CM CPX

[jtcm]

Just an idea for a new way to play CM, inspired by the TacOps CPX: the idea is to have two players duke it out on TCP / IP, but for one of the players to be directed via orders from "HQ" on ICQ (combatmission chat).

Needed;

Player A

HQ element

Player B

1. A, B and HQ agree on a scenario-- e.g. downloaded one, CD-ROM, or QB with map posted for HQ to look at (e.g. in view 5 or 6). Co. size, or perhaps Bttn size engagement.

2. A and B set up to play in TCP. HQ prints out map to try to follow or imagine the action,

3. HQ element (one or more people on combatmission chat) send orders to A, whether broad, Auftragstaktik (move to the cross-roads, seize commanding ground) or Befehlstaktik (keep plt A in reserve, push forward with armour)-- A interprets and implements

4. A tries to report succintly and accurately to HQ; HQ issues orders, asks questions.

5. Arty dependent on release from HQ

etc.

6. B plays normally, except that his opponent will probably prove curiously unresponsive.

7. At end, A and B report, and preferably post (where ?) screenshots

*****

obviously, A can do whatever he pleases, if he decides not to play along; the HQ element can decided to play gonzo (no arty; "take that hill at all costs or get court-martialled"); the whole thing could be quite boring. But i thought it might be interesting to try out. Any takers ?

A variant would be to organize say 4 people, Bttn commander + 3 Co. commanders to give orders to one "executer" who plays against the AI on his computer and sends back reports. (closer to the TacOps version).

Just an idea, any way.

[JasonC]

I like the idea a lot. Magnifies fog of war. It migth even be interesting to have both sides CPX commanded, and to have only them really compete for victory. The "implimenters" could be "neutrals", or even better could be given different "victory conditions" based not on mission accomplishment or enemies wiped out, but purely own-side losses taken.

E.g. A commands, B impliments side 1, C commands and D impliments side 2. B and D "score" independently purely based on casualties. Losses under 10% A, under 20% B, under 30% C, 50% or higher losses a failing "grade". You might let his own commander influence his grade plus or minus one category depending on how well he thought his subordinate took orders or tried.

A tries to win in the ordinary CM victory condition terms, and only he or C can win their head to head competition. His "grade" depends on the CM victory level. After one scenario, you can switch positions, or otherwise come up with matches that put people through each type of situation and track cumulative scores.

This would create a realistic tension between commanders and subordinates. The subordinates have better local intel and want to survive, but care comparatively little about mission accomplishment. The commanders have the lever of orders and release of assets (like artillery allowed to be used, or reserves released - just put them on-map but forbid movement until so ordered) to "manage" them.

One reason this might be interesting is a notable realism issue with CM as regularly played today. Commanders mash their forces together with abandon, looking hardly beyond the next 30 minutes. CM fights typically have very high casualties as a result. Such high casualty fights did occur in WW II, but were exceptional. Often whole divisions in heavy fighting lost only 100-200 men a day. CM players can lose that from one company (if they lose) or battalion (even if they win) in 30 minutes.

Grading the "implimenter" on losses alone, not mission accomplishment, and the "commander" on mission accomplishment, might establish a more realistic loss tolerance. It would also dramatically increase fog of war for the commander position, while reducing the sense of control of subordinates. All realistic effects.

[jtcm]

I like the "implementer" idea v. much. Of course, if two commanders compete, they can't give orders to their subordinates on ICQ ? or do they need their private "room' for that ?

The battle could actually be set by a "fifth party", i.e. double blind for both A commander and A implementer and B commander and B implementer.

Then, as with Tacops, abundant AARS and post-motem discussion needed.

The idea came to me while playing TCP: I'd sometimes pretend that the combatmission.com ICP was HQ, and that i was radioing back for (preferably) Tigers or 155 mm support. And what if I'd received instructions "Take the hill at all costs" or "save your arty" ?

[zukkov]

i like the command idea. some friends and i tried that about 20 years ago playing micro armor. we actually had real field phones to contact "hq"(don't ask where they came from). it was fun, but unfortunately we had no code names for the land marks, so it was a fiasco trying to make hq understand where the hell i was at any given moment. but still, lots of fun. we never played that way again, i'm not sure why...

[Ozzy]

boy, play CMMC

http://www.combatmission.com/CMMC/cmmcfront.htm

[jtcm]

Ah well, reinventing the wheel-- again. Still, CM CPX could be fun on a smaller scale than the Meta-campaign.

[Olle Petersson]

... and then there's always the Triple Battle version, where only two players are involved but more strategy is needed.

Cheers

Olle