Byte Battles™ for CMBB - what needs to change?

[Andreas]

Some here may remember the concept of Byte Battles™, developed by Greg (Mensch) at Der Kessel.

To recap, they were:

</font>

• Combined 1,500 points total</font>
• Map max 480x480m</font>
• Length 25 turns max</font>
• Designed for TCP/IP</font>

In CMBB, much of this is clearly unworkable for a good game. CMBB is slower, and the battlefield more deadly. Infantry reacts to danger now, and a single HMG can ruin your day quite easily.

Another distinguishing feature from QBs was that they gave you a briefing, had better maps, and unusual force mixes and situations.

I have started looking at whether a Byte Battle™ design convention is actually feasible in CMBB. I think I may have a formula that could work, and have done a few this weekend. They are currently out for testing. I initially thought not much was to be gained by Byte Battles in CMBB, since the maps are a lot nicer, and rarity would force more realistic force selections. Judging from a few recent threads that does not seem to be the case, so the features of unusual force and situations could still add value over a QB. We'll see.

The current design convention we are kicking around would be slightly bigger in map size, significantly longer, and roughly the same forces.

Hopefully we will have something for people to play with soon.

[WWB]

Can't wait to see em.

I think you are dead on the right track. Size might not be so much a factor, but length definitely is. OTOH, very rare were 25 turn byte battles from CMBO. 30+ turns might be a good line.

Regarding forces, I would not measure things in points but instead in units. For example, a force with 1500 points of conscript soviet rifle 41 squads is not quite byte. I would make the cut off 4 companies total or something similar.

WWB

[CHUK]

i've put a couple "byte battles" i've been werking on here http://www.mwowm.net/CM.html

one for cmbb and one for cmbo, personally i think the original parameters are good

anyone one wanting to test and comment would be appreciated

[edgars]

This needs a bump.

I enjoyed the CMBO ByteBattles™, and i'm looking forward to BB ones.

Keep us updated.

[Andreas]

WWB - very good point about the number of units JonS made a comment to me regarding just that, in relation to one of the battles he is testing.

Especially in early war, 1,500 points (BTW - this is not rarity adjusted) can mean a craptacular number of units on board, because all these guns and vehicles are just dirt-cheap.

In terms of size, it usually seems to work out at about a slightly reinforced company of stuff, e.g. a pure infantry company, or two platoons of infantry with a platoon of tanks, in each case with some guns. Generally speaking. That is what I try to keep it at anyway - <3 companies on the board for both sides combined, if possible less.

[ April 28, 2003, 06:43 AM: Message edited by: Andreas ]

[Dr.Juzzy]

bumpalicious.

I was pondering asbout this on the way to work this morning. A bigger map is a must. I'll rumiate further.

[jwxspoon]

In my new scenario I just released, I was aiming for the 'Byte Battle' feel with it. But after a year or so of designing CMBB scenarios I found myself making both the map and the scenario bigger. The result was a decent little scenario, but still well above the 'byte battle' feel even though the points total is relatively low.

When I think of 'Byte Battle' now in the context of my scenario design, I think of a roughly 800 point battle unless it is very early war.

jw

[JonS]

Originally posted by Justin5471:

A bigger map is a must.

I disagree. For me, one of the good things about BBs is their small map size, which provides many advantages...

1. weaker PCs can run them easily

2. each turn takes less time to compute

3. orders are quicker to enter because there is simply less ground to consider

4. it is easier to 'memorise' the whole map-scape after a few turns

5. it is possible and practical to minutely examine the ground for covered and concealed lines of approach, and then (per 4 above) memorise them

6. any others I've forgotten

My own scen design efforts are meagre, but from pondering others efforts I think it should be possible to create battles in CMBB that use similar or nearly similar BB rules as CMBO. The maps would need to be fairly intricate, with short LOS-lines and multiple routes of advance, but I think it could be done.

City fights are the obvious first example, and rolling hills with reasonably extensive tree cover another. If a player doesn't want that, and instead wants long sight lines etc, then they can play a full sized scen.

Hmm. I'm thinking of some formula, like that for the 12m yachts used in the Americas Cup - trading off one variable against another. In BBs the variables might be total point value, number of units (perhaps with sub-variables for the number of guns, vehicles, and tanks, etc), and map size in m^2 (perhaps with sub-variables for the number of tree tiles, etc). As one increases, the other(s) should contract.

Eg

{Points} + {quantity} + {size} = 20,000

or sumfink.

Regards

JonS

(randomly musing on a ****ty winters day)

[MGONZOM]

I suggest you use a map up 1000m x 1000m and any combination not to exceed these square meters. Maybe then you can have a 400 x 1600, or 800 x 1200 meter map or any combination.

I also reccomend you stick with the 25+ turn rules.

The combined force total not to exceed on each side 2000pts.. one side 800pts Defender vs 1200 Attacker? or 1000 to 1000 ME or any Combination..

These paramters seem fair to players and can provide some good maps and still can be played TCP/IP fairly easily with special emphasis to keep unit numbers down to size restraints.

[ April 29, 2003, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Mr_Gonzo_The_Rooster ]

[MGONZOM]

Bump

[88mm]

1000x1000m max ?

That means the German armor never can use it's biggest advantage againts the allies/russians. Atleast not from 1943 (tiger). Also no biggy for the 88mm for example. too bad

[JonS]

88mm, I think you have rather missed the point of Byte Battles.

[Andreas]

Indeed -there are plenty of battles where the heavy stuff faces off. Byte Battles should not be like this - they are short sharp actions, close combat, and they are supposed to be tank heavy in the first place.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mr_Gonzo_The_Rooster:

I also reccomend you stick with the 25+ turn rules.

Mike,

I don't have any problems with making things a bit bigger, although 2,000 points can be quite a lot of units, if you work with pre-battle losses and low experience. But a bit of flexibility in that department is problably worth it.

I do think that given the 'non-hero' modelling of CMBB it is better to have increased turn-length though. 25+ is awfully short to undertake a battle, when a single, well-placed MG can hold up your whole advance.

[MGONZOM]

I think flexibility in turns is a good thing, armor heavy 25+ is a good thing, but if infantry heavy need to go to 30 to 35+.

On the points issue there needs to be some flexibility too but need to remember as a designer the whole premise of a byte battle. Need to keep unit count down, but could spend more on type of unit experience.

As for map size I have made recently three new scenarios in testing with the 1000 x 1000 rule in play and it makes for interesting design. Just posted a small map 480 x 480 Naval Secrets, but does not qualify points wise for a byte battle, but it does fit the philosophy of BB as you battle.

Question concerning fortifications(non-gun) should BB consider wire, roadblocks, trenches, trps, mines, as part of points? Usually I do not include 50% of point total for mines and I do not include non_fighting fortifications as a charge in balancing a scenario. This is using of course a 1.5:1 ration Attacker to defender.

[Dr.Juzzy]

I've just put together a game on an 800 x 800 map and weighing in at just over 1200 points. Its infantry heavy so I've opted for 30+ turns.

I've tried to go for something a little less vanilla (mmmmm, vanilla). The scenario revolves around a resisted village clearance by Ordnungspolizei (regular police) in Byelorussia in June 1943.

Playtesters would be most welcome .

[MGONZOM]

So Far...

A larger map... up to 2000 square meters total. This means any configuration, could be a 800m x 1200m, 0r 500m x 500m, so any size under the 2000m maxium

Turns at or about 30+ but no more than 35 (again this is for tcp/ip play)

Points about 1500 to 2000pts total both sides remembering that too many units is not a good thing, remember TCP/IP is the goal...

So what do you guys think?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Mr_Gonzo_The_Rooster:

A larger map... up to 2000 square meters total.

That would be a bit small The minimum CMBB map is 57,600 meters square (240x240m). Maximum total sidelength (Kantenlänge) is 4,000m, that is probably the best way to express it. Within that any combination. If in doubt, make it smaller.

The other limits I think you have the gist of it.

I think these limits should really be seen as the absolute upper end. The spirit of Byte Battles™ is when you try to design the smallest possible force on the smallest possible map with the lowest possible turn number delivering the suspense and interest for the players you desire to achieve.

Maybe the point limit could be accompanied by a limit on total unit numbers? That would take care of early war low-quality units. (in guess you did not know, I am German, and bureaucratic solutions I drew when being breastfed as a baby).

[MGONZOM]

OOPs 1000m x1000m = 1,000,000 square meters...