Ending the Campaign?

[Double Deuce]

After going through possible COCAT alternatives and the work it would require to convert this to another format (to manage things) I will probably end this campaign here at this point. The changes would require considerable repositioning of forces to fit the new format/movement system and would essentially destroy any existing plans for both sides. It would be like starting from scratch with only the OOB's being the same.

That being the case we can rest this from the beginning (with anew movement system or create an entirely new campaign, a smaller one and one with a storyline format that the players prefer.

Obviously I have some ideas and I am sure you all do as well.

Feel free to speak up.

[mr_clark]

I think ending int now would be the best as it's going nowhere anyways.

Personally I must say I liked the setup and all, but it's just too "bumpy". A smaller scenario with players being the leader of specific unit's would be better IMHO.
Something akin to what was the single player campaign would be good I'd say.
It gives some degree of strategic depth but you're not overwhelmed as in this campaign, thus it's more open to newer and more experienced users.
I think we can agree that the AI is no good opponent, and as turns out to take weeks to be played "PvP" anyways, two real teams doing the strategic playing too wouldn't make it so much longer to run though a 'strategic turn' anyways.

[Vas FURY]

Yeah, a smaller campaign would be much welcome with the use of all new cocat or whateverwewillapplytothefightingsystem. (although its sad to see all our efforts in the NATO vs WP turn to dust :upset: )

As regards ideas, Maybe organising something recent would be good? like British forces in Afganistan?

[Double Deuce]

Yeah, a smaller campaign would be much welcome with the use of all new cocat or whateverwewillapplytothefightingsystem. (although its sad to see all our efforts in the NATO vs WP turn to dust :upset: )

As regards ideas, Maybe organising something recent would be good? like British forces in Afganistan?I was thinking something more hypothetical/fictional. Maybe using a modified Armed Assault Map in the new MOCAT (new version of COCAT) for the Campaign Map. I have access to a programmer who may be able to edit it it more to our needs (not redesigning BUT changing some stuff to make it fit a storyline such as a custom map, the date, side names, etc). This version also has a built in installer. ;)

Maybe Brigade size teams at most, where each player has a battalion (-). I was thinking of incorporating Artur idea for force creation where each player has a point to purchase units from (with some modifiers built in as quoted below). Obviously 4000 points is a lot so maybe it would be adjusted to fit a smaller scale since there will be teams and not everyone in a free for all against everyone.

Would 5 battalions per team be more manageable (10 players total)? We would still need a senior commander for each team (to at least handle the overall organization and MOCAT files) and that seems to put the most workload on those particular players.

I thought about initial points division. One player would start with 4000 pts, which he could spend with the following limits:

4000 pts
--------
armor 1500 pts max
infantry 4000 pts max
artillery 400 pts max
air 200 pts max
misc 1000 pts max (trucks, barges, etc.)

That means that one can spend all his points on infantry and can spend no more than 1500 pts on armor. People can build fully motorized armies or mases of infantry, or anything in between which fits their playing style best.

Besides the points division, and choosing a nation to his liking the player has the option of choosing one nation bonus.

Nation bonuses could be the following:

tankhead +500 pts armor limit (4000 pts total remains but armor limit is now 2000 pts) --> choose Germans and open terrain country to use best
bush master pure inf units +1 operational movement (a unit containing several SP inf platoons or companies and having NO vehicles) --> advatage for Finnland like terrain countries
air jockey +300 pts air limit (4000 pts total remains, but air limit is 500 pts) --> pair that up with the americans and see what you get
engine addict truck and air transport cost 50% (during initial purchase and manufacturing trucks and transport planes (and NO halftracks nor other units) cost 50%) --> that will lead to a very mobile army with lesser firepover on transports
shrapnel lover +400 pts artillery limit (4000 pts total remains but artillery limit is 800 pts) --> who loves katyushas? :)

Again, the terrain of the country, player style, or whatever else can affect the bonus choice. Combinations of terrain, nation, bonus, and army structure are really endless and most likely everyone can choose them to fit his personal style best.

Artur.

[mr_clark]

Personally I think batallion level is indeed the "max". Though I personally like smaller (1-2company) battles.
The 'pointbuy' system looks interesting, though one might make changes according to what timeline we chose as you hardly get a chopper for 400 points in a modern setting. Apart from that it's a nice system and in a modern setting wouldn't get you that more then 3 companies if you chose some 'decent' units.

An overall commander is a must for the campaigns to advance as players without any 'control' or 'pressure' from above are slow to do any planning, and a dedicated overall commander will be able to make decision even if some players don't want to participate in the planning phase.

I just want to emphasize again that I think a simpler and smaller map is the general key for it all. I prefer a hexbased system like in the GB/Italy campaign, even though COCAT or similar prove muhc more in depth control abilities, as I think it'_s complexity make of that advantage over simpler systems.

[Vesku]

I agree that battalion should be the max size per player, the smaller the battle the faster the campaign advances.

OOBs is a different matter, I think that it is better to have a core issued by higher command (DD) and you would only be able to add some minor units to it like scouts and few light vehicles, not MBT or helos. Or not to have purchase option at all. As everyone knows (or should know after a few battles) a random battle is usually decided at purchase and if that is the case in a campaign then most of the fun is already lost before the game has even begun. And btw, how many commanders are able to pick every piece of their battalion? Probably none, they have to make do with what they have been issued and that's it.

[mr_clark]

Good points from Vesku. And if we want another battle between large 'historic' opponents I think he is right. If we assume batallion level one could decide on 2-3 companies as 'preplanned' outfit and then a number of points and maybe some basic buy options like "Recon Platoon/Detechment XXXXXpoints ,Tank Company xxxxxpoints, Combat helicopter xxxxxxpoints".
In such a way one could guarantee a 'working' core force for every player and let him flavour it as he needs. Of course one needs some guidelines for the points given and point costs, maybe from derived from the overall unit costs, or based on the timeline (eg. A tank company in the 50s averages 800-1000 points, while one in the 80s averages 2000+ points)

Of course one wouldn't need to base the 'purchase options' on ingame prices. There surely some people who think 4Attack choppers are well worth more then a T-72 company...

[Artur]

Oh boy... And have you seen how much I planned and planned and planned.... for this NATO WP campaign in order to create a good strategic plan for nothing... :).

As a matter of fact it was the only reasonable decision. DD alone cannot manage such a huge campaign, some 2-3 assistant GMs are a minimum for that.

Artur.

[Artur]

In my points purchase plan I had SPWWII in my mind for the reason fo it being much more ballanced that WINSPMBT. I like modern era much more but it is very hard if not impossible to reach a reasonable ballance in it.

And also I took into account with the rules the option of buying new units in the strategic aspect from controlled resources like towns, ports, airfields etc.
Just go back at the rules description for a world domination campaign DD was talking about.

Artur.

[Shortreengage]

A possible solution is to allow players to buy thier foces like warlord but really BN commanders from a specific Higher level orbat IE Division/Corps. They have X amount of points. They receive X amount of points in replacements if they meet certain conditions. Players Own their Battlegroups. When they go combat ineffctive they are out of there. Support and missions are assigned by the Higher Command. Instead of hexes why not sectors?

[Double Deuce]

Instead of hexes why not sectors?I was thinking the same (using Zone's like we did in the Island Civil War). That way you won't have a hex cutting through a city town or other prominent terrain feature and each Zone has it's own unique feel. They are also easier to identify/reference in posting and on a printed map.

[Double Deuce]

Good points from Vesku. And if we want another battle between large 'historic' opponents I think he is right. If we assume batallion level one could decide on 2-3 companies as 'preplanned' outfit and then a number of points and maybe some basic buy options like "Recon Platoon/Detechment XXXXXpoints ,Tank Company xxxxxpoints, Combat helicopter xxxxxxpoints".
In such a way one could guarantee a 'working' core force for every player and let him flavour it as he needs. Of course one needs some guidelines for the points given and point costs, maybe from derived from the overall unit costs, or based on the timeline (eg. A tank company in the 50s averages 800-1000 points, while one in the 80s averages 2000+ points)I think letting players have the most choice on building their units is key to keeping them involved. It gives better sense of ownership. Of course we should determine fairly strict guidelines to keep balance in mind. I am more for balance than historical or realistic OOB's if it'll keep things rolling and more players involved in the planning and operational aspect.

Also, players who have custom units may be more observant and have much more interest in what situations they may be facing.

The purchase guidelines Artur posted are an excellent step.

[mr_clark]

On Zones: Yes the way it was in Island Civil War was really good. But keep inb mind we had week turns there IIRC, so nothing like the 4 hour turns in the Italy/GB 'singleplayer' campaign, as that would again require great details for the zones and thus, in my opinion, negate the benefits over a simple Hex system.


Point Buy: Balancing is very important I think. But then some historical accuracy should be kept. (Like not large numbers of specific unit's for a nation that's not having so many.)
I agree that it's important to let players select, at least parts, of their own units, but then especially in modern settings points don't really represent balancing of units. Just look at the not so vast 'price' differences between an T-72 and an IM1, which isn't really representing cababiliteis in my opinion.

[Vas FURY]

In my opinion it would be better to allow players to buy their units themselves, but make each player's force not more than 1-2 companies as previously mentioned.