Biltong's Campaign Rules - Cont.

[HawkerT]

To Biltong, Apache, SuperSulo, 86smopuim and everybody else involved and contributing to the BCR.

I have been following this for a short while and have to start by praising all the hard work and dedication going on here, simply marvelous :cool:

I for one am very grateful and would like to extend my thanks to all those involved, it is very much appreciated. When I feel the product is mature I will for sure embark on this wonderful endeavour.

As you may well know the "why don't CM have a campaign layer" flok extends all the way back to before CMBO was published, and I have always belonged to that body of people. I am very interested in any kind of campaign and am currently participating as artillery regiment commander and strategic map maker on the GrossDeutschland staff in the Tigers Vs Bears campaign.

I am imensely intrigued by the work going on here. The addition of a campaign layer that involves the possibility to train and upgrade your troops is just what the doctor ordered for continued interest in playing the AI. It is not realistic in any way, shape or form, but dang it's good fun, and the strategic layer can never take away the marvelous realism of the tactical layer done so well by CMBB. The way you guys are shaping the campaign also means that the player will learn sound tactics and at the same time the player will get to see all the 'corners' of the CMBB product with regards to equipment, periods and places, not a small accomplishment by any measure! :cool:

By the look of it, it seems that you are really getting things together, although I still regard the whole thing as somewhat beta, the amount of upgrades alone indicates this. Not that I think this is a bad thing, au contraire! I can see from your posts that you are eager to wrap up the whole thing with expedience. I think that you should adopt the same attitude as BFC, best described this way:

Pappa bull and sonny bull is sitting on a hill overlooking a heard of cows below. Sonny bull says "c'mon dad, lets sprint down and hump a cow!". Pappa bull reply "No son! Lets walk down and hump them all!

So take on the attitude of a long haul rather then a short sprint, it's done when it's done, and not a second before :cool: . Especially the accessebility to people not being involved in this from the start needs some more addressing if it is to be spread to a larger player segment. That however has also started to appear, which leads me to encourage 86smopuim to continue the excellent work on automating the whole number crunching proceess before and between battles. This is very important work for the continued involvement and attraction for others then the small elite in play now. I think a natural extension to that process is an application that handles all the rules with an easy to use interface. Then you guys would truly have a winner on your hands. Regardless, I look very much forward to joining the ranks of BCR players :cool:

I know this is a to long post when I don't bring anything to the table. I however like the look of this so much that I would hate if it went cold due to lack of support or encouragement, so please view this post in that light.

Keep up the good work guys! You are doing a magnificent job, and are all contributing in no small way to the CMBB community.

Thank you.

A BCR participant in spe :cool:

P.s.: Biltong you should continue expanding the initial rules walkthrough to ease folks into the whole thing. Also consider including your goal statements from above!

[ December 16, 2002, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: HawkerT ]

[Biltong]

I understand from the players that you now have Tactical as well as Minor defeats/vics?

If that is correct when does the one take over from the other?

The answer that I need is something in the line of:

Tactical: when there's max 10% difference between the two sides E.g.: Axis 45% Allied 55% and

Minor goes up to 20%, Eg: Axis 40% Allied 60%

Or does it work in another way?

Does anyone besides BTS know? An 'informed' guess?

If anyone had either of those results and still have your sheets - won't you post or mail me the percentages for both sides, so I can get an idea of what's cooking. Much appreciated

[ December 16, 2002, 08:20 AM: Message edited by: Biltong ]

[SuperSulo]

Regarding buying haulers for stationary guns etc, I say don't bother...

BCR - We even got horses modelled!

There were millions of horses on the east front, if we can scrounge an inf gun, I bet we could nick a horse or two too.

[SuperSulo]

One other thing, about scrounged units.

I'm not entirely clear on just what they are. "Leaderless units scattered over the battlefield join your Battle Group". Ok, I get that. So basicly our CO "steals" these units. But why do they get replacements? If it's a mortar unit, and it gets knocked out, will they get a new mortar? From where? Do we have them for "forever"? Doesn't somebody miss them somewhere?

I'm not complain about that we have scrounged units, I think they spice up the campaign, just asking about the logic behind them.

[Sardaukar]

In a way, I both like and dislike scrounged units. Germans used to form their Kampfgruppes with anything they could get their hands on, which kind of represent what is happening here. But I'm not sure if they couldn't be better presented by more complicated Aux Unit rules.

I think what we might see when development of BCR has gone forward a while, is ruleset for almost every kind of core that people want to play...armour, infantry, combined arms and so on.

Cheers,

M.S.

[Sardaukar]

Addition:

(rant on)

What I'd really love to see as an function in CM:BB is possibility to import units only from last autosave to new quick battle. That'd make it a breeze to play sort of dynamic campaign and would reduce workload a lot. Thus, you could create your units in scen without enemy, edit with scen editor from your hearts content, run one turn and import them to new QB.

I don't understand why that has not been implemented when you can import units AND map now. Why the heck I want to import a map ?

Then I have to use 2-3 times more time to edit setup zones, flags and so on when computer does that automatically in normal QB.

(OK, rant off )

Cheers,

M.S.

[86smopuim]

but thought you had only sent it to Billtong so far for checking?

True.

Where can i get my hands on it?..anything that automates more of the rules gets my vote!

Auto-Biltong

NOTE: THIS IS NOT THE SAME THING AS AUTOPARAMTERS... Its just an Exp Tracker.

This just auto calculates casulties, exp, exp after battle, total kills over time and some otherstuff.

Oh yeah, and v5 caclulates favor as well.

Intructions for V3-V5:

1 Time Setup:

Worksheet Battle 1:

Check/Fill in Column P, "Base Number of men".

'Toon commanders=4, Squads 10-(generally), etc etc

Check/Fill In Column E, "Exp Before Battle"

There After Instructions:

Play Battle

Fill in all the shaded boxes for curent battle

Put in number of times incident happened in each box(NOT the expected experience for said incident).

Don't forget Cells S6,T6,U6

You are now done.

Move to Battle 2 worksheet, Repeat from "Play Battle"

My 'puter became ill and I can no longer open/work the files my self .

Correction: M$ Winblows 2K became ill, my 'puter is fine. Back to paper and pencil until I get a chance reinstall 'Doze.

If V4 or V5 dont work for you, use V3.

Oh yeah, none of them track scrounged units.

[ December 16, 2002, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[86smopuim]

Originally posted by Sardaukar:

In a way, I both like and dislike scrounged units. Germans used to form their Kampfgruppes with anything they could get their hands on, which kind of represent what is happening here. But I'm not sure if they couldn't be better presented by more complicated Aux Unit rules.

I personally ingore the whole "scrounged" thing. maxe tracking units alot easier for me.

[ December 16, 2002, 10:59 AM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[JaegerMeister]

Many thanks 86Smopuim !...any chance you could add those instructions in your post to the download file for future releases?

regards.

ps when i checked the sheets out, they seemed to have areas of 'black' boxes (where you normally tick for 'unit fled' etc...is that how it should appear at my end or do the cells need formatting to a different colour?

[86smopuim]

Many thanks 86Smopuim !...any chance you could add those instructions in your post to the download file for future releases?

If I can get 'Doze to understand .xls files again.

Probable have to reinstall windows for that .

ps when i checked the sheets out, they seemed to have areas of 'black' boxes (where you normally tick for 'unit fled' etc...is that how it should appear at my end or do the cells need formatting to a different colour?

They SHOULD be shaded with little dots only, and be the same color as the column header.

Dont know why u are seeing all black. maybe thats why my machine cant open them anymore?!

Are u using the excel view or real Excel?

These wont work for excel viewer.

[ December 16, 2002, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: 86smopuim ]

[Biltong]

FAVOR

Good news: Minor changes that shouldn’t affect your current campaigns much…

Bad news: Most guys asked for a lot and got little…

As always: Everything is up for discussion and debate and if you convince me… I’ll change anything

Max 4/12 & Apache 5/12

Ask to be able to use the points left over:

“you are allowed to purchase up to 1720 points for an Axis Assault by the QB, but your rolled forces are only 1660”

to be used in exchange for Favor.

Max spent a lot of time and effort on this… Sorry Max

Decided against that – A one to one ratio against the AI is too easy. I’m already worried that the Purchase Points adjustment (Provisional Force Size calc) we made earlier makes it too easy for the Axis. Easy = boring.

However:

“… sometimes the increase in points is only 20 for Inf/Support, which may only allow you to pick up a sharpshooter or flamethrower. When I think about how favor with your CO would have been used, I think about asking (begging?) that 1st platoon from Company C, or the heavy weapons platoon, be attached to your Company for whatever action you are going into. For vehicles and armor, I'd think the smallest unit would be a single tank, or maybe a pair of armored cars for recon.”

Here I met you halfway and increased the die roll modifier to 3 for Inf/Sup; Vehicle; Armor & Fortifications. This means in most cases you would be able to nearly double your purchase points for that category. E.g.: Inf/Support from 100 to 175; Vehicle from 80 to 140; Armor from 100 to 175 etc. Obviously the Allies will also get more points… You will have to take that into account.

Pascal

“I just realized that there's no favor for any Infantry kills and survival - is that intended ?”

also Eden made an impassioned plea:

“Why not use the calculated 'points' in the CMBB AAR as one's "Favor" points? The people at BTS have already gone to some effort, we believe, to make that final "97% , 3%" victory calculation…”

While designing the rules I purposely left out a separate Inf kills calc and as for Eden’s suggestion of using the AAR – both of these are already in place: The Favor gained or lost due to “Result Favor”.

CMBB is doing both for us when calculating the battle result – Enemy killed plays a large part in this calculation.

To give favor for enemy killed or for the % that each side gets would mean ‘doubling up’ on the Favor given/lost due to the Result… That doesn’t make sense, unless I missed something.

However – I explained the enemy killed inclusion in the Favor Note:

“Note that Enemy Infantry killed etc. is deemed to be included in the Favor obtained from the overall battle 'Result' See Top Right of Favor Sheet.”

and increased the Favor effect of the “Result”.

Result Favor

Total Defeat -50

Major Defeat -35

Minor Defeat -20

Tactical Defeat -10

Tactical Vic 5

Minor Vic 10

Major Vic 20

Total Vic 30

I’m just guessing re the. real difference between Minor and Tactical – If someone has info in this regard – please post here.

Mare Ichthys 10/12

“…was wondering about how people are using favor in these rules. Specifically, are you spending your favor points before rolling the die, or are you using favor as a way to 'improve' the result only if you don't like the

original roll? “

Added this in Note 9 - Favor

You can trade in prescribed points of Favor to alter the die roll by a maximum of 1 (or in some cases 3) up or down, when you feel it would help your cause.

E.g.: You have 30 Favor points available and roll up (18) Force Mix - You get a '6' (Mechanized). If you want, you can 'buy' a '7' (Combined Armor) by spending the prescribed 10 points of Favor leaving you with 20.

Max 10/12

“…As far as that goes, should you be able to affect the date of a Defensive action?…”

Removed the Favor option out of Date (1) – Can’t see where else that could happen, Max?

Eden 10/12

“... I captured three Platoon HQs, and two Co HQs, which struck me as the one thing which would impress my commander a lot more than knocking out a few weapons...?”

Favor Sheet now caters for ‘–5’ or ‘+4’ for Prisoner HQ’s/team

Max

“…maybe it is too cheap to use the Favor to improve future battles….”

What I am saying is that we need to look at the balance of how many Favor points we receive, and the "cost" of using that Favor. If after one battle (in which I had only minimal success) I can use Favor with my CO to have him delay the next battle, I think that is a little unbalanced. I should have to show by repetition that my decision should be trusted - basically, I should have to fight a few winning battles to have enough Favor to adjust certain things.

Some costs increased: Time(2): 20; Force Mix (18): 20; Immediate Attack(53): 40; Normal Replacements (56): 20;

Difficult one – this ‘Earn/Spend’ balance might need more fine-tuning down the line…

SuperSulo

“… I have 503 favor points after 5 battles! All thanks to the "Prisoner(s) Theraft 2x" part. When the enemy surrenders, you get A LOT of prisoners, and the favor skyrockets….”

Changed the points earned and lost for prisoners, eg.:

Friendly

1St Theraft HQ's

-5x -3x -5x

Enemy

1St Theraft HQ's

3x 1x 4x

… Also introduced a 50 Favor Point Max earned per battle.

Favor (9) “Also note that you cannot earn more than 50 Favor Points per battle - There's a limit to how much you can impress your CO “ as well as a note on the Favor Sheet itself.

Apache

Add a little Total box below each Favor calc to ease calculations...

Done

Last 'mayor' change! Not much of a change though… more of a storm in a teacup No more ‘mayor’ changes listed. Are we ready for v2.0?

Next – Answer some e-mails & posts, then Clarify Scrounged Units, Scalpel’s list of errata and Mansteins new map pack.

Cary on playing

[Biltong]

Originally posted by Lou2000:

... but have to admit to getting a bit lost and with so much work going on and the rules undergoing some changes, I decided to wait before getting in any deeper. However please keep it going it seems to be developing nicely.

No need to wait any longer Lou...

The changes that are being done now are in the fine-tuning category... minor and mostly to do with clarification of the rules & tying up lose ends.

is there any rule that requires each towed gun (AT/AA etc) to have a vehicle capable of moving that unit ??

I have played quite a few PBEM's/QB's and scenarios and it is one restriction that keeps getting overlooked ... people seem to buy lots of 'fixed' guns and nothing to move then with !

In a small battle it isnt that important, but in a campaing they would be needed.

Or is it assumed that trucks and tractors would be available to move units between battles.

We don't plan/show/have rules for what happens between battles... That is outside the scope of BCR... But I won't be surprised if some enterprising gent comes up with an expansion to cater for that perverse perfection

[Biltong]

Originally posted by HawkerT:

...to start by praising all the hard work and dedication going on here, simply marvelous :cool:

I for one am very grateful and would like to extend my thanks to all those involved, it is very much appreciated. When I feel the product is mature I will for sure embark on this wonderful endeavour.

Thanx Hawker - good of you to pop in - as for waiting... no need - see post above - we're just dotting t's (this happens)

...

So take on the attitude of a long haul rather then a short sprint, it's done when it's done, and not a second before.

Yes & No... I've stated before it will more than likely never be done... Since it's a non-commercial product driven by the players themselves, without the constrictions of manuals/packaging/marketing etc - we'll keep on refining it...(until CM3 comes out?)

As for waiting until it's finished before releasing it - see paragraph above

...Especially the accessebility to people not being involved in this from the start needs some more addressing if it is to be spread to a larger player segment.

What the hell - it was released warts and all... guys downloaded it - got hooked - asked or bitched if something was wrong or unclear and before they knew it became involved in developing the rules themselves... A virtual orgy of feedback .. can't think of any other way it could've come this far so fast - the best ideas/solutions/expansions came from the campaigners themselves... Still needs some work on clarity in some areas, but most guys figger those out quite easily. There's no need to wait anymore - all mayor changes have been done - download and get going, you're missing out

...P.s.: Biltong you should continue expanding the initial rules walkthrough to ease folks into the whole thing. Also consider including your goal statements from above!

Expand Walkthrough - scheduled - see Update doc

Goal in Intro - done - see 1st post of this thread

Don't worry - be happy & start playing...

Biltong

[Apache]

Hawker T - Thanks for your comments. I suspect once everyone is satisfied the rules are as near perfect as they can be got there may well be the opportunity to market them more. I have a couple of ideas on that which I will run past the team as the time gets nearer.

Team - I also wonder a little about the scrounged units now. Would the permanent or semi-permanent attachment of a reasonably ' relaistic ' support unit or two, up to a certain point value (perhaps related to favour AND depending on the type of action you faced) not be a better way to handle core supplements? E.g. few extra HMGs on defence, platoon of A/Cs (reccce platoon) on a probe/assault. I think the point regarding replacement of scrounged units is well made. A regular unit attached to you in an official capacity is perhaps more likely to get replacements than a press-ganged sharpshooter or rag-tag platoon. I must admit I do not use the scrounged element of the rules myself. I rarely find the point values make it worth it, preferring the more formal arrangement I describe above which, in my view, more 'accurately' reflects the battle group concept and composition.

Also, can't recall from the rules but, do we need to look at any guidance re numbers TRPs, minefields, bunkers etc. on defence?

I think the gun towing element is a good point too. I suspect we can generally say, seeing as guns will only form part of your core as a 'scrounged unit' (if you use them), that they will have been positioned for you on the defence. I do tend to buy transport out of any support costs I get if on the attack though (an AT gun stuck way back in the woods generally being about as much use as a chocolate fireguard)!

[ December 16, 2002, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Apache ]

[Biltong]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

Regarding buying haulers for stationary guns etc, I say don't bother...

BCR - We even got horses modelled!

There were millions of horses on the east front, if we can scrounge an inf gun, I bet we could nick a horse or two too.

I'm extremely worried about these horses... Just to start: type of feed; wagons, lorries, soldiers etc to transport feed and the one that really worries me is how much feed does it take to transport feed? This is going to delay the release of BCR by at least 6 months!!

Very worried... :eek:

Biltong

[Pete Wenman]

Guys hi

Apache has got close to an idea I have been toying with. That of running an armoured Pz Gr Coy (Bttn ? ) through the campaign. Hence my large maps ( any feedback re State Farm 131 ? ).

Anyway my point

Apache said

I also wonder a little about the scrounged units now. Would the permanent or semi-permanent attachment of a reasonably ' relaistic ' support unit or two, up to a certain point value, perhaps related to favour AND depending on the type of actions you faced not be a better way to handle core supplements? E.g. few extra HMGs on defence, platoon of A/Cs (reccce platoon) on a probe/assault.

Also, can't recall from the rules but, do we need to look at any guidance re TRPs, minefields, bunkers etc on defence?[/QB]

[Pete Wenman]

Doh !

Double post

Pete

[ December 16, 2002, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Pete Wenman ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Hey all-

Do I perceive a koyannisqatsi(sp? not in the dic) here, hmmm? Wee bit out o' control, are we? Having a problem with the brakes, so racing home before we have an accident? Using Assault when we should be using Move To Contact?

Ah well. I will be back soon to dole out wisdom by the panzerload. Been busy knocking the Excelecentricity problem into a cocked hat- we Excel *4.0* users (or lower?) are no longer second rate citizens around here. If you can read a Stuffit file, and you want your Battle Group sheets automated in every conceiveable sense, break your chains here:

http://angelfire.com/mac/programming/cmbb/EdensBGSS.html

What follows is the Readme:

Eden's BGSS Readme or Feedme 1.0.0, package version 1.0.0

••••••• Why You Are Reading This:

You are playing, or would like to play, a campaign in CMBB using _Biltong's Campaign Rules_, (BCR), and you have the ability to read Excel spreadsheets, but not of a version as new as the ones currently on BCR sites.

••••••• The Package Is:

Excel 4.0.0 spreadsheets & macro sheet implementing the "Battle Group" sheet for BCR v1.3.0 and BCR v 1.4.0 Excel being what it is, I'm supposing but don't know for sure that everything here is cross platform.

These spreadsheets (SS) both calculate the experience of your group in accordance with the rules, (as I understand them!), and automate the iteration from one battle to the next. That is, when you're done with all the data entry for battle #5, you will just hit a hotkey and the SS will copy your computed experience column to the experience "in" column, erase all the temporary input for battle #6, and you're ready to save that file as "battle 6" without further ado.

••••••• The Files are:

BCR130 BattleGroup

- SS for BCRv1.3 As unzipped, this file contains the horrific results of my battle number 5 in my current campaign.

BCR140 BattleGroup

- SS for BCRv1.4 As unzipped, this file contains the horrific results of my battle number 5 in my current campaign. This sheet is virtually identical to the 1.3 version sheet, but (like the rules), most stuff does not contribute points like it used to. But I left the columns in anyway. Note that you could track those values, if you cared to- they are simply multiplied by zero.

Eden's BGMacs100

- Contains the XL macros which automate iteration. This file must be opened for the hotkeys to work. The file will be "hidden" when you open it, but no stress.

••••••• The Macros Are:

BG_Iterate Command-Option i (Macintosh hotkey)

- Steps the current spreadsheet to the next battle, most importantly copying all those damn numbers from experience "out" to "in", and erasing kills...

BG_NewCampaign Command-Option n (Macintosh hotkey)

- Same as above, while also sticking "10" into the experience 'In' column.

••••••• The Quickstart Is:

primarily for Excel virgins like me.

1) Open either "BattleGroup" file in Excel version 4.0 or greater, notice that it is depicting a battle rather than being blank.

2) Open "Eden's BGMacs100", say "Yes" to "Read Only?", and don't fret when no new window appears, it's just hidden.

3) Compare the SS with whatever hardcopy or other version of the existing Battle Group Sheet or Core Sheet you are using. It should be pretty clear how this SS matches up, (see "Differences" below). I've used short names for things so it fits on a small screen, (like mine!), arranged things a little bit differently, but really it's exactly the same.

4) Pretending for the moment that we've just finished "Battle 05", execute the "BG_Iterate" macro, either from the menu or (on Mac) hitting Command-Option i. Voila. Now, presumedly, you would save this file as "Battle 06", play the next battle, rinse, repeat.

••••••• The 'Differences' Are:

1) Different arrangement... The complicated experience stuff is all grouped in one place, the kills on the right side. This has the effect the left side of the SS is mostly persistent values, the cells on the right are temporal, 'erased each time' values...

2) in v1.3, the POW calculation in the Rules is "if (n) then 5 + 2(n-1)". Scr*w. I just didn't have the heart to figure this out in Excelese, (see my last para of this document for why), so I just use 2*n.

3) "Fudge" column. With this column you can add/subtract n points to a row, in the case where your rules don't quite match BCR and you don't know how to fix this SS to match your version... Or for instance one could add "3" when POWs are taken to fix the case of #2 listed above. At any rate, the sheet is not brittle, with respect to your customizing the rules.

4) I consider my "core" to include the MG34 & Section HQ which are normally part of the company, so there are still another three rows for scrounged or other units. I think you can delete these rows if you want to.

5) Possibly the experience calcluation is not exactly what is intended in the rules- I'm not really sure. See "columns" section below.

6) "Men" ( Column B ) is always the size of a full unit, not just who is "OK".

••••••• The Columns Are:

These really are the same, just organized different, with shorter labels so I can see the whole sheet at once. "Wooden(5/3)" means, in accordance with 1.3 rules, infantry are given 5 points for a wood bunker, tanks are give 3. All numbers listed here are for the 1.3 version sheet.

Men : The size of the complete unit. This never changes.

Casualties : In 1.3 this is added, per rules to 'Nominal', and needed in both.

In : Experience as resulting from previous battle

Replacements : Level of the incoming replacements

Nominal : New level of the partially casualtied unit, with kill pts.

Favor Bonus : From the Favor sheet

Full Unit : Old guys and replacements together, ((old*old_ex)+(new*new_ex))/men

Out : Same as Full Unit, but capped at max 10 greater than In

Fled(-5)

Rattled(-4)

Left(-4/-6) : Abandoned

KO(-5/-8)

Burn(0/-10)

Infantry(1)

Mortar(2/1)

BFG(5/3) : Big Guns

Wooden(5/3) : Wooden MG Box

MG Box(7/5) : Concrete MG Box

Gun Box(10) : Concrete Gun Box

Simple(4/2) : Unarmored vehicles, jeeps, chickenwagens...

Light(7/6) : Light Armor

Tank(10)

POW(2) : for 1.3, this should really be 5 + 2(n-1)

Fudge(1) : Arbitrary adjustments can be placed here

••••••• The Point Is:

I made the 1.3 version up so I can play this campaign without a mountain of paperwork, (just a sizeable hill), and whatever spreadsheets are available on BCR sites are not readable by me in Excel 4.0. The format of this sheet(s) is such that changes should be very easy to make.

In testimony to that, it took only about two minutes to make the 1.4 version from the 1.3 version, and I include that because it was easy to do, notwithstanding that I for one will probably stick with something closer to the 1.3 rules in re experience.

I can *almost* save these files as Excel version 3.0 files; if you have only version 3.0 and want these, let me know and I'll see what I can do, but I think I would have to lose the macros which make it a blessing. For Excel 2.2, I definitely would lose the macros, but I could at least make the sheets available, which would calculate for you.

Questions or comments or something can be to my address in profile, and sorry if you get blocked. But please don't ask me about Excel- I've never used it, or any other spread sheet program before, I don't have a manual, and in fact the Help function doesn't work, probably becuase I deleted "Micro$oft Help" at some point... oops. So everything I know in the world about XL I got from just poking around, and I know absolutely nothing which is not already in this sheet...

Eden

[HawkerT]

Ok Biltong and Apache

Your good spirit and drive is very contageous, and now you got me hooked :cool:

Will download everything tonight and start fiddling about. I will of course try to give as much constructive feedback as possible.

Biltong, when will the new version of the rules with the fixed replacement stuff from page 8 in this thread and the favor stuff on this page be released? I feel that should be the version for me to start on!

Thank you again guys :cool:

[Biltong]

Originally posted by SuperSulo:

One other thing, about scrounged units.

...So basicly our CO "steals" these units. But why do they get replacements? If it's a mortar unit, and it gets knocked out, will they get a new mortar? From where? Do we have them for "forever"? Doesn't somebody miss them somewhere?

I'm not complain about that we have scrounged units, I think they spice up the campaign, just asking about the logic behind them.

They came along from Wreck's old rules... I liked them because:

1) In war you scrounge... mostly weapons certainly, but for short periods men as well.

2) It affords the opportunity to get and play with units which you don't normally get from the QB...

Note: They have to be used as replacements first in an emergency reorganization so they don't hang around for very long...

v1.5 "If you have a Scrounged Unit that can 'realistically' be used as a replacement for casualties. Use up Scrounged Units first. E.g.: A Scrounged Mortar crew won't be used to replace Infantry, but Scrounged Inf could replace a MG crew".

Logic?

Eventualy all scrounged units get recalled to their rightfull units... we normally have them for a short time. If it's a long time it's because our CO paid someone off.

They get replacements because the QB won't allow us to buy partial squads etc..

In 'real life' our CO loved the scrounged team or whatever so much he gave them replacements out of our new intake of rookies. The Scrounged guys were hot and he wanted to hold onto them for as long as he could.

As for replacement mortars etc... we give them our own & then we claim from Division... normal story

Scheduled to be cleaned up

[JaegerMeister]

86Smopuim...yep definitely getting Black area of cells, using full Excell, both on winXp office and on win98 office at work...so something not quite right there.

I have formatted the cells on the battle sheets 1-5 and the favour sheet to get rid of the black areas, they now show as dotted cells as you described. If you want me to email these back to you, i'd be happy to.

[86smopuim]

Originally posted by JaegerMeister:

If you want me to email these back to you, i'd be happy to.

Yes, please do!

If you could do it for V3 and V5 I would be most appreciative...

cw at ponsyhow dot com.

[Biltong]

Originally posted by HawkerT:

Ok Biltong and Apache

Your good spirit and drive is very contageous, and now you got me hooked :cool:

Will download everything tonight and start fiddling about. I will of course try to give as much constructive feedback as possible.

Biltong, when will the new version of the rules with the fixed replacement stuff from page 8 in this thread and the favor stuff on this page be released? I feel that should be the version for me to start on!

Thank you again guys :cool:

Unfortunately we only do an update every 2 weeks... Next one due on 27th, but I won't be surprised if it comes out a bit before Christmas

Biltong

[History Buff]

Below is the "concerns" feedback I've emailed Biltong about 1.4. He suggessted to post em here for discussion.

++++

Just going over the 1.4 core force rules / battle group sheet. I see that it will be even harder now for a unit to gain experience with the majority of enemy units like mortars and number of casulties being inflicted being removed from the equation, I feel troops will remain at a reg experience level for the entire 5 and a half months. My personal campaign for instance has only vs infatary formations since Barbarossa to August so far, under these new rules there experience would of only increased marginally at best. Under the 1.3 rules they have slowly increased to veteran status over 2 months and it's been a tough time getting there believe you me.

I feel having the "complicated" system will encourage people to go out and get their core force into the thick of it rather than hang back and hope for an enemy tank to rumble by. 1.4 at the moment as well really hinders people who fight non-armoured formations as I have been doing.

I believe that BFC is trying to make a fine line between realism and gaming. Make it to realistic, it would be a good history lesson but it will also mean the game/campagin becomes impossible to play. More and more do we see scenario designers putting impossible odds into their 3rd party scenarios that they become not a challenge but a waste of time. Even though it's a touch unrealistic that units will become better over time in the real world as the grogs have pointed out, it will give the campaign purpose for the player. For if a player looks at the rules and says, I can't physically get to a veteran level whats the point of this once the winter sets in, less people will play it. Also with the 1.4 rules, okay the grogs have been satisfied but the only way to earn experience in most cases, like the infantary problem I'm facing is to rely on replacement rolls to boost your experience. Players want to say, hey my company is CRACK cause I TRAINED EM THAT WAY!

I feel v 1.3's core sheet of gaining experience for causing casulties destroying mortars etc was valid. Remember troops didn't only gain experience from blowing up tanks and bunkers!!!!!!!

++++

Endure!

[ December 17, 2002, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: History Buff ]

[Eden Smallwood]

Originally posted by History Buff:

Even though it's a touch unrealistic that units will become better over time in the real world as the grogs have pointed out, it will give the campaign purpose for the player.

I'm in absolute agreement with everything you said, (ok, I do have one question about your *signature* line but everything else ).

There is a schizophrenia here; although one poster came close to putting his finger on it, and defined the two types of campaigns, (was that SS?), I think an accurate way to define the competing endpoints are as follows:

G) Grog Campaign Type : History is all; if it's historical, it's good, if it's not, it's bad.

R) Role Playing Campaign Type : This is a story, not about average individuals who had average histories and average outcomes. Rather it is about an *exceptional* group of individuals, who may have started out average, but became heroic, victorious, and whose tale is worth repeating. Quite likely that fact is due to their commander (me) and the attention he gave to them, who loved and nurtured them, and tucked them in at night. Yeah, go ahead and slam me, but this type of campaign is a role playing game of sorts, and as such, the sine qua non of RPGs are present- the risk of death means 'starting over', the reward of accomplishment means an advance, however slight, in 'abilities', the chance acquisition of goods...

In the RPG type, the increased chance of obtaining a killer halftrack due to the company's performance in the previous battle is essentially identical in dynamic to how one obtained a +2 magic sword by defeating the lizard king was when Dungeons & Dragons was introduced in the last millenium...

So those are the two "endpoints", I think, of what people want or expect from a 'campaign'. The question becomes "Where is BCR?" Will it have two sets of rules for both 'types'? Will it be somewhere in the 'middle'? Or can both types be served by one set of rules somehow?

Considering the Grog type, first, I'm immediately struck by the question "What's the point?" If it were complete and utter faithfulness to history, then such a person would never play CMBB in the first place- the Axis lost, period; the outcome is already known.

The suspension we make when we play a 'historical' scenario in CMBB is "I'd like to see what would have happened had I been commander on that day..." For the vast majority of us, this is our reason for playing a scenario, if we even care about historical accuracy to begin with. This part should be very clear.

With that in mind, it should be no effort say the same thing about a Company- "I'd like to see what would have happened, (over the course of time), to this particular company, had I been commander in that year..."

If Mr Grog has no especial interest in following the exploits of some *particular* company, then he can of course merely play QB after QB, stepping the date a bit, checking charts to be sure the weather is correct on that day... Seems boring to me, but that's why they make tutti frutti.

If Mr Grog *does* want to follow a particular company through the campaign yet without the chore of nurturing them to betterment, then I wonder Why?

In the RPG type, against the accusation that it is nonhistorical, that in 19 something there were only X percentage of veterans around... Sure, I agree that the facts of history should be incorporated in the campaign, but when I talk about my crack company with three attached whirblewhinds I'm not talking about the whole dang Axis armies, I'm talking about just my one little teeny tiny Company! An exceptional company, if my tactics are exceptional, but just a company nonetheless.

So for myself, if you haven't guessed, I would suggest that the rules lean toward the RPG side rather than the Grog side. I have nothing against Grogs... duh! But the rationale for their possible interest in a campaign with rules anything remotely like we have now seems... extremely rarified.

My two cents; hope you've enjoyed them; hope they serve to stir the cauldron back to a discussion of the underlying assumptions in regards what is happening here. I think the rules are slightly on the ice of uncertainty, and the best speed may come from a slower start... ?

Eden