CM2 Campaing Game Idea

[ahauschild]

I know that current operations are the way closest thing to having a campain in CM. I would like to see a more extensive campain system.

Example.

Start the player out with a Regiment of Equipment. Let him choose the Different Battalions for this Regiment. Then put the player in a series of operations, with replacements for the unit based on historical procentages. Then lets see how many operations the player can go through without losing complete combat worthiness. This would simulate in the later Operations the attrition. You may have had a Puma or two, but because you lost them in the start, you got nothing or more avalible units to do the recon. Not sure what kind of coding it would require, but units would increase in quality from operation to operation, so you would have in later operttions a few survivors, that are vets, but also a large number of greens as replacments. Your original Heavy Tank Company may have been brought down to 30% and consist now of a partial Heavy Platoon and some Medium Tanks, Artillery would be somewhat abstract, as replacing the FO is generaly pretty easy, but the quality of the FO would drop. Also most of the motorized units from the Start would be walking or riding pigy back on tanks into battle in later scenarios.

I think this would make for a interesting game. What do you all think.

[L.Tankersley]

It probably would be an interesting game, but it's not the game BTS set out to make. They made a deliberate design decision not to implement the sort of campaign you describe. Probably the most compelling reason for this decision was a desire for realism. One of their avowed goals was to make CM the most realistic game out there on this topic, and the suggestions you make are quite unrealistic. That doesn't make them bad suggestions, but given the game's emphasis on reality they wouldn't fit in well. This has been discussed extensively in the past; I'd imagine a search on "campaign" would turn up a lot of detailed information on BTS's reasoning.

------------------

Leland J. Tankersley

[Guest Germanboy]

Here is what I posted in another thread in August I believe. I never got round to submit it to the unofficial FAQ, but will do so now.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Dilger, I have written the following for the FAQ while I was in Germany during the weekend, but have not yet had time to do some research on the board regarding the topic. It is all based on my memory, and that is growing faulty as I age day by day. I believe it mostly reflects BTS stance, but can not be sure.

If anybody has any comments, they are most welcome. I am not interested in a wholsale new debate on the issue, however. That is why the FAQ is being done after all.

Find it here: http://cm4mac.tripod.com/ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Written for FAQ (1st draft):

Campaigns in CMBO, absence of:

There have been repeated inquiries/demands by players of CMBO to include a campaign option into CMBO, similar to those found in other wargames. In the opinion of those players clamouring for the inclusion, such an option should include a possibility for units to grow in experience levels between battles, and they often want to keep a unit they have grown attached to. This would be welcome from a game immersion point of view because it would increase the connection between players and units at their command. It would also provide an additional, long-term focus in the players' minds, by giving them an incentive to keep the unit 'alive' over the course of the campaign to benefit from the increased experience of the unit.

BTS has decided to replace the campaign mode of other wargames with a new system of operations that is not unit but goal focussed. In an operation, the players are given one of various possible goals to attain, e.g. advance over a given distance, destroy a given number of enemies etc. These are intended to reflect the real-life goals given to commanders of either taking a piece of real estate or of attriting the enemies forces, or holding them in place while an important attack is undertaken elsewhere. BTS believes that this is a more realistic treatment of repeat combat on the level of fighting that CMBO represents than a campaign mode. They give their reasons in p.XX of the manual. The following discussion expands on the subject somewhat.

These are the three main reasons that CMBO does not have campaigns, they are explained in more detail below:

a) losses, extremely high, units were rebuilt with inexperienced men.

unit allocation, small units were not shifted in a campaign mode

c) experience, long exposure is counter-productive, very few men made it through a long stretch of fighting at the sharp end.

CMBO is designed to be a 'realistic' wargame within the constraints of what is currently possible. It does not claim to be 100% realistic. By abandoning the completely unrealistic campaign mode of other games, it has aimed to introduce more realism into wargaming. From a game perspective, having a campaign mode would be neat. From the perspective of realism in a game, this appears different.

a) losses: losses in infantry units in the ETO were high on both sides. Some US infantry divisions experienced turnover rates of personnel of 200+% of book-strength during the campaign, meaning that a division with a theoretical strength of 14,000 men would experience casualties of 28,000+men during a campaign lasting at most 300 days. The record is held by the 90th US ID, with 289% turnover in 305 days of fighting between landing in Normandy and the German surrender. Single companies (which are what most of us will command in CMBO scenarios) could experience losses of 60% or more in a single action. Replacements were usually green and had to be trained in the front-line. The US replacement system was one of the worst-performing parts of the US army in the ETO (Doubler 1993). For both the UK and Canada, manpower shortages became so serious that the UK had to break up experienced fighting units in Normandy to provide replacements, while Canada faced a serious political crisis almost toppling the government over the question of whether conscripts should be send to serve overseas (Delaforce, 1997 and Stacey 1948).

The brunt of the losses was born by the infantry batallions, which made up about 45% of the manpower of a division but incurred 70% of the losses. The expectation that a unit would advance in experience is therefore fallacious, because often companies lost valuable experience in the form of vets in a fight, to see these replaced with green men. XX in 'Roll me over' relates how he was the only man left in his platoon after 90 days of fighting out of those who made up the unit in the Ardennes.

Another factor in this were the disproportionately high losses of junior leaders. The ethos of leading from the front, and the enemy strategy of picking out the officers and NCOs first led to serious leadership problems, and the replacement of experienced leaders (if indeed they made it long enough) with 90-day wonders.

unit allocation: on the level of CMBO, units simply were not transferred between different theatres or even sectors of the front. So for example starting a campaign in Normandy with a UK company or batallion (the largest units CMBO represents), and then using that unit to continue to fight in the Vosges or in the Ardennes is unrealistic. Rarely if ever were units smaller than divisions transferred between different theatres.

c) experience: long exposure to a fighting environment does not necessarily help to become better at fighting. While some basic rules are picked up fast (it is a bad idea to smoke at night), long exposure blunts nerves and the continuous stress of the battlefield takes its toll. In the US Army, the experience was that the most a soldier could go for was 200 days. After that he would either be a danger to himself or to his comrades because he no longer cared for anything. This phenomenon is known as battle exhaustion. Very often soldiers did not make it that far. Keith Jones made it through 64 days in Normandy, the 6 Batallion Duke of Wellington Regiment was broken up after only three hard fights in Normandy because it had ceased to funciton as a unit and had become a group of individuals.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I now no longer have access to most of the books I based this upon, so I will just submit it to Jason/Colin as is.

------------------

Andreas

[This message has been edited by Germanboy (edited 10-03-2000).]

[ahauschild]

I understand that units where not transfered betwhen theaters. I dont want this. But units did fight within the same theater several operations before the unit itself become battle unworthy. I figure there should be enough variety in maps even withing a 100 KM area to create several linked Operations. This would be realistic. I just thought the simulation of a full strength fighting unit with all its shiny new tanks and uniforms, to the point of the unit collapsing becuase of attrition and combat fatigue of the average soldier would be fun to watch. People would fight and possibly retreat much sooner, in fear of destroying the fighting capability of the overall formation. Plus in the current one operation, if you had Tigers, well...thats what you had, in a ongoing link of operations within a reasonable distance the Tigers could have been replaced with lower quality and type units, because of limited resources avalible. I understand that there may be a link to this allready, I just started about a week agon reading this forum.

[IntelWeenie]

An interesting idea, but I think you would not find too much enthusiasm for it from the people who like campaigns. Why? What you propose is a situation where the combat effectiveness of your troops would decrease over time, wheras in a "typical" campaign, troops' effectiveness increases. This difference is significant, I think.

------------------

Canada: Where men were men, unless they were horses.

-Dudley Do-right

[This message has been edited by IntelWeenie (edited 10-03-2000).]

[ahauschild]

Well, true, but also very accurate. The challenge lies in keeping your formations combat effective longer, not getting better. something different.

[ahauschild]

Not going to reply for 3 weeks now. Have a business trip in germany and france.

Looking forward to catching up on the forum when i get back.