Will CM ever have an operational layer?

[76mm]

It would be easier to envision this knowing what commercial game would provide the operational layer.

It's a pretty short list, so almost none of them provide the functionality that allows to modify saved games, which is pretty much necessary. Other than Panzer Campaigns, the only one I've seen is also from John Tiller (his Campaign Series, which is much smaller scale). As far as I can tell this was not an intentional feature on his part, it's just a relic of their rather dated game engines...

I think I read PzC for example. Two things: combat has to be resolved in the OP layer and TAC layer each turn...All combat cannot be resolved at the TAC level within CM - the game would last forever.

Agreed, having an op layer that cannot resolve battles at that level would be a waste. Depending on the size of the op layer, etc., just creating all the maps to play out the tac battles could become completely impracticable.

Can you turn combat off and on and decide when the OP layer resolves or when to fire up CM for resolution?

No, but you can edit a plain text file for casualties, etc., and better, simply rename a saved game file as a scenario and edit it with the scenario editor, so you can move units around, eliminate them, inflict casualties, etc, all based on how things turned out at the tac level.

Those types of files mentioned would be interesting to play with and I would like to hear what folks think a OP layer really means.

The best thing about the two changes I requested is that it would allow people to create whatever type of op layer they wanted. Frankly, as interested as I am in an op layer, I would probably not be very interested in something featuring only a battalion, etc. And other people probably wouldn't be very interested in whatever type of op layer I wanted.

While I mentioned that being able to use saved game files to create scenarios would be a key feature, maybe being able to do the same for campaign files would be even better--you could keep all of both sides' units in a master file and select maps as necessary. Obviously, being able to save and reuse maps with battle damage would also be fairly important.

[Skwabie]

right 76mm and kevinkin, what are you envisioning that's different from Broadswords' idea may I ask. Far as I can see one will still have to find a human oppo or develop extensive AI plans and then play it out by oneself.

[kevinkin]

I think single player against an AI is out. How do you stop the AI from having combat where a CM QB needs to be fought? You would generate double results. Head to Head and Solitaire have a chance. But I need to know better the mechanics of using the OP layer software ie when would a CM QB take place and how would the results be applied at the OP level. Getting down to the nitty gritty and applying CM casualties back into the OP level may be overkill. Rules that use the CM victory levels and perhaps overall CM losses may be smoother to implement.

Kevin

[76mm]

right 76mm and kevinkin, what are you envisioning that's different from Broadswords' idea may I ask. Far as I can see one will still have to find a human oppo or develop extensive AI plans and then play it out by oneself.

Broadsword basically proposes using a boardgame via cyberboard/vassal. I want to use an actual computer wargame that will do things like handle movement, combat, and yes, even provide an AI.

I don't think having an AI is a problem--the human player decides which battles to fight at the op level and which at the tac level.

[Broadsword56]

As we can see, the issues get increasingly complex and challenging once the discussion starts to focus on specifics of how to implement an op layer.

My advice:

1. Keep it simple.

2. Use a boardgame at company-to-battalion scale (but with Vassal or Cyberboard. One advantage of Cyberboard is that you can write little text notes for a counter that will stay with it thoughout the game. I use these to note unit IDs, manpower, losses, battle histories, or anything else of interest).

3. Run the op layer solo (and then invite players of your choice to play the CM battles HTH with you). A multiplayer group is very hard to organize and keep going. But those who really want to try that may have better results when all agree to let one player run the op layer and do the administrative part.

4. Don't worry about FOW in an op layer. If you use a good quality grand-tactical boardgame (not Panzerblitz) that models C3 well, then it doesn't matter if you can see enemy counters on the map -- the game's own mechanics should limit your units' abilities to react and revise their actions, so your units act as if they have FOW even though you (the player) can see the situation perfectly. Some good systems that model this are the MMP Grand Tactical System (chit draw activation), Saint-Lo (HQ Action Points), and on the ultimate end of the simulation scale, The Gamers Tactical Combat System games (in which players write actual op order sheets for their HQs, and roll dice in efforts to implement them. But the TCS games are platoon scale, so a bit too granular for CM use perhaps).

There will be a lot of judgment calls to be made, as players have to interpret events on the op layer into things like unit fatigue, ammo, motivation, and other "soft factors" in CM battle setups. It's also easier to agree on a sensible set of mission objectives for each side in a CM tactical setup, and let a human decide whether victory has been achieved and at what level. Otherwise there's all kinds of work in every battle to establish VLs and points to allow the CM engine decide results.

The way I usually run things is to watch the op layer for a promising tactical battle setup. Then, I freeze the boardgame action and cordon off a certain area of hexes for the CM battle. The battle gets played out in CM the cordoned-off area, and then any remaining activity in the turn gets played out in the op layer as if it happened simultaneously with the CM battle.

Another issue you'll encounter is how to handle reinforcements. This can depend on the time scale of your boardgame. In general, I look at whatever units a side might have had in reserve or available/unengaged status just outside the cordoned-off area. Then I look at how fast that unit could travel to the battle if ordered to do so, whether it could arrive within the time frame of the CM action, and with what delay. Those units can be designated "optional reinforcements." In other words, they go into the OOB for the CM battle and are given a reinforcement arrival time range. But, when/if they do show up on the CM map, they go in a screened -off holding area. If the owning player decides not to activate and use them, then it's as if they never came. The boardgame resumes with those units back in their original positions. But if the owning player uses the optional reinforcements, then they get the CM battle results applied to them at the end just like all the other units that fought. This adds a nice level of FOW because you won't always know your opponent's exact OOB at any given moment.

[sburke]

As we can see, the issues get increasingly complex and challenging once the discussion starts to focus on specifics of how to implement an op layer.

My advice:

1. Keep it simple.

2. Use a boardgame at company-to-battalion scale (but with Vassal or Cyberboard. One advantage of Cyberboard is that you can write little text notes for a counter that will stay with it thoughout the game. I use these to note unit IDs, manpower, losses, battle histories, or anything else of interest).

3. Run the op layer solo (and then invite players of your choice to play the CM battles HTH with you). A multiplayer group is very hard to organize and keep going. But those who really want to try that may have better results when all agree to let one player run the op layer and do the administrative part.

4. Don't worry about FOW in an op layer. If you use a good quality grand-tactical boardgame (not Panzerblitz) that models C3 well, then it doesn't matter if you can see enemy counters on the map -- the game's own mechanics should limit your units' abilities to react and revise their actions, so your units act as if they have FOW even though you (the player) can see the situation perfectly. Some good systems that model this are the MMP Grand Tactical System (chit draw activation), Saint-Lo (HQ Action Points), and on the ultimate end of the simulation scale, The Gamers Tactical Combat System games (in which players write actual op order sheets for their HQs, and roll dice in efforts to implement them. But the TCS games are platoon scale, so a bit too granular for CM use perhaps).

There will be a lot of judgment calls to be made, as players have to interpret events on the op layer into things like unit fatigue, ammo, motivation, and other "soft factors" in CM battle setups. It's also easier to agree on a sensible set of mission objectives for each side in a CM tactical setup, and let a human decide whether victory has been achieved and at what level. Otherwise there's all kinds of work in every battle to establish VLs and points to allow the CM engine decide results.

One note on the gamers system is, TCS is platoon scale however the use of op orders is something that does not need to be tied to that. All that TCS requires is a map, a ToE and some standards as to the efficency of the command element of the unit in other words how flexible and responsive the unit is. Write your op orders on a company or battalion level and off you go. One of the advantages of the TCS series is the battle scale and time frame largely eliminates some of the record keeping required of the larger scale op layer choices.

Honestly I think the hope for a computerized version for single player combat and AI is going to be a wish item for a very long time if not forever. Even something so simple as taking a save game file and importing it back into the scenario editor is still out of reach and that would be a huge game changer if we could get it.

[Apocal]

One problem I've encountered in games with both tactical and operational layers is that many -- sometimes most -- tactical actions are routine mopping up. Typically players mass as much effective combat power as allowed, brawl over a single critical point and after it is decided, the tactical layer is superfluous. The operational layer certainly has a significant influence in setting up that fight and occasionally leads to truly brilliant and interesting tactical actions... but sometimes one-side makes a serious operational mistake and gets rolled off the map for it. People who play the Total War series in multiplayer or modded so the AI can't just pull armies out of its ass know what I'm talking about.

It's illustrative as to why major European powers during many eras would throw in the towel after a single reversal on the field of battle, but it makes for a bad operational wargame.

[Broadsword56]

Apocal makes an excellent point. That's why it's important NOT to expect you'll fight every op-layer battle on the tactical layer in CM. Save CM for the battles where circumstances look like either side has a decent chance of prevailing. Or, go ahead and play some of the really desperate Alamo-style defending actions when they look like fun (and they really can be!).

One thing the op layer will show you is that a "balanced" CM scenario can come from more varied situations that you might expect. Forces that are mismatched in size can be equalized by things like better defensive positions, better soft factors, or certain key weapons systems. In fact, this to me is the real value of playing op-tac campaigns -- variety and realism in the situation setups for CM. They usually surpass anything a single mind could dream up as a standalone scenario, and they have that realistically chaotic feeling of "fortunes of war."

[kevinkin]

I am using Panzer Blitz Vassal for several reasons knowing I have to modify the rules for more up to date game play: Its freeware with a lot of free add-ons and rules to be found on the internet. (Panzer Campaigns Minsk is 40 USD). I added simple moral and activation rules. The units fit into the CMRT timeframe and there are add-ons available for different years/fronts. I agree about simplicity knowing layers of complexity (some call it realism) can be added. A rules system that provides a framework for deciding when and where to fight while protecting rear area installations is what I am trying to develop. Results of tactical battles in CM would add unpredictability to the affair and utilize the players CM skills. Adding the right reinforcement schedules can produce operations that last a long time and would make rear area protection all the more important - food, ammo, communications etc, would become targets.

Kevin