Western Front campaign anyone?

[Concord]

QB...or Editor

@Concord , I did something very similar to @Nathangun for casualty recording in the CMSF2 campaign I ran. Basically have a preset unit file for each side and adjust each platoon/unit's headcount to the nearest 10% banding as the editor allows you. Will need to either remove or merge units on your side if they drop below 50% given editor limitations.

Yeah, each individual unit on the strategic map represents a platoon.

I was initially thinking of calculating percentage lost just like Brigade Battles, and have the round-up/round-down to 1/3 strength (1 squad plus HQ), 2/3 (2 squads plus HQ). Anything above that (above say 61%) would be considered full strength (3 squads plus HQ) and anything below 33% would be considered a wipe-out.

However, as you mentioned, the editor will allow for headcounts to be used incrementally in 10% steps. This might be a better way (also see below).


Supporting units

- Even if you have a generic infantry battalion as the basis for each side, suggest mixing it up a bit with some additional forces. Such as a supporting individual vehicles that are purchased and assigned to report directly to the Battalion commander. Maybe a platoon of tanks and/or light vehicles etc. Variety is the spice of life... and Combat Mission. Players will get bored very quickly and the suspense will be taken out of the campaign if the players know they will be 90% of the time going to go up against the same type of rifle platoon with each battle. Maybe the Battalion Commander player has the right to allocate these assets to each platoon as they see fit (and depending on the distance to that unit as to whether they are reinforcements or not).

Yeah, the original idea I came up with was to include the actual complete OOB from the CMFB battalions for each side, with the support sections available to be distributed each turn, with KIA's tracked individually (not too many of them, so not too difficult as GM).

I balked when I saw how many mortars were included for each side! I know how easy it can be for a small battle to become a mortar-fest. I could explain away the lack of mortars on the map by claiming they are engaged with other battalion targets (like counter battery fire or interdiction or something).

I want this campaign to be an experience of small unit infantry tactics above all else. The addition of tanks or off-map artillery presents even greater problems in that regard. It did occur to me though, that really small vehicles like an MG Jeep or Flak truck might occasionally add flavour.

I will provide each battalion with extra assets that are not included in the normal CMFB OOB, including a finite number of scout teams, breach teams LMG/HMG teams etc. to provide a boost to platoons (like when going on the attack or making a strong defence).

I also liked @Stafford 's idea of limited reinforcements replacements that can be spent each turn, or saved up.


Supply

I was planning on restricting the battle creation to Quick Battle formats, but I'm having second thoughts and considering making each battle in the editor. The primary reason is that there is no way to modify ammunition levels in a QB. Ammunition levels are a perfect way to reflect supply problems for a unit cut off.

I watched an AAR of @OnePingOnly 's called Bad Day at Beach Red and it reminded me that ammo could be depleted within a few minutes of combat. He had to provide aid to casualties in order to scrounge ammo.


Fatigue

I was considering having a morning round and an afternoon round (maybe even the possibility of a night round). If I use the editor to create battles rather than QB's, I could introduce fatigue for sequential battles (fit, weakened, unfit). It would encourage rotating platoons to avoid exhaustion.


Ongoing battles

The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of allowing enemy units to remain in a zone after a battle. All it would mean is redrawing the setup zones (which would happen anyway with each fresh battle). I think I will create every battle as a meeting engagement and have no victory locations present.

To avoid creating a battle where neither side intends to do anything, I could request (secret) orders from each side as to whether they intend to fight or pause. If both sides order a pause, the battle is not created. If either side orders 'fight', then the battle is created.

 

[Stafford]

I would recommend against the inclusion of 'GM additions' as it did cause some friction in the BB campaign, rather give the option of purchasing supporting assets to the commanders of each side using the points system I suggested earlier - in this way they can tailor a particular unit towards whatever purpose they require.

 

[Rico]

At one point I was playing around with the idea of "Unit Cards" for each counter on the map.
These would be a attached to the sides of the campaign map and be a simple representation of the unit's (in this case company+) OOB and attached support units by placing counters on the card.
(inspired by a system from the board game Nevsky)


The above one is a battered Grenadier Kompanie of 3 grenadier platoons, one Hvy HMG section, 2 MedMortars, 1 anti-tank gun and 2 Marders attached.

The pips on the infantry counters represent intact rifle squads ( the HQ sect is always deemed present) -- so 3rd platoon is only one-third strength.



Next one is a PzGren (Mot) company with only 2 intact rifle platoons, but 3 Hvy MG's, 2 med mortars and 2 AT guns.
Also a reduced platoon of Panzer IV's in support.

 

[Concord]

I would recommend against the inclusion of 'GM additions' as it did cause some friction in the BB campaign, rather give the option of purchasing supporting assets to the commanders of each side using the points system I suggested earlier - in this way they can tailor a particular unit towards whatever purpose they require.

It wasn't random GM additions I was referring to, but rather a 'semi-realistic' finite pool of battalion assets, which the CO could assign to platoons at will, that would be tracked individually. Once a battalion asset team was eliminated, it would be gone for good from the campaign. The idea behind it would be to represent the battalion's weapons platoons and also a pool of special assault extras (scout teams for instance) that would beef up a platoon for an attack or stout defense.

 

[Nathangun]

At one point I was playing around with the idea of "Unit Cards" for each counter on the map.
These would be a attached to the sides of the campaign map and be a simple representation of the unit's (in this case company+) OOB and attached support units by placing counters on the card.
(inspired by a system from the board game Nevsky)

I had that idea before. So is tat want you wanted a Vassal module for?
Last Blitzkrieg - Battalion Battle Series has a similar 'card system'.