Revamping North African Campaign?

Well - finally I have some time to read it and .... I like it :)
Some minor remarks

I think we can stay with short battles (20 turns fixed) (it will speed up campaign)
We can use small maps for attack battles and medium for ME
I would consider using maps with heavy trees, village(town for town battle)and modest hills and random time of the day and weather - that could make games more interesting then just attack on open desert.
and last but not least
what about scoring system ?
what is strategic goal of campaign ?
Good work Rico
PS1 - I volunteer for Allied commander :) if you don't mind :)

PS 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Independent_Carpathian_Rifle_Brigade
 
Personally Rico i think you should round to slightly advantage the attacker rather than the defender, should help reduce any stalemates but just my $0.02
 
mgk said:
Well - finally I have some time to read it and .... I like it :)
Some minor remarks

I think we can stay with short battles (20 turns fixed) (it will speed up campaign)
We can use small maps for attack battles and medium for ME
I would consider using maps with heavy trees, village(town for town battle)and modest hills and random time of the day and weather - that could make games more interesting then just attack on open desert.
and last but not least
what about scoring system ?
what is strategic goal of campaign ?
Good work Rico
PS1 - I volunteer for Allied commander :) if you don't mind :)

PS 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Independent_Carpathian_Rifle_Brigade
Click to expand...

The slightly longer battles have been requested by several players for Probe and Attack battles... maybe Probe 24 turns, and attack 26?

Yes, I am working on a scoring system :)

Ok, will look into making more interesting maps :)
 
The battle lengths for the Ardennes campain seem to work pretty well, i'd use those as a base, 24 and 26 as the battles seem to be smaller.

Hell i'm not even playing this but it'd certainly be more interesting to watch if you can get this one more mobile :wink:
 
BATTLES

I'm rethinking the way we set up the BATTLES.

First pff, I have run a few tests and using the Strength Points on the unit counters as representing 500 points and then adding them up to ste up battles is a little crazy.

For example, two 3 SP point units attacking a 3 SP point enemy, will give the attacker 3000 pts vs 1500 (plus what the QB adds for probe or Attack battles)... even if the defender is dug in, in a CM set up, it'll be a virtual walkover, especially if the attacker have tanks.

So my suggestion is following:
We add up the SP's involved and work out an attack/defense ratio (rounded down in favour of defence) and this will result in the following battles:
1:1 - even
3:2 - attacker gets a 10% points bonus
2:1 - attacker gets a 25% points bonus
3:1 - attacker gets a 50% points bonus
4:1 - automatic victory, battle result is determined by following die roll:
Die roll 1/2: defender loses 1 SP, retreat 2 hexes
Die roll 3/4: defender loses 2 SP, retreat 2 hexes
Die roll 4/5: defender eliminated

All Multi-directional or defence bonuses get added after the attack/defense ratio has been set up.

Random AI picks:
Are we happy with the random AI kit picks?

We could revert to a normal QB set up where players pick their forces within set-up limits (like no Matildas unless added as force-multipliers etc) but with the rarity set to variable to spice things up a bit.
 
Did you think about points for captured cities ? (1 point for each and 10 for Tobruk Aleksandria and Tripoli which will make Tobruk a key city for victory
supply ? (line of hexes outside enemy ZOC to friendly city and no more then 6 hexes outside road)
 
I m with Bane, with some limitation ,depending on the type of Division, i think players should be able to pick their own forces.
 
I'm happy with auto picks. I think the auxiliary units you have suggested make up for some of the odd selections. Auto picks are just easier for the campaign manager, don't you think?

You've come up with some great ideas. I especially like the percentage bonus granted for adjacent friendly units. Well done.

The battle size and types were something I researched for awhile for AVL trying to find a good mix. We will soon see how that works out.

One more thing, ZOC's. There must be a reason every game ever made includes the zone of control feature. Are we using it? I vote yes.
 
Worked out a SCORING SYSTEM for the new NA Campaign:

Tripoli and Alexandria are each worth 100 Victory Points (VP's)

Tobruk - 60 VP

Benghazi - 25 VP

Cairo and Port Said - 20 VP's each

The other 25 minor towns/locations each 1 VP.

Total Strategic Victory:
Allies: 350 pts - incl capture of Tripoli
Axis: - 310 VP's - must include capture of Alexandria

Minor Victory
Allies: 200 VP (must incl holding Tobruk)
Axis: 185 VP (must incl holding Tobruk)

DRAW
Tobruk under siege by either side

This workable?

Possession of Tobruk also eases supply problem of side holding if the town is in supply.
Tobruk can also be used as a supply base for ONE Allied Division only, if this Division is cut off from 8th Army HQ or Alexandria.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom