Campaign Feature

[OBJ]

Whoa, easy boys, just wanted some feedback on the idea of a campaign that follows the player’s choice of a historical division (allied or axis) and that division's historical war experience. Campaign forces would be reinforced company to demi-battalion in size, and made up of unit types available to the division. A series of operations would be designed to reflect the division's progress through the war. Attachments and reinforcements during operations would reflect the division's historical experience. Replacements would reflect the division’s historical experience. Campaign forces would advance in unit experience levels based on performance. New equipment and unit organizations would become available as they were historically fielded to the division.

How many folks think this or something similar would be a feature worth clamoring for in CMX2? even if BFC has been adverse to the idea of a campaign feature in the past?

[OBJ]

Not many apparently. Where's the 'campaign community?'

[Schoerner]

Not many? :eek:

I think Biltong's Campaign Rules Threads show the opposite.

Maybe you want to contribute your ideas to this recently started thread about this topic?

http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=23;t=006773

[OBJ]

Thanks Schoerner.

Actually I was hoping to reinforce the issue by adding a new thread and expand the discussion about types of campaigns and campaign features.

Oh well.

I read and contributed to the other thread.

[Snowbart]

Wo, please don't assume we don't want a campaign!! I just somehow missed this thread, as I'm in my 4th game in Biltong's Campaign rules, and finally caught it on page 3 of the forum. BTW, BCR is awesome. I have bombarded Biltong and Seahawk over there w/ questions, and they have made this a totally new experience for CMBB. Just messing around, playing random battles where nothing you gained/lost in that battle matters after its over, well to be honest, kinda gets boring after a while, even for an excellent game like this. Makes it a little one-dimesional.

Biltong's makes it so much more interesting and strategic, since you are trying to carry your men through the whole war, not just the present battle. I really think it would be an excellent idea to have a campaign in CMAK. Would give the game so much more added depth.

I believe people just missed this post somehow, but I believe LOTS of players want a campaign feature.

[OBJ]

Thanks Snowbart-

Judging from the downloads of BCR there are at least 500 of us. No telling how many others might appreciate the feature if it were programmed as part of the CMX2 package. I do wonder what everyone's best ideas are for a realistic AND fun campaign.

I agree BCR is great and getting even better. I'm on my 13th battle in a '41 campaign, and just added the armor and vehicle transport from '42 rules to my core force.

I think the people that like campaigns are 'builders.' They like the challenge of overcoming adverse conditions while developing an organization to it's peak potential. This last is a rub with the 'realists'. Not every German panzer grenadier company ended the war at full strength, elite in their combat capability, with matching supporting Tiger II and Jagdpanther platoons. If fact, I think the companies in even the 'elite' German formations ended the war in pretty sad shape, the 'regular' formations were even worse off.

[Snowbart]

Yes OBJ,

The standard German practice of sending green replacements to fill in gaps in veteran units insured that as the war grew on, there were less "old hares" around.

Hopefully there will be some sort of campaign feature in CMAK, or the one after that if not. Have you been using this Biltaid java program for BCR? I see lots of posts about people not able to get it to work, and i personally enjoy breaking out the die to roll up a battle, so i havent used it. But it does take me hours to get everything ready....closing a battle, adding up experience, replacements, importing the right map in, giving specific names to my units, etc. I'm only on my 4th battle, so i hope i dont get burnt out!

[OBJ]

Snowbart-

I also hope there's a campaign feature in CMX2. I'm not holding out much hope it'll be in CMAK.

I'm definitely a BCR player. I use excel and a tool another BCR fan developed, 'Biltong_ Parameters_41South,' which greatly speeds up set up and after-battle assessment. I'd recommend it highly if you have excel.

What are your thoughts on a campaign feature that matches the 'realism' BTS has built into the 'battle simulation?'

One of the things that seems pretty far from reality is the Task Force or auxiliary forces approach. Your company might get paired with armor or other infantry units in a series of operations, but it wouldn't be in the second rank every battle.

It seems to me one way around this is to give the player a reinforced Battalion and have him play each battle with different parts of the same battalion, with a much smaller number of 'auxiliary units.' That way every battle the majority of units would be the players, he/she wouldn't have the option of letting some poor old auxiliary unit he/she will never see again, soak up all the casualties, committing his/her 'core force' to reap all the experience points. I think APACHE already does this with an SS Panzer Grenadier Bn. I might try it myself.

The question is how do you ‘realistically/historically’ allow the player to sample a wide range of units?

Any ideas?

[A.E.B]

OBJ

I think the answer to the unit variety question is to treat the player's forces in a campaign as being an ad-hoc Battlegroup or Kampfgruppen.

The Germans at least had a flexible system of combining disparate elements into Kampfgruppen. If you want a good book that details such Kampfgruppen, get a copy of Arms & Armour BATTLEGROUP! by James Lucas.

Most people tend to agree that it is more realistic to have an Officer whose command spans the entire war than a individual unit. By using Kampfgruppen or Battlegroups, such an officer could have a small core unit (say a company) and then add supporting units for a series of battles or an operation.

IMHO, the supporting units should stay part of the Battlegroup for a period covering several engagements because (a) it is historical, and ( it stops the sacrifice the support to preserve the core problem which is "Gamey".

It would be a stretch to extend the Battlegroup concept to the allies, but given the obvious desire for a campaign, I think most people would still play one (BCR demonstrates that in CMBB at least people want to play a GERMAN campaign).

Regards

A.E.B

[Biltong]

Originally posted by A.E.B:

...

IMHO, the supporting units should stay part of the Battlegroup for a period covering several engagements because (a) it is historical, and ( it stops the sacrifice the support to preserve the core problem which is "Gamey".

It would be a stretch to extend the Battlegroup concept to the allies, but given the obvious desire for a campaign, I think most people would still play one (BCR demonstrates that in CMBB at least people want to play a GERMAN campaign).

Regards

A.E.B

This thread is becoming interesting

A.E.B. I like your idea, except for one problem: It will increase the red tape factor. You'll have to keep track of the individual Task Force units.

For instance: Does Task Force Units ncrease in experience? - If not, they will still be used as cannon fodder. If yes - you'll have to go through all the experience/favor? calculations.. a lot of red tape. I also suspect that programs like Biltaid will find it difficult to handle all the potential variations.

But, it should be quite easy to impliment manually and some of you might want to do so.

But let's stay general - i.e. not BCR specific.

What would one like from a campaign if BFC were to bring one out?

I was thinking about CMAK. I would like to bring out a BCR version and my first thought was to take it from the Axis side again. Main reason being that it's easier to take the losing side, since the battles get progressively more difficult and you can keep the player interest. But, won't most players want to play the Allies?

So, more specific: What would you like from a BCR or BFC CMAK campaign?

Biltong

[OBJ]

A.E.B.-

I like your idea. At least the support units wouldn't be sacrificed until the 'last' battle with them. If there were a way to interject uncertainty as to whether any battle were the support unit's last, then the player might never 'throw them away.'

I also think the multiple battles with the same support units makes the series of battles closer to an operation, which IMHO comes closer to replicating the stop start nature of 'real' battles.

Biltong-

I'm combining two ideas here, the idea of a series of battles like a CM operation, and APACHE’s idea of the support units coming generally from the same 'pool.'

In this case one thought is to generate a formula with some random elements that assigns changed experience to the units in the support 'pool' that aren't directly engaged in the player's current series of battles/operation. This could be tied to the results of the player's battles/operation assuming the player's outcome reflects a larger whole and that other units engaged in the same larger battle experience the same general result the player's units do, from total victory to total defeat. Core force and support ‘pool’ unit experience updates wouldn't be calculated until after the operation was complete.

I think the increased data tracking requirements A.E.B's idea suggests, or the tracking of experience for units in a support ‘pool’, inevitably lead toward a programmed solution, either Seahawk's biltaid, something like it, or code in the CM program itself. Of course the latter is what I want anyway, so I may be somewhat prejudiced!

Regarding allied campaigns in CMAK, I think it will be very challenging to take the green American troops that land in Morocco and Algiers to a successful conclusion in Tunis in May '43. The same can be said for the Brits in '41 after they send off their best units to Greece having beaten the Italians at Beda Fomm, just as Rommel and the AK show up.

IMHO, there's a lot of campaign 'drama' to be had in N Africa.

[Snowbart]

Yes, CMAK is gonna be some great new meat to chew on!

I agree with Biltong that keeping track of your Task Force would really make the red tape factor go through the roof. It already takes me a whole night to end a battle and get ready for the next one.

Possible suggestion for BCR CMAK:

Attached Arty for your BG?

On a lighter note, on to Battle 5 in BCR....2 total vic's and 2 minor vic's.

Another possible suggestion concerning experience. You start BCR right on the border of being Green. What if you gave it a little buffer room, say start out with 15 exp instead of 10. It is possible to have your starting squad have one man KIA and not get any kills and they are dropped to green at start of your campaign, which i dont think is exactly historically accurate. I believe the soldiers in Barbarossa should be a little closer towards Veteran than Green.

[OBJ]

Snowbart-

I like your idea of starting with an experience 'buffer.' I also agree the German Army of Jun '41 was probably a lot closer to veteran than green.

[OBJ]

What if there were a 'favor' penalty if the TF casualties 'greatly' exceed the core force casualties? This way the campaign retains the admittedly unrealistic but seriously fun use of the complete variety of units in CM, but discourages the player from using the TF units to take all the casualties.

The effects might require a penalty more severe than just a low favor award. Possibly the player would be threatened with no support at all in the next battle, in which case all the casualties would come from core force units.

Just trying to keep the ideas rolling.

[Snowbart]

OBJ-

Good ideas....it does seem like this is in effect aleady somewhat. You lose(or do not gain as much) favor by losing vehicles, armor, mortars, guns, that are in your TF. I guess what you're saying is Infantry though, and you're right...TF Infantry can almost be thrown away. But then again it too relates to favor, as the victory calculations are influenced by each sides total casualties, and this in turn determines what size victory/defeat/draw.....and that determines what "Result Favor" you get. I guess I'm just saying that your TF casualties do indirectly influence the favor you will recieve.