Considering starting a WW2 campaign

I'm not sure yet whether to go the route of objectives with victory points on the map like the Bulge campaign, or make it an attrition operation, or have specific objectives (like capture the city and port or something).
A simple attrition operation is easiest, but having strategic objectives might add another layer of interest.
A possible pitfall of having specific map objectives though is that fighting could become bogged down around these.
 
Concord said:
I'm not sure yet whether to go the route of objectives with victory points on the map like the Bulge campaign, or make it an attrition operation, or have specific objectives (like capture the city and port or something).
A simple attrition operation is easiest, but having strategic objectives might add another layer of interest.
A possible pitfall of having specific map objectives though is that fighting could become bogged down around these.
Click to expand...

What if the attacking side set a secret objective to capture? Like it would be IRL? Then the defending side must analyze the movements to try and ma where they will strike, some kinda rule what type of objective that is ok to choose - it has to be of strategic value - not just a random location. Roadcrossing, industrial center, harbour, bridge or something like that. Maybe main obejctive and also minor objectives?
 
@Nathangun in your campaign the units on the map represented divisions, but they were represented on the map in company strength.
The casualties to the company were considered to have been done to the whole division.
If two divisions attacked into a hex, they were represented by two companies in the battle.

I'm considering making the units in this campaign represent actual company sized units.
If say, there are 3 companies as part of a battalion, they would have to stay within a certain number of hexes from each other, and battalion resources like artillery would have to be shared.
So players would have to decide which company was going to receive battalion level artillery or maybe extra on-map mortars or something.
Might be fun, but I'm wary of over complicating things too.

If the units were company sized, then the hexes on the strategic map would represent the actual terrain of say a 1km x 1km battle map.
I'm starting to lean towards the idea of making the strategic map from scratch, and catering it to maps that we acquire.
 
One last thought for the night.

If there were say 27 Company sized units per side, that would mean the campaign will be at Brigade scale
(maybe even a Task Force with all the combined arms?) with the C.O.'s being Major Generals or Brigadiers.

Have I got that right?
About 3 companies = battalion
3 battalions (9 companies) = regiment
3 regiments (27 companies) = brigade
 
Concord said:
I'm considering making the units in this campaign represent actual company sized units.
If say, there are 3 companies as part of a battalion, they would have to stay within a certain number of hexes from each other, and battalion resources like artillery would have to be shared.
Click to expand...

That's a good idea, I like it.

Concord said:
If there were say 27 Company sized units per side,
Click to expand...

That sounds an awful lot.
 
Concord said:
One last thought for the night.

If there were say 27 Company sized units per side, that would mean the campaign will be at Brigade scale
(maybe even a Task Force with all the combined arms?) with the C.O.'s being Major Generals or Brigadiers.

Have I got that right?
About 3 companies = battalion
3 battalions (9 companies) = regiment
3 regiments (27 companies) = brigade
Click to expand...

Battalion usually 3 x Companies + 1x Hvy Weapons or MG Company (although these should be parcelled out to rifle/grenadier coys in battle
 
I am thinking of making the map counters represent company sized formations.
Once a company has taken more than 50% casualties, it would be removed from the map, and nearby companies from the same battalion could get a small boost to their numbers if they are less than 100% strength, absorbing the remnants.
It is possible that company units could be destroyed after only one or two battles in some cases. The number of units in play will probably rapidly decrease over time.

Battalion level assets such as heavy weapons and artillery could be allocated to individual companies at the commander's discretion during the orders phase.
This means that heavy weapons companies don't have to be shown on the map, as they are attached.

I'm thinking of making the two sides brigade strength, which means about 27 counters per side.
I'd like to make these two brigades very 'generic' in composition, with quality being regular, and only commonly available equipment. Artillery and armour with very low rarity values.

I think 27 units per side is manageable, both from a GM and a CO perspective, but allows for an interesting game with lots of strategic and tactical possibilities.

I'd like some help from grogs in regards to force mix. Units that will definitely be included are infantry companies and armoured.
Other units that may be included are purely mechanised or motorised infantry and armoured recon companies.

Although technically an armoured company would consist of 10-15 tanks, having that many enter a CM battle would be pointless,
so I am thinking of using Nathangun's mix from the Bulge, where an armoured unit was represented by a platoon of tanks
and 2 platoons of armoured infantry. That seemed to work well.

Below is a visual which shows what the brigade might look like, and possible force mix.

possible oob copy.jpg
 
If you want to do the campaign in CMFB, I have this map I built for a semi-fictional Bulge campaign set in area of Wiltz ... kind of initial German breakthrough through thin US screen and then operational meeting engagement as Axis advance and US feeds in reinforcements and Germans follow-up units.

Terrain is either open Farmland, Lightly wooded or rough/heavily wooded. Rivers/streams fordable for leg infantry -- mech units can only move over bridges.

The map can be edited to hearts content as all the original photoshop files are extant.

HT032SE.jpg


Here some samples of proposed unit counters -- all company sized with a Battalion HQ also holding the ARTY assets and also I guess independent arty asset units thrown in as well.
The pips next to the NATO symbol depict strength levels (3 pips 100%, 2 pips 75%, 1 pip 50% ) -- so 2. Kompanie of the Fallschirmjaeger Btn has been mauled and is at 50% ... (the casualty system could be refined as the campaign design progresses)
The number in the circles is movement allowance -- black = mech ... light-blue = foot sloggers

An additonal design feature for the counters is that each Battalion group's counters will be coloured in same shade of grey/blue or green for Axis & Allied units respectively -- this way easier to see which units belong together.

My suggestion would be combined-arms Kampfgruppen or US Task Forces with Tank or Tank Destroyer or assault gun assets already assigned and available for players to purchase. (with pre-set limits)

8MJWyL8.jpg


I can help out with building the counters for this -- it's all photoshop, so easily changed and adusted as you go along.

EDIT: During coffee break I updated some of the unit counters to come more in line visually with what I did for the Rikonovo CMRT campaign idea ... I think they look better.

QpwiKtZ.jpg
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking about how to make life easier for the campaign leader, because that seems to be the main stumbling block for getting these campaigns going and keeping them going.

One of the biggest issues seems to be map generation. I suggest that instead of generating new maps for every battle, and keeping track of which map goes where, we could simply say "Ok, this turn this unit attacks this unit on this hex. It's a light forest hex. Player 1 and 2, you are to set up an attack type battle in "forest" terrain and play it out and report back your results. The players would then agreee between themselves what map to use.

Then next time there's a battle in the same hex, two different players could choose a completely different map; it wouldn't matter to the campaign. The only thing that would matter would be that the units involved were at the appropriate types, strength levels, and that the terrain was _generally_ the same type.
 
Sorry for a delayed arrival here, I'm very happy to sign up for this; FWIW I like the units, terrain etc in CMFI, but happy to play in any title.

I don't have any experience to speak of with the maps ... I find the map maker just too tedious, though perhaps that's lack of experience? But I would suggest (think @Concord indicated this as an option above?) moving away from a "real" strategic map and then having to find - make! - CM battle maps that resemble it, but instead use CM battle maps that already exist (either campaign or scenario) joined up to create a fictional but ready made strategic area: any battle arising would already have a chosen CM battle map in existence for that strategic hex?

@Bulletpoint 's suggestion of renewed player choice each battle is simple and less work: but could there be some (gentlemanly ...) conflict over the choice: "fine, this is a wooded map with a highway ... but my entry point has a boggy stream that will kill my movement from minute 1 ..." etc etc. Or is that just me!

I would prefer the battle map to be a known / given non-variable.

And in general I would accept / prefer simplifications that make it possible for the Organiser and CO's to keep things in motion, rather than complications which, though attractive options at first, help drag things to a halt.
 
@PhilM this is my thinking too.
The main work I want to put in at the beginning of the project. Whatever title is chosen, I want to do a stocktake of maps and construct a strategic map that takes advantage of what we have.
Feature rich maps to be made into key hexes, and a stable of generic maps for countryside. Everything about 1km square.
Not sure if it will work (enough maps available), but if so, the campaign would be quite easy to run.

Each turn, the GM would have to check movement orders given and update the strategy map visual (not hard - each unit counter would be on it's own layer in Photoshop).
GM chooses the maps for the battles, paints in setup zones for each unit participating, specifies purchase points...and have at it.
Afterwards, the players can both report theirs and enemy losses as a percentage based on the post battle screen.
CO's update new strength percentages for units that saw battle, on the forum unit list.
New turn starts.
 
Last edited:
@Rico your maps and counters look magnificent. How do you make them? From scratch? Photoshop? Illustrator?
Somewhere in my archives I have a program called Hexdraw which was great for hex maps, including terrain. I'm not sure if it will work on Windows 10 though.
Would you be willing to construct a map for this campaign too?
 
Last edited:
Concord said:
I am thinking of making the map counters represent company sized formations.
Once a company has taken more than 50% casualties, it would be removed from the map, and nearby companies from the same battalion could get a small boost to their numbers if they are less than 100% strength, absorbing the remnants.
It is possible that company units could be destroyed after only one or two battles in some cases. The number of units in play will probably rapidly decrease over time.

Battalion level assets such as heavy weapons and artillery could be allocated to individual companies at the commander's discretion during the orders phase.
This means that heavy weapons companies don't have to be shown on the map, as they are attached.

I'm thinking of making the two sides brigade strength, which means about 27 counters per side.
I'd like to make these two brigades very 'generic' in composition, with quality being regular, and only commonly available equipment. Artillery and armour with very low rarity values.

I think 27 units per side is manageable, both from a GM and a CO perspective, but allows for an interesting game with lots of strategic and tactical possibilities.

I'd like some help from grogs in regards to force mix. Units that will definitely be included are infantry companies and armoured.
Other units that may be included are purely mechanised or motorised infantry and armoured recon companies.

Although technically an armoured company would consist of 10-15 tanks, having that many enter a CM battle would be pointless,
so I am thinking of using Nathangun's mix from the Bulge, where an armoured unit was represented by a platoon of tanks
and 2 platoons of armoured infantry. That seemed to work well.

Below is a visual which shows what the brigade might look like, and possible force mix.

View attachment 16374
Click to expand...
Two questions:

1. Will it be possible for the brigade/batallion commanders to make Kampfgruppe/Battlegroups? Mixing armour, infantry and by that making temporary battlegroups at batallion and company-level?

2. Can it be possible to assemble greater forces in one hex? For example a whole battalion vs one company?
 
PhilM said:
@Bulletpoint 's suggestion of renewed player choice each battle is simple and less work: but could there be some (gentlemanly ...) conflict over the choice: "fine, this is a wooded map with a highway ... but my entry point has a boggy stream that will kill my movement from minute 1 ..." etc etc. Or is that just me!
Click to expand...

My point was that the players would agree between them what map to play, so if the map is really unbalanced or poorly made, just choose another..
 
@Panzer_Freak the armoured units consist of a platoon of armour and 2 platoons of armoured infantry, so they are already a combined arms unit.
This loadout was from Nathangun's Bulge campaign. I think it was to keep the battles balanced, and it worked quite well.
Still a daunting force for a defending infantry company, but they have a fighting chance at least.
It also provides some inherent infantry support for the armour.
I labelled the individual armoured units as platoons in the diagram above, because they would only have 3-5 tanks or so per unit with purchase limitations, but I should probably call them armoured companies to avoid confusion.

Since the map will be based on a hex grid, if you completely surrounded a company, you could attack them from 6 sides with 6 companies of any type.
In the last battle I played in the Bulge campaign recently, just before the campaign was discontinued, I had an armoured unit and an infantry unit attack side by side on the strategic map.
When the battle started, I moved the two companies towards each other from their starting setup zones to provide mutual support.
I ended up sending the infantry forward, while the armour (and their armoured infantry) provided covering fire.
We had many battles where a unit was attacked by multiple companies coming from different directions on the strategic map, and this was how the battles were set up too.

I'm thinking of creating a rule where units from an infantry battalion cannot be further than 2 hexes away from each other at any time.
Perhaps a better rule would be to say that any infantry company that is further than 2 hexes from another unit in their battalion cannot receive any battalion support
(in the form of battalion level artillery or heavy weapons or anti-tank platoons).
This restriction will probably not apply to the armoured companies.
 
Last edited:
Concord said:
@Rico your maps and counters look magnificent. How do you make them? From scratch? Photoshop? Illustrator?
Somewhere in my archives I have a program called Hexdraw which was great for hex maps, including terrain. I'm not sure if it will work on Windows 10 though.
Would you be willing to construct a map for this campaign too?
Click to expand...

Maps and counters all made in Photoshop.

I use graphics imported from various games, used Hexdraw to generate the basic hex overlay.

For the unit counters I import and overlay illustrations I find from all over web -- often pics from covers of Model kits or uniform plates ... the armored vehicle graphics are imported from games like PanzerCorps.

Yes, I can make a map for you and make a set of unit counters if you like -- once parameters, concept and rules and what info should go on the counters has been agreed on -- what game you want to use and where to set it.
 
I'd be happy to be involved, I enjoyed both my Market Garden and Bulge experiences. If you had a limited AO I'm sure a couple of master maps could be edited to resemble the AO and then cut up as needed before the campaign kicks off. I'd support, the maps don't need to be perfect copies of the master map, and one can keep the elevations just make some tweaks as needed.

One watch out on the Bulge method for the player purchasing units, choosing based upon points. It's possible to over purchase and not follow the points and also to purchase units which are historically unrealistic. I over purchased myself, by mistake, and it's impossible for the GM or opponent to police. It's just a watch out, I'm sure no one would do it intentionally :eek:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom