

Hey I know who threw that Javelin!

Double Penetration!

This is what I have come up with so far, keep in mind this is all subject to change as I gain input from all the players. Campaign Flow Setup: Players are divided as evenly as possible between the two sides and a General for each side is chosen as well. A teams General is the man in charge! He dictates the teams overall strategy and is responsible for assigning players to command units. He should be in constant communication with both his team and the Adjudicator. The total point cap will be 90,000 point per side, Generals can begin to allocate said points in the creation of combat units. Units cannot be larger than reinforced sized companies (13,540 points). Do not include large bore 105mm or greater off map artillery support in your companies. You allocate points for them per usual but they will get their own unit icon on the campaign map and have their own rules regarding support fire missions (see below) Ex. General 1 has 90,000 points for his sides total army. He and his staff decide that they are going to take 6 Armored Rifle Companies. Attached to each company they have decided to add 1 Platoon M1A2 SEP, 2 x Javelin teams w/ transports (M2), 1 stinger team, 1 M107 Sniper team w/transport (MK19). They also decide that they want 3 x 155mm Paladin Batteries at 1490 points each. Total point cost so far is 85,710 which leaves them a little over 4000 points to spend on other assets to augment some of their companies. Teams can also save points to use during the weekly Refit Phase to replace lost units. Artillery Rules Large bore artillery (105mm or greater) is purchased as normal but they are not added into your battle companies point costs. Instead they get their own icon on the campaign map and they are only available for fire support missions if they are within 5 hexes of where the battle is to take place. If a Battery meets the hex requirement then the commander who is taking part in the battle may go ahead and add that battery into his force roster for that battle. Ex. Commander 1 has a Reinforced Armored Rifle Company for a total point cost of 13,519. There is also a Battery of 155mm Paladins 4 hexes away from the battlespace , therefore he gains the ability to go ahead and add this fire support asset to his force roster even though it puts him over the point cap of 13,540. If the artillery battery was 6 hexes away he would not be able to use them in his upcoming battle. If an artillery unit on the campaign map comes into contact with an enemy unit it is destroyed outright and is no longer available unless repurchased during the Refit Phase. Once units are purchased the Generals will let the Adjudicator know where he would like to place his units on the campaign map. Both teams will get a copy of the map at the beginning of the campaign but only with their units shown. Enemy units will become available as they are discovered. Once an Enemy unit is discovered it is shown for the rest of the campaign or until it is destroyed. Campaign Turn Phases 1. Intel Phase At the beginning of the campaign turn each team may twice elect to reveal information about an enemy unit or to see if a blank hex contains and enemy unit. If the blank hex does contain an enemy unit it is then revealed to your team. However, the only thing shown is an “unknown” unit icon with no further information. In order to gain information about a particular enemy unit you must either engage it in battle or spend one of your “Intel” actions (up to three times per enemy unit) to gain knowledge about a unit (name, force composition, etc). The “Intel” action spent on reveling information about a unit provides the General with a better understanding of what he is fighting against. Information reveled will be provided in this order: 1st Intel Action Name/Type of Unit 2nd Intel Action Force Strength % 3rd Intel Action 8 sub-units within the parent unit will be revealed at random 2. Initiative Phase Initiative will be determined by a random process (coin flip, number guess) with both Generals and the Adjudicator taking part. The team that has the initiative can either elect to have his units move first or his opponents. 3. Movement Phase All units may move up to 3 hexes on the map. Only one unit can occupy a hex. Once a unit comes into contact with an enemy unit a battle must be fought. Hexes will be identified by a letter followed by a number (A3, B7, C39) for easy reference. Terrain also has an impact on how far your units may move. Roads – Units can move an extra hex for a total of 4 hexes Large Rivers/Water Features – Impassable unless there is a bridge on the campaign map Forests – Units lose a movement hex due to the thick terrain for a total of 2 hexes Generals will consult with their staff and plot movement orders, Generals must submit to the Adjudicator their planned moves so that he can update the overall campaign map. The General with the “initiative” can opt to change some or all of his teams movement orders based upon the enemy teams movements. Once both teams movement orders have been received and the maps updated the campaign will move on to the Combat Phase. 4.Combat Phase Battles are to be fought on “Large” stock QB CMBS maps. Maps will be chosen based upon the terrain from the campaign map that the units are fighting on. The point cap for battles is 13,540 with the exception of additional fire support if the supporting artillery unit is within 5 hexes of the battlespace hex. Players have 2 weeks to complete their battles and submit their Victory/Defeat screenshots to their respective General. Players must also take note of KIA tallys so that unit rosters can be updated during the Refit Phase. A victorious unit stays in the hex where the battle took place for the remainder of the campaign turn. The defeated unit must retreat 3 hexes away from the enemy unit and towards the closest friendly unit. If a unit is unable to retreat (ie surrounded by enemy units) it is considered destroyed/captured/surrendered and removed from the campaign map. Battles will be conducted on a Unit vs Unit basis. If a battle is not completed within the two week time period it will be considered a draw and both units must retreat 3 hexes towards the closest friendly unit. ***If a player is unable to complete a battle please let your General know and he can sub in another player to take over.*** 5. Refit Phase At the end of the campaign turn team Generals may allocate any points that they have in their point pool in order to purchase and replace destroyed units. To simulate supply both teams will always receive 4000 points at the end of each campaign turn. Generals can stockpile points but may never exceed their total army cap of 90,000 points. Once both Generals complete the Refit Phase the next Campaign turn begins starting with the Intel Phase.

Can everyone that is on board with this project please PM me your email address. It will be much easier to communicate with everyone that way instead of sifting through what is to become pages of message boards. I am in the process of writing up a more dedicated rule set but again before we start this I want to give everyone involved a chance to go over it and express any concerns that they may have.

Great idea!

That is what I had planned on doing.

Good info Apocal! I did not have time to read it in its entirety but will do tomorrow. I know that this is going to be a massive undertaking both for the players involved and for myself but seeing as we all play PvP games anyway why not make the most fun out of it with a nice narrative!

That's perfect I was thinking 45 turns but if 30 proven to work then we can go with that.

So far it looks as if we have 8 players! I will contact you all in order for all of us to get together to go over/work out some rules. I will burn the midnight oil to get something more concrete than this post out to you all in the next day or so.

So what you are saying is that you and I should play each other!

Awesome I will check them out! Although I have a strange feeling that I am going to get trounced until I get acclimated player against a live player versus the AI.

I assume that in a ME both sides have the same initial point total, right?

Nice! I may have to contact Kohlenklau and pick his brain to see what adjustments he made/used for running CM in this type of scenario. Yes each I envision each team getting a set amount of points to start with to purchase units in Company sized blocks. Overall army commander (1 per side) has final say but I would think that he would discuss this with his Staff (remaining players) to figure out exact force composition. Points can be lost or gained throughout the campaign based upon what OBJs your team is in control of. I think that there would also need to be some sort of constant supply of points at the beginning of each new campaign turn in order to refit/augment units. Don't worry about sitting this one out as there is still a lot of stuff to flesh out before we could kick this off. If there is enough interest I would want to talk with everyone and hash out some details that way everyone gets a say and keeps all players on the same page.

I figured as much. Maybe make each campaign turn = 2 weeks real time. Keep the battles around Company sized,

Yeah I think that Company sized would be the way to go as anything bigger could drag on.

I was wondering if there would be any interest from the CMBS community in setting up a large PvP campaign. I have helped run/participated in projects like this in many different tabletop wargames over the past 20+ years. Applying CMBS would not be a problem as it is very similar to many tabletop games. Below is just a brief outline explaining rules/setup etc. Abstract: This project will be created to make a free flowing PvP Combat Mission: Black Sea Campaign based on both creating an element of strategy to the base tactical game rules. Also creating a form of narrative within the game, allowing for army creation, and design for players who wish to build upon their own army within their faction. This addition will create a form of imaginative play which will see players develop their armies to a new level. Aims and Objectives: · To create a base rule system for a grand strategic game play option. · Player progression with both armies units inside, as well as characters with in the game. · Narrative creation for the players, allowing them to create their own back story within the game. Objectives: · To create a fun gaming experience for the players. · To allow players to tailor a narrative to their characters and army. · To allow expansion and a new mind set in gaming instead of playing normal PvP · To give the player a personal experience and a sense that victory creates progress within the game, as opposed to the self-contained battlefields of normal PvP games. Campaign: Being that of the localized war zone within the Ukraine, 2 teams of players will be pitted against each other on a single contained AO (Area of Operations). This allows for gaming interactions between 2-10 players as a base. 1 real time week = 1 Campaign turn. Players would have a week (subject to change depending on player feedback before the campaign starts) to complete their battles in CMBS. Both Victory/Defeat screen caps must be submitted to the Adjudicator. The Adjudicator would be responsible for creating the AO map. (see example screenshot below) Kriegspiel: An aspect for this campaign creation will be taken from the German military war game Kriegspiel. This will be that of players having the ability to fight on individual sides, but also by having an adjudicator(s) to watch them when playing the games. This will be done to upkeep the sporting nature of the hobby. The Adjudicator(s) will be responsible for the following actions, much like a Campaign manager or Dungeon Manager within role play games. These actions include: · Assigning narrative content to the players. · Assigning mission objectives to the players. · Development and design of the world the players are battling on. · To assure the players that the lists are of the correct points value. · To act as an independent adjudicator for rule disputes. · To insure the community is having fun. Obviously other details like total points cost per side, setup, team objectives would need to be addressed but it would not be that hard to do so. Example Campaign Map

As long as I have been playing the CM series of games I never really ventured out into the wild that is PvP (Player vs Player) games. In total I can count how many PvP games I have under my belt on one hand. I would like to change that but I do have some questions regarding what everyone, at least those who do play versus other players, use as a guideline to setup their games. 1. What is the "normal" point cap for games? Small, Medium, Large? What is the preferred game size? 2. Are the points static or can the players choose their own point cap for that game? 3. What is the preferred mission type that most players use? ME, Atk/Def, etc? 4. "Cheese" tactics/exploits. Given that CMBS players are not like most other game communities I would expect the level of "cheese" to be quite low, but I am sure their is at least one guy/tactic that just seems OP. Has anyone ran across anything or is the game balanced in PvP?

Midlothian, I work at VCU. As much as I do like Beta 3, I would change the US Vehicle color scheme (or the colors of the entire NATO set to a dark blue with white outlines). IMO the way they currently are they are not cohesive with the US Infantry scheme like the Russian scheme is. With the Russians everything is outlined in yellow and has a great contrast with the red and I would not touch them. This is not the case with the US icons, the vehicles have the color reversed from the Infantry (light blue outline with a dark blue interior vs dark blue outline with light blue interior + black outlines) Also the current US vehicle icons have a tendency to blend into the US infantry icons due to the fact that the outer area color of the vehicle icons are the same as the main body of the infantry icons. (see the 5th vehicle icon from the right in the picture below). To me the NATO icons don't have the same "contrast and pop" that the Russians ones do. The color scheme that I suggest: Anyway, these are just my humble suggestions. Whatever you choose to do is your prerogative as it is your "baby"! I am just glad for what you have done already.

Keep it up Bil! I like this version the best (so far). The larger NATO icon size was bugging me but I didn't want to say anything! Also the Blue is much more pleasing than your previous version.

Oh damn! These are shaping up to be great! Thanks for all your work Bil!