Anyone thinking of an operational game/CMMC style game using CMBN?

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Anyone thinking of using CMBN as a way of resolving an operational game/ a CMMC style game?

The great Normandy CMMC umpired by James Bailey about ten years ago was the best of the best of war-gaming. CM is underused just resolving “battles....”. As a tool within an operational game it really comes to its own as the greater context adds greatly to the fun.

CMMC games are difficult to do due to the time commitment. This is always underestimated by those organising them but I like others have not entirely given up on the idea.

Are there any in offing? Anyone else thinking along these lines.... ?

Lots and lots of fun to come....

All the best,

Kip.

[SD Smack]

I always found the meta game concept facinating. I was very interseted in sdp's Operation Nemisis before he closed it. Not sure what the issues were that caused its cancellation but CMx1 had meta games that were able to be played. Unfortunately I never was able to participate but its a logical use of the CM series. As a kid (and still!) I always liked the large miniature campaigns (i.e. Command Decision) but due to a lack of income ($20 bucks a week hardly covers the cost of miniatures :-) ) I never did more than buy the games and dream! But BFC has basically taken that concept and placed it in the computer realm and with that we can play PBEM. This reduces the need for a gaming location and time to play as well as prepare your armies for the fight (no one wants to show up with unpainted minis!!!)

Besides the meta campaigns RoBo's Campaign rules were also very cool and easy to use. Of course we had random maps in CMx1 and not so in CMx2. But there were numerous maps that were produced for his rules.

I am all for it. My limiting factor as I would imagine most peoples, is the lack of ability to play these when I go on trips. Manytimes I have a lack of internet or if I do have internet I don't have a way to upload/download the emails.

Anyways, can't wait for this to come out!

Steve-o

[kipanderson]

Steve,

I think people are too ambitious.... they naturally try to follow the example of James Bailey who at its peak had many tens of people involved in CMMC Normandy. This is a mistake in my view.

The idea I have is to resolve most of the battles at the operational level with only a minority resolved using CM. So if there is a particularly critical contact battle it may be resolved using CM but the operational game is as big a part of the overall gaming experience as playing out the CM battles.

Some of the CM battles being resolved playing human v human; some playing against the umpire with the umpire setting out to deliver a certain carefully measured type of opposition. Some also player v the AI. All at the umpires discretion.

Keep the game small scale which really means having enough umpires for the number of players.

It is all doable but must be approached with care .

All the best,

Kip.

[noxnoctum]

What you mean like a metagame? (so each battle represents a territory or something)

That was tried with "Operation Nemesis" and it fell through but with a brand new game AND WW2 I'm sure it could be pulled off. I'd offer to start it up but I don't any html skillz and no $$$ for a website.

[Praetori]

I'd love to see a brigade or possibly division sized CMx2 MC with battalion level combat over a smaller area. That way there would be true collaboration with battalion and brigade (and upwards) and even the brigade/division staff could have human "players" with stuff to do.

A replicated historical engagement with that foundation would be awesome (as it would give some insight into how accurate the CMx2 engine might be as well as a ruler to compare the results against). Not to mention that it's usually easier to find good maps and OOBs for known battles.

[JonS]

A replicated historical engagement with that foundation would be awesome.

IMO, actual campaigns make a poor basis for a meta campaign because both sides know - or can easily find out - very detailed OoBs and the general flow of the battle that's to be expected. That then negates the value of intelligence, surprise, and to a large degree planning. Further, since players tend to drive their pixeltruppen much harder than any meatspace commander could possibly imagine, any relationship with reality would rapidly dissolve.

IMO, a better approach is to use realistic forces (so that, for example, a campaign featuring a 1944-style US infantry division looks like this, rather than a semi-random QB-style polyglot), on real or realistic terrain, but in an imaginary operational setting. That way any historical data or information is irrelevant to players - only what they can learn in-game counts. CMMC1 ("A Louviers Affair") was mostly like this. It was set in August(?) 1944 along the Seine, but assumed a slightly different denoument of the Normandy campaign.

That approach, though, does demand that the GM has his stuff all in one sock, and is able to come up with a complete and credible operational setting, including back-story and INTREPS that bring players up to speed, and that the GM can continue to feed information and intelligence into the campaign and it's players in a meaningful and useful way. It's a lot more work, but I think it creates a far better level of immersion.

That's my opinion - others differ

[kipanderson]

Hi,

I prefer something very close to what Jon suggested, and CMMC1 was.

Real units with real OOB but in fictional situations. But not too wildly fictional. “This could have happened...” type situations.

Strategically realistic but operationally fictional.

All the best,

Kip.

[scottie]

Interested in this thread as it appears to be a resolution to the idea of a strategic layer (and i assume CMBN quick battles ?) Also I do not understand what the following means:

"CMMC"

"Meta Campaign"

Can someone explain please ?

Thanks for your time

Scott

[aka_Hawk]

CMMC: Combat Mission Meta Campaign. Current installment is CMMC4 which is just starting up. The forum is here: http://cmmc.org.uk/Forum

What the term "Meta" means in this concept is something you must ask someone who has English as their first langauage. I do believe it has something to do with "massive", or "huge" or "overall" or sumfink. My translater just translate Meta with Meta...

CMMC4 is still in the planning stage, so I am not sure how much info I can reveal at this moment (I'm a GM or Game Master but only for the support tool Geccos), but it will not use CMBN.

The strategic layer is handled outside the CM games which are used to resolve actual battles. The GMs then handle the strategic part to ensure fog of war for the players on that level. I.e. all (most?) players control some part of the forces on the strategic map, and when a battle occure between opposing forces the GMs create the scenario in CM and send it to the players who will do the actual playing/fighting.

[scottie]

Thank you for the reply .. sounds like the GM has a hell of a lot of work !

A quick battle API for CMBN to allow QB generation based anyone ...

[Jaws]

Ceck out onionwars too. I think they will pick-up CMBN sooner or later.

http://www.onionwars.net/phpbb/

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yes... just to give yet another quick, short explanation of what is normally meant by CMMC.

Combat Mission Meta Campaign.

Both sides are sent operational maps with their units and enemy units placed on them. Imagine a 1:50000 map with full details of your own side’s battalions and companies but only limited details of enemy battalions and companies.

In forums, one or more for each side, matters are discussed and then the commanders, division or corps, issue orders to their own subordinate players. Where units are to move, what they are to do, attack this village, defend this ridge line and so on... The orders are also sent to the Games Masters/GMs/Umpires.

The umpires then decide where units have ended up, given the orders, and which units are in contact with the enemy and due to fight that turn. The umpires then build the battles in CM and send them off to the battalion commanders of the units to resolve the operational turn using CM. After a given number of CM in game turns, or some other criteria, both players Save the game and send back the files to the umpires.

The umpires then construct new maps reflecting the outcomes of the CM battles and send them off to each side as before to start another operational turn. The umpires also include an operational briefing with Intel reports and such.

That is it....

In my version of CMMC many of the contact battles would be resolved by the umpires at the operational level also some of the “player’s games...” would be fought against the AI and some against the umpires. This would allow a smaller number of players to fight their CMMC within a larger operational environment.

All very good fun indeed.....

All the best,

Kip.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

BTW... also great to see the activity from CMMC4 and Onionwars.

Good luck.... we can all learn from each other... the more of these the better .

All the best,

Kip.

[JohnO]

In my version of CMMC many of the contact battles would be resolved by the umpires at the operational level also some of the “player’s games...” would be fought against the AI and some against the umpires. This would allow a smaller number of players to fight their CMMC within a larger operational environment.

How are you going to resolved battles from the operational level instead of letting the players fight the tactical battle? Is it by the roll of dice?

[76mm]

I think one of the challenges for creation of metacampaigns would be the creation of all of the necessary maps. I think it would be a good idea if all of the people interested in meta-campaigns agree on a standard CMBN map size so that there is the chance to share maps among different metacampaigns.

[aka_Hawk]

Well, in CMMC4 the battle maps in CM are based on rather detailed real maps, and there are fairly strict guidelines on how CM maps should be made based on those real maps. Of course, if you use a more generic strategic map one could quite possible use a set of maps made for another campaign.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

John,

How are you going to resolved battles from the operational level instead of letting the players fight the tactical battle? Is it by the roll of dice?

In part.... there is a last roll of the dice just to slightly modify the final outcome by a small percentage so there is not perfect predictability. Not that there ever could be prefect predictability because there is Fog of War and all is not know about enemy units. But a final dice roll modifier is still a good idea. The basic formula used is derived from the much maligned Trevor N Dupuy who although somewhat dated with his school boy maths I still think did a reasonable job. A fuller explanation is given below. It is a very dry, very quickly knocked out explanation one night just to record my thought for my own use. Tables are not included here, not meant to be a full explanation but a taste of how I will be doing it.

76mm

I think one of the challenges for creation of metacampaigns would be the creation of all of the necessary maps.

Agreed..... maps are the real time killer. But must be high quality to give a quality experience.

Aka Hawk

Well, in CMMC4 the battle maps in CM are based on rather detailed real maps, and there are fairly strict guidelines on how CM maps should be made based on those real maps.

Again.... agreed. It is a must to take maps from real world topography. People always, often anyway, think they can “imagine... “ real world terrain. They cannot... . Maps taken from real terrain, to a real world scale... look more realistic in ways i can always spot but not always explain.

Quick, late night rant on how operational combat will be resolved.

All the best,

Kip

Operational Combat Resolution.

Introduction.

Most will find the partial explanation of how this is done tedious, a view I have some sympathy with but it is a means to an end. There is no need to read what follows, only recommended if really interested.

Operational combat is resolved by use of methods common in the ‘70s and ‘80s to predict the outcome of such clashes. The results of such predictions are of course average outcomes based on historic data given the prevailing circumstances. Both for the sake of realism and to avoid the boredom that prefect predictability would lead to the final results are modified by chance, a die roll. But the centre point of a spread of the operational results will be historically accurate. The methods used had a good record of predicting outcomes in high-intensity warfare up the contemporary age. Say the early ‘90s.

There will be three outcomes predicted for each operational clash. The distance advanced by the attacking unit, if any. The casualties of the attacking unit and the casualties of the defending unit.

The final modifier applied to all three predictions.

Once all three predictions have been calculated their results, call them A for average, will be modified by a final die roll to simulate the uncertainties of any single clash. Two six sided dice will be rolled and A will be modified in all three cases as given below.

Die Roll Percentage Modification to A

2 0.55

3 0.60

4 0.65

5 0.75

6 0.85

7 1.00

8 1.15

9 1.25

10 1.35

11 1.40

12 1.45

Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates..

When going on to explain how Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates are calculated there will be no attempt to give all of the modifications or full detail of how this is done. To do so would mean transcribing large chunks of books. The aim is to give a flavour of how it is done and the factors taken into consideration, which are many.

Both Distance Advanced and Casualty Rates for attacker and defender are given by their respective historic Standard Rates derived from many hundreds of clashes which are then modified to take into account the particular circumstances.

How does it work?

Let’s take the Distance Advanced after a given clash as the first example. I will then explain how the casualties for both the attacker and defender are calculated.

Calculating the Distance Advanced, if any, after a clash at the operational level.

The first step is to calculate the Combat Power, P, for both sides in the clash. This is the Combat Power of the units involved in the given clash modified to take account of the prevailing circumstances. This is needed not only for obvious reasons but because the Combat Power Ratio, P/P, German to US and also US to German are used in all later calculations.

The basic formula for Combat Power is,

P = Units Strength as given in game x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier

The Operational Status Modifier and Terrain Modifier are only used when calculating the Combat Power of the defender. Let’s use an example.

Assume that one German infantry battalion of Unit Strength 6 is defending against three US infantry battalions of Unit Strength 4 each. The Operational Status of the German unit is Hasty Defence, the terrain Rolling Gentle, Mixed.

US Combat Power = Pus

Pus = 12 (There are no Operational Status or Terrain Modifiers for the attacker.)

German Combat Power = Pg

Pg = 6 x 1.3 (Hasty Defence Table x 1.3 (Rolling Gentle, Mixed Table A.)

Pg = 10.14

The all important Combat Power Ratios are thus

Pus/Pg = 12/10.14 = 1.18 and Pg/Pus = 10.14/12 = 0.85

We will need the above later.

Distance Advanced = Figure Derived from Table C x Terrain Modifier from Table D

Distance Advanced = 2.5 x 0.80 = 2.0 km

So 2.0 km is the historically accurate prediction for the distance advanced by the three US battalions in the above situation. But this figure must now be subject to a die roll, as described above, so as to simulate the unpredictability of any individual combat outcome.

Two six sided dice are rolled resulting in a 5, which gives a 0.75 final modifier.

In the game the final figure for the distance advanced by the US units is 2.0 km x 0.75 = 1.5 km.

Calculating casualties for operational clashes.

We will calculate the US/Attacker casualties first.

Basic formula,

Casualties = Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties

Standard Casualty Rate = Average historic casualty rate for a battalion in high-intensity combat for the period 1940 – 1990.

There are two figures. One for the Attacker and one for the defender.

Attacker Standard Casualty Rate = 12.7 %

Defender Standard Casualty Rate = 6.8 %

Opposition Factor = Taken from Table E

In this case we are calculating the attacker’s casualties. So take the applicable Combat Power Ratio, P/P, is

Pus/Pg = 12/10.4 = 1.18

From Table E a P/P Ratio of 1.18 = giving an Opposition Factor of 0.90

Operational Status Modifier = is derived from Table G

US Casualties Operational Status Modifier = 1.00 Has no effect. (The German unit is in Hasty Defence and the US is attacking. See Table G)

Terrain Modifier for Casualties is taken straight from Table F for both sides.

Terrain Modifier for Casualties = Rolling Gentle, Mixed Table F = 0.75

Therefore…

The US casualties are predicted to be

Casualties = Attacker Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties

Casualties = 12.7 % x 0.90 x 1.00 x 0.75

Casualties = 8.57 % Is the historically predicated casualty rate.

Roll two dice giving an 8 = 1.15

Final US/Attacker Casualty Rate = 8.75 x 1.15 = 10.06 %

German Casualties.

Once again…

Casualties = Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties

But this time taking care to find the Opposition Factor using Pg/Pus = 10.14/12 = 0.85 giving an Opposition Factor from Table E 0.98

Also… the Operational Status Modifier for Casualties Table G is for a Defender in Hasty defence 0.90. The Terrain Modifier for Casualties Table F is the same for both sides.. 0.75

Therefore…

Casualties = Defender Standard Casualty Rate x Opposition Factor x Operational Status Modifier x Terrain Modifier for Casualties

Casualties = 6.8 % x 0.98 x 0.90 x 0.75

Casualties = 4.49 % Is the historically predicated casualty rate.

Roll two dice giving another 8 = 1.15 (Went for another 8 so that we can compare the results in this example.)

Final German/Defender Casualty Rate = 4.49 % x 1.15 = 5.16 %

Summary for Results.

Let’s remind ourselves of the example we took…

Assume that one German infantry battalion of Unit Strength 6 is defending against three US infantry battalions of Unit Strength 4 each. The Operational Status of the German unit is Hasty Defence, the terrain Rolling Gentle, Mixed.

Also… both sides had equal luck… with final rolls of eights on the two dice for casualties. …

Results…

Final Distance Advanced = 1.5 km

Attackers Casualties = 10.06 %

Defenders Casualties = 5.16 %

Points to consider.

If you ignore the final roll of the dice, or assume that in all cases the most likely number 7 was the result, the out comes would have been…

Distance Advanced 2 km

Attackers Casualties 8.75 %

German Casualties 4.49 %

If you assume that all the battalions involved had five hundred men than predicted US losses were 131 men and German losses 22 men. Close to six to one.

Why?

There are a number of factors. Firstly the German battalion was rated at a Unit Strength of 6, the three US at only 4 each. Secondly the US attack power was all made up of infantry, not armour and artillery. If the attacking force had been made up of one battalion of infantry, one armour plus a battalion of 105mm guns in support casualties are likely to have been around 50 for both sides. Deriving all our combat power from infantry is very costly in casualties for attackers.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

BTW... am planning to use Geccos, Generic Campaign Control System by a very cunning Norwegian called Pal Woje. He very generously produces free mapping and tracking software for these types of games.

All the best,

Kip.

[GM Ted]

CMMC: Combat Mission Meta Campaign. Current installment is CMMC4 which is just starting up. The forum is here: http://cmmc.org.uk/Forum

CMMC4 -Operation Konrad (Hungary, January 1945) will use CM:BB as the battle resolution tool, because that's still the best WW2 (Eastern Europe) simulation for this purpose available right now.

(CMMC3 - Tunisia 1942, used CM:AK)

I'd like to think that the next Combat Mission Meta Campaign will use CM:BN - it might even be fun to run CMMC1 - A Louviers Affair again, which used CM:BO and I still have most of the documentation.

But from the Gamesmaster perspective, the Game Editor is far more important than up to date grafix and improved AI.

We'll yet have to see if CM:BN will have the kind of functions that are required for extended campaign play.

I fervently hope it will, though.

Regards

GM Ted

PS - Anyone who'd like to know more about Combat Mission Meta Campaigns might like to look at the homepage for CMMC3 - Tunisia 1942.

The site features a basic explanation of the campaign system, parameters, maps used and a Campaign AAR.

http://www.chattlehope.org/CMMC3_Introduction.html

[kipanderson]

Ted, hi,

We'll yet have to see if CM:BN will have the kind of functions that are required for extended campaign play.

I agree that editing is hugely important.... I would love to see the ability to edit Saved games... What are the functions you are after.. ?

All the best,

Kip.

PS... CM, be it CMX1 or CMX2, is not CMMC friendly... but as you show it is doable.. .

[GM Ted]

Kip,

Well - the CMMC system and rules were conceived/inspired through CM:BO - so the minimum functions are those provided by the CMx1 engine.

Map and unit editors, the setting of individual battle parameters, PBEM support, battle setup by a third party (GMs) and password protection for save game files are probably the most important functions.

I agree - most of those are not very userfriendly and battle setups require some tweaking and/or out of the box thinking in many cases, but as you said, it's doable.

Editing saved games - assuming this can be controlled by setting a special password for editing access - would be very high on my wishlist.

Cut and paste of units from one battlefile to another would be my number one.

In fact, all the functions that were planned for the defunct CMC project would do very nicely. But I guess that was, and is, too much to hope for.

[aka_Hawk]

Hi,

BTW... am planning to use Geccos, Generic Campaign Control System by a very cunning Norwegian called Pal Woje. He very generously produces free mapping and tracking software for these types of games.

All the best,

Kip.

Thank you Kip, glad you like it! The new version now include Range circles and the posibility to import your own images for units. You'll find the download link on the CMMC4 forum mentioned above, or send me a PM and I'll email you the link.

[kipanderson]

Aka Hawk,

You have broken your own cover... .

I.... and I am sure all those interested in using CM within an operational game are hugely grateful for your efforts. Geccos and the programs before it really are stunning... .

Thanks....!

Ted,

We think along similar lines. Your list and my list would be the same.

I guess we are after the same thing....!

All the best,

Kip.

[Tactical Wargamer]

Lets hope Battlefront in future can support these awesome meta campaigns ideas.......

[Pešadija]

I think we'll see a "WW2: Total War" before that.