How about this idea for a REALLY simple campaign system?

[Bulletpoint]

I've been reading many proposed campaign systems, but they all seem to suffer from the amount of work needed to keep them going, especially when calculating and keeping track of casualties and the various OOBs.

Here's my idea for how a really simple campaign system could look like:

• Each side gets 20 counters.
• Each counter represents 1000 points of freely mixed troops as the player decides.
• Counters can be stacked up to 3 in one hex.
• So the maximum battle size would be 3000 vs 3000 points.
• After a battle, the losing side retreats 1 hex and loses 1 counter from that stack.

Optional rules:

• A unit surrounded on all sides by enemy counters is eliminated.

 

[Gunner]

Maybe you could do something like choosing 2 battalions of infantry and one armor and break it down in to companies each with some support.
That would give you about 15 to 20 units.
One unit per area of operation would keep it to about a company sized battle.

You could play it on a huge map or something like a campaign map giving a company an area to attack/defend.
It would be easier to cut up the map using the editor in to smaller battles (I think it's possible anyway)

Each Unit would have to play for 2 or 3 days without reinforcements but could be resupplied at night with ammo.

You would still have to keep track of casualties though.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I think you misunderstood. I was talking about operational campaigns with many participants, such as are being conducted on this forum...

 

[Gunner]

This could have many participants,
An overall commander assigning unit objectives and attaching support units to to each company commander.
Each company commander tries to take or advance through their assigned area over a certain time period such as a morning, a day or several days.
You can have an overall commander, battalion commanders, company commanders and even platoon commanders. As many players as you like really.
It seems to me you would just need to break down the map and create a scenario.
Using the map above (Berlin actually. I don't think it's released yet) you could have a many days campaign.

But yes you are right in that it is not a traditional campaign that takes place over a large geographic area.

 

[Bulletpoint]

@Rico @Concord I thought of this campaign idea while reading your posts, but didn't want to derail your threads, so I posted here instead. Any thoughts?

 

[Rico]

I've been reading many proposed campaign systems, but they all seem to suffer from the amount of work needed to keep them going, especially when calculating and keeping track of casualties and the various OOBs.

Here's my idea for how a really simple campaign system could look like:

• Each side gets 20 counters.
• Each counter represents 1000 points of freely mixed troops as the player decides.
• Counters can be stacked up to 3 in one hex.
• So the maximum battle size would be 3000 vs 3000 points.
• After a battle, the losing side retreats 1 hex and loses 1 counter from that stack.

Optional rules:

• A unit surrounded on all sides by enemy counters is eliminated.

Something like that could work

 

[Concord]

Sounds like lots of fun...to play. I shudder thinking of the job of GM'ing it though. If you ever start a campaign like this, I'd sign up.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Sounds like lots of fun...to play. I shudder thinking of the job of GM'ing it though.

Actually my point was to make it simpler to GM... What makes you shudder about it?

 

[Gunner]

I was thinking about this a little further.
As far as GM work goes
Of course it would be good to actually have 2 GM's, one for the Axis and one for the Allies.

Start with a really huge map. Bigger than the Huge maps of Quick Battles I think. Sort of like the Berlin map above. A good map designer would be in order. This would make creating battle maps for scenarios a lot easier.

The GM's choose the forces in Battalion sized units and various support units. For sake of simplicity all battalion sized units to be one type of quality - Normal- Veteran etc.. I guess the support units might be able to vary.
Let the commander of each side designate which units will have the attached support units such as FO's, artillery. air power, etc. informing the GM who will create the OOB.

Since there will be no replacements between battles it would behoove both sides to maintain reserves that can be committed for later scenarios.
Reinforcements could be given to companies who take casualties from the reserves but would be given in whole size units no smaller than a platoon.
e.g. 1st Battalion has 3 Co's. 3rd Co is in reserve. 1st Co has taken casualties and needs to be reinforced for the next scenario. The commander can take a platoon (or whatever) from 3 Co and assign it 1st Co. Of course he could pull 1st company out of line and commit all of 3 Co.
Since reserves would be added in chunks and all the same quality it would be easier for the GM to create units for subsequent scenarios.

 

[Bulletpoint]

Gunner, your ideas are fine, but my point with this thread was exactly to avoid all that stuff and make the campaign simple to run. No casuality tracking. No OOBs. Not even any map making.

 

[Gunner]

So how would you move from one turn to the next without tracking casualties?

I suppose you could do something like a series of quick battles and give each side a point quota to use.

 

[Bulletpoint]

So how would you move from one turn to the next without tracking casualties?

A lost battle automatically means defender is pushed back and loses one points counter. So a 3-counter force that loses a battle now becomes a 2-counter force that's moved one square backwards.

 

[JTimo]

So @Gunner, where'd you get that pic of the Berlin map?

 

[Gunner]

It was actually in the "The Year Ahead Bone Post" posted by Steve over at battlefront.
I'm assuming it'll be part of the next CMRT release.

The Year Ahead Bone Post

Hello everybody! It’s that time of year again… specifically the very beginning of it. As per long standing tradition, it’s time for me to say a few words about where things are going for Battlefront and Combat Mission in the new year and a little bit about to wrap up the previous year. As long ti...

community.battlefront.com

 

[MOS:96B2P]

I've been reading many proposed campaign systems, but they all seem to suffer from the amount of work needed to keep them going, especially when calculating and keeping track of casualties and the various OOBs.

Here's my idea for how a really simple campaign system could look like:

• Each side gets 20 counters.
• Each counter represents 1000 points of freely mixed troops as the player decides.
• Counters can be stacked up to 3 in one hex.
• So the maximum battle size would be 3000 vs 3000 points.
• After a battle, the losing side retreats 1 hex and loses 1 counter from that stack.

Optional rules:

• A unit surrounded on all sides by enemy counters is eliminated.

Just saw this. Interesting stuff. It sounds like this does significantly streamline the operational level campaign. I would probably want to lower the points per counter. Maybe 500 instead of 1000. This would primarily be to keep the force to map ratio such that there is generally room to maneuver on a map. Along this same line of thinking a standard operational hex (maybe square) size would need to decided on. But these things can be tweaked per your preference. I think the basic concept would work.

Just thinking here: A player has two counters in the same hex that can't trace a supply line back to the friendly operational map edge. The enemy attacks this hex. When the player chooses his forces (2000 points by your standard) for these two counters he must set the supply at 50%. Of course this relies on the honesty of the player or would have to be verified by the GM which would add work for the GM. Just more stuff to think about.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I would probably want to lower the points per counter. Maybe 500 instead of 1000.

I think you might be right there. Many games would be quite small then, 1 vs 1 counter would be skirmishes with a platoon on each side. But that can be fun too, and those games can more quickly be completed, keeping the campaign going.

he must set the supply at 50%. Of course this relies on the honesty of the player

It's difficult to really verify that your opponent keeps a supply rule. Apart from maybe asking the opponent to share his password and open the first file, and check ammo levels? I'd like to avoid stuff like that if possible.

In any case, I suggested the supply rule to simply eliminate surrounded stacks because it would be simple to apply and because it would make players very wary of getting surrounded - I could imagine they would prefer to withdraw forces instead of being eliminated outright.


Artillery counters
Also, I was thinking of making some of the counters into artillery counters. These would be assigned to stacks and spent when going into battle with that stack. Each artillery counter would be 100 points of artillery/airpower. These counters would stack up to 5 on a hex. And I would suggest making artillery counters very slow to replenish. Maybe only give one counter pr turn.

(edit: but that's again going away from keeping these rules simple. It's so tempting to start making more complicated rules...)

 

[Bulletpoint]

Along this same line of thinking a standard operational hex (maybe square) size would need to decided on.

I considered it, but actually decided against it. Because that would mean somebody had to make a lot of maps, with setup zones and objectives, etc.

Instead, I think it's better to leave it to the players to decide. If they think it's fun to play a small amount of points on a big map, why not. The only thing I would ask them to do would be to choose a map that was generally the right type for the hex on the operational map. Open/rough/town, etc.

 

[MOS:96B2P]

(edit: but that's again going away from keeping these rules simple. It's so tempting to start making more complicated rules...)

If they think it's fun to play a small amount of points on a big map, why not. The only thing I would ask them to do would be to choose a map that was generally the right type for the hex on the operational map. Open/rough/town, etc.

It is tempting to add more stuff! Letting players choose their own map would get around making / converting maps for the campaign. They could just agree on an appropriate QB map like they would for a PBEM. I think you almost put the GM out of a job.

 

[Bulletpoint]

I think you almost put the GM out of a job.

Which is ironic, because the whole purpose was to keep him in the job and keeping the campaign rolling.
However, there's also a risk that the campaign might get too simplistic, and it would turn into a very simple operational game, loosely connected to some battles that players would have played on their own anyway.

I'd personally like to see much more advanced campaigns, but as long as the game doesn't provide the right tools (import/export of OOBs and casualties, persistent map damage, etc etc.) I just don't think any campaign is really going to fly.

Well, unless there's a very talented and dedicated person running it.. and whose talent and dedication skills don't suddenly mean that he gets busy with real life instead. That's a very rare combination

 

[Nathangun]

It is tempting to add more stuff! Letting players choose their own map would get around making / converting maps for the campaign. They could just agree on an appropriate QB map like they would for a PBEM. I think you almost put the GM out of a job.

Sounds like the Domination Campaign we used to run.