CM Times 10 - An Operational Campaign Revolution

[JasonC]

CM times 10 - An operational campaign revolution

I had a useful thought yesterday, which I thought I would share with CM campaign game enthusiasts. Many have asked what higher level game system to use for operational maneuvers, to generate tactical battles from, and most I've heard from use simple, abstract systems of locations. I used spreadsheets and simple paint maps. But we are looking at all we need and more, we just didn't realize it. CM itself, in the form of the powerful map editor, is all the "operational level" system we need.

The idea is to use edited scenario files as the basic element of a CM campaign at the operational level. But this is not CM, it is "CM times 10". The map in the editor is used as a virtual sand table, and CM units are place on it like miniatures. Exchange of edited scenario files and examining them in the editor preview, becomes the basic step each turn for the operational level players.

Units on the "times 10" map represent one step up in the organizational chart, compared to their function in CM - or two steps if you are running a much larger campaign. Thus, the placement of a platoon and MG or mortar in CM times 10 represents the location of a company, its constituent platoons, and its weapons platoon - or for large campaigns, a battalion and its company. Placement of a single tank represents a platoon of that vehicle, or for larger campaigns a company.

In the map editor overview, those 5x5 grids become square kilometers. Each tile represents a 200x200 meter area. You can measure distances on your sand table with the fantastic LOS tools. On the parameters screen, set the height contours to 5 meters and use double steps when editing terrain height, and you've got 10 meter contour lines. You will also be able to see over trees and small buildings, so even operational level LOS lines can be traced e.g. for artillery sighting.

Not only can this system create operational maps, and keep track of the location of the operational formations for the campaign GM, it also becomes a powerful tool for the players. Each turn, the GM opens his master file and removes all unspotted enemy units, and places any additional ones he wants to represent false sightings. Then he saves the file under a different name, and sends it to the side commander. Now the commander can see the terrain he is fighting over, the location of his troops, spotted enemies - all in 3D CM. He can even annotate his map with objectives for his troops, using the "landmark" feature - no guesswork about where units were intended to go.

The GM gets two files from the rival commanders, mentally notes the orders for the first, and opens his master file. He moves that sides troops in accordance with their orders. Repeat for the second side, then save the new turn's updated master file. When units approach close enough, a CM fight is generated. You can vary the map size for such fights, and the distance at which engagements occur - no more need for cookie cutter, one size fits all operational squares (unless you want them, I suppose). The starting distances are read off the LOS tool in the times 10 master file.

Terrain on the 10 times CM map can be kept fairly abstract. When constructing the map, use the "shift" key to "paint" a whole square kilometer with one terrain type at a time (aim your mouse at the center square). Then the type of random map used for the tactical fight is the type represented by that terrain. Woods means heavy woods, scattered trees means moderate woods, brush means light woods, etc. Farmland kilometers have a few wheatfield tiles. Small wood buildings mean village terrain, large stone ones mean town. You can mix the types by having several terrain types in the same kilometer grid. The degree of detail is up to the GM and his available time, but as a quick way of using the system, random maps at the tactical level, of the appropriate type, can be generated without lots of work.

I plan on running a new campaign game using this system, with the players from my last one. I expect things to go a lot smoother with the CM "sandtable" to help, so the scale will be a bit larger. I offer the method to others because I think it has such great promise. No longer do you have to rely on your players envisioning the terrain from your map properly - you can just show it to them. Their orders become a snap to give and to decipher. Every unit has a unique designation, and an exact location. Electronic record keeping becomes nearly automatic, and informing players of developments is as simple as an email attachment. Double blind operational level maneuvering with a map becomes as easy as previewing a scenario.

Comments and further suggestions on use of this method are most welcome.

[Robeek]

Okay, probably the last person you want to hear this from... being a lurker, and having only a VERY small understanding of how Campaign games work...

But I DO have experience with GM'ing large scale campaigns of other games (and sorting out battles, news, random occurences, etc.), so I guess I'm entitled to say my little bit here.

This sounds like an -excellent- idea.

Streamlining in general is a good thing, but this seems to fit together beautifully. Less of a hassle for the GM, more compatible with the other players, and a format which everybody can understand with only a few minutes of reading. Take heed, I got a feeling that if campaign games are going to be the "next big thing" in the CM world (that is, before CM:BB or invincible super finns), this format will be the mainstream way of setting up campaign games.

Yes, file this idea under "useful". Now's all you need to do is test it out for pitfalls and bugs.

[Grisha]

I agree, excellent use of existing resources for a new direction.

[Stixx]

Or you could just join the CMMC.

The largest and most well thought out campaign system for Combat Mission.

CMMC

[JasonC]

"if campaign games are going to be the "next big thing" in the CM world, this format will be the mainstream way"

That is my hope as well. I think it will be so easy any threesome can run a campaign, as umpire and two opponents. And if anyone thinks this method will be overshadowed by CMBB, consider what you can do with this idea and any decent map of Stalingrad. Now that's a campaign game LOL.

[Pascal DI FOLCO]

JasonC,

You invented the "fractal CM Campaign" :eek: . Great idea, worth a Fields Medal !!

[Grisha]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Stixx:

Or you could just join the CMMC.

The largest and most well thought out campaign system for Combat Mission.<hr></blockquote>

You still have to admit, this idea is a great refinement to the operational game process due to its simplicity.

[Fenris]

Good idea. Simple solution, very appropriate We're already using minatures at the platoon level.

Alot of the tools in the game would help with rule determination.

Arty can be represented for working out possiblities of fire support during an fight. Self propelled guns or mortars used in an off the map bombardment role because they're within range of a battle.

"Then the type of random map used for the tactical fight is the type represented by that terrain"

Maps can be generated as required and saved. This would add up to be a detailed version of the contested parts of the whole mud map. Detailed maps can be reused (in editted form if need be) as the fight moves across old battle fields.

A Mod could be made that actually simplifies the look of the units and the terrain. This modded version of CM could be used solely for the campaign mud map representation.

Well they're the first things that I thought of - idea has good potential.

Regards,

Fenris

[Stixx]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Grisha:

You still have to admit, this idea is a great refinement to the operational game process due to its simplicity.<hr></blockquote>

Yes Very true.

It just depends if you would prefer things simple or as realistic as possible. The CMMC is so "In-Depth" you can't possibly comprehend it until you are envolved.

This system would probably better suit "Weekend warriors" while the CMMC is for more "Hard core" Wargamers for lack of better words.

[JasonC]

I playtested the mother of monster board wargames, Terrible Swift Sword (the basis of the Battleground Series on computers, and by modern standard small potatos) at an Origins convention before it was published. That was in the 1970s. I think I'm about as hard core as grogs come.

The power of the CM map editor should not be underrated. Even on its own, it could be the most flexible and powerful "cyberboard" system yet published for modern war, even if there weren't a "go" button and an actual tactical game engine. We just haven't thought of it that way before. It is a virtual sand table, and as such is as flexible as those original tools of military wargames.

I hope to soon give a sample of what it can do. I am working on a (mostly) historical campaign scenario set in the opening days of the Bulge (some adjustments for play balance). I am currently transfering maps to the CM editor. It sure is easier than designing TOAW scenarios, let me tell you. I encourage everyone to fool around with the editor with this new idea in mind, and bring us more operational scenarios, especially ones on a relatively small scale.

[Jarmo]

Sounds great!

One thing that springs to mind.

Would it be doable to send the map to respective commanders in orders phase?

That way a commander could issue movement orders and then save without hitting "go". That'd seem like an easy way to tell the referee where you'd want the units to move and what route to use.

Don't know if it'd be worth the extra hassle though.

[benpark]

Great idea, Jason. I wonder if the regular terrain tile to campaign terrain mod is very far off, it would be easy to change up in CMMOS. Any ideas for play against AI?

[JasonC]

I thought of that Jarmo, and yes it would be sweet for the commanders to enter their orders normally. But that is a lot more work, because it means all changes aren't made in a scenario file. It means starting games, opening lots of files, lots of switching. Cumbersome.

My substitute idea is to use the landmarks feature of the scenario editor. The moving player just picks the spot he wants Company B to head for, hits ctrl while clicking there, and types in "Company B objective" or even more simply "B go here". The edited scenario file goes to the umpire, with these little messages on it. He reads them, and applies them in his master scenario file.

It keeps everything a scenario file and makes all changes with the editor, rather than the game. The game is used for the tactical stuff, obviously. The editor is used for all the operational stuff.

[Redwolf]

Excellent idea. It always strikes me how straightforward the CM editor is compared to TOAW. Now if we only could draw illustration lines on it...

One annoyance avoidance tip: Don't try to remove unspotted units, place them in some edge of the map that means "ignore this". It is annoying to try'n'error to remove stuff in the units menu and then seeing you removed the wrong tank.

[Dirtweasle]

Interesting idea. I'd suggest you playtes a small version first though. I've got a funny feeling the workload of moving the sub-units onto the "big map" is goig to be lot of work.

Jason, have you seen COCAT? It's the CMMC uses. COCAT

You can take pretty much any map image and load it up. I have'nt asked the creator of it, here is is email; paaar@online.no By just over writting the map file you have a very flexible tool for alot of different campaigns.

[Steve McClaire]

A very interesting idea.

Also, keeping track of which unit is which is relatively easy -- use the scenario editor to 'name' each unit. So an infantry squad standing in for a battalion might be named "1/3RCT", "I./1058 Rgt", or something like that. You can then tell what you unit are deleting in the unit list of the scenario editor.

[LGMB]

Soldiers,

Bloody hell!

I want in on these campaign games now!

[Louie the Toad]

Dear JasonC,

It was I most recently I think, that started the thread about having an operational or strategic level game that generated the tactical CM battle.

I have asked the same question at least one other time too --- both without satisfactory results until now.

This looks great.

I began playing the 2 and a ref type of games back in the early sixties. At one time we had two groups of guys (and a ref) playing Battle of the Bulge AH. It all fell apart however when we discovered well into the game that there were 2 different versions of the map that had road junctions that were not in the same place !

I would like to playtest your proposal. I have two other CM players that would be eager to try this.

A Trio Toad

[JasonC]

I find the units and set up are a snap. The time consuming part using the CMx10 approach is making an accurate historical map. If you can settle for an approximate operational map, the whole thing can be set up very quickly. Just now I added the American forces for my early Bulge campaign. Entering the units and their unit designations took me less than 30 minutes, for a reinforced battalion team, with all kinds of attachments. Placing them on the map took less than 15 minutes. No part of it was at all hard, and easily half the time for the unit entering portion was looking at my notes to see what went where in the force.

If anyone is good at putting up screen shots (I'm not), I'll send them the file and maybe they can show everyone here what it looks like. Understanding, of course, that the map is still under construction (road net, villages, and streams done for a bit over half the map so far).

As for wanting to playtest the idea, by all means, create your own on a modest scale and run it with 3 players. If you have questions, fire them off to me, in email. Several people have said they want in to the one I am about to start. But my first priority goes to repeat players from my last, especially those who didn't see much action. I'll have to see if there is any room after hearing from all of them.

Oh, and one thing that might help. If anyone knows good -web- sources for topographic maps (in my case, of eastern Belgium) please post a URL. I know of places on the web to get overhead maps without terrain height, or with only high points marked as peaks, as well as places to order physical topographic maps. But other than within the US (Geological Survey stuff) and a few other places (Canada, Australia), I haven't seen systematic coverage for maps with contours posted on the web. The 1:50000 Series 1922 French maps would be great.

As for CoCat, I hadn't seen it before, no. I have it now. It looks reasonable enough, and the included map is great of course (reason enough for everyone to get it - quite seriously). Using the editor is always going to be easier than defining every unit and label in a utility program, it seems to me. Maybe it will grow on my, but at first sight it reminds me of other cyberboard programs, which I have always found a bit cumbersome to use. I think the nicest feature is simply that it easily imports map images, if you've got good map jpgs to begin with.

[JasonC]

An update on how things are going with my next early Bulge campaign.

My master scenario file now has the road net and villages, rivers and streams, the beginings of the topography, and all units placed. Besides researching the fight and its forces (the subject has been of interest to me for some time), all of that was done in 2-3 days, in a few hours a day. Including looking up accounts, finding maps, translating forces to CM and to CMx10 for the map representation, sketching on graph paper, transfering terrain to the CM editor, adding unit designations, etc.

I should have the trees and fields added by the end of the day. The only hard part remaining is the detailed height stuff, which hardly needs to be exact to begin with, since I will be using auto-generated tactical maps. This is much easier than any other operation design I've ever done - in CM, TOAW, cyberboard, you name it. I heartily recommend trying it with your own favorite fight.

[ 10-30-2001: Message edited by: JasonC ]</p>

[JAK]

1 bt. CO, 3 Company CO, PBEM, Btl. CO sends orders by E-mail to each Company CO after he looks at the map. The 1st Co places his company and sends the map to the 2nd co, the 2nd Co places his company and sends map to the 3rd, the 3rd places and hits go and procedes to give orders to his company then sends it to the 1st CO, and so on till the first turn is ready. At the same time the opposition is doing the same thing. Now since I've never played PBEM I would love to know if this is possible?

Hmmmm,

Jake

[JasonC]

That would take a long time, JAK. I've been having players use TCP/IP to resolve tactical fights (one sitting, not 2 months like PBEM), and I've had just one operational commander on each side (two might work with side by side commands, too).

Understand that the primary time constraint comes from scheduling issues - that A, B, and C aren't all available at once. So if A does something, B won't get around to his add-ons for 6-12 hours at best, and a day or two at worst. By the time you've "done the rounds", you can spend a week on the op-moves, a week arranging fight schedules, etc.

Playability is the key to getting campaign CM to work. One can always multiply complexity, steps, detail to an endless extent, but if it doesn't increase playability you usually lose more than you gain. Now, if you had players dedicated to doing the turn all together, e.g. on IRC or something, and did the whole side's turn in one sitting, then that could be as workable as a single operational commander.

Most players just don't have schedules that can commit to such meetings every day, or every 2-3 days. Even with pools of commanders to assign to a given fight, arranging a TCP/IP meeting usually takes a week. Normal TCP/IP games work because the pool of potential players is large, so there is usually a match somewhere when any given person wants to play - or within an hour or two.

[JAK]

Thanx Jason, but what I mean is the size of the battle would be only to Battalion level. So the Btl. Co would say to 1st company CO to take the village at the center of the map and that is as far as the Btl. co would delve into the Sit. It would be the Company CO's job to work out all of the tactics and the only units the Btl CO would have C and control over are the Blt. CO unit and all FO's unless he attatches them directly to one of the Company CO's. The players could in theory (I know, EVERYTHING looks good in theory! ) Be people availible for 2-3 turns aweek and secondarys may be picked for backup. But in this manner, we could open up a whole new style of multiplayer gaming in which the battles are mostly on the Battalion level and the victorys are based on the Battalion's success as a whole.

Maybe its unfeasible, but I think it would be pretty cool.

Jake

[Jarmo]

That two commanders/side might prove to be really cool.

First thought is the market garden type setting.

Allies: One commander (surrounded) tries to survive, while the other is trying to break through to help.

Axis: One commander tries to delay the breakthrough while the other tries to destroy the defenders.

What makes it interesting, would be the different priorities of the commanders in the same side. Neither wanting to sacrifice his forces just to make things easier for the other guy.

Not trying to get Jason abandoning the bulge.

Just thoughts.

[JAK]

How about this situation Jarmo? 2 pltns of US paras, 1 bzka, 1 60mm mortar and 2 30cal mgs holding a bridge deep in the Axis territory. 2 companies of US mech. inf. and 2 pltns of TD's are trying to break through and save the paras!

The Para's are under one commander,and 1 companie and 1 pltn of the relief force go to two other players. The germans have a flak battery of 88mm's just outside of the town in the direction of the and a SS motorized company with some AFV's . The flak battery is under one commander and the Company under another.

Thoughts?

Jake