- Joined
- Jun 5, 2021
- Messages
- 820
- Reaction score
- 1,151
- Age
- 55
- Location
- Wisconsin, USA
- Website
- www.youtube.com
I've been having a number of sidebar conversations with folks about my next PvP campaign, and wanted to bring it more into the open to get input and gauge interest.
The original thread re: testing is here:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefg...rs-to-test-a-cmsf2-multiplayer-battles.36747/
In short, the proposed campaign is 4 rounds of RED vs RED Scenarios in CMSF2 depicting the fictional Dahrani Civil War - aka Syrian Army vs. Unconventionals. The campaign is currently set for 4 players per side, so ultimately I would be looking for 8 players who are interested.
Each player controls a Battalion-ish force with a standardized TOE for the campaign, but the 4 individual battles played by each player will be Company-level.
For each 30-minute battle, players have a certain number of "Command Points" that they can use to purchase add-on units from a "menu," thereby allowing some customization of the force (Example: "I'm buying a platoon of Engineers since I'm fighting in an urban area this round"). Some of these add-ons are limited - once lost, they can never be purchased again. Command points increase for players as they achieve victories.
Example Loyalist TOE. Battles are fought with 1 company plus a few Bn assets as the default "Core" unit.
Example Rebel "Command Point" menu (partial). These can be added to Core unit.
In addition, each side has 8 Special Abilities that may be used ONCE during the campaign. The Abilities are different for each side:
Tweaks are probably needed to avoid things being too "swingy."
The campaign is played out on a campaign map, with each "square" being a scenario map with a victory points value between 0-2. The original concept was that the 4 Loyalists players start at the NSEW outside edge and must fight into the Rebel city to capture X number of victory points' worth of locations by the end of 4 Rounds. The current model has the Rebels always defending, and the Loyalists always attacking. It simplifies things, but that might get boring.
WIP Map layout - in the end it will be digital and pretty
Maps are mostly urban, almost all 500mx500m or less. All are picked from available maps - a few with light customization. There are potential fights over a Chemical Factory, Airport, River Bridge, Train Station, etc.
Loyalists notify me of what Map zone they are choosing to move into, I provide a brief to both Players on the resulting battles, and then all Players notify me of their Command Point and Special Ability selections. I quickly create a scenario which both sides start at Set-Up phase.
Blue Core units, ready for deployment. (Latest TOE includes a T-62 and 2 x BMP-1s in the Core formation).
Rebel Core units, ready for deployment. A mix of Fighter units with a few heavy weapons and IEDs. Technicals, Combatants, VIEDs and other heavy weapons can be added.
Casualties are tracked (by me) via a simplified tracker in Excel. Core units and Add-On Units may be lost when they suffer enough casualties. Attrition favors the Rebels over the long-term.
Playtesting has shown that the Rebels lose most of their force in either a Defeat OR a Victory. The tension in the campaign is whether or not the Rebels can deny enough victory points to the Loyalists by a few successful defenses, OR inflict enough casualties on the Loyalists early on so that by Round 4 they no longer have an attacking force capable of winning the final battles needed. The Loyalists need to achieve victories, but preserve enough of their force to win key battles in the last Round.
My playtesters have provided great and challenging feedback so far. A playtester encouraged me to add the ability for the Rebels/Uncons to take the offensive, which I do like in order to break up their defensive slog - I'm looking at this option. The TOE has changed several times as the result of testing. Map adjustments are being made.
End of a test battle at The Farms. A Loyalist victory, but with high infantry losses that will be felt by Round 4, especially among critical Egnineers.
I've been working with this concept long enough to have "blind spots" about it, so am looking for feedback on the concept and how to execute. I'd note that I have set the following self-imposed design constraints that any changes will need to meet:
1) No more than 8 players - I can't GM more than 4 battles
2) Battles no longer than 30 minutes with no pre-set extra time option - This is a gaming concession: Although real-world military operations aren't likely to complete in 30 minutes except at the very smallest of scales, more than 30 minutes takes too long to finish.
3) No more than 4 rounds - many headwinds are against a campaign that lasts >1 year.
Current rules are attached below ("REDSTONE Concept and Rules").
Questions:
1) Is the Setting & concept interesting enough to play? Or is CMSF2 Red vs Red inherently not interesting?
2) What would you change to make it more interesting? Or fun? Or simple?
3) If you were a Rebel player, would 4 rounds of defense and horrific losses be a dealbreaker?
4) If you were a Loyalist player, would the 30 minute timer and having to rush be a dealbreaker?
Thanks in advance for feedback.
The original thread re: testing is here:
https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefg...rs-to-test-a-cmsf2-multiplayer-battles.36747/
In short, the proposed campaign is 4 rounds of RED vs RED Scenarios in CMSF2 depicting the fictional Dahrani Civil War - aka Syrian Army vs. Unconventionals. The campaign is currently set for 4 players per side, so ultimately I would be looking for 8 players who are interested.
Each player controls a Battalion-ish force with a standardized TOE for the campaign, but the 4 individual battles played by each player will be Company-level.
For each 30-minute battle, players have a certain number of "Command Points" that they can use to purchase add-on units from a "menu," thereby allowing some customization of the force (Example: "I'm buying a platoon of Engineers since I'm fighting in an urban area this round"). Some of these add-ons are limited - once lost, they can never be purchased again. Command points increase for players as they achieve victories.
Example Loyalist TOE. Battles are fought with 1 company plus a few Bn assets as the default "Core" unit.
Example Rebel "Command Point" menu (partial). These can be added to Core unit.
In addition, each side has 8 Special Abilities that may be used ONCE during the campaign. The Abilities are different for each side:
Tweaks are probably needed to avoid things being too "swingy."
The campaign is played out on a campaign map, with each "square" being a scenario map with a victory points value between 0-2. The original concept was that the 4 Loyalists players start at the NSEW outside edge and must fight into the Rebel city to capture X number of victory points' worth of locations by the end of 4 Rounds. The current model has the Rebels always defending, and the Loyalists always attacking. It simplifies things, but that might get boring.
WIP Map layout - in the end it will be digital and pretty
Maps are mostly urban, almost all 500mx500m or less. All are picked from available maps - a few with light customization. There are potential fights over a Chemical Factory, Airport, River Bridge, Train Station, etc.
Loyalists notify me of what Map zone they are choosing to move into, I provide a brief to both Players on the resulting battles, and then all Players notify me of their Command Point and Special Ability selections. I quickly create a scenario which both sides start at Set-Up phase.
Blue Core units, ready for deployment. (Latest TOE includes a T-62 and 2 x BMP-1s in the Core formation).
Rebel Core units, ready for deployment. A mix of Fighter units with a few heavy weapons and IEDs. Technicals, Combatants, VIEDs and other heavy weapons can be added.
Casualties are tracked (by me) via a simplified tracker in Excel. Core units and Add-On Units may be lost when they suffer enough casualties. Attrition favors the Rebels over the long-term.
Playtesting has shown that the Rebels lose most of their force in either a Defeat OR a Victory. The tension in the campaign is whether or not the Rebels can deny enough victory points to the Loyalists by a few successful defenses, OR inflict enough casualties on the Loyalists early on so that by Round 4 they no longer have an attacking force capable of winning the final battles needed. The Loyalists need to achieve victories, but preserve enough of their force to win key battles in the last Round.
My playtesters have provided great and challenging feedback so far. A playtester encouraged me to add the ability for the Rebels/Uncons to take the offensive, which I do like in order to break up their defensive slog - I'm looking at this option. The TOE has changed several times as the result of testing. Map adjustments are being made.
End of a test battle at The Farms. A Loyalist victory, but with high infantry losses that will be felt by Round 4, especially among critical Egnineers.
I've been working with this concept long enough to have "blind spots" about it, so am looking for feedback on the concept and how to execute. I'd note that I have set the following self-imposed design constraints that any changes will need to meet:
1) No more than 8 players - I can't GM more than 4 battles
2) Battles no longer than 30 minutes with no pre-set extra time option - This is a gaming concession: Although real-world military operations aren't likely to complete in 30 minutes except at the very smallest of scales, more than 30 minutes takes too long to finish.
3) No more than 4 rounds - many headwinds are against a campaign that lasts >1 year.
Current rules are attached below ("REDSTONE Concept and Rules").
Questions:
1) Is the Setting & concept interesting enough to play? Or is CMSF2 Red vs Red inherently not interesting?
2) What would you change to make it more interesting? Or fun? Or simple?
3) If you were a Rebel player, would 4 rounds of defense and horrific losses be a dealbreaker?
4) If you were a Loyalist player, would the 30 minute timer and having to rush be a dealbreaker?
Thanks in advance for feedback.
