Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Improvements for Campaign Turn 2

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ithikial

FGM 2ND IN COMMAND
Staff member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
4,710
Reaction score
2,678
Age
40
Location
Perth, Australia
With all the first round of dawn battles now underway with lots of explosions I've promised in both HQ forums to post about possible improvements to the battle creation process. There were a few niggling issues with the CM Scenario files both sides received due to misunderstandings of intentions on my part. Changes or in game solutions were made so the turn could push on ahead with minimal delay for the other party. When playing a new rule set for the first time there's bound to be some issues so thanks again for your patience.

Can both sides provide suggests or support for the changes outlined below.

Issue 1
Which orders are the final 'locked in' ones.
When determining the committed forces to a battle, reinforcements and off map support intentions it became confusing trying to scroll through tens of pages of forum posts and some errors were made.

Solution: I've created a MS Word doc which will act as a 'Battle Form' for both sides to outline the make up of a CM battle. When I create battles from campaign turn 2 onwards I'll refer to this form and this form only rather than trying to scroll through tens of pages of forum posts. I don't want to stymie debate in the HQ forums of team mates coming up with a strategy but there needs to be a clear in confidence location for the 'final product.' I will probably add a box at the bottom called 'End of Battle Feedback' where you guys can log any comments or highlight anything privately to me before I review the end of battle file and adjust OOB.

Issue 2
Fortifications are units and therefore not fixed. Will need be reapplied for each battle.

Solution: We can try to map everything out or we can assume that fortifications are destroyed and removed by occupying forces after a battle if the campaign square changes hands. Please advise.

Issue 3
OOB work for each battle takes considerable time.
It took about four days (on and off) to create the three battles, largely because the CM Editor has no undo button :( and importing multiple OOB is not possible. (Lots of stuff happened behind the scenes).

Solution: From Strachwitz. Both sides when submitting the battle detail form will also provide a CM .btt file with their selected forces for that battle selected from their existing Master OOB. The GM will combine the files and do the placement on map etc. This way we'll have two pairs of eyes double checking to ensure the right units are part of the correct battle. Also syncs a bit better for helping to fix issue 1.

Issue 4
Units being scattered across the campaign map.
Having Battalion and Brigade level forces scattered all across the map makes it that little bit harder to keep track of and doesn't in my mind make realistic command and control sense for organised offensive and defensive lines. I don't really want to impose a rule on this but would be nice if players tried to keep C&C a bit tighter and more realistic. A Colonel doesn't have one of his companies five miles away with a whole other battalion between them and him if he can help it.

Solution: Aim in the future to try and have formations to fight in their area alongside their Battalion / Brigade comrades.



Guys please provide feedback and suggestions to help streamline the process further in campaign round 2 and check your dropboxes. Additionally, once this round is finished I'll share the Soviet objective maps with the axis for a better system for informing me of your objective intentions in game. :)
 
Just a short answer. A detailed an long answer tomorrow when I have more time at hand. Good idea to open a thread about improvements. I sure have some more ideas but the ones you have posted Ithikial seem quite reasonable. Just the one about fortifications need to be discussed a bit more. I would like to have them "stationary" even after the fights. This is quite a bit of an hassle but I think worth the efforts. To keep it simple somehow I think fortifications don't need to be 100% correct in the next battle. Close by the original location ( and the original intention) should be sufficient.

More on this and some other minor aspects tomorrow!
 
A public one? Where you guys post your side of the story?
 
Nah, not yet. I have something in the works but this will take some time to get it published. I don't want to start with a unfinished job. There are things to be done in the graphics department. Some kind of an operational VAAR.
 
Nah, not yet. I have something in the works but this will take some time to get it published. I don't want to start with a unfinished job. There are things to be done in the graphics department. Some kind of an operational VAAR.

Well to be honest that is kinda unfair... We have all our tactics and stuff out there and you have none!
 
I just feel unsave with our tactics and strategic plan our there
 
Now some feedback to Ithikials proposals:

Issue 1:
Not much to say. Seems a very good solution to get the battles rolling. I had a closer look at the document you provided. Looks good to me. Nothing missing. No redundant stuff. This should work and will make it easier for both sides. The GM and the comanders. So no objections.

Issue 2:
I really would like to have already placed fortifications in. As I wrote above they don't have to be on the exact location.
So basically when there are 5 foxholes in a patch of woods then next battle ther should also be 5 foxholes in that patch of woods. Not exact just close to.

Issue 3:
I am also fine with that :)

Issue 4:
I partly agree and partly disagree. Sure Batalliosn should be not too scattered over the battlefield. This is especially true for infantry units. They should have some sort of maximum frontage. And I tried to have them all quite cohesive. For Tank Battallions this is not so true. Sometimes different companies have to be scattered over the battlefield to fulfill different tasks. Or have to be placed under someone else command or attached to another unit to fulfill taks for example in conjunction with infantry Batallions. Especially difficult I guess this is for the defender. So basically I agree to have units in some kind of greater unit cohesion but I also won't set up rules for that. Just common sense or at least a good explanation for placing a unit far away from their parent unit. I know my post is not very constructive. I simply don't know yet how to tackle that issue.
Maybe it helps what exactly the problem is. You get every position of units from the commanders. Is the problem to sort out where they end up after the movements?
Maybe another spreadsheet with movement orders helps?
 
I just feel unsave with our tactics and strategic plan our there
But this feeling won't stop when we also put our stuff out. Then your strategy is still out there. Both parties have to have trust to play that campaign. We are not unwilling and agreed on starting our own public thread(s). And we like to, but I want this to be in a entertaining and good looking way to get the audience hooked. For the better of the campaign and the game system. But if you like we can make out interim AARs public but then Inhave to drop my idea. No need to post basically the same stuff twice...
 
I just feel unsave with our tactics and strategic plan our there

I can speak only for myself (though I'm sure that the same applies to the other two Soviet players): I have fully observed the request that Soviet players look at neither of the two "public" Axis threads (the one in the general forum, and the one within the campaign thread), and no one else has passed on to me anything whatsoever that is in them.

So as far as I'm concerned they might as well not exist ... I don't see what you have to feel unsafe about, unless you are implying that we have looked at them???

When we do the same, you won't be reading ours I presume?
 
I just feel saver if your stuff is out there also. Not that I don't trust you but this is still the internet where one can say one thing but do the other.
Here is a qoute from our CO posted in our thread after someone asked if we are still playing. Don;t get this wrong but I just want to see your stuff out there also. @Ithikial

Just waiting for the Soviets to open their thread before anything else goes up.
 
ow and you are the enemy of course and spies are everywhere :D
 
I can speak only for myself (though I'm sure that the same applies to the other two Soviet players): I have fully observed the request that Soviet players look at neither of the two "public" Axis threads (the one in the general forum, and the one within the campaign thread), and no one else has passed on to me anything whatsoever that is in them.

So as far as I'm concerned they might as well not exist ... I don't see what you have to feel unsafe about, unless you are implying that we have looked at them???

When we do the same, you won't be reading ours I presume?

I'm with Phil in this, I haven't read them and as I'm not the CO for our side I wouldn't dare to post our plans of campaign.

I agree with Ithikal on his suggestions. Better to have fortifications abstracted rather than 'set in stone'.
Regarding formations staying together makes sense, however battle groups should be allowed to be created for a particular missions or for a defense like the 'Admin Box' in the Burma campaign.
 
I just feel saver if your stuff is out there also. Not that I don't trust you but this is still the internet where one can say one thing but do the other.
Here is a qoute from our CO posted in our thread after someone asked if we are still playing. Don;t get this wrong but I just want to see your stuff out there also. @Ithikial

I beg your pardon???? Would you like to explain exactly what you mean by that?
 
images


Guys, everyone in this community to the best of my knowledge is a pretty trustworthy bloke when it comes to following the rules and being a good sportsman. In my experience cheaters when discovered are run out of the wider CM community. Also everyone taking part in this campaign has been around the FGM for at least a little while now.

1. I'm pretty sure I can run checks on threads to see which members have visited them but I really don't want to do this.
2. I can confirm Strachwitz is putting together something special showing the Soviet perspective, it just needs some time to finish.

Let the pixeltruppen do the angry fighting thing.
 
Ok guys. Before this is shifting in an even worse discussion I will put up a new thread tonight with an strategic update and battle AARs. I now drop my big video project. I still think this could have been a great advertisement for the campaign not just inside the FGM but also to a greater YouTube community. Getting more people hooked and maybe join the FGM. But I have to say that some comments made me a bit upset. There seems to be a lack of trust and I don't like this. From the next turn onward I won't post any updates for the actual turn. I will just post AARs after the turn is done. I simply want to have fun and when there is always the chance that some thinks someone is getting "illegal" intel on the enemy when something unusual is happening at the battlefield. I don't like that feeling. So you get the quick and dirty (I have no access to graphics software for about 2 weeks) Sitreps tonight. But don't expect them to be shiny and good.
 
BTW: I really enjoyed the big battle with Odin. Great fun. But from now onward this fun is heavily subdued. I goes that far that I nearly hope not achieving a victory. Maybe this would raise other suspicions...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top