Operational Game to go with CMBN

[JasonC]

noob - from running several operational campaigns in CMBO and CMBB, I can tell you that the rate determiner is referee time, and the other difficulty is herding cats to round up players to execute the tactical battles. They basically need to be done TCP-IP because PBEM turn around is way too slow. For the campaign to keep moving, all the tactical fights generated by a given operational move need to be resolved in parallel by separate pairs of tactical commanders, and basically on a weekly time scale. With some allowance for slippage some weeks for real life reasons (especially on the referee side, in my experience). I also strongly recommend keeping operational commanders to one per side. They need to generate their operational orders on a quick turn around of 2 days tops, for the rest of the schedule to move.

As for the scale of tactical fights, even one battalion on a side is way too large for an average. If occasionally the largest fight of the week pits a single attacking battalion against a defending company or two and change, that is about as big as you can afford to go. And there need to be operational rules that prevent local giantism, from the op commanders shoving all their strong assets into a single location and then trying to win by stringing those together in sequence. The right scale for the average tactical battle is much smaller - one company on a side or two companies against one.

It is simply a matter of tactical command attention and the time it takes to get results from all the fights that can happen in one op move, at several locations on the map. If you try to have 2 km x 2 km tactical maps with a battalion on a side, you will wait around for 2-3 weeks to hear what the results were. And half your players will lose interest and quit in the meantime.

The way I ran it, I tried to keep tactical maps well under 1 km on a side most of the time, depending on forces engaged, with 1 km on a side the largest allowed. In addition, I penalized local "overstacking" by requiring large forces to arrive piecemeal. The first company on the frontage would always start on the map, but the second would be roughly five minutes delayed, and the next 5 minutes more. Stacking more than a battalion on the frontage would result in a stream of reinforcements but not an appreciably larger initial force. And I did not up the time limits for those larger forces, so the late arrivals would often have difficulty closing up to get licks in before the buzzer. By design. This also has force to space effects, and basically allowed a company on a single "op location" to act as a normal and adequate defensive screen.

I modeled the forces at the operational level by platoon as strength or "steps", but only allowed platoon redeployments for armor or specialists. Artillery by battery usually, occasionally section for rare types. The infantry forces had to be company commands, but a company might be 4 platoon strength or it might be only 2.

My comment about a battalion being the largest you want to allow means you need to reduce the scale several steps. Im my campaigns I typically tried to depict roughly a regiment sized force attacking a similar sized enemy, though the defenders might start with only a battalion and change for the whole operational frontage and rise to more like regiment strength in the aggregate, only counting all the reinforcements they'd receive over the course of the operational campaign. The attackers might total 2 regiments or one and attachments, depending on the operational situation being depicted.

Trying to do full division or even worse, corps level battles or upward, with literal force structures, is a mistake and will result in unplayable epics that just try player patience and lose continuity.

As examples, in my Bulge campaign depicting early fighting for Skyline Drive and the approaches to Wiltz, the Germans had a VG regiment of infantry at the start, and later received a reinforced battalion panzer division force that the VG was trying to clear a route for. The American defenders started with a single infantry battalion, a tank company, and a couple of artillery batteries. They had a few smaller forces - cavalry platoon here, a couple of engineer platoons from rear areas, etc.

In my Kursk campaign the German attackers had Panzergrenadier regiment of 2 battalions and a company of armor, plus small additional forces of Panzerjaegers and the like. The Russian defenders eventually totaled a rifle regiment, plus about a battalion of mechanized later in the campaign. Note this mean the Russian defenders eventually had manpower odds - but in the early fighting the manpower was about even while the Germans had a large edge in both armor and artillery.

Both of those were playable and basically successful, in my opinion. But even at that scale, we were pushing it in the number of tactical fights that could be resolved with any forward movement in the campaign, and especially referee time to implement all the results and generate all the new scenarios.

If I were using full Normandy 44 I would not remotely try to resolve all the operational fights as tactical CM battles, even at 2 times reduced scale. Instead I'd just pick a few fights per turn - 2-3 - and use the match ups the operational game generates to make the tactical scenarios for the week, in effect.

I mean, it is perfectly normal for a single early turn in Normandy 44 to involve 10-15 battles, some of division vs. regiment scale. There is no way you are going to get all of those resolved as CM tactical fights on anything like a weekly time scale. If it took a month, you'd lose half your players or more before the next turn.

Just pick the highlights of the operational game and make "scale reduced" forces and the op map's terrain and support variables. The goal is then just to use the ongoing op game to generate good scenario design ideas, effectively, not to resolve every event in the campaign tactically. Can't be done, not for a full Normandy campaign, even at double step reduced scale. Too much happens and player command attention will not cover it all.

I hope this helps.

[GonzoAttacker]

Turn around in CMMC as one of the GMs was two days or so, Allied GM and Axis gm had to call for map, from map makers, check boundaries, deliver maps with units set up on map with Battle order on map if movement is involved, Prep fires had to be ordered , etc then reset map after prep fires, then send on to attacker or defender for first turn. TCP/IP was quickest turn around, PBEM had to be completed in like five days time. The most complicated thing was orders for both sides, we needed detail orders to interpreted units that were involved.

[Steiner14]

I see two key problems:

1. That CM doesn't offer an import/export function, that allows to pick units and their condition remotely, i.e. via an Excel-sheet or a comma separated format and that it doesn't export the units and their condition after a battle.

2. That CM doesn't offer an ending of the battle, without judging the outcome.

I think, IF these two functionalities would be offered to the gaming community, we would in no time have very interesting developments of meta-campaigning, since it would make it very attractive for single persons to experiment.

Who says, that a meta campaign must be huge? What about a meta-campaign, modelling the historical battle on a map of a few kilometers? Without CM supporting the efforts of meta-campaigning, i think they will always tend to be planned way to huge with the problems, that JasonC described from his big experience in that field. Instead of beginning gigantic and then being forced to shrink from campaign to campaign, because of the natural real world restrictions, an organic grow from small, thrilling and successful campaigns to bigger ones would be much better.

But for smaller meta-campaigns that are really good to handle without much overhead, becoming attractive, imo CM has to offer the community an interface.

Maybe the big success CMBN surely will become, could change Steve's mind to take a few dollars from his soon busting pockets and pay the few hours of development of such an interface? :cool:

[noob]

noob - from running several operational campaigns in CMBO and CMBB, I can tell you that the rate determiner is referee time, and the other difficulty is herding cats to round up players to execute the tactical battles.

The reason i did this project was to come up with a simplified system so that one referee could manage the whole thing if neccassary, as i do not work i spend all my time at the PC so i am uniquely qualified to run such a venture.

If i get enough players wanting to play this i intend to have as many participating as possible and have a reserve pool if posssible to allow for substitutions in the case of drop outs or in case i have to remove a player that persistently fails to return their CMBN game turns at a reasonable rate.

They basically need to be done TCP-IP because PBEM turn around is way too slow. For the campaign to keep moving, all the tactical fights generated by a given operational move need to be resolved in parallel by separate pairs of tactical commanders, and basically on a weekly time scale.

It has to be PBEM as the part of the payback for running this is for me to vicariously partake in the PBEM battles that occur

Also any players who are not involved in actually fighting a CMBN battle will have access to the PBEM video files and passwords of their respective teamates who are fighting one, thus giving them the chance to spectate and thus retain a "connection" with the operation.

With some allowance for slippage some weeks for real life reasons (especially on the referee side, in my experience). I also strongly recommend keeping operational commanders to one per side. They need to generate their operational orders on a quick turn around of 2 days tops, for the rest of the schedule to move.

My real life is CM ....The operational orders side is extremely simple, just a matter of drawing arrows on a map with or without some text, checkout my rules and see.

The time consuming part as pertains to the operational side will be the initial strategic movement plans as they will need to be discussed amongst the team members but given the terrain layout and the limited movement space in the initial stages this will not be a problem, and even in the case of a breakout it will be the usual go for the high ground, bridges and the crossroads i imagine so i cant see there being much delay as far as the operational orders go.

As for the scale of tactical fights, even one battalion on a side is way too large for an average. If occasionally the largest fight of the week pits a single attacking battalion against a defending company or two and change, that is about as big as you can afford to go. And there need to be operational rules that prevent local giantism, from the op commanders shoving all their strong assets into a single location and then trying to win by stringing those together in sequence. The right scale for the average tactical battle is much smaller - one company on a side or two companies against one.

I agree, i will have to make some enquiries into the participants PC performances when the time comes to find out who can actually run the scale of the battles at their largest and also have a capping system for participating units as you suggest which i will have think about as i havent broached that subject in the rules as of yet.

It is simply a matter of tactical command attention and the time it takes to get results from all the fights that can happen in one op move, at several locations on the map. If you try to have 2 km x 2 km tactical maps with a battalion on a side, you will wait around for 2-3 weeks to hear what the results were. And half your players will lose interest and quit in the meantime.

I disagree with you in this department, as i stated before anyone not involved in a CMBN battle will be able to spectate and thus feel connected to events in the operation, if not they can get on with other things and have the operation running in the background so i am not worried too much about time.

And if this filters out the impatient players that is fine.

The way I ran it, I tried to keep tactical maps well under 1 km on a side most of the time, depending on forces engaged, with 1 km on a side the largest allowed. In addition, I penalized local "overstacking" by requiring large forces to arrive piecemeal. The first company on the frontage would always start on the map, but the second would be roughly five minutes delayed, and the next 5 minutes more. Stacking more than a battalion on the frontage would result in a stream of reinforcements but not an appreciably larger initial force. And I did not up the time limits for those larger forces, so the late arrivals would often have difficulty closing up to get licks in before the buzzer. By design. This also has force to space effects, and basically allowed a company on a single "op location" to act as a normal and adequate defensive screen.

I must refer you to the Engagement Rules section which i think covers this exact situation albeit allowing it to be done voluntarily ( i will think on enforcing the aforementioned criteria as you have said )

I modeled the forces at the operational level by platoon as strength or "steps", but only allowed platoon redeployments for armor or specialists. Artillery by battery usually, occasionally section for rare types. The infantry forces had to be company commands, but a company might be 4 platoon strength or it might be only 2.

My comment about a battalion being the largest you want to allow means you need to reduce the scale several steps. Im my campaigns I typically tried to depict roughly a regiment sized force attacking a similar sized enemy, though the defenders might start with only a battalion and change for the whole operational frontage and rise to more like regiment strength in the aggregate, only counting all the reinforcements they'd receive over the course of the operational campaign. The attackers might total 2 regiments or one and attachments, depending on the operational situation being depicted.

Thanks for the advice, this is a subject i have yet to address or think of but i am now at stage to do so , so watch this space.

Trying to do full division or even worse, corps level battles or upward, with literal force structures, is a mistake and will result in unplayable epics that just try player patience and lose continuity.

With this in mind i am considering reducing by at least a third if not half the total forces involved however this initial attempt at running an opertion by the rules i have created is an experiment and if the things you warn of happen i will have to revise them but i would like to try things myself before i change anything too drastically.

I hope this helps.

It has, thanks

[Broadsword56]

Question for those with more CM experience than I have: Are full battalion-on-battalion scenarios on 2km x 2km maps even playable? fun? I realize they take forever as WEGO PBEM battles, but is the experience worth it if both players have the time and interest?

[noob]

Question for those with more CM experience than I have: Are full battalion-on-battalion scenarios on 2km x 2km maps even playable? fun? I realize they take forever as WEGO PBEM battles, but is the experience worth it if both players have the time and interest?

I guess this would be dependant on the performance of a players PC, i have a good system that can run CMSF battles on a large scale and quickly and the load times are negligable, but the best way of finding out is to try it when the game is released, that will be the first thing i do when i get it as it will have a huge bearing on the scale of any operation.

[noob]

Turn around in CMMC as one of the GMs was two days or so, Allied GM and Axis gm had to call for map, from map makers, check boundaries, deliver maps with units set up on map with Battle order on map if movement is involved, Prep fires had to be ordered , etc then reset map after prep fires, then send on to attacker or defender for first turn. TCP/IP was quickest turn around, PBEM had to be completed in like five days time. The most complicated thing was orders for both sides, we needed detail orders to interpreted units that were involved.

I'm familiar with CMMC and thats why my version is simpler

[Steiner14]

Question for those with more CM experience than I have: Are full battalion-on-battalion scenarios on 2km x 2km maps even playable? fun? I realize they take forever as WEGO PBEM battles, but is the experience worth it if both players have the time and interest?

When i started to play CM i learned the basics purely against the AI and that was by far enough to be fascinated for quite some time. Later, when the AI was no challenge anymore i began to try this strange PBEM thing for the first time.

Wow! That was a revelation! A complete new gaming experience began. Tasks, that worked against the AI, suddenly became very difficult. Because of stronger opponents, soon i had to learn how to read CM-maps to get a slight advantage over them. Careful planning and execution became prerequisites to have a chance against better and more experienced oponents. While the AI forgives tactical mistakes, and time to correct them, a good oponent does not. That was one of the most beautiful lessons, after playing the AI had become boring.

When i got better and was winning against most of my randomly picked PBEM-oponents, and with the experience of vanishing oponents if their situation had become uncomfortable, i began ladder-playing.

After around 40 battles ladder-playing became boring, too, because ladder-playing means playing meeting engagements and balanced battles only. Since i had a very high winning streak, i knew i had understood CM-tactics well and that was no longer a challenge, since reaching the top of the ladder would have meant to play much more games, all of the same. But i didn't want to play meeting engagements only, but was interested in the whole variety CM offers: from highly unbalanced attack and defend to historical battles.

I wanted to learn, how an attack against a heavily entrenched oponent has to be conducted in CM, or how a defense could be played against much stronger attackers. That was the reason, why i stopped ladder-playing and kept playing with a handful of players, that had proven very strong and reliable oponents.

And to answer your question: playing big battles with such oponents is a great experience.

BUT: They easily can span over several months and therefore you need to know your opponent well.

Bigger battles do not always mean better, but they offer aspects, smaller battles cannot:

Having battalion sized forces at your disposal, on a big and wide map, and an enemy, that could have weaker, but also could be two- or threefold stronger than you, and you have to think very carefully, before you decide, what to do with all those units and where and when to move them, while you know, your oponent is a very good player, who will merciless punish you for every little mistake, is a great experience.

Smaller battles quite soon reveal the whole picture.

In smaller battles one or two good moves, or losing one of two or three tanks, can also flip the coin torwards one side. But big battles can stay undecided for a long time, since single losses have a relatively smaller impact on the outcome and they contain enough units to compensate for bad luck.

In big battles more surprises later in the game are possible, because of the amount of units and the size of the map.

Big battles also allow real world tactics with flanking movements over several hundred meters.

Therefore i would say big and huge battles are great- IF the players on both sides have enough tactical experience to handle big forces on big maps and have enough knowledge about each other. Therefore i wouldn't recommend big battles for beginners, but for very experienced players with enough patience they are very entertaining and somehow the crown.

[noob]

Therefore i would say big and huge battles are great- IF the players on both sides have enough tactical experience to handle big forces on big maps and have enough knowledge about the opponent. Therefore i wouldn't recommend big battles for beginners, but for very experienced players with enough patience they are very entertaining.

Playing CM at an operational level in my opinion is the ultimate expression of the game or wargaming in general for that matter, unequal battles are then nothing to do with scenario design and all to do with players strategical skill, the player knows he has the option of choosing the location of the tactical engagement and the forces involved and also having the option of being able to retreat out of an unequal tactical situation if neccassary, allowing a fighting withdrawal type game or holding action which when played as one off scenarios are fine but when you know there are consequences to your tactical play that could affect the strategic situation it makes the games that much better irrespective of tactical battlefield size.

So with that in mind would you be you interested in participating in the CMBN operation i will be running ater this year, see the link at the bottom for details.

[tyrspawn]

Long story short, I play only multiplayer CM against friends, but we want more out of the game than just tactical battles. So with the original CM we tried using tools like "Aide de Camp" to help us manage the operational layer. Is there any game that has the option of not calculating combat when 2 enemy unit formations meet? We would then play the game in CM, and update the operational game with the leftover combat strengths.

Thanks,

Tom

The best game you will EVER play operationally is Airborne Assault: Highway to the Reich: The newest Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge is also excellent.IT cannot be topped, the AI is absolutely amazing, it feels like you are playing against a human.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2688076

[Zatoichi]

Another thing to factor in to this is the size of the PBEM files when you have huge maps and many units on each side. Most mail clients won't handle the size (Googlemail tops out at 25mb I think), so you may need to investigate ftp or a file sharing website.

It all sounds very interesting though!

[noob]

Another thing to factor in to this is the size of the PBEM files when you have huge maps and many units on each side. Most mail clients won't handle the size (Googlemail tops out at 25mb I think), so you may need to investigate ftp or a file sharing website.

It all sounds very interesting though!

Good points, i need the game to test the file size and im going to use File Convoy to shift the files, 100 GB capacity and a 7 day hang time for the files.

[dieseltaylor]

Steiner

I agree about huge battles. We have been fortunate at WEbOb in having a four round tournament where the battles start big and the final one tends ot the massive. Batttalions , mass artillery, 50 vehicles a side. oirks very well in the desert. Knowing that to travel from one side of the board to another will take most of the thirty five turns means both defender and attacker need to think very carefully about dispositions and long term targets.

Also it allows for distraction/illusion aswell which is a very uncommon part of CM. By that I mean you feint an attack to draw reinforcements from one area to another. Or yuo actually keep troops lying doggo so that what appears to be a quiet sector suddenly becomes very active in the backend of the game and troops and resource have been drawn away and simply will not have time to get back. : )

All good fun

[tdogg]

I took part in both Jasonc's kursk campaign and CMMC2.

Honestly the small Kursk campaign that Jasonc did was the only campaign I've ever played that accually got completed because of the small manageable state. It was also the most fun because OP turns were progressing and tac battles generated at a good pace that it definately kept my interest.

The CMMC2 campaign (the eastern front operation mars cmbb version) i was in seemed cool when i signed up, but it was so big and complex that it took a year to get going, then another year to get through the first few op turns and initial battles. Then it just collapsed, fell apart and never finished.

Something to think about if you want your campaign to be completed.

[noob]

I took part in both Jasonc's kursk campaign and CMMC2.

Honestly the small Kursk campaign that Jasonc did was the only campaign I've ever played that accually got completed because of the small manageable state. It was also the most fun because OP turns were progressing and tac battles generated at a good pace that it definately kept my interest.

The CMMC2 campaign (the eastern front operation mars cmbb version) i was in seemed cool when i signed up, but it was so big and complex that it took a year to get going, then another year to get through the first few op turns and initial battles. Then it just collapsed, fell apart and never finished.

Something to think about if you want your campaign to be completed.

I am familiar with CMMC and saw the level of complexity first hand, it was more a simulation of being in the army than a game to play CM at the operational level, thats partly why i came up with a more simplified version.

Until i run it im not going to know how long things are going to take but as this is an experiment and i want to learn the pitfalls the hard way so the next one i set up will be an improvement, but there are so many variables its impossible to predict whats going to happen, and one thing to bear in mind is that becuase this is going to be simpler players can have it simmering in the background whilst they get on with other things, its not going to consume their lives like CMMC, so time isnt necassarily a factor, read my rules and tell me what you think.

[Broadsword56]

When i got better and was winning against most of my randomly picked PBEM-oponents, and with the experience of vanishing oponents if their situation had become uncomfortable, i began ladder-playing.

One thing I guarantee to any challengers: I NEVER vanish. I may offer ceasefire and concede, but I know what it's like to invest weeks/months in a PBEM game and then have the opponent slink away, just because the game has started to go badly for them (or even just because they might think it's not exciting enough at a particular point).

[JasonC]

noob - it really has approximately nothing to do with computer specs or file sizes or the complexity of the operational layer or any such factors.

2 km by 2 km fights between full battalions and up just stink as CM games. They take too much command attention time to be fun rather than work and in PBEM form they take way way too long to resolve. An individual commander has to give orders to every squad every minute. That and only that sets the playable scale. Not computer anything, human attention.

As for pretending that it will all work easily because you'll be doing it full time, sorry, doesn't remotely work that way. All your tactical players will not be doing it full time. They don't want to, they won't keep up anything remotely like that level of interest for more than a week or two and then only if events are moving along briskly. As soon as one gets married or fired, you will hang fire for half a week now and two weeks then. Real life means in any group of 10 or 20 people, such occasions will come up for somebody or other and often. "I'll just get a replacement player". Yes you will. A lot. With delay at every turnover. It is a social dynamic issue, not a computer-technical or game system issue.

No doubt YMMV. But I think 6 months in (and that's a minimum for one of these to get anywhere), you will find I was right...

[noob]

noob - it really has approximately nothing to do with computer specs or file sizes or the complexity of the operational layer or any such factors.

2 km by 2 km fights between full battalions and up just stink as CM games. They take too much command attention time to be fun rather than work and in PBEM form they take way way too long to resolve. An individual commander has to give orders to every squad every minute. That and only that sets the playable scale. Not computer anything, human attention.

As for pretending that it will all work easily because you'll be doing it full time, sorry, doesn't remotely work that way. All your tactical players will not be doing it full time. They don't want to, they won't keep up anything remotely like that level of interest for more than a week or two and then only if events are moving along briskly. As soon as one gets married or fired, you will hang fire for half a week now and two weeks then. Real life means in any group of 10 or 20 people, such occasions will come up for somebody or other and often. "I'll just get a replacement player". Yes you will. A lot. With delay at every turnover. It is a social dynamic issue, not a computer-technical or game system issue.

No doubt YMMV. But I think 6 months in (and that's a minimum for one of these to get anywhere), you will find I was right...

I agree with you, i sometimes forget that not everybody lives the way i do and given that i am not going to a/ pay people to play this operation and b/ interview people to weed out the ones with good health, jobs and relationships i guess a compromise is a necassary evil.

I was going to try and get round the big battle problem by allowing more than one player per side on the CMBN battlefield but that will create even more problems as the player who can process his moves quicker will get frustrated at the one that cannot as they will be joined at the hip so to speak.

Also my insistence that the CM side will be played as PBEM makes it more necassary to scale down.

My imagination is fertile and my optimism boundless but they will not blind me to the fact, as you kindly pointed, out that an epic failure is still a failure and a modest success is always a success

Thanks for your input.

[JasonC]

I understand the enthusiasm - campaigns can be a lot of fun when they work. Best of luck with yours...

[RogCBrand]

I agree with you, i sometimes forget that not everybody lives the way i do and given that i am not going to a/ pay people to play this operation and b/ interview people to weed out the ones with good health, jobs and relationships i guess a compromise is a necassary evil.

Also remember that in the Northern Hemisphere, with Summer right around the corner, the nice weather leads to people venturing outside more, as well as more vacations, etc. I know here, those 9 months of dark, gloomy and perpetually wet weather get me more enthused with playing something like CM, but when the sun actually comes out regularly, I'm off camping or doing other stuff. If you start you campaign in the next couple months, you may run into some problems with people having a lot more going on away from home and the computer.

Perhaps a slower pace to start would be good- especially as everyone will still be getting used to the game, and as the Summer starts to die, things could speed up...

[dieseltaylor]

I have often made the point that it is not the size of a battlefield that adds complexity it is the number of units. I should add - and the tactical complexity of the scenery

JC says

An individual commander has to give orders to every squad every minute. That and only that sets the playable scale.

Firstly it is disingenuous to say every minute. Orders are only required every time something is required. Ordering a platoon to advance 200 yards say is just one order that may take 3-4 minutes to be executed. Playing with 50 tanks a side in the desert is absolutely no stress compared to moving 25 platoons through a dense landscape on a 1km square map.

I have spoken to the odd player who feels an hour a turn is the correct time for a CMAK turn. Personally I think that even in large games 10 minutes is the average order giving time. But then I play for enjoyment not because my psyche demands I win every battle.

Vehicle heavy is fun, infantry heavy is unfun, is a rule that seems to apply most of the time. For your campaign it is going to be infantry heavy which I reckon does mean that it will be heavy work for the players. But no doubt rewarding in the end : )

[noob]

Also remember that in the Northern Hemisphere, with Summer right around the corner, the nice weather leads to people venturing outside more, as well as more vacations, etc. I know here, those 9 months of dark, gloomy and perpetually wet weather get me more enthused with playing something like CM, but when the sun actually comes out regularly, I'm off camping or doing other stuff. If you start you campaign in the next couple months, you may run into some problems with people having a lot more going on away from home and the computer.

Perhaps a slower pace to start would be good- especially as everyone will still be getting used to the game, and as the Summer starts to die, things could speed up...

Really good point, i may wait till the summers over and get the the project fine tuned.

[noob]

I have often made the point that it is not the size of a battlefield that adds complexity it is the number of units. I should add - and the tactical complexity of the scenery

JC saysFirstly it is disingenuous to say every minute. Orders are only required every time something is required. Ordering a platoon to advance 200 yards say is just one order that may take 3-4 minutes to be executed. Playing with 50 tanks a side in the desert is absolutely no stress compared to moving 25 platoons through a dense landscape on a 1km square map.

I have spoken to the odd player who feels an hour a turn is the correct time for a CMAK turn. Personally I think that even in large games 10 minutes is the average order giving time. But then I play for enjoyment not because my psyche demands I win every battle.

Vehicle heavy is fun, infantry heavy is unfun, is a rule that seems to apply most of the time. For your campaign it is going to be infantry heavy which I reckon does mean that it will be heavy work for the players. But no doubt rewarding in the end : )

Actually ive a had a re think of the CMBN side of the operation after reading all the responses about the venture i think i will be going to implement a QB method to the tactical resolution side of things,

For example instead of giving each player a set amount of troops that have to be tracked gthrough the game they will recieve a point allocation for the whole operation (to be worked out later) and every time they take part in a CMBN game after contact on the operational map they will fight a QB where they buy whatever units they want (rarity permitting) with the map and deployment parameters conforming to the terrain and battle type.

There will be a single battle points limit to avoid ungainly force sizes for the purposes of fast CMBN turn rates.

This would remove a lot of work for the Admin and give the players an added element of interaction and avoid the infantry heavy battles you mention.

If the battle is a stalemete and the forces involved wish to carry on contesting the map in the next operational turn the QB can reflect the combat effects of the participants in a generalised way with losses being made up with the spending of more points from the individual players points allowance.

Of course this is all dependant on getting CMBN and messing around with the QB system to test it out but i think its an elegant way of circumventing a few pitfalls

[Magpie_Oz]

"Really good point, i may wait till the summers over and get the the project fine tuned."

Or you could just start it in the Southern Hemisphere as we'll all be inside.

[noob]

I understand the enthusiasm - campaigns can be a lot of fun when they work. Best of luck with yours...

I have had a re think about the CMBN side of the operation and i refer you to a reply i have made to a later post in this thread by diesel taylor about using QBs to resolve the tactical side of teh operation, i think the idea would cut down some of the work and make it more interesting for the players.

Also i might implement a series of victory conditions for the operation instead of one that lies far off into the distance, basically if i can work out a victory condition for each operational phase or phases and allocate a point system for them the teams could accumulate points as the game progresses like a sports game.

For example if i say that the Allies have two turns to get off the beaches and cut the Primary Road that is inland to score "X" amount of points it could be likened to scoring a touchdown in NFL and if they fail treat it like an interception return touchdown for the Axis

If there are a series of these point objectives it could keep the teams interested as they would have viable goals with rewards after each or every other operational turn.

Anyway just some thoughts, i would value your opinion on the things i have mentioned if you dont mind, especially the QB tactical resolution idea.