I would be interested! Although currently not much room for more games. But it takes a while to get started I might have more time / space
Western Front campaign anyone?
- Thread starter Concord
- Start date
I would be interested! Although currently not much room for more games. But it takes a while to get started I might have more time / space
Couple of ideas to make this campaign easier to manage:
Simplified objectives
If battle maps are 500x500, that means there's a 100x100 square in the middle. That could always be the objective area, no matter what the map actually looks like. For simplicity's sake. Controlling that area would mean taking control of the square.
Simplified setup zones
Another way to simplify running the campaign would be to always use the same setup zones. Let's say the campaign generally takes place with US forces attacking from west to east into the forest. Setup zones are then made so that the always US sets up west, and the Germans always set up east. Even if the US manages to flank.
Simplified flanking rules
Flanking would still be useful if we say that you can only have one platoon in each square and only attack one platoon in each direction. So you have one US platoon facing one German platoon. It can attack, making for a 1 vs 1 battle. But if you have another US platoon to the north of the German platoon, it can also join the attack. Now we have a 2 vs 1 battle, BUT both US platoons still deploy in the standard US setup zone to the west. If flanked from both north and south, there can be a 3 vs 1 battle.
Simplified objectives
If battle maps are 500x500, that means there's a 100x100 square in the middle. That could always be the objective area, no matter what the map actually looks like. For simplicity's sake. Controlling that area would mean taking control of the square.
Simplified setup zones
Another way to simplify running the campaign would be to always use the same setup zones. Let's say the campaign generally takes place with US forces attacking from west to east into the forest. Setup zones are then made so that the always US sets up west, and the Germans always set up east. Even if the US manages to flank.
Simplified flanking rules
Flanking would still be useful if we say that you can only have one platoon in each square and only attack one platoon in each direction. So you have one US platoon facing one German platoon. It can attack, making for a 1 vs 1 battle. But if you have another US platoon to the north of the German platoon, it can also join the attack. Now we have a 2 vs 1 battle, BUT both US platoons still deploy in the standard US setup zone to the west. If flanked from both north and south, there can be a 3 vs 1 battle.
Last edited:
Just realised another way of making the setup zones: You could paint a dotted line of setup zone around the entire border of each map, alternating the colours: red square, blue square, red square, blue square... etc.
This in effect would give both players the ability to set up anywhere along the whole border of the map. Then they would just need to choose the right side, depending on the tactical situation. In theory it would work, but I can see how mistakes could be made.
This in effect would give both players the ability to set up anywhere along the whole border of the map. Then they would just need to choose the right side, depending on the tactical situation. In theory it would work, but I can see how mistakes could be made.
This is how Brigade Battles currently operates, with a central victory area.
I paint in the setup zones for each battle, and they correspond to where units are entering on the strategic map.
In the first (very brief) version of BB, there were no limits to how many units could attack.
It was immediately leveraged, with massive 3 vs 1 company battles.
It was brutally effective, but not much fun for the defenders.
I modified the rules for the second version of BB to limit attackers to 2 vs 1 which has been working fairly well.
However, with alternating turns, players are almost always fighting as either the 2 attackers or the outnumbered single defender.
With the new MOUT campaign under development and also this one I'm putting thought into how I can add some variety.
How this is accomplished gracefully I'm not sure yet.
One idea I have is to have 'action cards' for each side which they apply to their units, unknown to the other team.
They are limited in number (but refreshed each turn) and bestow to a unit things like:
- Extra gear such as light (or even some heavier) support weapons.
- Extra numbers (the platoon or company is reinforced by their battalion) just for that turn
- Vehicle support (limited)
- Artillery support (light)
- An engineer platoon and defenses such as mines
Attacks might be more like 1.5 vs 1 and would take deliberate planning.
Likewise a unit which expects to be attacked can be bolstered.
I may include Fog Of War, and even simultaneous movement. I think this would lead to more (unplanned) meeting engagements.
If the action cards idea above was used, unit strength and unit composition could be simplified.
The campaign may be based on platoon or company size (not sure yet) and a unit's strength would always be one of 3 levels: one third, two thirds, or full strength.
Platoons would be 1, 2 or 3 squads plus leader. Companies would be 1, 2 or 3 platoons in strength.
Any extras would only be supplied by the action cards.
The campaign may be based on platoon or company size (not sure yet) and a unit's strength would always be one of 3 levels: one third, two thirds, or full strength.
Platoons would be 1, 2 or 3 squads plus leader. Companies would be 1, 2 or 3 platoons in strength.
Any extras would only be supplied by the action cards.
Have you thought about my idea to make the force ratio dependant on flanking? Attacking from one direction: 1 vs 1 Two directions: 2 vs 1.
One way to discourage 3vs1 attacks is to give out exaustion points fir each attacking unit. Once a unit accumulates 3 they can no longer attack. To remove 1 point they have to neither move nor fight for 1 turn.
We had something similar in Five Lions. Troops would enter a battle tired/fatigued if they were constantly engaged in combat in the previous campaign turns (each of 6 hours duration).
Action Cards were also another feature of Five Lions. Take a look as the forums are all opened up now. I think they work well as they throw potential spanners in the works if planned by a GM well and then executed by the players in good manner. The NATO side managed to take out the Syrian local commander (Bootie) which led to two campaign turns of disorder where the Syrian side could not move on the campaign map until a new leader rose to the top (Vartuossi). All I would say is don't let them get too powerful on the own. Combat Mission is still the 'star of the show' where the ebbs and flows should be largely determined.
I've also had an idea for casualty calculation and replenishment for a campaign - more WW2 oriented given the larger formation sizes. I need to trial something in a spreadsheet but should be easy for a game master to track. (It's easy, honest!)
I guess those two will 'naturally' lead to more variety in engagements. Planned attacks turning into meeting engagements and or face unexpected tough resistance. Or in other cases sort of surprise the defender and thus are able to 'punch through' relatively easy, forcing the defense to react. etc.
While it might be more difficult to manage (?), other ways of forcing more variety in engagements feel a bit 'forced' imo. ;-)
I've been thinking about what makes a good and enjoyable battle.
Interesting to see the Brigade Battles evolve.
As each side takes their turn, orders usually are for 2 companies to attack 1 (but notably, not always - a rare 1 vs 1 has been seen).
It makes sense for the CO's to stack the odds in their players' favour when it's their turn.
What are the reactions? No complaints from the attackers usually (no surprises there).
There has been the occasional grumble from a defender, especially if the situation is extra dire (for example, an already reduced strength company attacked from different directions).
Some players embrace the underdog challenge.
2 vs. 1 seems to be okay odds in an attacker/defender situation.
However, it usually results in the defending unit being eliminated in that one, single battle (perhaps 1.5 : 1 would be more 'balanced').
What the defender usually strives for is to inflict as much damage on their attackers as possible, reducing their combat effectiveness in the larger campaign.
Units can become worn down over several battles until they are forced to disband.
I suppose that including meeting engagements in a campaign would provide a little extra variety.
I can imagine a situation where a defensively minded player may hunker down, while his more aggressive opponent tries to bring the fight to him.
In this situation we could be looking at what is essentially an attack scenario with only 1 : 1 odds.
Would any rational commander actually seek out an attack when the defender has equal numbers and firepower?
In some cases, in a big enough battle, the attacker could have the advantage, by concentrating his forces in a specific place.
But with smaller units in play, the attacker is the one who takes risks. The defender can remain in cover, remain hidden, initiate ambushes.
I've tried to imagine how meeting engagements would occur in a campaign setting.
The only way I can see it happening is simultaneous FOW movement each turn, with units inadvertently 'bumping into' each other.
What then? A defensively minded player may decide to play defensively, trading the likely loss of the hex/zone with the chance to do greater damage to the enemy unit.
Could you run a campaign with only meeting engagements? Probably. How many would devolve into boring stalemates? Maybe a low key skirmish isn't so bad?
I wonder if players would miss being able to set up as a defender, or the challenge of entering into a map that is occupied.
Interesting to see the Brigade Battles evolve.
As each side takes their turn, orders usually are for 2 companies to attack 1 (but notably, not always - a rare 1 vs 1 has been seen).
It makes sense for the CO's to stack the odds in their players' favour when it's their turn.
What are the reactions? No complaints from the attackers usually (no surprises there).
There has been the occasional grumble from a defender, especially if the situation is extra dire (for example, an already reduced strength company attacked from different directions).
Some players embrace the underdog challenge.
2 vs. 1 seems to be okay odds in an attacker/defender situation.
However, it usually results in the defending unit being eliminated in that one, single battle (perhaps 1.5 : 1 would be more 'balanced').
What the defender usually strives for is to inflict as much damage on their attackers as possible, reducing their combat effectiveness in the larger campaign.
Units can become worn down over several battles until they are forced to disband.
I suppose that including meeting engagements in a campaign would provide a little extra variety.
I can imagine a situation where a defensively minded player may hunker down, while his more aggressive opponent tries to bring the fight to him.
In this situation we could be looking at what is essentially an attack scenario with only 1 : 1 odds.
Would any rational commander actually seek out an attack when the defender has equal numbers and firepower?
In some cases, in a big enough battle, the attacker could have the advantage, by concentrating his forces in a specific place.
But with smaller units in play, the attacker is the one who takes risks. The defender can remain in cover, remain hidden, initiate ambushes.
I've tried to imagine how meeting engagements would occur in a campaign setting.
The only way I can see it happening is simultaneous FOW movement each turn, with units inadvertently 'bumping into' each other.
What then? A defensively minded player may decide to play defensively, trading the likely loss of the hex/zone with the chance to do greater damage to the enemy unit.
Could you run a campaign with only meeting engagements? Probably. How many would devolve into boring stalemates? Maybe a low key skirmish isn't so bad?
I wonder if players would miss being able to set up as a defender, or the challenge of entering into a map that is occupied.
Basically the big problem with casualties (besides manual tracking by players or the GM) is the limitation in the editor that no formation is allowed to be below 50% of the authorised headcount. In Five Lions this was the remove from the campaign hard limit where the formation was removed from the OOB completely.
If you are doing a campaign on the small scale, like being centered on a full battalion with most battles/campaign units being organised by platoon on the campaign map you could have an automatic reallocation of forces between engagements where Platoon and Company leaders would reorganize their forces so they are broadly even going into the next battle. So if 1st Platoon takes heavy casualties then their commander would pull a bunch of guys from 2nd to bring 1st up to strength. The overall company is weaker but the platoons are evenly distributed.
At the end of a campaign round the formation above the base unit in the campaign (ie Company in this example), is the formation that does the redistrbituon. The yellow rows are the platoons that drop below the 50% threashold forcing the GM to balance out the forces before the next battle and keep all platoons in the fight. In this case the 1st Company would reallocate forces across their companies to a level of 57% but rounded up to 60% given the editor limitation that headcounts are in 10% increments. Job done, next round of the campaign.
The pink/red is when a company as whole drops below the 50% threshold forcing the Battalion Commander to step in and reallocate forces across the entire battalion to keep all his Company's are roughly equivalent fighting strength. In this case rounded down to 70% across the entire force. Probably impose a soft factor penalty in via the editor for the entire formation if it gets this bad as soldiers shifting companies now have to fight alongside guys they've never met and worked with before. Experience penalty probably too much but drop in morale / leadership probably worth a look.
Excel formulas would auto generate alerts for the GM. They would just need to place the number of "Men OK" from the AAR screen into Men Okay column in the spreadsheet. And then use that as the new starting point for the next campaign round.
Overall replacements can be handled by different rules more tailored to each side. Ersatz for Germans, Repple Depple for the US. (Assuming CMFB is still the game of choice). Anyway little idea over lunch.
@Rico @Nathangun - Thoughts as fellow campaign enthusiasts?
If you are doing a campaign on the small scale, like being centered on a full battalion with most battles/campaign units being organised by platoon on the campaign map you could have an automatic reallocation of forces between engagements where Platoon and Company leaders would reorganize their forces so they are broadly even going into the next battle. So if 1st Platoon takes heavy casualties then their commander would pull a bunch of guys from 2nd to bring 1st up to strength. The overall company is weaker but the platoons are evenly distributed.
At the end of a campaign round the formation above the base unit in the campaign (ie Company in this example), is the formation that does the redistrbituon. The yellow rows are the platoons that drop below the 50% threashold forcing the GM to balance out the forces before the next battle and keep all platoons in the fight. In this case the 1st Company would reallocate forces across their companies to a level of 57% but rounded up to 60% given the editor limitation that headcounts are in 10% increments. Job done, next round of the campaign.
The pink/red is when a company as whole drops below the 50% threshold forcing the Battalion Commander to step in and reallocate forces across the entire battalion to keep all his Company's are roughly equivalent fighting strength. In this case rounded down to 70% across the entire force. Probably impose a soft factor penalty in via the editor for the entire formation if it gets this bad as soldiers shifting companies now have to fight alongside guys they've never met and worked with before. Experience penalty probably too much but drop in morale / leadership probably worth a look.
Excel formulas would auto generate alerts for the GM. They would just need to place the number of "Men OK" from the AAR screen into Men Okay column in the spreadsheet. And then use that as the new starting point for the next campaign round.
Overall replacements can be handled by different rules more tailored to each side. Ersatz for Germans, Repple Depple for the US. (Assuming CMFB is still the game of choice). Anyway little idea over lunch.
@Rico @Nathangun - Thoughts as fellow campaign enthusiasts?
One of the problems of a Campaign, for me, is it seems that every turn has only battles that has a defender being attacked by an overwhelming force.
Truly, what attacker would want to attack with less.
As Concord said perhaps 1.5 instead of 2 to 1 would be better. That would more represent Attack odds of a Quick Battle.
Thinking about this, I suppose it isn't always necessary to commit everyone to an attack. For example, you have a 200 man unit attacking a 100 man unit, the attacker could attack with 150 men keeping 50 in reserve for another day.
With FoW and as far as Meeting Engagements go, I guess they don't always have to be 1:1 or equal in size or if they are you still could have variations as when an armored column bumps in to an infantry column.
Or maybe it would always be 1 to 1 in that you could use representative recon units for both sides.
To discourage a hunker down of one side, remember though there's always a central VL that needs to be taken, there could be advantages to an ME Victory such as the winning unit holding the hex and gaining intelligence of the other unit while the defeated unit gains none and must retreat.
I also agree, no one would attack without a distinct numerical advantage.
With FoW though you would not know who you are facing, what type and how many, and what odds without some kind of intelligence.
Perhaps this is where Probe type battles could come in.
Either by ME or Probe once you know what type of unit, and what size it is, a force could be brought together to attack it.
I'm not saying it's workable just yet but in this way you may be able to have a Campaign that has 3 types of battles in it.....maybe.
Truly, what attacker would want to attack with less.
As Concord said perhaps 1.5 instead of 2 to 1 would be better. That would more represent Attack odds of a Quick Battle.
Thinking about this, I suppose it isn't always necessary to commit everyone to an attack. For example, you have a 200 man unit attacking a 100 man unit, the attacker could attack with 150 men keeping 50 in reserve for another day.
With FoW and as far as Meeting Engagements go, I guess they don't always have to be 1:1 or equal in size or if they are you still could have variations as when an armored column bumps in to an infantry column.
Or maybe it would always be 1 to 1 in that you could use representative recon units for both sides.
To discourage a hunker down of one side, remember though there's always a central VL that needs to be taken, there could be advantages to an ME Victory such as the winning unit holding the hex and gaining intelligence of the other unit while the defeated unit gains none and must retreat.
I also agree, no one would attack without a distinct numerical advantage.
With FoW though you would not know who you are facing, what type and how many, and what odds without some kind of intelligence.
Perhaps this is where Probe type battles could come in.
Either by ME or Probe once you know what type of unit, and what size it is, a force could be brought together to attack it.
I'm not saying it's workable just yet but in this way you may be able to have a Campaign that has 3 types of battles in it.....maybe.
Wow that would be a very useful way of doing things, I could make use of this as I have something in the works for a counter insurgency campaign.
When I was play testing Brief Border War, I was loading the game files from the battle and adjusting the OOB's (and map damage) as the battle went along.
I think of having a stacking limit might be key, in my Brief Border War campaign (which will launch soon) I have a stacking limit of 5, a infantry company has a value 3, a tank platoon, mech platoon, ATG & mortar batteries have values of 1 and the sequence of play is Team A move - Team B move - then battle. Any units moved into battle area by Team B will be reinforcements in the CM battle.
That's a great idea of having a point value for each kind of unit instead of one point per unit and being able to stack 5 units high.
Each campaign has its own flavour.
Brigade Battles signature is its scale. 60 companies in play.
The modern MOUT campaign I'm working on is, well, urban.
For the WW2 ETO one I'm increasingly leaning towards having the platoon as the primary unit.
No armour - but that is in keeping with an infantry battalion in a quiet part of the line.
Artillery would be restricted to on-map mortars.
Concentrating on small unit tactics could be interesting, and the campaign turns would be fast.
For this scale, battles would be only about 30 turns I imagine.
Brigade Battles signature is its scale. 60 companies in play.
The modern MOUT campaign I'm working on is, well, urban.
For the WW2 ETO one I'm increasingly leaning towards having the platoon as the primary unit.
No armour - but that is in keeping with an infantry battalion in a quiet part of the line.
Artillery would be restricted to on-map mortars.
Concentrating on small unit tactics could be interesting, and the campaign turns would be fast.
For this scale, battles would be only about 30 turns I imagine.
I made a large map layout in CMFB; each square is a battle map, 480m x 480m each.
The map is 8 zones wide x 6 zones deep, to represent a part of the front line.
I then plonked in some counters, each representing a platoon - a battalion for each side.
Being infantry battalions, having huge areas to maneuver isn't all that important.
But regardless, I'm wondering if it's a bit too squeezy.
The map is 8 zones wide x 6 zones deep, to represent a part of the front line.
I then plonked in some counters, each representing a platoon - a battalion for each side.
Being infantry battalions, having huge areas to maneuver isn't all that important.
But regardless, I'm wondering if it's a bit too squeezy.
Last edited:
Is this campaign going to be US attacking vs German defence? So that the US side would have more forces. Or vice versa. Or more of a both sides attack situation?
I'm not sure yet. Either or.
At the moment I have been examining the issue of scale.
Platoons on a smallish campaign map, or companies on a larger map.
Thinking again about the platoon scale. It might be a fun mini campaign.
Not much room for dramatic maneuvers. It might not matter though, if I can add interest in other ways.
At the moment I have been examining the issue of scale.
Platoons on a smallish campaign map, or companies on a larger map.
Thinking again about the platoon scale. It might be a fun mini campaign.
Not much room for dramatic maneuvers. It might not matter though, if I can add interest in other ways.
I like the idea of a platoon scale infantry campaign. Both because I prefer small scale infantry tactics and because it would keep the campaign rolling along nicely with a lot of mini battles. Company+ battles take some times to resolve.
One thing I'd recommend about VLs, don't make them too big*, and make them an actual objective, ie, not an arbitrary patch of ground but a few buildings, a farmhouse, a copse, a bridge, a hill, something specific. This gives the objective a more realistic feel.
*Not too big because it's rather annoying to soundly beat your opponent, the battle ends but you are not credited with the VL because the cheeky bastard hid a crew member of a knocked out tank in a wheatfield on the very edge of the VL.
Smaller should also limit rushing opportunities, another bug bear of mine.
*Not too big because it's rather annoying to soundly beat your opponent, the battle ends but you are not credited with the VL because the cheeky bastard hid a crew member of a knocked out tank in a wheatfield on the very edge of the VL.
Smaller should also limit rushing opportunities, another bug bear of mine.