DerKommissar

I did not know you could do that. I'll have to try it out when I have the time, sounds like it's perfect for stringing QBs into a persistent campaign. If I can come up with a way to implement this, it'd be perfect. Very much appreciated, I hope others stumble onto this functionality, as well. Yeah, thanks to you guys I got a BUNCH of good examples. Lots of wheels: some with chrome rims, others with spinners! I need to see which one is the best fit. This General idea has its appeal, and the "planning phase" is probably how this will work. I'd need to find dedicated Generals, though. As with these Campaigns, the more moving parts you have, the more potential delays for everyone involved. I would rather add features as we go along, rather than get rid of them if they don't work. Panzer Corps is most certainly "gamey", but it has a very low barrier for entry. Good starting point. Yeah, that's a good point. I don't want to rush players' QBs, and will allow battles to wage as long as they need to on the operational layer. The timescale will be days, if I go with WW2 -- or hours for modern. Retreats and cease-fires will be allowed, as well. I'm hoping to everyone will be able to play at their own pace.

Hope the injured get treated, the captured personnel extradited and this will all blow over. Way too many clowns, these days, playing with fire.

I'd like the Field Commanders to be able to move their forces, and manage TO&Es. By extension, I would like Generals to be able to play CM battles too! Generals could have the benefit of moving around supports. Which I've decided will work as stackable units. I really liked the suggestion that mortars or SPGs can be off-map if they're not on the battle hex, and on-map if they are. I will be going with a Panzer Corps-type system, maybe even use it for the graphics (too bad it doesn't have modern units). So one hex can only engage one hex. Yet, adjacent hexes can provide support. Off-map artillery, CAS, and even lending troops from their TO&E to another field commander's CM command(would be really cool if CM had "delayed reinforcements" feature). I think most players are familiar with how Panzer General-like games work and it'll be pretty intuitive. Main difference is that, instead of a Panzer Corps player going through all their units and resolving their turns -- here, the field commanders will declare their intended actions at their convenience. Once everyone has declared, or time limit has passed, I will post the battles and the players get to resolve them in CM. Players will then post their AAR, and I'll be really happy if players write out stories and such. There is still the question of persistence. Unit strength will be abstracted as a percentage based on total casualties divided by original strength. Then the players' QB purchase points will be only that percentage of strength. Another way to do it is just to let players write down which units were destroyed during battle -- then we'd need to keep track of every squad/vehicle/etc.

I'm actually surprised by the amount of non-English speakers that play this game. If it was localized for French, Spanish, Russian or German -- I can imagine they'd displace the Commonwealth as top. Obviously US would remain #1, it happens to be the third largest population, globally.

From what I heard talking to friends who currently work as devs in the gaming industry, this seems to be the case. One of my friends works in QA, and that is even worse. I've heard working for Rockstar is the worst, because they take charge of your personal life. They'll tell you if they want you to break up with your significant other or threaten to fire you if you decide to have children. It's a sadistic industry, staffed by very dedicated and self-less workers. I'm just glad I don't work in that industry. Have a good American thanksgiving!

Hey man, Ottawa gotta pay that F-35 troll toll.

Not a bad roster -- just wish we had some M113s.

Yeah, the default game engine would really benefit from a Graviteam update. It's kind of clunky. Also, from what I gathered, you need to donate to get the mod. If you pay for something, isn't it a purchase and not a donation?

I recently picked up these games, but haven't really played them. Armored Brigade has been taking up my wargame time. Any recommended campaigns/scenarios for beginners?

I'm not a huge fan of the Guardian, but this article ain't bad. When I grew up we were fed a lot of BS about Afghanistan. This could be enlightening for the average reader, it is no way a peer-reviewed academic work -- by any definition. Human history has so many details that are easily ignored, but often have far reaching consequences. Gross oversimplification is an inescapable requirement for any such article. xD Yeah, I watched those videos. It just so happens that "Best" is a very subjective category -- at its best. Nothing like comparing Little Willie to a Challenger. "I like this tank 'cause it looks cool, I guess."

Certainly can! Alt-history invasion of Syria by NATO would certainly be an interesting narrative. Asymmetrical operations could also be fun, could even have a "Hearts & Minds" mechanic. Appreciate the enthusiasm! This is an early concept thread -- just doing some R&D at the moment. I'll post a full proposal in the near future, and all will be made clear.

Wow, I never even heard of these games. They look pretty fun. My main issue with using another computer game is that a computer game usually handles a lot of the rule-checking for the user. Which is great for me, but other players that do not have this game (or my instance in this game) will still need the rules and checking thereof. This being said, all these games are great inspirations for coming up with rules. Though, computer rule-checking does often make mechanics seem more simple than they are. Either way, I do appreciate all the suggestions and I have plenty of material to draw from. Right now, I am thinking of which era/conflict to set this campaign in. Any suggestions? I was thinking of setting it in Shock Force -- but I may have to wait for the full remake to come out.

I've got no problem signing up, thanks for the offer though! I'll check it out soon. Yeah, that's probably the way I'll do it. Have a legend and set each hex with a specific QB environment type, which would affect operational movement too. Still need to decide how big each hex is. I'm thinking maybe engineers would be able to reduce an enemy hex's fortification points, and increase friendly hex's fortification points (or reduce fortification time). It would be cool to introduce bridges and mines on the operational layer -- that would certainly make them very useful. The mortar idea is fantastic, that is probably the way to go. The airborne would probably get the option to deploy on any hex on the map, maybe toss in a random element for being thrown off-course (more complexity than needed, potentially). Once they've been deployed, they're normal infantry. Also, if I decide to include AAA or interceptors, they could possibly protect hexes from landing. Frontline is an interesting idea, and I think needed for a WW2 game especially. Players would be playing commanders. So, it is very likely that platoons not under their command cannot be in the same hex. Also, I was thinking that players can lend adjacent assets to the senior player that is in the battle. Or it may be simpler to just sat 1 player: 1 hex and a battle can only happen between two hexes (which would probably allow companies to stack). Or maybe come up with a consistent way of divvying up enemy forces, so that two parallel battles can happen against two halves of the enemy force on the hex, or surrounding hexes. This is one of those million dollar problems. Yeah, I like the idea of having higher ranking players in charge of operational layer. I did want a fog of war effect, where BLUFOR has to identify OPFOR units. Mystery of which would be ruined if BLUFOR and OPFOR could sneak a peak on eachother's positions. I would welcome a co-GM that would command OPFOR. There's also the possibility of OPFOR field commanders that would be PM'd their positions. I'm trying to make a more narrative-focused RP campaign, rather than a rigid computer game. Limiting battles per turn may be a good idea, and I'll most likely have a turn limit for the campaign. Yes, I was very impressed by Mr Rico's way of doing the campaign. I might need to nick more than a few ideas. I like how he uses supports -- even ships! That's pretty cool. I'm curious what he used to make such a pretty map. The way he handles strength is kind of cool, too. The issue of persistence being one of the big challenges. Engle Matrix certainly has advantages. It requires less rules, which means its easier for players to get into, and yet you can do almost anything. A disadvantage is that it'd be pretty hard to balance difficulty and at the same time keep consistent to all players. I do like the command format in the report, I may have something similar for declaring orders. Day and night cycles and time tracking! Good too! What am I trying to achieve? A co-op WEGO battalion (possibly even regiment) level campaign that functions like Graviteam's operational layer, following a dynamic narrative and easily accessible to players. I'm also gonna leave the starting BLUFOR force completely up to players. Lots of great ideas, folks. Got a lot of examples to look over. I've still have yet to decide which CM2 game to set it in (I love them all). Which one would you prefer? Modern or WW2?

I've previously used Google Docs for keeping track of stats in RPG campaigns. A good idea! An automated sheet could cut down a lot of work, counting casualties/points etc. Tried to DL the campaigns to take a look, said I need an account. Googled the Generator -- looks cool. Lots of random elements like reinforcement experience and such... I should check out Mr Kohlenklau's work. I'm guessing he used the editor to move the units around? I will most definitely carry over a few Panzer General features. Really appreciate reference material of how people did it in the past. I'm trying to brainstorm how movement would work. You wouldn't want it to take 5 weeks to get into a kerfuffle and don't want 20 companies facing off 50 companies. Should terrain affect movement, ie. roads, swamps? Each hex would have a Terrain Type. That type would affect movement, as well as define Quick Battle map type.

How would units be abstracted on the map? They could have bigger radius of movement depending on how well they are motorized. Different units could also have different sight radius that would allow them to see and identify enemies. Units could also have the capability to fortify, resulting in more points for trenches, mines, etc. I was thinking that the most basic unit on the operation layer should be the platoon. 4 platoons can stack into a company, but companies cannot stack into battalions. How would units persist between the game and the operational layer? Some abstraction would be necessary. There's two ways I thought of doing this: a. Each unit has a TO&E. When a squad (or a single vehicle) is destroyed, it gets stricken from the TO&E. It would require the player to keep track of WHAT got destroyed. Potentially claiming kills, as well -- as enemy units need to take losses too. b. A points-based system where you only need the final result screenshot. Just the raw numbers of losses (vehicles may weigh more than infantry) would translate to the loss of points for a units deployment. This would allow a player to reorganize their troops for each battle. How will objectives be handled? Again, 2 ways of doing this: a. Victory point control. Holding a single objective for 1 turn will add 1 to the victory tally. Once a threshold of points has been reached, you win -- or lose. b. Hold all objectives to win. Game is just about taking each objective. The main debate in this whole concept is the level of complexity/simplicity such a system should have. Interested in what you think about all this.

The idea is to make a turn-based (WEGO) operational layer campaign here on the forums (or potentially a different platform like roll20). It will be on a square or hex-grid graph of a map -- depending on game and theatre. You will be able to make your own units (companies or platoons) and move them around once per turn. Whenever two units (or more) on the map bump into eachother, the GM will post parameters for a Quick Battle you can put into your game and play out. The player (s) then would report the results of their Quick Battle and the operational map would be updated accordingly. A turn can be a week, or bi-weekly, to allow everyone to declare their move, play their Quick battle and report their results on the forum. I had this crazy idea while messing around with my roll20 RPG campaign. Instead of making a character sheet, one could make a company/platoon sheet. Recently I saw a lot of people wanting an Operational Layer and someone even mentioned a system that they came up for themselves. It's all still very much in concept phase. At first, I was thinking the campaign should be cooperative and all enemies be managed by GM and be played by AI in-game. Though, I'm sure a lot of people would like to play OPFOR and provide an opponent for those who do not enjoy sparring with AI. I'm curious what you guys think! Interested? Not interested? Comments? Concerns? Ideas of your own?

Ever messed around with ALiVE or MCC's GAIA? If only I could use those in CM. >.<

Muscle memory, yeah. It's like mental sport. The more you play, the better you get. I'm the casual football player who just likes to kick the ball into the net with a few friends. Yet, people that play more, become significantly more profecient and it becomes a serious hobby for them. They watch OTHER people play chess and find it incredibly stimulating because they have a more intimate understanding of what's going on. I don't play chess when I'm home with my comp, either. I'd rather play CM or Graviteam or many many others in my collection. I picked up chess playing with my grandfather, who actually holds a Master ranking. When I'm away from home and got time to kill, I'll play it on a phone or something. Obviously it's most fun when playing with family or friends. It's got a few things my favourite computer games don't: portability and most people know how to play it.

Hope they don't attack from the sides, as well. I suppose many other nations shared the concern and loaded their WW2 tanks with pistol ports. Part of the reason I find it strange is that I'd expect them to put a few pistol ports and issue an SMG in that case. That DT looks like it has very limited traverse and would be almost entirely useless against infantry that is trying to flank the tank. I'm guessing later on they learned that a .50 call for the commander can get that job done. Still curious if anyone got to to kill some pixeltruppen with the hull MG of this tank. I'm guessing these features were deleted in later variants.

It's not just you, I think this is the case for any Chess player. The more you play, the more experience you get, the more intuition you will have both in regards to your plans and your opponents plans. Through trial and error you will learn what tactics work and which don't -- what maneuvers require what preparation. Eventually you'll be anticipating these tactics/maneuvers and make strategic plans for them, well in advance. Then you will make contingency plans -- which are the meat and potatoes of Chess. Let your opponent defend against the most immediate problem while you are slowly maneuvering a completely unknown coupe de gras. Experience will also let you think like your opponent, and anticipate their tactics and maneuvers -- and eventually their gameplan. Chess is a classic game because it is so easy to learn and so difficult to master. There are many different styles of play that win tournament games. It's crazy how many various openings there are. When I started to play I thought a great portion of them were silly. When I get destroyed, I think my own opening is very mundane and predictable. When you're starting out it's hard to seize the initiative and even harder to do something with it. Psychology is also a big part of the game -- no less than in Poker. Why isn't Chess more popular? I think it earned a social stigma, especially in recent pop culture. Chess players aren't as celebrated as athletes, hollywood hacks or those dumb mumblers on the radio. I guess it all comes down to the question of western values.

Yeah, I'd go even a step further. What makes a map truly great is the story behind it. Most places on earth, especially places of some strategic value, have a lot of history. From signs of the native population that hastily left their homes, to previous failed offensives done by your precursors, I want my battlefields to have character. Even on emptier maps, it's cool to see pathways that people used to walk in the forests or even trench systems with shelters, storage and improvised out houses. It gives context to the challenges you face and makes them that much more relevant and interesting. For this reason, I am horrible at map design -- making maps that have too many things going on but are a nuisance to the player. It's why those newfangled Fallout games are so popular... the places tell more compelling stories than the plot.

IDK if this has been posted yet, but I recently stumbled onto this lecture -- which surprised me, greatly: On the topic of 'nam and SST politics.

Now, for the real challenge: Does the HULL MG function on an IS-2? I only recently learned that was a thing.

Boys and girls of NATO engineers!

Ha-ha! You see, Ivan. When you shoot a DT on the front turret and the back turret, you get a recoil-less MG! Always regarded the IS-2 as a superior heavy tank of the war. However, it always puzzled me why the designers felt a demand for a rear MG. That's so crazy. Did someone go back in time and show Fury to them? Is it removed from later production models? Or will we need Berlin 2 Victory to find out?