ROQC is back much improved - testers wanted

[Robert Olesen]

RobO's Quick Campaign (ROQC) is out in version 0.96

Get it here.

I'm very happy with the state of the campaign, but it needs to be proven in real combat, so I'm looking for people who would like to give it a spin for a few games. And I'm sure it is good for some fun and interesting gaming even if you don't want to provide feedback.

I'm esp. looking for feedback on how well the concept works, how the experience progress is, how much Favor you're able to accumulate and spend and balancing issues in geberal.

There's no real need to sign up for testing, but I'd still appreciate an email at robo_at_tele2adsl.dk so that I know what to expect.

There are many differences to previous versions, but the most important is the introduction of operational orders, designed to lift each battle from yet another quick battle to something more interesting and challenging.

Here's the rundown of what it's all about:

In ROQC you play the role of a commander who leads a Core Force through the east front campaign. You can go through it all from Operation Barbarossa to May 1945, or you can play a shorter campaign by starting later and/or finishing earlier. You can play as German or Soviet in this version, in the southern region.

There should be on average one battle per month, amounting to ca. 50 battles to complete the full campaign. This rate of battles is obviously not realistic, but it is a design decision to allow you to proceed fairly quickly and try out different campaign forces. The battle parameters are determined randomly and you use the editor and quick battle generator to set up the game. Don't despair - it's all explained in detail in the rules.

The aim of each battle is not just to win, you also need to satisfy the operational orders given by your superior commander. Succes in this regard earns you Favor points, which you can use to alter conditions in your favor and/or upgrade your equipment. Your men will also gain experience along the way, and you'll get replacements (usually inexperienced) for the men you lose.

ROQC aims at providing an entertaining and educational experience (in that order) while being as simple to use as possible.

And for the historically inclined, here's a link to the previous thread

[ September 05, 2003, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

[atiff]

Hi Rob,

Just read through everything. Nice rules, I like them a lot. I've been playing BCR for a while, and I like the way your rules will zoom through the years (comparatively speaking) so that you don't get bogged down. I will definitely give these a crack ove the next few weeks (can only really play CM in weekends).

[Robert Olesen]

Great, atiff.

I played BCR myself. It's a great campaign, but a lot of work and a lot of detail. I wanted something simpler, so set out to do it.

[Hensworth]

I had a quick peek. Looks interesting.

I only really got hooked on BCR when BiltAid was introduced, relieving me of the need to steal paper at work to print all those endless sheets .

But since you say these rules are much simpler, I'll give it a go.

I like the addition of the operational aspect. If this could be somehow combined with the feeling of relentless exertion you get from BCR, it would come very close to single player campaign heaven.

[Major Jerkov]

Sweet.

This looks like what I've been after.

A simplified campaign with step by step instructions, and since I'm unfamiliar with how it works, makes it much easier to get into it.

I'll give you more feedback when I read all the rules and have a basic idea of what I'm doing, and play a couple battles.

I've got some reading to do!

[Robert Olesen]

Good to get some feedback

I deliberately spent a good deal of effort to make the rules easy to use.

On the relentless exertion aspect: It doesn't go all that well with the monthly wait between turns. One would expect such a unit to often fight more battles than one per month.

I originally had rules for replacement of men and equipment, but they complicate things a lot. I might add them again, though, as they do force you to make some choices.

And on automated support like BiltAid - I have neither the time nor the required programming skills to make such a tool. It is a lot of work.

[ August 03, 2003, 03:36 AM: Message edited by: Robert Olesen ]

[Robert Olesen]

I just found a few glitches in the Battle Sheet - a few fields that contained data from the example but should have been blank.

Get an update of the tables from the ROQC download site

[atiff]

Hi Rob,

Well, just finished playing the first battle of a "David vs Goliath" campaign (see results below). Man, let me tell you, those spreadsheets are a dream to use, well done!!

One question, though:

Section 6.1 Date of the Next Battle

"The delay to the next battle is dependent on the strength of your unit – counted as the percentage of men left compared to the full complement. This percentage is used as a strength modifier in the following table."

There are no modifers for % strength. IS this something which got missed in translation from earlier versions?

Anyway, the saga begins as follows: (long)

My brave lads jumped into their Pz III F's for the push across the frontier. With them were a company of attached infantry fresh from training (Green) and a few support weapons (900 point battle overall). The mission (Exploit) was to smash a hole for a SS unit of tanks and halftrack infantry to get in behind the enemy.

Things started to turn bad when rain started falling during the approach march. This would make things more difficult. Fortunately, the SS commander had given the boys almost an hour to get through (50+ turns). As it turned out, we needed all the time we could get.

The terrain was not great panzer country, quite hilly and the ground had been torn up by the opening barrage here. We knew the Soviets were out there somewhere, probably hiding in the shell-holes. There was a steep wooded hill on the left flank with a small gap through the trees, which provided good cover for the SS unit to swing around and not get shot in the flank by any hidden guns. The rest of the battlefield looked rather uninviting; too open for our tastes. Thus the plan was to capture this hill, get the SS away and ignore the rest of the battlefield.

The attached infantry was sent forward to scout the route and initiate contact. After about 10 minutes, enemy small arms fire was encountered, which made the infantry nervous. Slowly they inched their way forward, encountering more resistance from MGs and rifles. A large-calibre AT gun opened up from the objective hill, but was quickly neutralised by our attached medium mortars and two 75mm leIG.

The infantry began to get behind schedule, but the plan still had to go ahead, so one of the Pz III was sent forward at some pace to draw out any more AT guns in the area. This worked, as he received two shots in the turret. Fortunately, both ricocheted. The gun was not spotted, but the approximate position was determined and the area was subjected to a 5-minute barrage by the two 75mm leIG.

Then the SS commander decided it was time to get his men on the move. Advancing on a narrow front, with the Pz III's in the lead, the armoured vehicles moved for the gap in the trees with guns blazing to suppress any remaining defenders (and that AT gun if it was still alive).

Meanwhile, the infantry were having a very hard time of it. They had secured the armour's right flank, but were pinned down and could not coordinate well enough in strength to make the last push to the hill crest. The source of their problems was Soviet infantry in company strength off towards the right (centre of map). There seemed to be little defending the target hill after an enemy MG team was captured, so they stayed put (they didn't have much of a choice, really!)

The tanks and halftracks made it up to and through the gap without great incident. One or two vehicles bogged down in the rain-soaked ground, but were freed by their own crews. The Pz III's swung right to cover the rest as they dashed away into the enemy rear areas.

At that point, the enemy launched a counterattack, led by a strong platoon of tankettes. This was target practice for the covering Pz III's and the boys acquitted themselves well, taking out four of the five enemy vehicles in short order. Some Soviet infantry infiltrated into the flank of our hard-pressed infantry, but they too did not ahve the strength or coordination to make much of a threat.

And thus the battle ended (autoceasefire, based on ammo I think). A small (57:43) victory in terms of exploits on the battlefield, but I am in the CO's good books (78 points of Favour) due to getting all the Exploiting units away successfully.

[Robert Olesen]

Originally posted by atiff:

Hi Rob,

Well, just finished playing the first battle of a "David vs Goliath" campaign (see results below). Man, let me tell you, those spreadsheets are a dream to use, well done!!

Thanks

One question, though:

Section 6.1 Date of the Next Battle

"The delay to the next battle is dependent on the strength of your unit ? counted as the percentage of men left compared to the full complement. This percentage is used as a strength modifier in the following table."

There are no modifers for % strength. IS this something which got missed in translation from earlier versions?

I'm afraid this is a leftover that should have been removed. Disregard that sentence.

And thus the battle ended (autoceasefire, based on ammo I think). A small (57:43) victory in terms of exploits on the battlefield, but I am in the CO's good books (78 points of Favour) due to getting all the Exploiting units away successfully.

Congratulations!

Exiting 4 tanks, 4 infantry units and 4 HT together with a 57% victory gives 54 Favor in my book. What's the difference?

The Autoceasefire could create problems in Exploit and Retreat battles.

Please add this paragraph to the end of section 4.5.3:

If you play an Exploit or Retreat battle and the game ends by an auto ceasefire, those forces still on the map that you are sure could have exited if the game had continued to the max number of turns, are considered to have done so, excepting immobile vehicles in an exploitation force. You?ll have to use common sense here. Basically, the units have to be close to the proper map edge with a clear run to the edge, not impeded by enemy fire that can pin or destroy the unit.

[Robert Olesen]

To atiff and others who use ROQC

If you use the spreadsheet tables: Please save them and send them to me zipped at robo_at_tele2adsl.dk

That will help me balance the campaign.

I tend to make a new page of the battle, core force and favor sheets for each battle - or you can just keep a copy of the whole file for each battle.

[atiff]

Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

Congratulations!

Exiting 4 tanks, 4 infantry units and 4 HT together with a 57% victory gives 54 Favor in my book. What's the difference?

It was the "Infantry" exploit force, with 4 tanks, 8 halftracks and 10 infantry units (HQ, 3 squads and 1 mortar* per platoon).

106 points raw favour for the Exploit force all getting off. Net 78 points of favour for the battle, IIRC.

Actually, this is not right, should be 66 net. I have found a pair of errors in the spreadsheet for you:

Cell N10 should say:

=IF(H27<>"",(N8*H27+N9*H19),"")

Cell O10 should say:

=IF(H19<>"",(O6*J13+O7*H17+O9*H19),"")

* There was no room in the halftracks for the mortars, they had to ride on the back of one of the Pz IV's.

The Autoceasefire could create problems in Exploit and Retreat battles.

I am pretty sure my game ended due to low ammo rather than low morale. I was still on about 60% morale, but almost all of my attached infantry was on LOW ammo and the Pz III's didn't have much left either (judicious use of area fire).

[Robert Olesen]

I have updated the Favor sheet with those two error corrections (thanks). Get the new xls file from the ROQC download page. There's also a small update to the Battle Sheet xls page, also thanks to atiff.

[Robert Olesen]

Another small update, this time the Core Force sheet. The field for experience of replacements (below tje column number 19) should be blank.

Get a new set of tables from the ROQC download page.

[mattman2000]

I've played a few battles with 0.9 (you were good enough to email the rules to me a while back) and so far everything has worked fine. Using the scenario editor isn't nearly as daunting once you've made your way through the first few scenarios/missions/what have you. So far, I've only tried it as the Russians, but plan on tackling the early war Wehrmacht so I can try an "exploit" based battle. Nice job

[Robert Olesen]

I have updated the rules and tables to version 0.91

Here's a summary changelog:

Rules for handling exiting units in an auto ceasefire added.

Rules for handling units that didn?t made it off the map in a retreat battle added.

Ammo and handicap modifiers changed a bit for exploit and retreat battles, to make them a bit harder and to minimize the risk of setting up a battle that starts out with an auto ceasefire.

A clarification: You cannot gain or lose more than 80 Favor in a single battle.

Several minor error corrections in the spreadsheets and rules.

There's should be no need to restart a running campaign, the changes are mainly error corrections and balancing issues.

[atiff]

My second battle completed last night.

My CO decided I did such a good job in the last Exploit (see above) that he asked me to do it again. This time I was supported by Romanians, making a hole for a pair of Pz II platoons to break through.

The map was devoid of cover except for a few wheatfields and shell-holes, but very hilly. The Soviets had dug in here, so it wasn't going to be easy. Also, I only had half an hour to complete the breakthrough. Oh, and it was raining again too.

The only good points were that the Romanians had brought a platoon of tanks with them (Toldi I's) and the important areas (flags) were all on one side of the battlefield. Thus the plan was to cross the battlefield well away from the main Soviet defenses, using the Romanians as scouts (recon by blowing up ). The Romaninan infantry supporting us were there mainly to provide eyes for spotting and to tie up and pin down the Soviet infantry. Basically, we ignored the flags and only worried about getting the Exploit force away.

The battle went as expected; Toldis advanced at speed under covering fire, and were able to locate ATGs by sacrificing themselves. In all we exchanged three Toldis for six ATG's, although we also lost a Pz III to a lucky penetration at long range. Again there wre some tankettes around, who played a little havoc with my Green infantry, but we shot up one before calling in the final smokescreen to allow the Pz IIs safe passage to the edge of the battlefield.

We got high marks (36 Exploit favour from two 5-vehicle platoons safely away) for getting the Pz IIs away, but overall the Soviets still controlled the battlefield, which the CO was not too happy about (-8 Victory favour for a 31:69 loss) but overall the mission was a success (a net 24 favour gain).

Note that with the Operational orders, you still can "win" without winning on the field. This I very much like.

Rob, this battle proves Exploits are not exactly easy (it was created under 0.90 rules)

[Robert Olesen]

Originally posted by atiff:

We got high marks (36 Exploit favour from two 5-vehicle platoons safely away) for getting the Pz IIs away, but overall the Soviets still controlled the battlefield, which the CO was not too happy about (-8 Victory favour for a 31:69 loss) but overall the mission was a success (a net 24 favour gain).

Note that with the Operational orders, you still can "win" without winning on the field. This I very much like.

Rob, this battle proves Exploits are not exactly easy (it was created under 0.90 rules)

24 favour sounds pretty good to me - and having both platoons get away cleanly. And I didn't tighten exploits very much in 0.91. Can I see your spreadsheet?

I'm a bit concerned about the realism issue here. Is it good practice to send a group of AFV's into the enemy hinterland in an area that hasn't been properly secured? But there's really no other way to simulate this concept using the QB generator, and it's good fun as you say.

[Robert Olesen]

Made a small update to the Excel file - just formula fixes so that it is easier to use. No rules changes. Get it at the ROQC download page

[atiff]

Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

24 favour sounds pretty good to me - and having both platoons get away cleanly. And I didn't tighten exploits very much in 0.91. Can I see your spreadsheet?

Will send tonight. I did this battle report from work on my lunch break (haven't actually processed the AAR for unit experience yet)

I'm a bit concerned about the realism issue here. Is it good practice to send a group of AFV's into the enemy hinterland in an area that hasn't been properly secured? But there's really no other way to simulate this concept using the QB generator, and it's good fun as you say.

I see what you mean. I think it is OK, due to the situation in both of my cases:

The first exploit battle I captured one flag of four, and had secured 3/4 of the battlefield (including 1/3 of the Soviet edge, and the Soviets had no real strength left to counterattack.

In the second, I didn't capture any flags, but taht was because there were only three, and they were all on the right-hand third of the Soviet deployment zone. Again, in this battle at the end I controlled 2/3 of the battlefield, and about 1/3 of the Soviet map edge. The reason I "lost" on Victory Points was mainly due to the fact that I managed to complete my mission (exploit) without getting heavily engaged (most of the Soviet troops were sitting around the flags, which I generally avoided). Thus the flags were worth a lot more compared to the casualties caused (those Toldi tanks were quite cheap, they were only Green).

Summary: I think it is all OK. That second battle was kind of strange due to flag placement. Had the flags been evenly spread over the battlefield I would have had to have captured one of them to complete the exploit, so the VP score would have been more like a draw, I guess.

[atiff]

Battle #3

The CO gave us a new mission today, after our month out of the line. Our Romanian allies were attacking a bombed-out village, and we were sent along to help. The Romanian assault force consisted of an infantry company and two platoons of R-2 tanks, so we had a lot of armour to smash the Soviets with.

Unfortunately, there was no over near the village - flat as a pancake, too. So it was just deploy, roll on up and start shooting at whatever appeared.

Immediately (ie, on turn 1) eight Soviet tanks and an MG bunker were spotted. A short, shapr firefight followed in which all the enemy tanks were knocked out for the loss of two R-2's KO'd and another two damaged.

No sooner had that threat been eliminated than a 76mm ATG opened up and blew out my (core force HQ) tank out from under me. As the rest of the platoon sought cover behind smoke, another was hit and also knocked out. Everyone fired madly at the gun, and eventually the crew abandoned it and were cut down trying to run away.

The bunker also succumbed to large volumes of fire, and then our remaining forces advanded and mopped up the few troops left standing (a couple of platoons of Green Soviet infantry).

All in all, a victory in terms of territory and kills (overall favour gain of 37), but at some cost. Two Panzers and two men from each of their crews is a bitter loss to swallow (experience of the vehicles suffers due to men needing to be replaced). If many more of our victories are phyrric ones like this, I fear the war will not go well for us.

Also, when I asked the CO about getting better tanks with more armour and a bigger gun, he laughed and said we hadn't earned them yet (a handful of favour points short of Pz IIIH's, damn it!), so we will have to soldier on in our "eggshells with popguns" into September.

[Robert Olesen]

A couple of corrections:

The 0.91 spreadsheet had an unfortunate reference to another file. That has been removed, so get the update at the download page.

Table 27 (months to next battle) did not account for the die roll of 9. If you do roll 9 you should advance 1 month.

On table 28 (replacement experience) you can, if you prefer to implement this change now, have

- a roll of 9-10 give 15 experience

- a roll of 11 give 20 experience

- a roll of 12 give 25 experience

[atiff]

Hmm... think I might have struck a small problem with the rules.

The terrain rolls for the map give (from Aug '41 to '44) about 50% chance of Open tree coverage and about 50% chance of Flat hilliness. (This is what I got in my battle #3 - Open and Flat). Problem with this that you will therefore fight 75% of your battles on Open, or Flat, or both Open and Flat terrain. In CMBB quickbattles, flat usually means a billiard-table map, and open means you have only grass to hide behind.

On maps of this size (not large, in most cases), that is pretty much suicide for the attacker. On the first turn of any battle on open, flat terrain the bullets start flying before you have a chance to move, and you don't get much chance to respond before taking significant casualties. There is no tactical advance towards the enemy before the shooting starts. This, IMHO, does not make for a fun game.

So what is the fix? Well, I see two ways. Avoid maps which allow Open and Flat together, as a minimum, and maybe even avoid Open or Flat options altogether. Few battlefields are actually that flat or devoid of cover. And for the purposes of the *game* there is no fun in playing on one.

The other option is to do as in BCR and make up some map packs to fight on. This is not a difficult task, especially as in the rules link battle size to map size. It would not be difficult to create some maps of standard sizes, etc, and use them to fight on. The biggest problem with this approach is that you have to re-enter your troop stats every battle, because you can't "load a map" into a pre-existing scenario file using CMBB.

Well, actually, that is not quite true. By using the Mapping Mission software, you can take an existing scenario file with a blank map and enter a map into it. I have not used Mapping Mission very much, apart from testing it out, so I will have to go back and look again. But I think it may be able to be used effectively. This does add a little more complexity to the process of setting up a battle as you have to export you map from Mapping Mission to CMBB, but I think it may be worth it. I will be investigating this further.

Comments?

[Robert Olesen]

You're right, that needs to be fixed. The die roll tables are first priority, but using predefined maps would be nice too. Unfortunately, the map editor cannot load a map from a file - rather strange when you think about it.

If your core force is small, repurchasing it and editing the ammo and other stuff is doable, but for a whole infantry company that's a bit much to ask IMO. Let me know how Mapping Mission works out. Is it freeware?

The tables are a bit difficult. I probably have to define some sets of tables and pick a set based on region and time period. A bit like operational orders. I'm trying to simulate the russian steppe with those modifiers, and I'm obviously not succeeding.

Until further notice, remove the -2 modifier from the Hills table and feel free to reroll when you get that Open/Flat combination.

[atiff]

Originally posted by Robert Olesen:

Let me know how Mapping Mission works out. Is it freeware?

Mapping Mission is free, designed for use with the CM Meta-Campaign. I think it will work OK for importing maps to a pre-existing scenario file, but need to check that out.

The tables are a bit difficult. I probably have to define some sets of tables and pick a set based on region and time period. A bit like operational orders. I'm trying to simulate the russian steppe with those modifiers, and I'm obviously not succeeding.

I understand what you are aiming at, but I don't think the steppe is that flat. Looking at those semi-famous Ukranian 1/100,000 maps there are not large areas with no contour lines. The flatest regions still have maybe 20 metres of contour change over a couple of kilometres. I think Gentle Slopes models the steppe OK. There are undulations from old river beds, erosion, etc.

Perhaps if you just got rid of Flat from the hilliness table, things would be OK. Combine Flat and Gentle Slopes into just one category of Gentle Slopes.

[atiff]

The Mapping Mission idea works for importing a map into your campaign scenario save. Will make a couple of maps and show you how to use it.

Battle #4 completed today, in rather short time. Advance mission, over open but rolling terrain, with our friends the Romanians again (recon company and platoon of R-2 tanks plus other bits in support). Only one hiding place for me to deploy, so I used it.

First turn we spot a T-34 and T-26 on the opposite side, so we decide to shell them with out 100mm spotter as they are right on the objective anyway. Slowly sneak forward with some infantry, and play "shoot and scoot" with the T-26 while staying out of sight of the T-34. Got the T-26 but an ATG took out an R-2, then it started raining artillery. The infantry was taking a pounding, so at that stage I decided we weren't going to get any further forward here and pulled the pin (ie, withdrew).

Suffered a 9-91 loss, but the CO wasn't too unphappy (only -11 favour overall) as later reports (scanning the map after the battle) showed we were outnumbered and outgunned here. Better to walk away and fight another day... (which happens to be in the same month again)

More later.