Just before I start the day, thought I'd outline where my design thinking is at.
Company or Battalion level?
In the Brigade Battles campaign, counters on the campaign map are company sized. 30 per side.
Only single stacking per hex, except when attacking an enemy hex, where it's a maximum of 2 companies attacking.
The advantage of this is that it's pretty straight forward.
Easy to represent on the map, simple rules, and max 2 vs 1 odds (to keep things sane).
This method could be employed here as well.
However, I'm looking at alternatives. Rico's design is kind of like a hybrid.
Battalion level in each zone, with the companies doing different things within the zone.
It is excellent, but I'm thinking of how to simplify it for this campaign.
I especially want to stick to the quick battle format (with force limits/points specified), which rules out things like reserves arriving mid-battle.
The advantage of QB's is that as GM, I just have to paint the setup zones on the map, and hand it over to the players.
However, the modern task force style battalions seem to be suited to keeping them intact as a unit.
So how would it work if each counter on the map was a battalion?
In BB, the emphasis is on maneuvering. Lots of units, lots of hexes.
It has been working well so far. But because of the number of units in play, it needed to be turn-based rather than simultaneous movement.
I'm considering using simultaneous movement for this one.
Less units, and a much shorter time frame. Possibly even movement being as little as one hex/zone per turn. Okay, maybe 2 or 3.
One of the things missing from BB has been Meeting Engagements.
Simultaneous movement would probably create the possibility of ME's.
But what about attacks? Would 2 battalions vs 1 battalion be too much?
Too much balance wise? Too big a battle for busy people? Would the battles take too long?
The maps would need to be big. Perhaps 1.5-2km in size. Which probably means many custom made maps. Quite a project. Still, not impossible.
One advantage of big maps and big battles is that a variety of artillery and airpower could be used without upsetting the balance too much.
Another advantage? It would be absolutely EPIC.
Would there be Fog Of War? Maybe. I could add rules to govern air and ground recon perhaps.
Could scrap FOW entirely and assume all the modern recon tools are working at full capacity in an abstract way.
Looking at simultaneous movement again. Say that 2 battalions are about to enter an enemy hex/zone.
Just as the left unit is moving into the enemy hex, another enemy unit has orders to move into the hex being vacated. What happens?
There will be many instances of units bumping into each other and bypassing each other.
There would need to be a solid movement rule set to govern all situations.
Just like in the BB campaign, there will be one golden rule for this campaign, which is keeping it simple for the GM (to make it practical and avoid burnout).
With that in mind, there are still ways to make it an exciting campaign.
The big questions left from this ramble are:
Would 2v1 battalion level battles be something players would be willing to tackle?
Would players be willing to help make some detailed 1.5-2km maps?
The other idea I'm still examining is a scaled down MOUT campaign.
Company sized units creating mayhem in a big city, with a variety of terrain.
Company or Battalion level?
In the Brigade Battles campaign, counters on the campaign map are company sized. 30 per side.
Only single stacking per hex, except when attacking an enemy hex, where it's a maximum of 2 companies attacking.
The advantage of this is that it's pretty straight forward.
Easy to represent on the map, simple rules, and max 2 vs 1 odds (to keep things sane).
This method could be employed here as well.
However, I'm looking at alternatives. Rico's design is kind of like a hybrid.
Battalion level in each zone, with the companies doing different things within the zone.
It is excellent, but I'm thinking of how to simplify it for this campaign.
I especially want to stick to the quick battle format (with force limits/points specified), which rules out things like reserves arriving mid-battle.
The advantage of QB's is that as GM, I just have to paint the setup zones on the map, and hand it over to the players.
However, the modern task force style battalions seem to be suited to keeping them intact as a unit.
So how would it work if each counter on the map was a battalion?
In BB, the emphasis is on maneuvering. Lots of units, lots of hexes.
It has been working well so far. But because of the number of units in play, it needed to be turn-based rather than simultaneous movement.
I'm considering using simultaneous movement for this one.
Less units, and a much shorter time frame. Possibly even movement being as little as one hex/zone per turn. Okay, maybe 2 or 3.
One of the things missing from BB has been Meeting Engagements.
Simultaneous movement would probably create the possibility of ME's.
But what about attacks? Would 2 battalions vs 1 battalion be too much?
Too much balance wise? Too big a battle for busy people? Would the battles take too long?
The maps would need to be big. Perhaps 1.5-2km in size. Which probably means many custom made maps. Quite a project. Still, not impossible.
One advantage of big maps and big battles is that a variety of artillery and airpower could be used without upsetting the balance too much.
Another advantage? It would be absolutely EPIC.
Would there be Fog Of War? Maybe. I could add rules to govern air and ground recon perhaps.
Could scrap FOW entirely and assume all the modern recon tools are working at full capacity in an abstract way.
Looking at simultaneous movement again. Say that 2 battalions are about to enter an enemy hex/zone.
Just as the left unit is moving into the enemy hex, another enemy unit has orders to move into the hex being vacated. What happens?
There will be many instances of units bumping into each other and bypassing each other.
There would need to be a solid movement rule set to govern all situations.
Just like in the BB campaign, there will be one golden rule for this campaign, which is keeping it simple for the GM (to make it practical and avoid burnout).
With that in mind, there are still ways to make it an exciting campaign.
The big questions left from this ramble are:
Would 2v1 battalion level battles be something players would be willing to tackle?
Would players be willing to help make some detailed 1.5-2km maps?
The other idea I'm still examining is a scaled down MOUT campaign.
Company sized units creating mayhem in a big city, with a variety of terrain.
