Western Front campaign anyone?

What should be the campaign goal?

Everyone is welcome to come forward with ideas, but I also specifically call upon @Rico and @Nathangun (who have lots of experience with campaigns using Combat Mission) and also @Redbully and @Stafford I'd like to hear any ideas you may have too.

I'd like some advice regarding this to motivate players to do more than simply defend.
It should be kept in mind that it's not a huge campaign map, and platoon units may not last long, after even a single battle.

For reference, here is a diagram of the two battalions facing each other on the campaign map.

map-size-copy-jpg.22054



Small
Unlike the BB campaign which is enormous, this Platoon Leader campaign is small.
Much smaller map and small unit sizes, which could be as small as a squad + HQ (battle damaged platoons) up to a full platoon with extra support weapons.
Fairly small maps (about half a km), fairly short battles (maybe 30 turns).

Simple QB's
My primary goal above all others is to keep it simple for me as GM.
Similar to BB, players will be given a Quick Battle map with only setup zones and a small victory location in the centre (simply to determine control of the battlefield at the end).
Given that it's a QB, there will be no variations in ammo level, so supply probably will not be taken into consideration.
In addition, this will rule out in-battle reinforcements arriving.

What now?
In it's simplest form, this could be just a visual aid for a series of small tactical battles between opponents.
A fight between 2 battalions to the death (or perhaps to 50% damage, causing withdrawal of the battalion).
While I'm okay with this format, I'm wondering if I should develop it a bit further.

If the goal is to simply attrite the enemy, then it is likely that commanders will have no desire to attack.
They may simply move up (campaign movement will be simultaneous) and wait for their opponents to attack (in order to maximise cover, concealment and ambush opportunities).
Since all battles will consist of a maximum of one full platoon plus any support weapons attached by the battalion CO, there is even less incentive to attack without significantly stacked odds.

What could incentivize a side to attack?
Perhaps capture of zones. I could assign a value of some kind to the zones, perhaps with the centre two rows worth more.
However, this could also see both sides move up to the halfway point and simply stop, opposite the opposing side...and wait.

I've been trying to think of an elegant solution to this, but haven't come up with any more ideas.
Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
P.S.

As mentioned, campaign movement will be simultaneous, which may increase the likelihood of Meeting Engagements.
With or without Fog of War I'm not sure. Without FOW would be easier as GM. :giggle:

I am also considering the possibility of allowing 2 platoons to end a battle still locked in combat.
This would mean remembering their relative locations from the previous battle and setting up a continuation battle with the new setup zones.
More work potentially, but could be doable and fun I think.

Considering allowing diagonal movement between zones.
 
Last edited:
Z6nDb7H.png


I realise it's a little bit gamey but how about a system of 'flags' for each side?
An eight flag board whereby one side must control six out of the eight flags to win, or a ten flag board where one side must control eight out out of ten flags to win.
Each 'flag' tile should be a structure of some kind, in that it is easier to defend than attack, these function as 'strong points' for each side, of course, once captured this makes them equally difficult to re-capture!
I've spread the flags in such a way that neither side can fully defend their side of the board, this is by design, it will incentivise commanders to attempt to flank and isolate enemy units while trying to prevent the same from happening to their own - in this way we try to avoid the 'slugfest' style of battle.

How about a system of reinforcements for each round?
For example, 100 points that can be spent on new weapons, reinforcing companies (points can be saved), +25 points for a successful capture of a flag, or the same for a successful defence.
This will likely not keep up with attrition, again, by design, but could make for interesting surprise plays to turn a flank or somesuch. (Example, a savvy commander might save for a few turns, then launch a fresh reinforced company onto a weak enemy flank).

Anyway, just my 2c. :unsure:
 
To keep it simple, and looking at the map you posted it reminds me of the game 'GO'. Any square that is surrounded the piece/platoon is captured.

Your map also reminded me of this, Krasny Bor Campaign – A Crossfire Campaign featuring the Blue Division except on a larger scale (well in army size).

Krasny-Bor-Crossfire-Campaign-Games.jpg


Krasny-Bor-Campaign-All-Tables.jpg


Or alternatively you give players certain mission types to keep things interesting.

D100 dice roll

1-15 Take and hold an objective
An important location in the middle of the battle field must be captured and held.

16-25 Reach location
A location on the opposite half of the table must be reached.

26-40 Hold area against enemy
An important location on your side of the table must be held against enemy forces.
The enemy may add an additional unit and an additional support roll.

41-45 Destroy objective
An objective in the middle of the battle field must be reached (touch objective).

46-55 Break through enemy line
Fight through enemy positions and exit a quarter of ground units off the enemy table edge.

56-70 Establish position
Two locations in the middle of the battle area must be reached and held.

71-95 Complex mission
Roll twice on this table to determine two objectives.

96-100 Stand by
Roll again to determine the objectives.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to spitball for a bit.
Take everything with a grain of salt.

I know it's a bit of work but FoW may be the way to go.
It may be the only way to prevent most or all the battles being attacks with overwhelming odds and I think may add to Meeting Engagements?
Is there a way to have a meeting engagement or battle without each player knowing what he is facing before the battle only to find out after?
That could make use of Probes before an Attack.

Or perhaps have something like each side having a limited amount of "Recon" points where they could expend points per turn to recon areas getting an idea on who is in an area before attacking.
The more points used the better the intel?

How to avoid ending up with one grand battle in a single hex?
Is it possible someone attacking a hex and winning where the next turn both sides bring reinforcements to the same hex creating a huge battle royal?
Should you limit the amount units/points per square?
 
I'd like to suggest a version of a campaign that @Paleolithic Monk and I played 1-on-1 in 2020 -- it worked really well and we had a lot of fun -- could be easily adapted to CMFB fir instance (or any CM game really)
(read the thread below to give you an idea)

Battle for Capracotta using CMFI.

The Battle of Capracotta - CMFI QB campaign

Kicking this off -- one-on-one CMFI fictional campaign set in July 1944... with me as the AXIS and @Paleolithic Monk as the ALLIES. I look in my orders and then @Paleolithic Monk issues his and I play them out simultaneously. All battles will be played as Tiny/Small Quick Battles -- either...
www.thefewgoodmen.com

Very simple system -- not FOW as such, but simultaneous orders and movements.

Either using a zone map like sample which is the campaign at Turn 5 or 6.

CM-campaign sample 2.jpg


Here is an alternative version of the map using less abstracted map sectors.

CM-campaign sample.jpg

Here the intro and rules:


All battles will be played as Tiny/Small Quick Battles -- either ME's or Probes and Attacks.

Scenario is an Allied breakthrough -- three Allied advance battlegroups from the 6th South African Armoured Division (one South African, one British and one attached American -- all reinforced mechanised infantry battalions with armour support) are exploiting across the Samoggia and Levino rivers towards Corvino airfield and beyond.

The Axis forces have cobbled together reserves to try and stem and possibly push back the Allied advance.
Two Heer Kampfgruppen, one Fallschirmjager and one Waffen SS -- amounting to approximate six all arms battle groups.

Stacking is one unit per zone only. Only one attack per zone. A neighbouring friendly unit may "support" an attack, and that will result in the Probe battle being upgraded to an Attack.


Movement

All units have 3 Movement Points (MP) per turn

MP costs:

Movement from one zone to next along road: 1 MP

Movement from one zone to next cross country (dotted lines): 3 MP

Attack into a neighbouring zone: 1 MP

Battles

Battles ending in Draws or Minor victory/losses result in a "contested zone" -- which results in a follow-up ME battle in the same zone in the next turn.

A Total, Major or Tactical defeat forces the defeated unit to retreat from the zone (if it cannot do so, it is removed from the map)

A unit that suffers a Total. Major or Tactical defeat, loses a "strength pip" on the counters (full strength units start with 3)

(I would also suggest that in a DRAW and Minor Victory result, BOTH units also lose a strength chit - I felt that units on the offensive needed to be "exhausted" or degraded by cumulative losses)

unit-sample-jpg.18461


If it loses two battles and is reduced to 1 "strength pip" it can no longer attack but only defend ... if it loses another battle, the counter is removed from the map.

Pips don't reflect purchase strength -- the purchase points remain standard in the QB set ups (whatever you get for a tiny/small ME or Probe battle) -- the pips just reflect the unit's staying power in terms of combat effectiveness and ability to attack. (within the scale of this: a few days of battle, no getting replacements -- you fight with what you have)

For defenders: no time for prepared defences ... so only fortifications allowed are foxholes, sandbag walls and possibly barbed wire barriers.

We're staying away from night battles (the game just doesn't model them very well with the absence of flares)

There were some refinements -- if a unit has another friendly unit attack in support from a second zone, then the battle gets upgraded from a PROBE to a ATTACK ... if two units support, then upgraded to ASSAULT.



------------------------------------------------------------


Each counter in the above represents approx a battalion-strength task force -- all are mechanised infantry units with armour/stug support of some kind -- actual CM QB's usually result in just below a company plus support assets.
(rules can limit what you can buy -- QB's should reflect OOB's of parent unit type)


If it's CMFB -- I can picture a scenario where US forces are getting close to Metz etc after advancing through France and are aiming at capturing a set of bridges or village cross-roads (maybe a mix of Cavalry in lead, with a Armoured Division TF and a Infantry Div Taskforces advancing in parallel.

Germans throw in cobbled-together mix of Kampfgruppen to hold the advance. (maybe mix of Paras, Panzergrenadiers and some W-SS)

BOTH sides can also have "secret" divergent orders/objsctives built into the narrative.

There can also be a chit-pull system of units arriving on map at irregular intervals for each side (US having supply problems and Germans improvising and throwing in whatever they have)

@Concord -- I can assist with counters and building a map... have a library of pre-designed counter systems that could be adapted quite easily and provided for you in whatever image files you'd need.

BULGE Counters samples.jpg
 
Last edited:
Concord said:
With or without Fog of War I'm not sure. Without FOW would be easier as GM. :giggle:
Click to expand...
You are correct but for a scale like this I'd suggest with FOW. The players can report back to their respective chains of commands what they have in front of them at any given time.

Concord said:
I am also considering the possibility of allowing 2 platoons to end a battle still locked in combat.
This would mean remembering their relative locations from the previous battle and setting up a continuation battle with the new setup zones.
Click to expand...
Probably upping your workload considerably given the game can't remember this info to import into another battle. Managing casualties will likely be enough for a GM to manage on it's own. Suggest a system where you round to the nearest 10% headcount, which means you can keep all the organisation inside the scenario editor with a master unit file for each battalion. For the odd pixeltruppen who miraculously comes back to life, just say it's a battlefield patch up, really good medics or the odd replacement showing up. Yeah having a master .btt file just for you which you import into each battle will make life a lot easier for you, and keep the names of the soldiers consistent. :)

Concord said:
Considering allowing diagonal movement between zones.
Click to expand...
Should be easy enough. If you run some tests having infantry walking across "x distance" of the map based on how big each carved up map piece will be it should give you an idea about how long it would take for them to arrive at the engagement as reinforcements as well.

Rico said:
@Concord -- I can assist with counters and building a map... have a library of pre-designed counter systems that could be adapted quite easily and provided for you in whatever image files you'd need.
Click to expand...
Take Rico up on this offer. :D If players look at a pretty campaign map it helps them (and the GM) keep interested.
 
Ithikial said:
You are correct but for a scale like this I'd suggest with FOW. The players can report back to their respective chains of commands what they have in front of them at any given time.


Probably upping your workload considerably given the game can't remember this info to import into another battle. Managing casualties will likely be enough for a GM to manage on it's own. Suggest a system where you round to the nearest 10% headcount, which means you can keep all the organisation inside the scenario editor with a master unit file for each battalion. For the odd pixeltruppen who miraculously comes back to life, just say it's a battlefield patch up, really good medics or the odd replacement showing up. Yeah having a master .btt file just for you which you import into each battle will make life a lot easier for you, and keep the names of the soldiers consistent. :)


Should be easy enough. If you run some tests having infantry walking across "x distance" of the map based on how big each carved up map piece will be it should give you an idea about how long it would take for them to arrive at the engagement as reinforcements as well.


Take Rico up on this offer. :D If players look at a pretty campaign map it helps them (and the GM) keep interested.
Click to expand...

One of the advantages of Zone maps is that the zones are usually named locations (village, river crossing etc) as opposed to just arbitrary hex numbers ... adds more of a story telling aspect to this.
 
Last edited:
Rico said:
@Concord -- I can assist with counters and building a map... have a library of pre-designed counter systems that could be adapted quite easily and provided for you in whatever image files you'd need.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that @Rico!
The original idea was to take a top-down screen of the strategy map to use as the strategic map - that way it perfectly reflected what the battle maps would look like (once they're chopped up).
I will consider the adaptation to zones though.

Your artwork always looks awesome, including the counters!
Here was my first attempt at designing counters for Platoon Leader:

counter visual american.jpg
 
Concord said:
Thanks for that @Rico!
The original idea was to take a top-down screen of the strategy map to use as the strategic map - that way it perfectly reflected what the battle maps would look like (once they're chopped up).
I will consider the adaptation to zones though.

Your artwork always looks awesome, including the counters!
Here was my first attempt at designing counters for Platoon Leader:

View attachment 27326
Click to expand...

Very sexay. :cool:

My philosophy with counters is to have as much information on the counter and the map as possible without cluttering/crowding -- so that players and commanders can see sitrep and unit strengths at a glance in one place if possible.
 
Ithikial said:
Managing casualties will likely be enough for a GM to manage on it's own. Suggest a system where you round to the nearest 10% headcount, which means you can keep all the organisation inside the scenario editor with a master unit file for each battalion. For the odd pixeltruppen who miraculously comes back to life, just say it's a battlefield patch up, really good medics or the odd replacement showing up. Yeah having a master .btt file just for you which you import into each battle will make life a lot easier for you, and keep the names of the soldiers consistent.
Click to expand...

I've been using a system with excel (below) in the last rendition of the Brief Border War where I have a roster of the OOB's (which I'd use a master CM OOB) so each side can see the state of their sides forces.
My mistake was to let each side to rebuild units.

I recorded after battle casualties onto this sheet using my laptop (while having the game save game file open on my desktop PC) then updating the CM OOB straight away.
YozTk1c.png


I wouldn't use this method @Concord unless you really want to.

It might be an idea to disallow a unit from attacking twice in two turns, this will limit battle count per turn (less battle building, it's so time consuming) and simulate troops exhaustion after a battle.

Rico said:
One of the advantages of Zone maps is that the zones are usually named locations (village, river crossing etc) as opposed to just arbitrary hex numbers ... adds more of a story telling aspect to this.
Click to expand...

I like that idea.

@Concord I'll email you some stuff I have regarding board game/table top battles campaign design which may give you ideas or at least inspire the narrative of your campaign.
 
@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.

If this is one battalion sized formation for each side of the campaign then it should be quite easy to handle inside the editor.

Some other general thoughts:
- The same approach as above can be used for 'supply' values to work out starting ammunition counts for each platoon before a battle. For a campaign of this time scale/scope having automatic resupply may look a little odd.
- Should be relatively easily to also track morale for each platoon by looking at the final saved game file. Each time a unit ends a previous game as 'rattled' their starting morale for the remainder of the campaign lowers by one level as they are more likely.
- 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).
- Agree with the above comments about not letting players mix and match units. It's a nightmare for the GM to manage. The game has hard coded formations for a reason. Maybe the odd specialist team from the HQ company could be detached to a front line unit to help out, but I'd limit it to something very discreet and easy to manage. For example, if you allow a .50 calibre HMG team to provide some additional firepower to a rifle platoon and then they get wiped out, it's easy enough to delete that unit from your master roster file in the editor.
- Support assets are cool and all but limit them to what maybe available at the regiment or even organically at the Battalion level. I assume the organic battalion mortars will be used both on map and off map? Big explosion are great, but one salvo of 155 mm shells from a Corps level asset can probably wipe away a player's full force with a lucky strike.

Sorry for the brain dump. Your campaign has got my creative juices flowing. And I'm sitting in the office waiting for my boss to get back from lunch... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom