Big Campaigns for CMBN

[Concord]

Hi folks. I've been playing the CMx1 series for many moons - good games. I've also been participating in online campaigns like Onion Wars and CMMC - basically operations on a big map that use CM to resolve the tactical battles. They're a lot of fun. It adds an extra level of tension when you know the outcome of your battle will affect a larger campaign.

I've been thinking of how CMBN could be used in an operational setting. Below is an outline of how a small campaign for CMBN could be constructed.

Game on!

Sean "Concord"

[Concord]

The absolute cornerstones of the plan are fun, and easy management.

Game Moderators and Contributors

The operation could be run by one person, although more is better - for discussions between GM's and sharing the (very) light workload. Players would be required to do some basic counting of force casualties after their battle and possibly updating their OOB (online spreadsheet? Google docs?). Map makers would be needed to make the CMBN maps for the operation, which is the main work involved in this project.

Maps

The operation would take place on a grid-based map, with each grid square represented by a CMBN scenario map. The scenario maps I'm thinking should be no larger than say, 608m x 608m. The operational map could be 10 x 10 squares or bigger, depending on the number of forces involved in the campaign.

Forces

I've dabbled in huge battles with the CMx1 series, but CMBN seems ideally suited to about company level battles. Keeping the scale of the battles to a manageable size makes sense. Quicker turn-around of PBEM battles, and less campaign management work (ie. battle set-ups, casualty counting). I think the easiest way to avoid players concentrating their forces too much would be the small map sizes. Trying to pack in a battalion and 20 tanks into this space would be very dense and subject to high losses from artillery. Additionally, a force this size in one sector would leave lines thin in other areas along the front. Additional restrictions may be required to avoid players concentrating huge forces. However, it would be common to see 2 companies plus assets attacking from one or more directions.

Scale

If the goal is to encourage company level battles in each sector, and we assume a 2 companies up 1 back policy for a battalion, a battalion would cover an area 2 (operational) map squares wide. A regiment of 3 battalions could cover a line 6 squares wide. An operations map 20 x 20 squares would allow plenty of manouvering. Could be bigger. Of course, each square would require the skills of a map maker to create a 608m x 608m CMBN map that matches the main terrain features of the grid square (but only on an as needed basis...and most grid squares would never see a battle).

Regimental size for each side seems about right (making each side's leader a Colonel in rank!). That's about 3 battalions with the potential for 9 company level battles per turn (probably more like 3-6 battles). In addition, there would be regimental assets, attached support units (including armour), and artillery (up to divisional level?). Would need grog advice regarding probable OOB of the regiments/task forces.

Gameplay

Each side's players would discuss the plans, with the side's leader moderating. Could be on a free forum, password protected. Companies are given movement/combat orders and orders are submitted to GM to resolve. This determines where battles occur, and the scenarios are set up by GM (on pre-prepared maps supplied by players or the community at large). Leaders decide which players play which battles - there may be campaign turns where some players don't get a battle...special 'bonus' mini battles could be created for situations like these, such as a jeep patrol, sniper hunting, and tank recovery missions. Games are played by email. In-action reports are posted by players on the forum (including screenshots) so team mates can see progress. Battles stop on a pre-determined turn, which is less than the actual turns available in the scenario. This is to preserve the fog of war.

After Action

After the battle is completed, players count how many casualties were inflicted on their forces. For each company, a percentage of losses is calculated (in relation to their original listed strength). The percentage of survivors is rounded up to the nearest CMBN 'headcount' level (in the scenario editor), which is 'full', 90, 80, 70, 60, and 50 percent. Any company reduced to 40% or less of their original strength is removed from the line, and takes no further part in the operation. Vehicles are tracked individually. Transport that's part of a parent company (eg. halftracks belonging to a mechanised infantry company) share the fate of their infantry (eg. if a mech company falls below 40% strength, the halftracks are removed from play along with the infantry). Percentages are cumulative - if a company takes casualties equal to 20% of their original listed strength for 3 battles, they are removed (only 40% left now).

Additional rules

Movement on the operational map would need to be considered - how far can groups move? A greyhound would be able to move across 10 squares of 608m in about 5 minutes, while it might take infantry about an hour. Might need some abstraction here. I suppose that moving a battalion around is more than just their foot speed - orders being formulated in HQ and passed down the line, getting organised, supplies moving up, scouts sent out, etc. Maybe something like infantry can move 2 squares, pure armour 4 and pure mech 6?

Might need to look at supply (being cut off) and digging in (costs a movement point?).

Could get players to declare a 'stance' for each unit - offensive or defensive. If a sector already contains units from both sides and both are defensive, no battle is created. Avoids situations where both sides spend the battle sitting in foxholes waiting for the other to make a move.

Could have a small list of odd-ball free things that each side can use in any sector just once per campaign: an elite sniper joins the battle, a -2 Major arrives in jeep/kubel, recon/intel gives indication of enemy strength, a breach team arrives from division, a supply jeep/kubel pulls up to Company HQ, a crack medic reduces casualties by 10%. Just for flavour.

Victory conditions: certain locations on operations map worth victory points? 60% damage to the regiment? Allies exit off the campaign map or capture one key location?

Work required

The tasks required to get something like this up and running would be:

- Campaign mechanics and OOB finalised.

- Operational map created (could be as simple as a gridded sketch showing road networks and villages).

- Call for CMBN map makers, key maps created within set guidelines, using op map as reference.

- Call for GM's (1-6?) and players (maybe 6-9 per side? plus observers?). Side's leader nominated.

- Set up free hosted forum, including password protected sides (Axis, Allies, GM's).

- Set up password protected Google docs area for each side.

- OOB's for each side entered into spreadsheet and uploaded - to keep track of Company percentages and vehicles.

Once the above is achieved, running the campaign is easy. Players issue orders, GM's work out which units bump into each other, enter the units into the scenario editor using supplied maps, and game away. It would be fairly easy to do subsequent campaigns based on the same system. Each time a campaign starts, the main work would be map creation - which is enjoyed by many, and the maps are fairly small.

Might be a fun way to generate some battles as part of a larger story eh?

[StoneAge]

My plan is to release the big map of the 2.5 wide x 3km deep battleground of the 137th Infantry (basically the east bank of the Vire from Le Meauffe to the Pt Hebert-St Lo highway) for anyone and everyone who wants it for whatever.

For manageability the "master map" will be nearly devoid of vegetation, and will contain the Vire River, the contours and gullies, the road and rail net, and the major settlements/ buildings. The outline of the fields and forests will be mapped out using placeholder terrain.

Scenario builders can then easily fill in the bocage and trees and doodads once they carve out the submaps (which is simply a matter of shrinking the size of the map to fit the specific battle). - LongLeftFlanks

Here is an idea for a map:

from http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97115 (The Carillon Nose (137th Infantry) - Campaign In Progress)

Time scale per turn should be 1 hour:

1) battles set for 65 minutes players play till 65 minute mark,

2) Battles can end early by agreement. eg attacker reaches his cas limit and defender is not going to counter attack

3) a player can call for reserves at any point during a game (arrival times is then worked out on strat map and added to the next battle)

Force Reserve's pool:

Create a reserve depot on the strat map where all requested reserves travel from. Can also be used as the supply depo if you can follow a road back to the supply depo full supply if not each battle lowers your supply.

Victory Conditions:

You need to set a victory condition eg capture bridge and hold it for 8 hour, there could be some smaller missions as well eg capture cross roads or small villages on the way to the final objective.

[Concord]

Ah ha! Campaigns are already being forged! The Carillon Nose looking great! Thanks for the heads up StoneAge.

[hm_stanley]

Wall of text.. my head exploded.

[Rokossovski]

Concord, your plan seems sensible. Having run a couple of campaigns in CMx1, my advice would be to keep things as simple as possible. In general, your proposed framework seems to do that. It will, of course need to be fleshed out, but even so try to keep it simple.

I would also advise running a small test run first, with no more than a couple of players and a battalion per side. That should draw out a lot of the problems with the system you devise (there will many -- there always is) before you have invested the effort required for a larger campaign.

[Capt Cliff]

One comment. I only do operations in CMx1 and looking at campaigns in CMx2 they are not the same beast. CMx1 operations fight over the same map while CMx2 does not allow you to fight over the same map more than once. The damage to buildings, craters and what ever is not saved. So a CMx2 campaign is a whole new kettle of fish.

[Rokossovski]

One comment. I only do operations in CMx1 and looking at campaigns in CMx2 they are not the same beast. CMx1 operations fight over the same map while CMx2 does not allow you to fight over the same map more than once. The damage to buildings, craters and what ever is not saved. So a CMx2 campaign is a whole new kettle of fish.

If I understand Concord correctly, he is proposing a campaign rather than a CMx1 style "operation." There have been various campaigns conducted over the years using CMx1 games (and I imagine CMSF as well) that do not involve operations consisting of battles linked by the game programming, but rather battles linked informally by the intervention of referees. So, yes, it is an entirely different kettle of fish. But those fish can be very tasty if properly prepared.

I believe Concord mentioned for example his participation in the long-running Onion Wars Campaign, which uses CMBB. Check out its site at: http://www.onionwars.net/

By the way Capt. Cliff, it looks like you have posted 29 messages over 9 years. You've been even more of a lurker than me!

[noob]

Hi folks. I've been playing the CMx1 series for many moons - good games. I've also been participating in online campaigns like Onion Wars and CMMC - basically operations on a big map that use CM to resolve the tactical battles. They're a lot of fun. It adds an extra level of tension when you know the outcome of your battle will affect a larger campaign.

I've been thinking of how CMBN could be used in an operational setting. Below is an outline of how a small campaign for CMBN could be constructed.

Game on!

Sean "Concord"

Checkout the link on my signature (CMBN Normandy 44), this is a system i have devised using John Tillers Panzer Campaigns as the strategical layer.

It only neesd one umpire who owns the relevant version of JTPC and two players or teams of players.

[Capt Cliff]

By the way Capt. Cliff, it looks like you have posted 29 messages over 9 years. You've been even more of a lurker than me!

LOL! Yeah ... CMBB and CMAK works great so no need to post complaints. An forums tend to attract wanna-be playtesters that do nothing but defend the indefensible if their precious game is attacked in any way. So I void such comfrontation and call for FFE with 155mm arty.

[Concord]

Hey noob, great idea using something like John Tillers series for the strategic layer.

Has your 'campaign' started yet?

[Lee_Vincent]

Wall of text.. my head exploded.

Wow. If you think that is a text wall, I guess you have never read an actual book or anything.

[thejetset]

Concord,

I would be interested. But I can only squeeze out 2 turns per day around 7 AM ... 1 in the morning and 1 in the evening (around 8 PM). (USA Central Time Zone). Will that be OK?

If possible, I would prefer playing US forces. (with lots of zooks, mortars and artillery support!! hahahahah!)

[noob]

Hey noob, great idea using something like John Tillers series for the strategic layer.

Has your 'campaign' started yet?

Yes and the teams are full unfortunately, otherwise i'd be glad to have you join in.

I will put you on a reserve list in case of drop outs.

John Tiller games are excellent for this type of thing because the scenario editor and OOB editor are so versatile and easy to use, as long as there is a third party that can create revised versions of the operational map and the units every time there is combat its relatively easy to progress and the paperwork is minimal, only the umpire needs to own the Tiller game, the players just need to recieve screenshots of the relevant data and have access to the conversion data so they understand how combat effects are transfered between the Tiller game and CM and vice versa.

Also if the teams have a price list of units to buy and a budget they can create their own forces in the CM quick battle editor and then take screenshots to send to the umpire so most of the information being passed to and fro is pictorial not textual.

[hm_stanley]

it's hard to abstract out a game in a forum.. why not set up a wiki or something.. and then it would be easier to parse.. no?

http://www.wikispaces.com/ <-- FREE WIKI'S

[noob]

it's hard to abstract out a game in a forum.. why not set up a wiki or something.. and then it would be easier to parse.. no?

http://www.wikispaces.com/ <-- FREE WIKI'S

Just click on the link on my signature to access my website containing the system which i am currently running at the moment.

[thejetset]

Hey noob. Can I get on the reserve list too??

[hm_stanley]

john tiller is my hero.. simple, elegant games.. that work. that dood is smart man. I met him about 10 years ago at a games conference, I think he was with Talonsoft or HPS or doing work for HPS, can't remember.. but dood was smart.. I think he's created a million games last count.

[noob]

Hey noob. Can I get on the reserve list too??

Yes i will put you on the reserve list.