CM-Europe-MONSTER-campaign

[Schoerner]

I don't know if this has been already discussed, but what about a strategic component in CM for us ladder players?

Think of the possibility, not only to play for our personal ladder-results, but also being involved in a huge operation with hundreds of CM games, where each game-result affects the strategic situation!

Here’s the idea:

What we need is a BIG map of Europe that is covered by CM-battles in size and topography.

After an election on the ladder, the elected ladder-players (only players with (minimum) more than 4 battles should have the right to elect them, and ofcourse, Alliies can elect Alliies only and same for Axis side) represent the german OKW and the allied HQ and determine, where on the map (which segment or hex) the battles take place.

The “resource management” is represented by the playing community itself:

if someone wants to play, he just let's the HQ/OKW know which size of battle he wants to play (additionally with preferences of the topography).

After this, the OKW/HQ determines, where on the map the action should take place and marks the area on the public map, so that everyone of the other side can see, where and what size of battles are waiting to be done.

Now the other HQ chooses it's players to play these battles.

After a certain period of time (i.e. 3 days), the defending side has to nominate the player (which player, is the decision of the OKW/HQ (now the ladder becomes a deeper sense , but there should be additional rules, so that also newbies and less good players have the chance to play, too), that should do the job, otherwise the marked field goes to the attacking side.

Ofcourse only adjacent fields can be played with one exception: if there is a neutral field between two enemy fields and a side wants to take it and the other side nominates a player within the pre-determined period of time, it has to be a meeting engagement.

In the case of two adjacent enemy fields on the map, the defender can choose if he want’s to play a meeting engagement, or a defending battle.

When the two players are nominated, everything is like usual for a normal QuickBattle (PBEM or TCP/IP), except the topography and the size of the battle (which is predetermined by the BIG map).

The daytime of the quick battle is determined by the attacker.

I guess the biggest work will be, to make this map and the program that updates the map’s graphics (which side has which fields under control) and manages the strategic components like the available players, their scenario size wishes for the OKW/HQ-“Generals”.

Another important point should be, to limit the battles that can be simultaneously played by one player (I think three simultaneous battles would be quite adequate). This also simulates the ressources for the HQ/OKW and adds more strategic depth to the decisions for the “Generals”.

Do the "Generals" use all the points of the good players? Or should they keep some points (=available games) as reserve?

If a player loses a battle, he will have to wait a certain period of time (one week?), till he can start a new battle (this should simulate the losses of men and material). This doesn’t affect the battles he’s already playing.

And to give the HQ/OKW another great strategic component, it should be possible to surround (german: “einkesseln”) the enemy. This is done, by capturing fields, till the enemy fields are completely surrounded by own fields. If this happens, the whole surrounded fields (area) is given to the surrounding side.

What to do to prevent that the CM-cracks can cut too easily through the map? Well very simple: if the CM-genius wins one battle after another he goes on and on –

1. but he can only play (example) three games simultaneously

2. and the starting fields of his extraordinary success through the enemy’s territory are also very vulnerable: just conquer one/some of the root field(s) back and HE is surrounded -> all fields won back and he’ll have to wait for one week before he can start a new battle

Ofcourse we would need some military specialists, that have an intuitive feeling, how big a CM-battle sould be for the region/hex of the geographical map, where the CM-quick battle belongs to.

Imagine how this would increase the thrill for the player, if he knows he plays (i.e.) one of four 5000 pts. Battles to take Paris and everyone will see the result on the map!

Even the kind of victory can be included: a total victory gives the winner the opportunity to take another adjacent area/hex.

I think it will also be quite exciting for the "Generals", to choose the right players for the battles and make the right strategic decisions, where on the map the next battles should take place. Ofcourse the defending HQ/OKW doesn’t know, which player from the other side is choosen to fight for the marked field.

I think there are two options for the map:

1. very labour-intensive: the map consists of hundreds(?) of small, different in size battle-regions.

Pros: unimportant landscapes can be put into one single battle-map -> only one CM-battle necessary

Cons: what a labour for the developers! - less small and short battles for newbies

2. Hexes – all have the same size, but each Hex has it’s specific CM-values: from very small and short battles (a hex on an unimportant location of the map) to the monster 5000pts. battles with big maps and >40 turns.

A PBEM-opponent of me estimated (he made a rough and quick estimation) that you would at the minimum need 4 battles, 5000pts each for a battle for Paris to match realistic dimensions.

I haven’t checked how many hexes we would need for whole Europe (ofcourse there will be a huge amount of it), if we extrapolate this standard, but if this would result in an too large number of hexes (1 hex =1 real PBEM/TCP battle), ofcourse we could increase the size of each hex.

If you are a programmer, please let us know, if such a programm is possible to be made.

It would be great, if the program updates the map automatically – the HQ/OKW just enters the results – and the conquered fields are calculated automatically (surround actions) and the map shows the name of the players that fought/fight for each hex.

Maybe we should think forward (CM BB) and a map with Europe and Russia instead of western and central europe would be better.

It also should be taken into discussion, to limit the players that can join the campaign – to have the same number on each side.

Or, maybe better: each player tells the OKW/HQ his maximum amount of simultaneous games (he isn’t allowed to play more than this number) and each game brings one point.

For example: if Axis has 25 players but Allies have 40, it would be easy for Alliies to conquer new fields, ‘cause Axis isn’t able to nominate enough players in time for the marked hexes.

But if we take a look at the points, it doesn’t matter how many players each side has, we only have to take care, that both sides have quite the same number of points.

While I’m writing a lot of new possibilities appear: think of for attack marked fields, but the HQ/OKW hasn’t enough players that are ready to play – so the HQ/OKW needs to send out conscription-commands.

A thought about the beginning of the CM-monster-battle: France and Germany in their original borders, surrounded by “neutral” hexes.

Each side can mark a neutral hex, to be conquered. Because, the other side isn’t adjacent to the hex, the hex is occupied by the attacker after a certain period of time (I suggest a shorter time than the usual time to nominate a player for the defending side). Remember: there must be a real player, to occupy the hex and all other restrictions (max. simultaneously battles) are guilty.

Ofcourse it will take some days, till Axis and Alliies can play “real” CM-battles against each other, but this phase is also important for the strategic development of the occupied territory.

Please excuse my bad english and feel free to develop these basic thoughts and what you think of this idea and if you would like to play battles in such a CM-monster-campaign.

Schörner

(member of blitzladder www.theblitz.org)

[ July 02, 2002, 10:34 PM: Message edited by: Schoerner ]

[Gyrene]

There's a couple of campaigns like that in progress, both the CMMC (CM Meta Campaign) and the lighter-hearted (But no less ass kicking!) Onion Wars Campaign.

Gyrene

[K_Tiger]

I know what he mean....or i think..

A hole europe map like in WWIIonline... may with forts like Maginot-line and eben emael or something other small but different bunkers and original citys.

Its also my dream with giant, may some smaller "kessel" where you can surround your ennemy and cut of his supply routes ect.

Sorry to say, CM does not fullfill my emotions anymore...there is nothing to reach for my troops. I need real targets with a greather campaign like "offensive reconing" or "capture this T-34 factory"...or hold of the ennemy on the left flank who is trying to break thrue...

Yes...for such a game, i need to wait some more years, but im still hoping...

[Schoerner]

@Gyrene: CMMC has predefined scenarios and is much to time consumpting to administrate

@K-Tiger: i don't mean predefined scenarios.

All that the geographical map determines, are the options for the quick-battle generator: the OKW/HQ determines which hex you play (for example in the ardennes) - the predefined hex-map determines that this hex is a 1000 points battle, with 20 turns, big hills, many trees and a village.

With this parameters given from the HQ/OKW the two opponents create a normal quick-battle for PBEM or TCP/IP and play.

[Sheck]

Schoerner,

I think you are talking about something like the scale from Panzer Leader or Panzer Blitz by Avalon Hill. They use a hex system with the smallest unit being a btl. In your case, you could scale the hexes appropriately.

I have seen freeware on the web which creates this type of hex system. Forgot where though...I would look up board wargames and PBEM board wargames. Maybe start with ASL links pages?

Regards,

Sheck2