Yet another CM campaign attempt

[JasonC]

Scout PL had a fine idea to make the operational overview for a CM "campaign" more manageable. I have decided to give a go at a similar one, but on a more modest scale than his, because I found the size of even his brigade fight daunting as a potential participant. (I heartily recommend it to those who like larger CM fights than I prefer). Instead of dueling brigades on a three large map frontage, I intend to focus about one step down from that on the organizational ladder, with smaller CM maps. The intention is for the forces commanded in a single battle within the campaign to stay manageable, about the company or reinforced company level.

Each operational square represents 1 mile on a side, approximately. The limits of the operational area are 5x5 squares. When units of both sides are present in the same square, a CM battle will usually occur, although night, weather, successful concealment by a force with no vehicles, or mutual avoidance may prevent this. Various aspects of the terrain will tend to channel the fighting, but potentially the forces could spread fairly thin in some cases.

When battles occur they will be fought on maps 1/2 a mile on a side. Each operational square can include right and left, front and back sectors for CM battle terms. Only one fight will occur if the forces are small enough. If the forces are larger, the battle will be divided into two fights, right and left. Units can also be left in reserve in the "back" portion of the operational square. They may be available for reinforcements during a fight, or they may limit enemy gains after a successful battle. Fights in locations with many forces present are less likely to result in one side "clearing" the whole operational square, because (for starters) both battles would have to be won to do so. While only one win is needed to clear a way through a smaller force.

The maximum force size in a single CM battle, on one 800x800 meter map, will generally be around 1500 points per side. Larger task forces must attack side by side, or in sequence, or both. Just bunching everyone up on one board will not be allowed. Thus, if you only attack on one avenue on the operational map, you will not be able to "get odds" at all, on any force of at least 3000 pts in one operational square. And even successful attackers may be delayed by still smaller forces. These "force to space" considerations are meant to keep the size of forces on one map managable, and prevent the whole campaign from descending into one giant smash-up between the entire forces on each side.

Rather than generating and keeping 100 maps, the terrain for each fight will be different, though the type will be appropriate for the operational terrain. Operational terrain types are Village, Open, Wooded, and Hill, with roads able to mix with any of them and automatically present for village terrain. There is also a stream and ravine barrier between some locations, which will benefit the defending / non-moving side. I will do some tweaking of the maps, but the basic procedure will be to "auto-generate" a map with the required general terrain and make a minimum of changes to it.

Ranged fire between operational squares is possible, but is handled abstractly. Units may fire into adjacent squares if certain conditions are met, which will halt or slow movement and may inflict minor losses in addition. Generally a location can receives fire from a neighboring location if its terrain type is open, open road, or in the case of moving units only, open hill terrain. Wooded and village locations can only receive ranged fire from an adjacent "hill" location, and only if the targeted units are moving.

Only road and village terrain allow movement by vehicles, and vehicles can only cross the ravine barrier at two "bridging" areas. There are also infantry only fording areas, while some others are impassible to any unit type. Wooded road locations exist, and vehicles may fight along them. However, an attacker with vehicles is limited to one map sector (800 yards), and his force may only contain ~750 points of vehicles. The balance of the 1500 allowance may be infantry forces.

Ranged fire can halt infantry easily, and light armor will usually be stopped if the enemy have any AT weapons to speak of, able to bear. Heavier armor will require a few AT guns able to penetrate the side armor of the moving tanks, and can be attempted even if these are present, but at risk of loss as well as failure. The other types basically "pin". A unit stopped by ranged fire can always move to attack the shooting location the following operational turn. Attempting to "bypass" a location, instead of attacking it, can draw another ranged fire attempt. Basically there are "zones of control" at the operational scale. Some AT weapons will be particularly effective in ranged fire.

It is also possible to deliver "artillery attacks" on the operational scale. These are targeted at an entire operational square. Effectiveness will depend on the amount of observation and recent intel about the target location, the type and amount of firepower used (anything considered "artillery" in CM purchase terms can help), target terrain type, whether the target is moving when the attack occurs, and the target density in CM points. Medium armor will generally suffer little, but may lose the ability to move temporarily. Dug in infantry will likewise suffer little. But exposed, recently moved infantry, guns, or soft-skinned vehicles (including halftracks) may take losses.

Each side may receive replacements in a steady trickle. These represent units rotating forward from reserve or maintenance, field replacement battalions, stragglers returning, very lightly wounded men, recrewed weapons, and recovered vehicles. In addition, defending units will receive allowances of fortification points, which are renewable. Artillery ammo will be resupplied to both sides, but not at the same rates for each type. Half-dead units will be reorganized for the next fight as I see fit.

Commanders may "task" their subunits, but must show some regard for existing command structures. A few cross attachments are to be expected, but players will not be able to say where each CM unit goes. The basic unit of "tasking" will be the platoon, occasionally a half-platoon section in the case of some vehicles. Some types will have alternate deployments to choose from, e.g. 81mm FO or on map. Some units will only be available in defensive actions, not in meeting engagements or attacks, for reasons of doctrine or practicality.

Cut off units, units in locations with poor supply routes, or large numbers of vehicles moving rapidly or over narrow roads, may encounter additional supply problems, which may limit ammo available for CM fights, operational movement, or readiness of vehicles. Sometimes a few vehicles will not be available for a given fight, without being out of action in a larger sense. These represent temporary maintenance work, minor breakdowns, etc. Commanders will have no control over the form of resupply they receive (e.g. what kind of artillery shells), but can improve the overall volume by minimal expenditure and not using transport assets for operational moves.

Both sides will have some additional forms of operational intel, beyond the use of their assigned units. Reports will arrive randomly and with uncertain levels of accuracy. Requests can be made in advance for more intel about specific locations or enemy units, but whether they arrive, in a timely manner, or prove accurate - will vary from case to case.

There is no fixed time limit. Neither side is fully aware of the other's strength or mission, nor does either side know how much the other knows about either. The intel each does possess is restricted to the briefing for that side. Operational turns need not represent fixed amounts of time either; the pace of the battle may change. In general there will be a few moves per day, but whether there are battles and if so how many, will depend on the interaction of player decisions.

All player orders should be given in plain language. Just tell me who is tasked with who, which resulting force is going where, why, seeking or avoiding combat, and any other special things you want them to do. I will interprete your orders reasonably. Ideally, I'd like to see teams of several players commanding each side. This would help speed resolution of parallel battles, keep the commanded forces small, and allow some of the friction and challenge involved in coordination of efforts. I'd prefer the fights themselves be resolved TCP/IP without turn time limits imposed, to resolve them fast but give players a chance to think out their moves. But I will have to see what sort of response I get first.

As for the setting, I will not give things away. But the sides are US Armor division forces attacking, vs. German Heer defenders, in the fall of 1944. The situation is not meant to be perfectly balanced, but interesting, and to involve some realistic challenges for both sides.

Those interested in taking part should send be an email with "CM campaign" in the subject field, and including your email address written out in the body of the message. Don't just expect me to get it off the header; it needs to go into various lists, etc. Tell me what side you would be interested in playing, and whether your primary interest is in operational command or tactical fighting out of the battles themselves, whether you prefer to command infantry, or armor, and any other preferences or suggestions you may have.

The forces involved are already fixed, as is the map, so don't bother making suggestions about those. They aren't discussed in this note simply in order to preserve the "double blind" nature of the contest.

[Wreck]

Sounds interesting. Needs a bump.

I assume you saw the discussion leading up to ScoutPL's campaign. In it I posted the following as an idea to allow a lot of people to play the campaign together:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>

Here is one way you might do CMMC-lite while involving as many players as you like. The operational campaign, as you describe it, is used to generate specific battles. Those battles are then played simultaneously by as many pairs of players as you have signed up. After the battle, the referee would then pick one of the outcomes (or maybe an average) to determine the "official" outcome to be used at the operational level.

Players would all be playing the exact same battle simultaneously, and would therefore have a lot to discuss afterwards. You could score them based on how they did relative to the others on their side.

Regarding the choice of outcomes, you would have to use a fair process of some sort if part of the interest of the game was the duel between operational commands. If not, then you pick outcomes arbitrarily. I think the most interesting way to run it, would be to have two teams (German and Allied), and a fair outcome determination process. A good one would be, to have all the players report the numerical scores for a battle, then take the median score as the official outcome.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[JasonC]

That would certainly help tons of people fight in the same campaign. But my problem is rather different - nobody expressing the interest to sign up LOL. I could find uses for half a dozen players, commanding the most important bits of each side's OOB. I'm half a dozen shy of filling that quota.

Do potential players want more info before committing? I could easily provide some, but I have avoided it to keep as much of the fight as possible double-blind. After all, the real commanders did not know exactly what might be up against them, to cross off each loss and know exactly what remained.

Maybe it is just slow because it was a holiday weekend or something...

[Wreck]

By the way, I just tried to mail you via the mail icon in the thread, and this does not work. I suspect this means you have "Keep your email address viewable to others

when you post notes?" off in your profile.

[ryddle]

Sounds interesting, but I would need a bit more information before I could commit. If this is a discussion better taken off-line, please drop me a note at

reade@ryddle.com

Thanks!

-R

[Wreck]

I think once people can email you, you will get some responses. You might also try asking proselytizing those who signed up for WineCape's latest.

Of course I am assuming you like the idea of going with an idea like mine above, to involve many people. This has several advantage, IMO, not the least of which is simplicity -- for some of the players. A team's operational level management may be done by only one person, a small group, or the whole team; but whatever is done, these people have to understand at least some of the rules for the operation level.

I think you will find a lot of people willing to sign up for the tactical level, in part because it is competitive. Some will be interested in operational level, some not, and probably most not sure (because of the need to understand rules); but in any case you need only a min of 2 people for the op level... and since I volunteer, really only one more. But it seems a shame to me to put in a lot of work genning maps and resolving operational stuff, without sharing the results as widely as possible.

[Jarmo]

Interested in paticipating, but unable to email for reasons already mentioned.

I'm really ready for any job, axis, allies, tactical, operational. All sounds exiting..

[Wreck]

Assume the Germans have 2000 points in an op square, and the Americans attack with 2500, what happens?

It seems reasonable that German should have predesignated which forces are in which sectors. If not, then is his force split 50/50 between right and left? 40/40/20 right/left/back? What about the American? Does he also designate forces, or just get 1250 per attack?

Now assume the same excepting that the American attacks with just 1500, not 2500. Does it split between the right and left? If so, can the American split off a minimal amount and retreat it? If not, then does the 1500 meet only 1000 in one sector, or does the German get to reorganize so as to meet it with the full 1500 he is capable of?

[JasonC]

Good. That makes a certain sense. I unblocked my addie, and for anyone who needs it the magic formula is -

jasoncawley@ameritech.net

I used to have it as my screen name, but it was so long people hated it. Now people can't find it LOL. Darned if you do...

[JasonC]

On large task forces in single op squares, anyone putting more than ~1500 pts worth in a square can specify a portion deployed up and a portion held back. Moving units that large have to specify a march order. If the engaged portion on either side goes above much above ~1500, the fight will be divided into left and right. That will not be up to the player, and the fights may not be even.

Sub units at the operational scale will generally be 500-750 points worth, with some 100-375 point suppliments or support groups, which will be "tied" to a given maneuver sub-unit at any given time, but able to switch off between them otherwise (e.g. an artillery FO, or platoon of transporting vehicles, or towed gun battery). Tank platoons and infantry companies are the basic maneuver units, in other words. These are effectively the "units" you will "stack".

When task forces need to be divided, they will be split "naturally" based on those maneuver units, preserving some combined arms, generally in the ratio present in the overall task force. If you have two tank platoons and two infantry companies, they will divide one each, not all armor and all infantry, e.g.

If you want particular groups to work with each other tactically, you can say so, in addition to just putting them in the same square. But the forces on each side in tactical fights above the "stacking limit" will not be bound strictly by your intentions, and will not always be exactly half the forces, etc.

I will look to the "lumpiness" actually present and at both sides of the hill, and make a natural division of the opposing forces. Which might represent a main fight and a smaller action on one flank, or two full scale clashes, etc.

If you think about the forces and orders realistically you should not have any problems. If instead you want to see how to game the rules to get a local edge merely by packing the forces this way rather than that, might as well forget it now. There won't be any. If you get a local mismatch - which you very well might - it will be because you got lucky, not because you were clever.

So Wreck, do you want an operational command or a tactical one? Incidentally, I don't see anything wrong with the overall operational commander -also- having one tactical command, if that is someone's preference. I know some might not be interested at all, without a chance to play CM games in the course of the campaign.

[Wreck]

I am happy to do whatever is needed, operational or tactical. Also I can help bulletproof rules, though it seems that you are going to attempt to prevent rule lawyering by refereeing. This is all to the good outside of the demand on your time.

I would prefer both command levels, of course, but that depends on how you run it.

BTW I sent mail so your program can automagically do whatever it is you bade it do.

[JasonC]

Well, I've got three players lined up so far, which is enough to make it happen - barely. But I'd like several more, so I will hold off assigning positions and see if we can't get some additional subcommanders lined up.

[Dirtweasle]

I'd be interested at either level, though I will be away from Thursday night through Sunday night this week. Use lkerry3@qwest.net to send the details, etc..

BTW - I sent ScoutPL a note about joining his and have heard nothing back. Maybe it never took off.

[Iron Duke]

Sounds great...just shot you an email Jason.

Hope to hear from you soon.

[YECoyote]

Me too. Hope I'm not too late.

I like your idea of Reinforced Company size conflict better than regimental size from Scout.

[JasonC]

We are doing better now, up to six people. That is getting to be enough to do it right, but I could take two to five more.

Please be sure to send me your email addie in the -body- of a note, typed out. Not a link, not on the header. Also, please include a brief statement of preferences for US or German, operational command responsibilities or strictly tactical, and infantry-heavy or armor-heavy forces. If you have no preferences you can tell me that, but it would still help if you answered as best you could.

[JasonC]

I thought I'd let people know that there is still room for players here, but because I want to get underway the window of opportunity to join this one will close in the next day or so. We have six players, which will be enough to make it work. There is work for several more, and on present evidence the clock is likely to run out before the slots do. But if anyone wants in, I will need to hear from you by tomorrow.

Actual time commitment for games will not be so immediate, if that is an issue for anyone. There will be a period of briefings and organizational stuff, and the first operational moves, before the first actual fights. I'd like to see the first fights actually sent out to the appropriate players by the end of this week, since I realize weekends are often easier for TCP/IP games. We will see.

In other words, "Going..."

[Wreck]

It seems to me that if we allow multiple commander pairs per battle (taking the median result, or rolling a die, or some such, to determine the "official" operational result), then we don't need to stop accepting people. We can take on new pairs as we go. All we need at this point is to get the operational leadership in place. (And even that might be changed as we go; all we really need now is the commitment if needed to go the distance from the operational guys.)

I suspect that if we generate AARs and post them here, and the battles seem interesting, we will get new people to join as we go. And in fact I have every intent to produce at least some AARs and I hope the other folks do to. One of the things I am really hoping to see generated "naturally" from this tourney is defensive holding actions, i.e., you have a platoon and a 57 mm gun, some bazookas, and 100 points of mines... and a company with tanks attacks.

[JasonC]

OK, the briefings are away, to the two main operational commanders that is. Jarmo has the Americans and Leonard Dickens has the main German command. We've got enough sub-commanders to make a real go of it. May the lucky guys win.

If anybody hasn't given me their email addie yet - in a note sent to me, in the body of the note, typed out - please hop to it, or miss the bus.

[benpark]

...just sent you an email. It sounds good to me if there are any seats left.

[JasonC]

OK, we are overloaded by now. Full up for the regular players. Thanks to everyone for the interest; I hope the event repays the effort. And I will try to keep the board appraised about our progress.

[Iron Duke]

Jason,

how are you going to deal with players if real life issues come up and they cannot finish their battles in due time?

Or have to drop out? Will you allow in "fresh" replacements?

Are there going to be "Due Dates" inorder to keep the momentum of the tourney moving forward?

At the end of the battle...will the victourious side get to "see" the map and its remaining units? Will the losing side get to see the end map?

What happens to the losing sides' remaining troops? Are they all captured or can the losing side get a chance to escape or withdrawl some of his remaining force?

One last item...will tactical commanders be allowed to communicate with other tac com's?

Thanks Jason...you have a lot of work ahead of you.

[JasonC]

I already have two alternates in the wings in case people have to drop for real life reasons, one for each side. Since I have already gotten bounced email from at least two addies given to me, I may well need them.

Withdrawl is fine but the losing side will have to actually do it, or be alive on the map. If global morale gets too low and some surrender, so be it. Broken men that get overrun do not live to fight another day.

There isn't any realistic way to prevent looking at the map at the end, and it will be necessary for the players to confirm their own final losses. The level of intel players get from it may be too high, but the situation will then change and make some of it stale, so I consider that livable.

As for timely completion of scenarios, that is the whole idea behind using TCP/IP to resolve the fights. One sitting, just do it. If we had to wait weeks to find out each earlier result the campaign would not move.

TCP/IP fight resolution and rapid slapping together of the scenarios - the first by the tactical commanders and the second by me - are the necessary conditions for this to work.

If the players only get through 12 or 15 turns and have to stop, then what has happened up until then will just have to be the end result. C'est la guerre, and nothing says there can't be another battle there soon afterward, if the overall flow warrants it.

Some of the workload managing the communications side will fall to the rival commanders and their seconds. These are meant to give me a "command span" of only a handful of people to deal with, each of whom in turn only has to deal with a handful on their side.

I've already received good input from leading players - providing a more understandable map that accurately reflected my crude one, asking relevant questions, organizing their forces, scheming - LOL. I have even made the first map, of a location I think likely to see an early battle.

It will get off the ground. Whether it achieves orbit or rolls over and burns, remains to be seen.

[JasonC]

Well, we are now underway. All the briefing details have been worked out, the operational commanders have tasked and deployed their units, and the first operational moves have been decided. The first tactical scenario is in the oven; needs only a couple of tweaks based on some local commander options. The map for it is made, etc.

One administrative matter, though. Chris Campos, if you read this, my mail to you is bouncing. Please contact me and/or your commander Leonard Dickens, or leave a note here about an alternative way to reach you. The addie that isn't working is -

battlewarmechbot@crosswinds.net

[JasonC]

First scenario file is away to its tactical commanders...