Legion
Member
How are things going with the KG game? I am very interested in this project
Kampfgruppen Status?
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
Chas Argent
Play to the end.
They must be too busy play testing it to answer :laugh:
Steven Linton
Maniac with keyboard
Legion, looks like you got a crossed line - either that or MMP can't keep their noes out of anything. 
I was very impressed with the early playtest version of KG commander I saw - the concept was one that was very appealing.
Last I saw - and its a couple of years ago - it was suffering from serious book-keeping requirements - IMHO, very over-engineered.
I do hope they resurect it, but I think HoB might have gone in a differnet direction since then.
I was very impressed with the early playtest version of KG commander I saw - the concept was one that was very appealing.
Last I saw - and its a couple of years ago - it was suffering from serious book-keeping requirements - IMHO, very over-engineered.
I do hope they resurect it, but I think HoB might have gone in a differnet direction since then.
Legion
Member
Yeah... i got the feeling that the problem was either that the designers bit off more than they could chew (i.e book-keeping or structurally) or that HoB had lost interest. I think it is a pity as i really like the sound of this concept and i hope that they are at least still working on the idea.
They are
Chas Argent
Play to the end.
I was involved in the play test of the original incarnation many years ago. I agree it's a sweet idea, but play testing-wise it is a monstrously large project and is going to take a great deal of dedication to make work. I know it has been revised somewhat so hopefully that will help.
Same for me...and indeed it was a huge beast to playtest. As far as i know, its totally worked over and handed to some ambitious TPP guys...They check if they can (want) step in into The KG Commander project.
n3ddy
Member
I wish this would get back on track, it looked brilliant.
MrP
Senior Member
Well, if it's not HOB I hope the "ambitious TPP" is BFP and not the one which is an anagram of HC.
Great concept, loved the strategic map idea, playtested a couple of the fixed scenarios. I hope someone gets it to work.
CKS04
Grenadier Tournament
Guys,
I want to try to give you a short update on the actual status of the Kampfgruppen-Commander project.
As you may know, Klaus Fischer and myself worked together on this project. Both of us made the design, Klaus made all the graphics and I wrote all the rules.
Our first version was a really good and innovative idea, but a nightmare for any serious playtesting. And with a campaign which could last 30 or more CG days, we considered it "unplayable". There were also some design ideas which add a lot of flair to the system but need a lot of bookkeeping, which was another point we thought about to change.
Unfortunately Klaus lost interest in ASL, dropped out of the HOB team and also out of our KC project. He gave me permission to use all he had done so far and to further develop our ideas.
I looked carefully over our design concept and begun – using the base idea as a skeleton - to change a lot of points in the system to make it more smooth and "player-friendly".
You still choose a Core Force consisting up to 10 Platoon-sized Reinforcement Groups (RG) which you lead through the campaign. But the campaign is no longer some sort of "Scenario-generator". Instead one campaign contains up to ten preconfigured scenarios portraying crucial battles of the historical campaign. These scenarios have fixed boards, Victory conditions, setup areas and much more you know from normal scenarios. Only the opposing OB are complete variable. The only restriction concerning forces is that each scenario tells the defender and the attacker how many Reinforcement Groups each may use.
This concept gives the designer a good amount of options in the scenario design and the players a good amount of options in the construction of his personnel OB. The concept of variable Reinforcements (called Auxiliary RG) before the Scenario starts is still available.
The biggest disappointment in my ASL career was, when I send this new version to some play test groups (or at least they called themselves that) and never received any feedback. Even my mail questions were no longer answered. Meanwhile I think, that this were all fakes who only were interested in the material and ideas. It is a sad story. My trusting level has now dropped to near zero and I think I will only give further material to guys I personally know.
What’s right now still to do is painting a map and playtesting. Painting a map sounds a tougher task then it may be, because I have in mind that I need a rough map of the campaign terrain (Western Ardennes). This map should be used as a background layer where some areas and sectors are placed above. If you are interested in helping making this map, please let me know. Playtesting is problematic due to my bad experiences.
One point concerning playtesting. Even from the few points I mentioned above, you may recognize that a real playtesting of a scenario is not possible. If both players can choose every combination of RG out of his Core Force and may even receive additionally Auxiliary RG, then no scenario designer can earnestly speak about playtesting. The main task here is a rough taxation of the situation. How many RG may the Attacker use, how many the Defender so that both may have a chance to fullfill the given VC.
In the sum of all scenarios both players must have the same chance. Only this can be the goal. I could now write a lot about how I think that this gaol can be reached, but this would led to far. Let’s close with the assurance that I think that I have implemented some ideas which restrict the players ability to use whatever come to their mind.
So the conclusion is that the project is actually not dead, but because I’am working alone on it, it takes time. Let say last that I recently had some talks and I’ am optimistic that I will have some partners soon.
Hope I could tell you some news.
I want to try to give you a short update on the actual status of the Kampfgruppen-Commander project.
As you may know, Klaus Fischer and myself worked together on this project. Both of us made the design, Klaus made all the graphics and I wrote all the rules.
Our first version was a really good and innovative idea, but a nightmare for any serious playtesting. And with a campaign which could last 30 or more CG days, we considered it "unplayable". There were also some design ideas which add a lot of flair to the system but need a lot of bookkeeping, which was another point we thought about to change.
Unfortunately Klaus lost interest in ASL, dropped out of the HOB team and also out of our KC project. He gave me permission to use all he had done so far and to further develop our ideas.
I looked carefully over our design concept and begun – using the base idea as a skeleton - to change a lot of points in the system to make it more smooth and "player-friendly".
You still choose a Core Force consisting up to 10 Platoon-sized Reinforcement Groups (RG) which you lead through the campaign. But the campaign is no longer some sort of "Scenario-generator". Instead one campaign contains up to ten preconfigured scenarios portraying crucial battles of the historical campaign. These scenarios have fixed boards, Victory conditions, setup areas and much more you know from normal scenarios. Only the opposing OB are complete variable. The only restriction concerning forces is that each scenario tells the defender and the attacker how many Reinforcement Groups each may use.
This concept gives the designer a good amount of options in the scenario design and the players a good amount of options in the construction of his personnel OB. The concept of variable Reinforcements (called Auxiliary RG) before the Scenario starts is still available.
The biggest disappointment in my ASL career was, when I send this new version to some play test groups (or at least they called themselves that) and never received any feedback. Even my mail questions were no longer answered. Meanwhile I think, that this were all fakes who only were interested in the material and ideas. It is a sad story. My trusting level has now dropped to near zero and I think I will only give further material to guys I personally know.
What’s right now still to do is painting a map and playtesting. Painting a map sounds a tougher task then it may be, because I have in mind that I need a rough map of the campaign terrain (Western Ardennes). This map should be used as a background layer where some areas and sectors are placed above. If you are interested in helping making this map, please let me know. Playtesting is problematic due to my bad experiences.
One point concerning playtesting. Even from the few points I mentioned above, you may recognize that a real playtesting of a scenario is not possible. If both players can choose every combination of RG out of his Core Force and may even receive additionally Auxiliary RG, then no scenario designer can earnestly speak about playtesting. The main task here is a rough taxation of the situation. How many RG may the Attacker use, how many the Defender so that both may have a chance to fullfill the given VC.
In the sum of all scenarios both players must have the same chance. Only this can be the goal. I could now write a lot about how I think that this gaol can be reached, but this would led to far. Let’s close with the assurance that I think that I have implemented some ideas which restrict the players ability to use whatever come to their mind.
So the conclusion is that the project is actually not dead, but because I’am working alone on it, it takes time. Let say last that I recently had some talks and I’ am optimistic that I will have some partners soon.
Hope I could tell you some news.
pward
Member
With that much flexibility in OB alone, you should look at the unbalancing effect of different ends of a RG selection spectrum. No OBA vs 2 Modules. Max infantry vs Max tanks. Min-Maxing is a fact of life in most other CGs, and whatever RG selection methods you use will be the balancing part of the CG.