Adapting existing campaign games to other battles.

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,631
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
There are perhaps 30 workable CGs in existence for ASL. Workable meaning that they are functional, balanced and fun. It seems a lot but there are stacks of battles not covered by the CG system. How about taking an existing CG and adapting it to another battle? For example if you are craving to play a Japanese and Chinese urban CG then why not take a CG like RBCGIII and use the template of the CG and the map for your Japanese/Chinese battle.
You would need to change the OOB; replacing Japanese units for the Germans and Chinese units for the Russians, but otherwise much of RBCGIII could remain the same. Like the CG dates, the CPP, the VC, marking the perimeter, the refit phase etc.
I've already tried this idea with a late war battle between attacking Russians and defending Germans using the RBCGIII template and map. It works fine and is a really enjoyable experience.
Other possible ideas are using the KGP CG templates for a late war clash between Russians and Germans in Hungary. The possibilities are numerous and interesting to consider. Obviously if you are playing an opponent then the two of you would need to iron out the modifications thoroughly. It might be difficult to do as a joint enterprise unless you know your opponent very well. But it is very suited to solo play.
 
Last edited:

Carln0130

Forum Guru
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
5,980
Reaction score
2,581
Location
MA
Country
llUnited States
I think your count is likely short. I gave up keeping track of the CG's I owned some years back, but it is well north of that number. Even given your criteria that they can't be a train wreck, I think we are still well north of 30.

Nitpicking aside, today it is possible to get CG maps done up for you if you lack any semblance of artistic skill, like me, or by yourself if you do have some skill in that area. Hell Dan Dolan can even do one for you in crayon!!
I actually think that is by far more enjoyable. Given the hobby's current golden era, designing a CG/set of scenarios around a historical battle you think should be done but isn't, makes even more sense. I like the occasional scenario set on a historical map different from the real battle, but a CG would be one step too far for me, given how easy it is to do it yourself.

Not mind you that it is easy to do it well, or even to do it period. It is a lot of work, but if you have the bug bad enough, it can be done. Never say, "I'll just wait for someone to do it." Go out and do it yourself and be sure to enlist some help. Collaborative efforts are best and really, just plain necessary. Doing it by yourself leaves far too much that gets missed.
 

Sparky

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
338
Reaction score
273
Country
llUnited States
that is an interesting notion Honza but one I think I'd have very little interest in. If I really cared enough to see a HASL-less battle to use a ahistorical map, I'd likely just create one for it. Carln was spot on. They really aren't hard to do but can be extremely labor intensive to meet one's satisfaction and high standards. Labors of love are what they are. It is one of my favorite sub hobbies within the hobby.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
If you're going to take the time to recreate a historical action, why not do the research to get it right? All the MMP HASL have SSRs and terrain rules that model conditions specific to those individual battles (though I'm still disappointed that the manure piles in Singling didn't get their own rules section...) If the whole point of an HASL is to provide historical flavour, there's no logic in just welding an historical OOB onto existing SSR and terrain rules that were written specifically to cover an entirely different action.
 

Sand Bar Bill

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
574
Reaction score
252
Location
Putin's backyard
Country
llUnited States
If you want to use the AbTF map of Arnhem to model some other urban fight, sounds fun to me. ASL is just a toy for grown men. ASL should be used like children use cardbord boxes... for anything.

The geomorphs are, by definition, ahistorical anyway. And why spend hours/days creating a map if you are more interested in the forces anyway than the exact geographic layout.
 
Last edited:

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,631
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
And why spend hours/days creating a map if you are more interested in the forces anyway than the exact geographic layout.
That is a good point. Choose your forces, choose your CG template, choose your map - and you are ready to go without spending hours creating all the parts from scratch.
 

Michael Dorosh

der Spieß des Forums
Joined
Feb 6, 2004
Messages
15,733
Reaction score
2,765
Location
Calgary, AB
First name
Michael
Country
llCanada
The geomorphs are, by definition, ahistorical anyway.
The city boards in Beyond Valor were designed from aerial photos of Warsaw, originally intended for an HASL on the ghetto fighting IIRC.

Anyway, what Jan describes already exists, the Platoon Leader rules from Critical Hit. Fill your boots.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
By choosing a CG map instead of geomorphic maps, you put another impediment between your scenario and the player. They have to own the map. The chances that the players own board 5 are pretty high. The chances that they own KGP are lower. Similarly with map 1 vs. "A Bridge Too Far." That's not to say you absolutely shouldn't, but you should at least consider whether, given that neither map will match the historical battlefield, the CG map is that much better than the geomorphic map.

JR
 

Sully

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
244
Location
Mpls, MN
Country
llUnited States
By choosing a CG map instead of geomorphic maps, you put another impediment between your scenario and the player. They have to own the map.
Not if you're playin' VASL.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
Not if you're playin' VASL.
Then you get into a copyright moral issue. If you are using something that is not yours without paying for it, you could be considered stealing it. With vasl, because the maps are not exact replicas of the originals, you are in a fuzzy area of law and morality when neither party owns the material in the scenario.

JR
 
Last edited:

Sully

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 2, 2003
Messages
1,156
Reaction score
244
Location
Mpls, MN
Country
llUnited States
Fair enough, but when talking MMP CG maps the vast majority are no longer available and most never will be.

I wish MMP would consider releasing OOP stuff to the public domain. It was done with The General (implicitly or explicitly, I don't know) so there is precedence.
 

jrv

Forum Guru
Joined
May 25, 2005
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
6,206
Location
Teutoburger Wald
Country
llIceland
I wish MMP would consider releasing OOP stuff to the public domain. It was done with The General (implicitly or explicitly, I don't know) so there is precedence.
As far as I know the General is still copyright with its owners, whoever that might be. But I admit I do not have any particular knowledge of the matter.

On the subject of the thread, maps are tools in your arsenal for scenario design. The OP's argument for using CG maps seems to be that the maps are available for re-use, and perhaps they save you the time of selecting a set of geomorphic boards. There's the additional point that they are pretty. It's hard to see a strong case here. An additional reason against is that many of the CG maps have odd hex sizes, so you can't add any overlays if there are certain particular battlefield features that you would like to model. Overall I don't have any strong reason against such a project, but I really can't find any good reason to do it in general. The best would be a custom map, and, in most cases, second best would be some geomorphics, possibly with overlays. It would be a rare situation that I would say one of the existing CG maps fits the bill better.

JR
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,631
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
Anyway, what Jan describes already exists, the Platoon Leader rules from Critical Hit. Fill your boots.
The PL rules are now onto the 4th or 5th edition and I'm still not sure they have resolved all the inaccuracies and quirks. Any CG rules can act as a template for your homemade CG if the subjects are similar.
 

Philippe D.

Elder Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2016
Messages
2,132
Reaction score
1,393
Location
Bordeaux
Country
llFrance
What I would like to see is a general purpose set of CG rules. Most CGs, be they from AH/MMP products or from other publishers, tend to use roughly the same starting point (play scenario, then do this "refit phase" stuff that includes determining each side's perimeter, keeping track of remaining units and losses, most of the time get some reinforcements, then play next scenario, etc).

When I get a new product with a CG, I find it hard to read the rules, because there might be some key point that is specific to this particular CG, but mostly I'm reading "ok, this looks like the standard RePh stuff". I find it very easy to miss the differences (I'll readily admit I have not played a CG in a long time).

Back when RB was the very first, and only, CG available, it was OK to have just this one specific set of rules. But not I'd really like to have "standard" RePh rules, and then publishers would just have to amend them by CG SSR.
 

Sparky

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2018
Messages
338
Reaction score
273
Country
llUnited States
^ actually I'm all in to the notion of a different way of doing CG's. That 'other company' did something akin to that already and it worked fabulously, albeit with some minor bugs, that were easily worked through. I'm leaning towards taking what that did, finding the middle ground between the max "Last Bid' type campaign scenario and the CG, and trying to improve it and plan using it in the Narvik design.

One that takes the best parts of CG's, yet leaves on the floor the main weakness that has never really been solved. PL tried but though better IMO than than long established but never improved upon MMP method it still remains the greatest drawback IMO to CG's. The ponderous Refit phase and the much hated drawing of perimeters.
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
[QUOTE="Sand Bar Bill, post: 1934934, member: 10495".....And why spend hours/days creating a map if you are more interested in the forces anyway than the exact geographic layout.[/QUOTE]

Because the way the forces act is dictated by the geographic layout...

Your point should be phrased like this...find the forces you like operating in the geographic terrain that best suits them...

Otherwise, play to history and fight the cards the forces were dealt.

And in any case in the Honza system you double or triple the OB to get what you want* anyways, so in the end even the terrain doesn't matter, you can always skin the cat with the sledge hammer as against the rapier.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,631
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
Because the way the forces act is dictated by the geographic layout...

Your point should be phrased like this...find the forces you like operating in the geographic terrain that best suits them...

Otherwise, play to history and fight the cards the forces were dealt.

And in any case in the Honza system you double or triple the OB to get what you want* anyways, so in the end even the terrain doesn't matter, you can always skin the cat with the sledge hammer as against the rapier.
Yes you need to choose a suitable map to go with the OOB and the battle you are recreating. Like the RO map for the Japanese/Chinese struggle at Shanghai or a KGP map for the battles in Hungary. I think you may be exaggerating Andy. No one is going to choose an incompatible map or swamp the map with a tripled OOB!
 

Justiciar

Elder Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
5,410
Reaction score
2,011
Location
Within Range
Country
llUnited States
Honza you wouldn't try to do your Iwo HASL on some stand-in map would you? Maleme map for your IWO airfield...hmmm me thinks not. If some one is going to invest their time in getting the OB right, then it seems only right to get the map right likewise.
 

Honza

The Art Of Wargames
Joined
Dec 30, 2005
Messages
13,868
Reaction score
2,631
Location
Oxfordshire
First name
Jan
Country
llCzechia
But Iwo is unique. There is nothing like it recreated in ASL yet. (apart from UV). But something like Hungary or the docks of Shanghai *could* be represented by something ahistorical. After all who would know what the exact terrain was like in the Awakening Of Spring offensive or in Shanghai?

Deciding to create a HASL CG from scratch and deciding to improvise a HASL CG from existing components are two different things. One takes years to accomplish while the other can be assembled within weeks or even days.
 

horseshoe

Senior Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2011
Messages
3,379
Reaction score
287
Location
Memphis, Tn
Country
llUnited States
Honza you wouldn't try to do your Iwo HASL on some stand-in map would you? Maleme map for your IWO airfield...hmmm me thinks not. If some one is going to invest their time in getting the OB right, then it seems only right to get the map right likewise.
I agree. If you're going to go to all the trouble, do it right.
 
Top