A new modern campaign?

Nathangun said:
I see no difference playing a modern era game than a WWII or Napoleon era games, after all they are just games.
Click to expand...
Yeah, true. Just pixels of light.
Although when it comes to war games they are closer to simulating reality. Modern times seem closer still.
Hey, a far-fetched story might be fun. Player preferences will sway my decision. Even if there's a preference for a realistic setting, it will still be generic and non-specific.
 
Concord said:
Yeah, true. Just pixels of light.
Although when it comes to war games they are closer to simulating reality. Modern times seem closer still.
Hey, a far-fetched story might be fun. Player preferences will sway my decision. Even if there's a preference for a realistic setting, it will still be generic and non-specific.
Click to expand...
I'd prefer 'realistic' over Zombies ;-).
Personally I don't have issues playing wargames about current/close conflicts. Like you say, it's only pixels of light :)
For any MP campaign with other fellow humans I agree a generic / non-specific approach is wiser, as it will make sure nobody in RL was impacted in any way because of this virtual war.
The evolving map is looking great by the way!
 
I've been working on a high detail medium-large CMBS map, with a bridge river-crossing the main feature at mid-map. Could this be helpful for your campaign? It would be cool to see people fight a battle on it, I can post some screens if this could be helpful
 
Concord said:
Yeah, true. Just pixels of light.
Although when it comes to war games they are closer to simulating reality. Modern times seem closer still.
Hey, a far-fetched story might be fun. Player preferences will sway my decision. Even if there's a preference for a realistic setting, it will still be generic and non-specific.
Click to expand...
That’s why II think I want to keep the Borscht Campaign light and fictional on the role playing side.
 
fivefivesix said:
I've been working on a high detail medium-large CMBS map, with a bridge river-crossing the main feature at mid-map. Could this be helpful for your campaign? It would be cool to see people fight a battle on it, I can post some screens if this could be helpful
Click to expand...
Thanks for pitching in @fivefivesix!
I think it could very well be useful for Rico's campaign The Borscht Wars. He is going to have quite a bit of variety in terrain.
My campaign however IS this map I'm building. It is 4km square and each battle will be on a 500m x 500m chunk of it.

And regardless, more maps made available for any CM game is beneficial for the community. More variety to choose from.
Once this huge project is done, I will upload it to The Scenario Depot for open use.
 
Battles

As I've been constructing the map over time, I've been thinking about the rules for this.
In particular, the mechanics around the enemy companies and how they clash.

I learned from my Brigade Battles campaign that anything in excess of 2 vs 1 odds is not very enjoyable for the defender (duh - obvious in hindsight).
So I set a limit of 2 companies attacking into a hex. It seems to be working okay, but there is still some grumbling from defenders occasionally.

Although it is a decent working solution (the 2v1), it also means there is a lack of variety. Every battle is a 2v1, with no Meeting Engagements.
The only variety is that sometimes you are the attacker with superior numbers and sometimes you are the outnumbered defender.

Is this enough? So what are the alternatives? If I simply said only 1 vs 1 in battles, would attackers grumble about not having enough numbers to attack? Probably.

Seeking a creative solution to this that maintains enjoyment and challenge. And a simple one!
One idea that occurred to me was to make movement simultaneous and only 1 hex at a time.
If two enemy companies enter the same hex at the same time, the battle is a meeting engagement.
If a side wishes to do a serious attack into a hex, perhaps they draw upon their battalion's/regiment's resources and temporarily gain a boost to their purchase points. 30%? 50%?
Maybe only one 'attack boost' available per battalion, per turn.

Tracking casualties

My mental picture of each side's units is of each one being a reinforced company with their transport vehicles and perhaps a platoon of tanks.
The support weapons in the modern setting seem much more powerful than the WW2 setting though. Enough to potentially unbalance a fight?

In Brigade Battles, an 'Armoured Company' is a similar mix of infantry and tanks. As the company loses combat strength, it gets less points to spend (in QB's) on both.
Some players have grumbled about how taking out an enemy vehicle doesn't seem to be important, because only the crew casualties are taken away from the headcount.
As a GM I love it, because it makes my life so much easier. Keeping it super-simple is the only way to maintain a campaign IMO.

The modern setting is a bit different. But do I really want to start tracking casualties for individual support crews, transport vehicles? Or even tanks? Hell no.
Maybe the solution is just keeping the company strength = points available to spend idea, but adding in some extra restrictions to purchasing, to set some limits.
It works okay in Brigade Battles. Maybe it just needs to be expanded in the modern setting. Do players sometimes buy 20 grenade launchers or AT? Probably.
 
I've been thinking about much the same thing @Concord , afterall I was one of said grumblers about tanks only counting as 4-5 men. I feel that armour is such a key component in CM games that keeping track of them is worth the book-keeping time, especially as the player should be able to give an immediate number of his surviving armour upon completion of a battle.
Perhaps each side could receive a set number of replacement vehicles every five turns or so, to be distributed as the CO deems fit.

Regarding the imbalance of forces, the breakdowns for battles are thus: Assault 2:1 (not popular for obvious reasons), ME 1:1 (unrealistic, but popular), and Attacks 100 vs 65-70% (reasonably popular, reasonably equal).

So how can we come to this sort of balance in such a campaign, my answer, reinforcements: Upon an attack being decided, the defender may call in a neighboring unit to assist him, assuming all units involved are at 100% strength this would bring the forces to parity (2:2), however, the attacker may also call in one neighboring unit as reinforcement, now the forces are at (3:2), which gives the defender 60% strength of the attacking forces. Not quite as good as 65-70%, but a lot better than 50%.

I am not suggesting this be implimented in the current campaign, but perhaps food for thought for future campaigns.
 
One thing to keep in mind.... keep it as simple as possible, while interest is strong early it needs to be streamlined enough that too many players don’t lose interest. Lots of awesome ideas die because they take so long to complete that people lose interest or life takes over and you lose players.
 
Good ideas and insights.

Tracking tanks wouldn't be TOO difficult. I'd consider doing this. At only a platoon per unit, it won't be too hard.

Aiming for the attack odds of 100% vs 65-70% sounds like a good benchmark.
I'm extremely reluctant to 'borrow' forces from neighbouring units, because of the book-keeping nightmare.
I think that we draw upon a set amount of 'unseen' (on the map) battalion and/or regimental extras.

Maybe the ability to add extras depends on the proximity of friendly battalion units and their strength,
but whatever happens in the battle doesn't affect the strength of the 'supporting' units.
In other words, nearby friendly units can facilitate and assist with the arrival of battalion reserves, but don't actually take part.
An abstract way to include nearby support without having to do multiple book-keeping for each battle.

A battalion HQ unit might be worth including on the map. If you lose it, you lose the ability to call on support.

The idea of reinforcements could be fun as well and add to the strategy element of gameplay.
Like, every 3 turns the brigade gets a certain number of percentage points to add back to damaged units and a certain number of tanks to dole out.

Could arbitrarily declare that every block of 3 or 4 turns turns represents a day (is anyone interested in night operations in the city?? hmmm).
At the end of the day the CO can make other choices, like assigning attack support to temporarily boost points of certain units (for the day),
assigning artillery support or air support, and maybe dish out some 'action cards' to affect their forces or enemy forces.
 
Last edited:
Yeh my idea of reinforcements was reasonably simple, the reinforcing unit must be in a neighboring hex to the unit being attacked, and the entire unit is drawn in as reinforcements - not just part of it.
Hopefully in this way it would keep things reasonably simple, ie rather than just say... lending their tanks to the defenders, so that at the end of the battle the defending unit has lost 3 tanks but the reinforcement lost 4 so which ones go back to where and in the meantime if the reinforcing unit was attacked then should they make it back in time to DEAR GOD WHATS WITH ALL THE PAPERWORK ARE YOU TRYING TO KILL ME?!??!! :p

Nope. Entire unit jumps in to help, or none. Easy-peasy.
 
@fabishd do you read over?
If you do and have a moment, would you be able to help with a list of events that might befall a modern company or battalion?
(or anyone who has ideas)

Off the top of my head:

Mechanical troubles - you lose the use of one tank for the day (4 turns)
Logistical problems - one company (determined randomly) fights with low ammo for 1 turn
Random artillery strike - one of your units (determined randomly) takes 10% damage in a pre-dawn barrage
Mines - Lose a tank (determined randomly) to mines
Air interdiction - regimental support for a unit (determined randomly) is delayed by 1 turn

All bad news so far. There's probably lots more 'things that go wrong' to list. :devilish:
What about positives? The arrival of some unusual support for the day? An infantry or vehicle platoon? An AA battery? An elite sniper?
 
@Stafford yeah your thinking is sound.
However, we've also got to keep in mind that the battlefields will be only 500m x 500m.

And we've heard players suggest that they much prefer company sized battles.
I was looking at the possibility of battalion sized battles, but it was pointed out that it was easy to flip a turn back for a company sized battle - say during a lunchbreak - than battalion sized.
 
Concord said:
Yeah, true. Just pixels of light.
Although when it comes to war games they are closer to simulating reality. Modern times seem closer still.
Hey, a far-fetched story might be fun. Player preferences will sway my decision. Even if there's a preference for a realistic setting, it will still be generic and non-specific.
Click to expand...

I understand.
About a year ago I had an idea of doing a border skirmish campaign between Armenia & Azerbaijan using either CMSF2 or BS (low grade Soviet era or Ukrainian kit), how weird that seems now. Had a few test maps done until my external hard drive decided to lose everything for an unknown reason.
 
Stafford said:
I've been thinking about much the same thing @Concord , afterall I was one of said grumblers about tanks only counting as 4-5 men. I feel that armour is such a key component in CM games that keeping track of them is worth the book-keeping time, especially as the player should be able to give an immediate number of his surviving armour upon completion of a battle.
Perhaps each side could receive a set number of replacement vehicles every five turns or so, to be distributed as the CO deems fit.

Regarding the imbalance of forces, the breakdowns for battles are thus: Assault 2:1 (not popular for obvious reasons), ME 1:1 (unrealistic, but popular), and Attacks 100 vs 65-70% (reasonably popular, reasonably equal).

So how can we come to this sort of balance in such a campaign, my answer, reinforcements: Upon an attack being decided, the defender may call in a neighboring unit to assist him, assuming all units involved are at 100% strength this would bring the forces to parity (2:2), however, the attacker may also call in one neighboring unit as reinforcement, now the forces are at (3:2), which gives the defender 60% strength of the attacking forces. Not quite as good as 65-70%, but a lot better than 50%.

I am not suggesting this be implimented in the current campaign, but perhaps food for thought for future campaigns.
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessment that an imbalanced battles can cause people to walk away from a campaign, happen in my Bulge campaign.
I think the best way to go is to have small units spread out over a large campaign map with the VP locations also spread out over the campaign with a fixed number of campaign turns so there can't be a big blob of units over running one sector, then another etc..
The counter insurgency campaign I have on the boil will be platoon sized engagements with little support units like artillery or air support.
 
Last edited:
Concord said:
@Stafford yeah your thinking is sound.
However, we've also got to keep in mind that the battlefields will be only 500m x 500m.

And we've heard players suggest that they much prefer company sized battles.
I was looking at the possibility of battalion sized battles, but it was pointed out that it was easy to flip a turn back for a company sized battle - say during a lunchbreak - than battalion sized.
Click to expand...

Crikey, I'm fighting a huge battle with @stardekk which has been going on for ages. Sometimes it had taken me a hour to do my turns. Also, it has taken months to complete due to my workload.
Remember my Bulge campaign had company sized engagements for the most part, each campaign turn took 3-4 months to complete.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom