Ok, this tournament thingy sounds pretty cool so here it goes...

[ScoutPL]

If there is enough interest expressed I think I will head up a tournament of my own.

As you all would expect from ScoutPL this tournament will be historically based but with a twist on the usual. I propose setting up a campaign scenario in which the two players command a regimental armor/infantry task force. The scenario area will be roughly 20 x 10 km. The map (probably a .bmp map, not a CM one) will be divided into thirds. At the start, the western third will be controlled by the allied player, the eastern by the german player. The middle third is no mans land. Once the campaign starts the two players send me their orders and task organizations. The players decide if they will defend or attack, probe or assault. The starting forces will be the same for all players and reinforcements and reserves are set. How you manage your forces for the long haul will go a long way toward your overall success. I compare the briefs and decide when and where a battle will take place.

Most of you have probably played Close Combat 4:Battle of the Bulge. This concept is much like the strategic level of that game, only you have total control of the make up the forces entering or defending each sector. The game will last 48 hours with 12 hour turns. With up to three battalion sized task forces a piece, the players could fight up to 12 battles. The player with the most combined points at the end of the 48 hours wins. The one with the highest total of all players, wins the tournament.

I will expect historical play with sound tactics and techniques. A list of allowable rules would have to be agreed upon by all players to ensure fairness.

I think there is a lot of promise behind this idea. I think I would enjoy discussing how the winners maneuvered their battalions and how they won the close in fights after the tourney is over, just as much as I will enjoy designing the scenarios.

There is also the potential of team play (1 regimental/battalion commander and two battalion commanders per side).

Please let me have it with both barrels. I know alot of you are involved in CMMC and I think we could get a lot out of a similar gaming experience that was on a much smaller scale and significantly streamlined. So tell me what you think.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I must start by being honest and saying I will not have time to take part. However, it does sound like an attractive idea and concept.

I do take part in CMMC as a divisional artillery officer, and it is very good fun, but I have no more time to spare. What all this does show is the hunger for an “operational”/campaign layer in CMII. I am so old that I go back to the original peak in wargaming interest in the latter half of the seventies. The two scales I enjoyed most were Squad Leader and then battalion level, one hex to a square mile/kilometre, operational games. We now have SL in the form of the stunningly realistic CMBO, which will only get better with CMBB.

However, for the new engine in CMII my wish list would be headed up by live team play, this would deal with “relative spotting” and such, and secondly a quality operational layer. It has always been my wish to play an operational game and then “zoom down” to fight a particularly important engagement at SL/CM scale.

Your project sounds like fun, good luck, but I do not have the time to take part.

All the best,

Kip.

[Holien]

Scout I would take part in the game.

Not sure about the rules, but I guess it goes with the territory and so will abide by them.

Regards

H

[Wreck]

I think you need to clarify a bit more what you are trying to do with this idea.

In any tournament, generally it is important for all the players to play each other. Or at least that they play other players who have played each other (as in, say, a single elimination tourney).

As you propose it, it sounds like it is really a two player setup (or 6, using teams of 3/side). I suppose it is a tourney of sorts if you run a set of these in parallel. But since they don't play each other, the winner is not necessarily the strongest player. Instead the winner will be the player with the greatest difference between his skill and his opponent's. Note also that the snowball effect may well kick in and emphasize such differences.

I don't have any real good ideas about how you might change the setup to make sure everyone plays everyone else. It is something to think on, though.

[Wreck]

One of the things you seem to be getting at with this thing is not so much a tournament but just meta-CM. As you say, a sort of CMMC lite. I think this is also a good idea worth exploring. It does not have to be a "tournament".

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.

[Edit: well I guess I worked out a way to make it a tournament after all.]

[ 08-20-2001: Message edited by: Wreck ]

[Panzer Leader]

I'd buy that for a dollar!

[ScoutPL]

Maybe tournament is a bad word to use but I really didnt know what else to call it. Maybe more like a competition at first, then if the idea catches on we can switch players around. I'll start getting the stuff together and post it to my website, perhaps a few of you would be interested.

The main thing I wanted to do was use CM to fill out the battles in an operational campaign, without all the miles of red tape that in my opinion drags CMMC way down. I left that game months ago and from what I understand now, the brigade I was commanding has yet to leave their assembly areas. Fun, fun!

But its obviously enjoyed by those who are involved. I'm just wanting to start up something faster playing. I'll let you guys know when I'm further along in my preparations.

[Iron Duke]

ScoutPL...whew! That sound's like a hell of a lot of work. I know...I've run 2 tourney's up to this point and boy oh boy...the hardest thing you will encounter is getting the players to really commit and keep any dates/time lines that you have. Trust me...they won't.

Anyway,

good luck to you, it sound's like a cool idea...sort of a small meta campaign.

[Iron Duke]

P.S.

Let me know if you need any help...I was a GM in the CPX and I too share your feeling's that there is entirely too much red tape in the CMMC. That's why I did not continue with GMing in it.

Late.

[Dirtweasle]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> I know alot of you are involved in CMMC and I think we could get a lot out of a similar gaming experience that was on a much smaller scale and significantly streamlined. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would be interested. BTW - Enjoyed the Tacics scenarios/course you did, and appreciate the time you took with the whole thing. I am also a bit, ummm... unsatisifed with the pace of CMMC, and would like to participate in your proposed campaign/challenge.

[Panzer Leader]

I love the idea ScoutPL. From your defense articles I bet you'd make some great campaigns! I would love a campaign for CM, however the CMMC or whatever it is is so small that very few people get to play in it. I don't know how many, but for the past year they've never recruited as far as I can tell.

I also like your idea of the average results of numerouos battles being the gauge for the success and the next battle. A very simple and elegant way of letting multiple people continue on the same track. Keep us informed!

[L.Tankersley]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Panzer Leader:

I would love a campaign for CM, however the CMMC or whatever it is is so small that very few people get to play in it. I don't know how many, but for the past year they've never recruited as far as I can tell.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you're interested in playing in CMMC, email James Bailey at JBailey@ResoluteCapital.com. There are openings. There are probably 150+ people involved in one capacity or another.

As ScoutPL says, though, it is _not_ a fast-moving campaign, and is not for everyone. It's a bit like real war: weeks of boredom punctuated by hours of frenzied activity, with a lot of time and attention paid to things outside the scope of the Combat Mission simulation. If you're not in it for the long haul, or are just interested in playing a bunch of loosely connected CM battles, don't bother. Many players won't have much to do for weeks or months because their units are not in contact with the enemy. Other players, however, may get more than enough combat to suit them.