Opinions wanted on "Meta-Campaign"

S

Strachwitz

Guest
Dear Gentleman,

literally since months I am working on game mechanics and rules on creating a big multiplayer campaign. My aspiration is to create something quite unique and realistic in terms of chain of command (establishing of orders, chain of command, delays in execution etc.), resupply, medical support (to get some troops back to fight after a certain amount of time so care about wounded on the battlefield is more important), troop movement, full blown FOW and so on. This all will take place in an area approximately 10km x 10km with about 20+ Battalions per side stretched over a period of maybe 3 days. Single battles will be from Company+ to 2 Battalions max plus support. That`s the plan and rules (compromised of about 4 different boardgame rules, brewed together and fit to my needs) are nearly finished.

The next step is to determine wether this should be a historical campaign (I tried my rules with a campaign depicting the Axis attack on the Anzio beachhead) or a fictional "meeting engagement" campaign. The main problem with a historical campaign would be the creation of maps. So I am in favour of using already existing huge maps "pasted together" to a single large operational maps. These huge maps will be seperated by some natural obstacles like woods or big rivers to get rid of map edge battles. Actual battles will be fought on just the according parts of a huge map.
Then comes the creation of 2 equal forces (consider them having all: Recon, Tanks, Infantry, Artillery)

So my basic question is. Are you guys interested in fighting a fictional Meta-Campaign with fictional forces?

If the answer is yes (which means we get about 10 guys wanting such a campaign) then I am looking for 2 guys willing and able to take command of each force.
They should be responsible for creating detailed orders for their forces (for example 2nd battalion moves to XY by 1030 hours, commence attack on XY at 1100 hours, 3rd Battalion is taking flank security at XY by 1030 hours, determining rally points etc., coordination artillery bombardements prior to the attack). And these commanders should not only take the burden of command, they also should be able to write up the orders for their subordinates. So basically I am searching for someone who has maybe some background in military or scenario making and thus is able writing good briefings in CM. This will be mandatory to get such a Campaign rolling as I for myself not able to write orders for the single battles which will occur. So basically the briefings for the battles will be written by the commanders. And there is a big big drawback too. These Commanders will not be able to participate in the actual battles as they will get to know things, the single battlefield commanders will not know and should remain surprises during the battles...
So please feel free to comment what you think about these basic parameters.
 
this is awesome. I'm definitely not up for the commander job, but the whole idea is sweet and I'd like to get involved in the fighting . Great idea Strachwitz !!!
 
I m in, but you ll have to take in mind that it's a huge concept and you ll need more than 10 players per side to make things rolling also you ll need to have 4 solid players 2 as COs and 2 as GMs (the ones to which will write the briefings).
Think also about playtesting a bit the whole ideain order to discover and cure setbacks and potential problems.
 
Ditto to some of the things that Cargol said. Great idea though. But also it sounds huge in its concept. Be prepared for this to last a LONG time. The OOC game is now about a year and a half old (I think) and is probably only 15-20% complete.

Regardless of all that count me in. Great fun for years to come. This game is the best damn 50 bucks I ever spent. More like a 150 by now, but a great return on entertainment investment.
 
Thanks for all the useful input.
Cargol: Yes, I agree. 10 players is the minimum needed for that. But as for writing briefing (as to how detailed they would be is on the commanders discretion, but lacking detail could lead to wrong interpretation of the actual battlefield commander) there is no need for a secondary GM as the commanders are already a bit of GM themself. My concept of command is centered around the a system similar to the OpSheet System found in the TCS series of boardgames if someone is familiar with these. So basically the commanders write up different OpSheet containing orders for a specified time and specific forces (for example 1st/3rd Batallion and support by 105mm Artillery and a Platton of Panzer IVs). This can be long orders involving multiple turns or shorter ones as "movement to contact" orders. But and this is the clue, a change of orders will not be so easy and will take time to implement. So a formation can for example not switch tasks from one turn to another as orders have first to be processed. This will lead to a sort of a chain of command with somewhat delayed execution. So no instant change of plans which will lead to a more realistic flow of battle. At least I hope. A first test with my brother looked promising. So basically even if the commander sees urgent need for a quick reaction on the larger battlefield it will take time to implement and processing the orders to the actual battlefield commander. Long story short. The commanders are a kind of GM for their forces. Providing them with intel, general infos and so on in briefings. I will just take these briefings and implement it in the actual scenario sent out to the battlefield commanders.
And thanks for the hint about testing this first. My plan is to find 2 overall commanders and play a "Test-Campaign" on a small scale (just 2 or 3 battallions involved) to test rules, get a feel for the "OpSheet" orders system and finding drwabacks and errors in my logic. So when (anf if) this campaign starts fully these 2 commanders already know exactly what to do and how the system works.

DasTiger : Yeah, this will take a long long time. But I hope also for a long long entertaining time with lots of surprises and interesting tactical decisions. Right now I think of a quite restrictive timeframe-system for the actual battles. These will be 2 hour long battles (some intense, some less intense, hopefully not boring ;-)) and this could take long. I am not quite sure how to handle it but for now I think of the ask of completing the battles in about 6-8 weeks maximum. If the battle is not completed until a specific date the GM, me, would descide what it means. I am basically thinking of giving the player who was stalling the battle a kind of "punishment". So even if he has completed his objectives he will not be granted the "victory". The mission would be a fail. But thats in the works.
To get a faster overall turn rate I am thinking about a kind of a Buddy-System. I guess everybody got at least one or two opponents he likes fighting with and have a good turn rate, depending on the timezone and preferred playing time. I don`t know if this is applicable but sign-up to the campaign would eventually be in pairs of two`s. One on the Axis side and one on the Allied side, so that these two are mainly battling it out in roughly the same sectors. If this could work? I don`t know. In theory it sound good to me.

Rico : Casualties will not be completely 1:1 as this would be too much of a task and foremost is not possible with the current state of the editor. But it should be closely to that. Bigger stuff as tanks, guns AFV`s and so on definitely 1:1. Soldiers on a Squad or Platoon basis. So if Squad/Platoon 1 looses 5 out of 10 men (respectively 10 out of 40 men) the will start the next battle with 50% reduced strenght.
And I am also interested in how to handle the battle maps ;-). This is my biggest task right now. How to work with the breakdown maps for the actual battles I already figured out quite good. My main problem is the overall "operational" battlefield. As I intend (and I already have a rough 9km by 9km map) to use modded versions of different of already existing huge maps (like Pete`s 2kmx2km Map or broadsword65s Caen Area Map (4kmx4km, plain flat terrain. great for long distance tank fights) my problem is to connect these parts to a overall map in a way it makes sense and somehow believable. A heavily wooded impassable area between 2 big maps can do the trick (with areas to defend at both the "entrances" to the wooded area. But this is not applicable for the whole operational map as this would lead to a "operational-bocage-map". So maybe big big rivers with bridges, but the problem is to make it believable, as no unit could be allowed to fire over this river on the opposite side (as it is a other map). A copy/paste function in the editor is my wet dream.....Maybe mountains do the trick. I am experimenting with that right now. But maybe the division by Heavy Woods is sufficient for everybody. I have to try if these "Operational Bocage" isn`t hindering the flow of the operational battle to much, or if it still allows for strategic movement on the battlefield.
 
Not sure if you read this, but there a handy rule set for this type of thing which I plan to use to do a similar campaign written by Broadsword56 over on the BF forums.

Here's a link to his rules
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1391558#post1391558

I will cherry pick what I will need from these plus a time delay to the issue of fresh orders (similar to yours above).

and the background to campaign
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104104

it's also a entertaining AAR. :)

I will post my plans on another tread as not to 'steal your thunder' here ;)
 
Yo Strach,
Quite the vision you have here. I think your concept of designing a fictional campaign is a better idea than a historical one. As a historical campaign without reasonably accurate mapping would be of less interest to me. A fictional campaign would allow you complete freedom to blend any maps already available. Perhaps you could use an historical OOB to simplify that aspect of your campaign design.
I would entertain participating at the command level, as I have ample time to dedicate to the task.
 
nathangun said:
Not sure if you read this, but there a handy rule set for this type of thing which I plan to use to do a similar campaign written by Broadsword56 over on the BF forums.

Here's a link to his rules
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1391558#post1391558

I will cherry pick what I will need from these plus a time delay to the issue of fresh orders (similar to yours above).

and the background to campaign
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104104

it's also a entertaining AAR. :)

I will post my plans on another tread as not to 'steal your thunder' here ;)
Click to expand...



Thanks -- bookmarked the rules ... might come in handy.
 
Check out the old CMBB Onion Wars campaign - now complete after something like seven years, but it shows you a good example of the GM, CO, personnel management issues extended campaigns can have.
 
Yes, a tragic day when the EE fist of uber-tanks finally rolled into sockeye...If only we had dogpiled KVs into an unstoppable mass on the first turns...
 
Facman said:
Yo Strach,
Quite the vision you have here. I think your concept of designing a fictional campaign is a better idea than a historical one. As a historical campaign without reasonably accurate mapping would be of less interest to me. A fictional campaign would allow you complete freedom to blend any maps already available. Perhaps you could use an historical OOB to simplify that aspect of your campaign design.
I would entertain participating at the command level, as I have ample time to dedicate to the task.
Click to expand...
Great to hear. I will let you know about any progresses concerning this campaign.
 
nathangun said:
Not sure if you read this, but there a handy rule set for this type of thing which I plan to use to do a similar campaign written by Broadsword56 over on the BF forums.

Here's a link to his rules
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1391558#post1391558

I will cherry pick what I will need from these plus a time delay to the issue of fresh orders (similar to yours above).

and the background to campaign
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=104104

it's also a entertaining AAR. :)

I will post my plans on another tread as not to 'steal your thunder' here ;)
Click to expand...
Yes, it really is entertaining. I am following these threads quite a long time. Broadswords56`s concept using a boardgame got me hooked right form the beginning. Since then I am pondering with the creation of a campaign, trying different boardgames to match my needs. Right now I cherrypicked intereting rules from various games and converted them into a custom ruleset. We will see where this leads to.
I am also interested in your campaign. Looking forward to see some details posted sometime :).
 
AntiApplicability said:
Check out the old CMBB Onion Wars campaign - now complete after something like seven years, but it shows you a good example of the GM, CO, personnel management issues extended campaigns can have.
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. Could you provide a link to somewhere about this topic?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom