Jump to content

Fredrocker Style H2H Campaign (like Sie Kommen II) for CMFI??


Recommended Posts

Does anyone know if someone is planning to release a series of H2H battles like Fredrocker did for CMBN?? These were basically a scripted campaign of H2H battles.

These were GREAT for the following reasons>

- Variety of engagements: Sometimes they were meeting engagements. Sometimes they were Attack / Defend.

- Not always "Balanced": This is nice. Because when you do a Quick Battle, the field usually has to be relatively equal and the same amount of points are usually allotted to each side. .... These were nice because you never really knew what the next battle might bring!!

My only suggestion for improvement (in-case anyone is developing a scripted campaign of H2H battles .... or really, it could be for any battle that is intended only for H2H play)

- EXIT ZONES on EACH SIDE: Having an exit zone on each side eliminates the need for "cease-fires" and "gentleman's agreements". ..... You fight until you either win or have exited your men from the battlefield. ..... This allows for battles to be fun even if you are seriously loosing!! ... You now have a new mission: Conduct a fighting withdraw that leaves as many of your men alive as possible.

.... please consider my suggestion for the Exit Zones. Noob did an umpire campaign where there were always Exit Zones present. And when playing H2H in the Fredrocker campaign there were many times where I wished they were present.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't know for sure since I'm not a scenariomaker, but I think there was a discussion about using Exit zones more often, and that the consensus was that it screwed up the point system, or something like that. :confused:

It depends. Basically, it does indeed screw up any Unit Objectives for any side that has an exit zone. If a unit is designated as a Unit Objective, the game treats those units as "destroyed" at the end of the battle if they have not exited the map (this is how Exit Zones come into play points-wise--by giving the OTHER team points for destroying units that are supposed to exit). However, if you use Casualty and Condition Parameters, and no Unit Objectives, you should be fine.

-FMB

Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends. Basically, it does indeed screw up any Unit Objectives for any side that has an exit zone. If a unit is designated as a Unit Objective, the game treats those units as "destroyed" at the end of the battle if they have not exited the map (this is how Exit Zones come into play points-wise--by giving the OTHER team points for destroying units that are supposed to exit). However, if you use Casualty and Condition Parameters, and no Unit Objectives, you should be fine.

-FMB

Hi FMB,

I guess points wouldn't really matter too much when playing casual H2H in a single battle or a even in a scripted H2H series of battles. (Points would be for more specialized situations ... and of course ladder games where the only thing that counts are "points") .... I'm referring to more casual PBEM battles with friends we have made through Combat Mission.

I think exit zones allow for more natural order to take place on the virtual battlefield. The "loser" is they guy that decides to cut his loses and withdraw (a fighting withdraw to reduce loses). And the winner is the guy that holds the battlefield when everything is said and done with.

I've found that the H2H games I've played that have Exit Zones are in a lot of ways a more engaging battle right until the end.

Currently, a lot of battles end with spontaneous "Cease-Fires" as soon as both players hit the button (and lets face it ... the winning player reluctantly hits that button! ... even when the inevitable email from the enemy commander arrives explaining the situation)

Or ... they end with a bit of animosity because the winner doesn't accept the ceasefire soon enough and just keeps steam-rolling ... the looser can do nothing because he is unable to conduct a fighting withdraw off of the map.

Exit Zones cure these problems .... With Exit Zones there are no cease fires. They also give the "loser" more options for continuing the battle and still having fun by switching his focus to seeing how many pixeltrupen he can safely withdraw.

.... anyway ... just a suggestion for anyone developing some H2H battles.

Cheers!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi thejetset,

I absolutely agree with a lot of your points. I was just pointing out what it is that having exit zones in there screws up, and (I hope this came through) ways of getting around those problems.

Basically, my point was: don't use "Destroy Unit" objectives and you're good to put as many exit zones in there as you might need! :)

This leaves you with quite a bit of flexibility still; you can use casualty and condition parameters if you still want to award some points for inflicting casualties, or you can base victory conditions on terrain objectives only.

-FMB

Edit: good lord I use the word "point" a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the operation i will be re starting with Kuderian, i have no points in it all, wins are determined by forcing the enemy to exit the CM map via an exit zone, or by roughing them up so badly that they will withdraw from the hex / map during their next operational movement phase, with the losing side suffering a morale level drop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

I have a CW Campaign in the works that is 8-10 battles that I will release as a Battle Pack/Campaign - it name is 'Shimi's March' -based on the 1st Special Service Brigades landings at La Breche west of Ouistreham to the fighting along the ridges near Le Plein. Expect it in February...

I dont believe the H2H Campaign works.... You could take the Sie Kommen Battle Pack which is designed for H2H and just follow the flow of the campaign. The flowchart is in the handbook or also at my website... You can play either the Axis or Allies campaign, downloads for all my stuff is now at The Few Good Men website...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
I have a CW Campaign in the works that is 8-10 battles that I will release as a Battle Pack/Campaign - it name is 'Shimi's March' -based on the 1st Special Service Brigades landings at La Breche west of Ouistreham to the fighting along the ridges near Le Plein. Expect it in February...

Hi Fredrock,

Looking forward to your new CW Campaign! I have had a lot of enjoyment playing your SK campaign in H2H play.

I only have one suggestion .... Is there any way I could get you to consider putting "Exit Zones" on the maps that could realistically use them in your new campaign?

The reason is that it makes H2H play a lot more "realistic". Instead of Surrendering or hitting the Cease Fire button ... the players are also given the option to either hold the objectives or withdraw their forces. (Players could still decide to call a Cease Fire if the situation warrants) .... but it also gives this extra dimension.

Anyway, great work and please keep them coming! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exit zones can be a good feature, and can make the game more fun, to be sure. But it isn't necessarily more realistic. Commanders at this tactical level of CM games didn't have the authority to just withdraw from their assigned sector without permission from higher HQ. Realistically your unit is part of a larger formation -- if you decide on your own to retreat, you might be leaving your adjacent unit's flank open or leaving a hole in the line, or exposing your side's line of communications to the enemy. An operational game layer is a realistic way to manage things like that -- better IMHO than trying to stretch CM into an operational aspect it's really not designed for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Broadsword,

It definitely wouldn't be something for all maps. And even for the maps that have them, they might not necessarily be used. The engagement could come to a natural Cease Fire where neither side no longer has the will/ability to advance.

But I know what you are saying regarding an organized withdraw to a line of defense further back ... that would come from much higher up the food chain. .... These exit zones would cover a situation where a Company .. or even a Battalion, can no longer hold on to a specific objective ... and needs to fall back on a much smaller scale ... in this case, maybe only a couple hundred meters ... and off of the map.

Basically Exit Zones just add an extra dimension and a extra possibility for an outcome to a specific, tip of the spear, engagement.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree with using exit zones this way.

In historical scenarios, I also use exit zones to represent an area that a force was known to have retreated to and was authorized to use, when there's really no point to including that area on the battle map.

Example: The Wadi El Keddab in my El Guettar scenario -- I included only a sliver of the wadi along the W map edge, but gave the US an exit zone there to represent the possibility of retreating deeper into the wadi. It would have been unrealistic to let the Germans trap forces there against the map edge. And there was no point to putting the rest of the wadi on the (already enormous) map.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is another active post where Steve and others are discussing "Mass Surrender" for conscript and low-quality troops.

Exit Zones could also help to simulate this in H2H play similar to what you are saying.

Although in some Eastern Front scenarios it might be necessary to place some AI controlled HMG's to cover this "avenue of escape"! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...