Looking for Opponent for Very Large Battle (details inside)

[Kinophile]

Not bad at all! 

Would this mean that, for example, NATO Batt 3 (2,500 pts) could end up facing off against RUS Batt 1 (10,000)?

I do like the element of uncertainty of what you're facing off against, but the points disparity is a little large. 

Perhaps:

10k, 7k, 5k.

Even then, a US force with 3K advantage over a RUS force is a complete cakewalk and really just a waste of the RUS player's time. 

So then, maybe:

8k, 7k, 6k.

With that,  there's still a possibility of facing an opponent with 2K advantage over you, but it's still a survivable fight. 

An idea would be to let the individual Batt Co set their own objectives (eg allocate however they want out of say,  500pts),  perhaps after the reveal of what size force they are up against. 

This would allow an outnumbered player to set their objectives as Max enemy kills,  or hold a vital town,, etc. 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by kinophile

[shift8]

So do we want to do this as a Set Piece attack defend, or a meeting engagment?

[Kinophile]

Conceptually, the underlying question might be if we're playing this as a tournament ladder or a simulacrum of a brigade v. brigade battle. 

If the former, then we should scramble or alternate opponents in the 2nd Round. Losers in the first round should "fall back" (ie knocked out), with 30% added to Brigade reinforcement pool. If all 3 of a team defeated then battle ends.

If the latter concept then we should determine if the battalions fight 'to the death'  or can be "withdrawn/manoeuvred" by Brigade Commander.

We could break the battle into two stages,  reflecting 1) the initial contact and push/pull, followed by 2) Critical battle.

We could maintain some very rough tracking of units, with 30% of 1st Stage Losers forces added to their Brigade reinforcement pool for the 2nd stage. 

[Kinophile]

Conceptually, the underlying question might be if we're playing this as a tournament ladder or a simulacrum of a brigade v. brigade battle. 

If the former, then we should scramble or alternate opponents in the 2nd Round. Losers in the first round should "fall back" (ie knocked out), with 30% added to Brigade reinforcement pool. If all 3 of a team defeated then battle ends.

If the latter concept then we should determine if the battalions fight 'to the death'  or can be "withdrawn/manoeuvred" by Brigade Commander.

We could break the battle into two stages,  reflecting 1) the initial contact and push/pull, followed by 2) Critical battle.

We could maintain some very rough tracking of units, with 30% of 1st Stage Losers forces added to their Brigade reinforcement pool for the 2nd stage. 

[The Steppenwulf]

13 hours ago, kinophile said:

Would this mean that, for example, NATO Batt 3 (2,500 pts) could end up facing off against RUS Batt 1 (10,000)?

 Yes but you wouldn't know that from the start though, so good recon is vital a) to establish what you are up against and b) to inform the rest of your side what size enemy force could be/or are not facing.

13 hours ago, kinophile said:

Even then, a US force with 3K advantage over a RUS force is a complete cakewalk and really just a waste of the RUS player's time. 

It would be if each player approached this as a meeting engagement. However, I think the idea I was hoping to coax in preparation from each side was that using prepared defences and setting up your forces for the purpose of counteracting such imbalance would be the way to strategically deal with this possibility.

It's all about considered gambles - some serious considerations need to be made about what balance need to be achieved in selecting each force. Without giving away my personal strategic thoughts, player style and ability is pretty important too. 

 That's just the principle of the idea, the actual point numbers I gave are arbitrary, I confess I've only every played one QB against a real opponent and I have no idea what a defensive v attack might play out in terms of points. But think bunkers, trenches mines and AT infantry, artillery, drones and aircraft this is the reasoning for such a disparity. 

I must say though, I think the idea is that the player who gets the full quota of points should win comfortably if he faces an opponent with the lowest quota. The real friction in the contests is when the forces are either balanced. Or a player possessing a force with the highest points quota is under pressure to defeat a middle points quota force because sit rep reports that the opponent's highest points quota player is demolishing his opponent. If a player with 2500 pts can manage to hold off a force with 4 x more assets that is real challenge.

I mean this is just some possible variations that jump out of the top of my head. I know there is whole lot more possibilities and I'm sure events will play out in a kinds of different ways.     

Imagine if a player that has set up for defence receives info half-way through his battle that, due to a fellow player's defeat, he is now expected to go on the offensive and try to get a win for instance. Not a pleasant prospect! Players priorities could change during the course of the battle depending on the traction others are gaining in their partic. battle. 

 

8 hours ago, shift8 said:

So do we want to do this as a Set Piece attack defend, or a meeting engagment?

I don't think it matters. Players will choose their own stance as discussed and agreed by each side. Budgeting for the points would be under-spending in all cases though, just a screen shot for post game analysis/examination would be all that is required. I'm sure we can all trust each other not to attempt to cheat.

As I questioned in my previous post, I don't think Victory Conditions are affected by the type of engagement are they? And exactly how do victory conditions work in QB?

 These are important matters to consider.

In summary regarding Kinophile's points-

The exact ratio of points is very much open to debate. Lets' get a consensus on that! A stated I admit that I'm not very experienced with this, but as I also said, it's important that the highest quota player should be able to beat a lowest commanding one comfortably, if he picks a well capable force and knows his assets well, as well as demonstrates good tactical command abilities and is an experienced CM player .  

 

  

 

  

Edited July 4, 2016 by The Steppenwulf

[Kinophile]

All good thoughts but the point still stands that a guaranteed cakewalk by 10K US, over a 2.5K RUS player isn't really a game. Or a battle. More a gratuitous slaughter as the RUS troops scramble back along their own Highway of Death. The battle type is irrelevant as the technology disparity is just too great and scales up logarithmically with the points gap (which, indeed, is the whole concept behind the RL US's focus on force amplification). This is no fun for any RUS player.

As such there should be less of a random disparity initially, but in the second stage you work with what you have (plus some minor reinforcement).

An example:

ROUND 1 - Battle  1: REDFOR attacks

REDFOR should be Attacking in first, battle,  reflecting the initial surge.

If BLUFOR loses this = knocked out. 

If BLUFOR wins/draws they call the battle type for second battle against same opponent -  defend, attack, fighting retreat (?), whichever.

ROUND 1 - Battle 2:  BLUFOR choice of Probe, Meeting, Defend or Attack. 

If BLUFOR loses/draws this = knocked out. 

If BLUFOR wins then they get a 3rd, decider battle

ROUND 1 - Battle 3: BLUFOR probe

Loser = knocked out. 

Draw = both knocked out/fought to stand still / Combat ineffective. 

Winner = move to Round 2!

 

Essentially, BLUFOR's Round 1 objective is to survive the first hit and strike back. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by kinophile

[The Steppenwulf]

I think this an altogether different format from the one I've suggested. Just to clarify What I'm suggesting is three simultaneous battles and no scripted development based on success or failure. That doesn't mean that your idea does not have merit in itself but that's for everyone else to decide.

I'm willing to go and examine the practical detail of my suggestion (i.e. setting up this in QB's) and then report back on how it will actually work in practice.

Regarding points ratios, in addition to the all out defensive structures that a 2.5k point commander is likely to adopt, there is also the fact that the attacking player with 10k will not know that his opponent is a 2.5k at the start of battle. Indeed the main objective for both sides will be to leave opponents guessing as to who is commanding what, in order to delay immediate and catastrophic defeat. Thus strategic and tactical bluff as well as strategic and tactical delay are major facets of the overall game-play.  That said, perhaps 3k, 6k and 9k might be more appropriate numbers and ratios to work with. I am hoping for some other contributors to offer advise on this matter and thus help calibrate these figures.     

      

 

 

 

Edited July 4, 2016 by The Steppenwulf

[Artemis258]

Hi all, I'm interested! I don't have much to contribute as to the game design aspect, but if a commander is needed, sign me up!!!

[The Steppenwulf]

 

OK, so I did some investigating and for the idea I'm proposing:

If we were to use stock QB maps we would have to make some amendments in the Scenario Editor to the VP areas for touch/occupy and the maps would all have to be renamed in the editor as Large Assault maps irrespective of size. Effectively we have to customise our QB maps specifically for our game.

This is very easy to do and i need to get a grasp for this anyway for another campaign ideas I have. Therefore, I can do the editing and distribute the completed maps.

 

Points allocation;

After further consideration, I agree Kinophile that 10k is a tad low. Revised suggestion; 15k, 10k and 5k. It should be note that a full infantry battalion on map (at approx 15k points) is a hell of a lot of pixel troops and micromanagement for players. 

 

Suggested House rules (just ideas literally off the top my head):

1) Each side can have NO more than a company of MBT's in total M1's,T80's & T72's -

2) Each side can have NO more than one Mech-Inf Formation???? 

3) All commanders must spend at least half of their points on ground forces (i.e. purchasing a formation with a cost that is at least half the budget)

4) Anymore - we really need to nail this coz we get this bit wrong and the game could be ruined.

 

I am aware that this is Shift8's thread and I feel like I've hijacked the original idea with something of my own.This is just an idea though- best progressed with a consensus. Perhaps Kinophiles alternative idea appeals better?   

 

[Kinophile]

To clarify,  my point is not so much the total number of points, rather the difference between highest/lowest, which is magnified by the tech gap. 15K to 5K is still a big jump, for me. 

One idea @TheForwardObserver uses to reduce the headcount is to make all units crack/elite, fanatsc, +2 mot,. 

I think though, @shift8,  that you're thinking more of a full battalion/brigade face off,  correct? 

[shift8]

4 hours ago, kinophile said:

To clarify,  my point is not so much the total number of points, rather the difference between highest/lowest, which is magnified by the tech gap. 15K to 5K is still a big jump, for me. 

One idea @TheForwardObserver uses to reduce the headcount is to make all units crack/elite, fanatsc, +2 mot,. 

I think though, @shift8,  that you're thinking more of a full battalion/brigade face off,  correct? 

Battalion at this point. At least one side needs to have a full battalion with a brigades supports like arty. I also prefer that we use the standard battalions, not equivalents in points. Parts of the appeal to this for me is doing a realistic square off of real world unit oobs. This will of course not be necessarily balanced, but I wasnt really going for that per se. Although it depends on what people want. If people do want to have more custom units, I dont think there should be any restrictions on units types, just point levels. This is one of the reasons I like using the standard battalion OOB's plus supports, since it has its own limits. 

I also think we need to keep the rules here as simple as possible. The most complexity the greater chance we have of not following through. 

 

Also I have an idea that may cut down on lagg etc. What if we do roughly a battalion each, but we have the units deploy in waves instead of en mass. Players would have to use standard battalion OOB's, but could choose what companies to field first etc. Battle would be done as a meeting engagement, with a modified QB map of at least 2x2km with scattered and mirroed objective points. Reinforcements could come in waves every 15-30 minutes for the full 4 hours of the battle. The size could even scale, so that the battle increases in tempo as time goes on. 

 

Edit: We could allow for 15k per player, custom units. Each reinforcement wave would have a point limit, with that last one having no limits so any excess can deploy. First wave would be smallest, with each successive wave being larger. Meeting engagement. 4 hour time limit, with last reinforcement appearing by the 3 hour mark at the latest. First wave would be relatively small, like a reinforced platoon each. 2nd wave is a company etc. 

Edited July 5, 2016 by shift8

[shift8]

11 hours ago, Artemis258 said:

Hi all, I'm interested! I don't have much to contribute as to the game design aspect, but if a commander is needed, sign me up!!!

ok awesome

[The Steppenwulf]

That's fair enough, though it all seems far too "balanced" for my design interest. To be fair to myself I'm currently working on a completely different campaign idea of my own so I would be wise to stay out of the organisation of all this in any case.

Nevertheless, I'd still love to play, so please count me in as a player. Perhaps when I get my own campaign idea fully functioning I can bounce it off you guys and see what you think.    

[Blazing 88's]

On 2016-07-02 at 5:37 PM, kinophile said:

Doh,  yes,  I forgot the 32bit curse re ram. Dagnabbit. 

And the inevitable question -  is there a 64bit PC  in the works? 

Well there is this and no need to buy a Mac, here you go...    As long as you have a 64bit Win rig obviously.

I have not had a need for it in CM as of yet, but I have used it for WOFF and MVP2015 and it works great for them.  Give it a go and report if you want.  Steps to follow at this link:  http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3421233/Memory_Boost_for_Your_32-bit_G#Post3421233
*BACKUP* the main .exe file prior to patching.

From within the above link you will find this the 4Gb patch:
http://www.ntcore.com/4gb_patch.php

Edited July 6, 2016 by Blazing 88's

[Kinophile]

Illl check it out. Old thread though ('09).

[shift8]

Ok lets reiterate all who are interested. Please post a +1 in here if you are good to go. Probably start this weekend. Once I have the full player list, I will make a new post with final rules and who is facing who. 

[Kinophile]

CMBS already handles >2GB data, just checked.

 

@shift8  +1

Edited July 7, 2016 by kinophile

[shift8]

Also please post your preferring faction, sorry I forgot to mention

 

[Artemis258]

I'm in - Nato would be cool but I'm easy.

[Kinophile]

Ukraine or Russia. 

[The Steppenwulf]

+1 for me - either/any faction is good. 

Can I recommend PM the other individuals in the thread who may have indicated an interest!?

[shift8]

Im going to face Kino and Stepp will face Art. Let me know if that works for everyone. If I forgot someone, please post. 

 

Once you guys pick sides and agree to a 2km to 2km (or larger)  map, each player will submit their deployment order for their custom battalion to someone outside of their game. That persons will edit scenario with the aforementioned map (meeting engagement) with the selected forces and deployments for both players. That way nobody knows each others force composition or disposition. 

There will be one reinforcement every 30min. 

Phase One: Two platoons of infantry. No IFV's, Tanks, or APC's  that have auto cannon. Must be exclusively infantry and light transport. 

Phase Two: 1 Company that is not Armored. (meaning NO tanks this round). You may also spawn 1 artillery asset of any kind. This includes any necessary spotters. 

Phase Three: 1 Company of any type. 1 more arty battery. 

Phase 4: 1 Company of any type. 1 More Arty Battery. 

Maximum Armor companies for the game is 1. This supersedes the "any type" clause. Each company for each round may consist of Up to 4 Platoons of any set of units withing the given round restrictions, regardless of their size etc. Platoons must be premade. So no cherry picking a squad from here and another from there. All platoons must be standard TOE. All unit stats must be Regular, Normal, +0. This is due to the fact that force sized are equal. 

 

Battle is 4 hours in length. 

 

Let me know if this works for everyone, or if you have suggestions. 

Edited July 8, 2016 by shift8

[Artemis258]

ok, pm'ing step now

[BTR]

I hope you take pictures  

[Kinophile]

I'm a little curious why so specific about the first wave.. Surely my forward platoons will be Mechanized....I'd never send dismounted infantry forward without some close support. If the enemy has IFVs they're dead.