Tomo, are you on my mailing list by another name? If not, i'll get send you more detialed info. This thread is for general population awareness.
I've emailed the proposed core force, along with a brief questionaire on it (to objectify the results). Play balance will be a huge part/potential problem of the campaign. That is the reason it is split into operations. If you are doing great, you will have the experience and power to complete entire operations. If you are new to the game, or just make a mistake and get pounded somewhere, you'll only have the strength to start operations, but not go all thw way through. The goal then would be to rebuild strengh/experience.
An expert SPWAW player may get to play all of the battles. The same expert who makes a bad call or has some bad luck (I just had three full SMG squads get destroyed by a Stuka), may take three or four operations to build back up to the level where they can dominate again.
My main problem in other campaign is that they get too easy after 4 or 5 battles, hopefully this concept avoids this, without being too hard for beginners.
Campaign Collective
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Thx A_B - sounds like there's lotsa room for agreement...I look forward to your email
As I read your response, it occurred to me to suggest (sadly this will increase workload) that an organized approach to playtesting be followed by a second round of scenario editing.
Notionally:
1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved
2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder...
3) sends scenario to 2-3 playtesters assigned sort of at random or as people with time volunteer...I think somebody had a thread about being a good playtester - we ought to dredge that up and build a quick-to-fill-out template to get a level of consistency in the feedback...
4) playtesters play scenario as a standalone scenario. Write up a brief AAR (just the facts, ma'am) for the designer.
5) designer reviews feedback, makes tweaks and adjustments as desired
6) fits edited scenario into campaign slot and tests to ensure smooth transition between scenarios
7) Depending on level of quality desired, have someone (with lotsa time) play through the campaign and do a final feedback wrapup on the overall campaign
8) Distribute finished campaign and solicit player feedback for use if someone wants to "jiggle" the campaign - by "jiggle" here I mean edit the scenarios just enough to make it different but not enough to warrant re-testing - such that someone who played it before will still get surprised here and there (i.e. now, where's that Tiger that was behind those wodds the first time I played this scenario....BOOM!! Ahh-Ah-ah - he's hiding behind the ridgeline this time, bucko! And he's now a Nashorn...)
This might be the best way to re-use the work that will go into these campaigns.
BTW, you might offer your partial campaign games (those you lost interest in) to any interested takers who would then invest the time needed to finish them and then send them back to you as a nice thank you, with built in surprises and rekindled interest!!!
Also, if people are already doing Bagration, I could do something else...
Further points to ponder:
If scenario branching is used, what happens if player gets decisive versus marginal?
Does decisive get your some build points as a reward? (making future decisives that much easier)
Does decisive get you more challenges the next time (i.e. a few more Tigers to fight) - tends to disincentivize a person but offers good bragging rights
I had toyed with rewarding a decisive victory for my friend's kampfgruppe with bonus AUX units that carry over from game to game...still kinda like that approach..
Are there any penalties for a loss other than reduced chances of winning successive fights?
(I always make a decisive loss an assignment to the penal battalion to prevent surrendering to gain points but it is not really necessary)
Cheers.
As I read your response, it occurred to me to suggest (sadly this will increase workload) that an organized approach to playtesting be followed by a second round of scenario editing.
Notionally:
1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved
2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder...
3) sends scenario to 2-3 playtesters assigned sort of at random or as people with time volunteer...I think somebody had a thread about being a good playtester - we ought to dredge that up and build a quick-to-fill-out template to get a level of consistency in the feedback...
4) playtesters play scenario as a standalone scenario. Write up a brief AAR (just the facts, ma'am) for the designer.
5) designer reviews feedback, makes tweaks and adjustments as desired
6) fits edited scenario into campaign slot and tests to ensure smooth transition between scenarios
7) Depending on level of quality desired, have someone (with lotsa time) play through the campaign and do a final feedback wrapup on the overall campaign
8) Distribute finished campaign and solicit player feedback for use if someone wants to "jiggle" the campaign - by "jiggle" here I mean edit the scenarios just enough to make it different but not enough to warrant re-testing - such that someone who played it before will still get surprised here and there (i.e. now, where's that Tiger that was behind those wodds the first time I played this scenario....BOOM!! Ahh-Ah-ah - he's hiding behind the ridgeline this time, bucko! And he's now a Nashorn...)
This might be the best way to re-use the work that will go into these campaigns.
BTW, you might offer your partial campaign games (those you lost interest in) to any interested takers who would then invest the time needed to finish them and then send them back to you as a nice thank you, with built in surprises and rekindled interest!!!
Also, if people are already doing Bagration, I could do something else...
Further points to ponder:
If scenario branching is used, what happens if player gets decisive versus marginal?
Does decisive get your some build points as a reward? (making future decisives that much easier)
Does decisive get you more challenges the next time (i.e. a few more Tigers to fight) - tends to disincentivize a person but offers good bragging rights
I had toyed with rewarding a decisive victory for my friend's kampfgruppe with bonus AUX units that carry over from game to game...still kinda like that approach..
Are there any penalties for a loss other than reduced chances of winning successive fights?
(I always make a decisive loss an assignment to the penal battalion to prevent surrendering to gain points but it is not really necessary)
Cheers.
Darroch, while i agree with everything you say, this level of work is beyond the concept of the campaign collective. The truth is, i just want to play the campaign. To build it and test it how you describe would be great, but who ever does that won't be able to play it - cause they'll know it to well. The idea behind the collective is doing a little work to get a lot of fun. I'll answer your points in more detial below;
[QUOTE] 1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved[QUOTE] I imagine a few of us who are the most advanced in the campaign will, in essence, playtest as we go. Corrections will be made for follow-on testers, to correct problems. This won't be balance, you say? I like that. Balanced battles in a campaign are boring. If a battle is going pretty well, you know you're about to get hit with a WBW surprise. If the surprise isn't very serious, you know you have another one coming. And you also know they'll never be too serious. So, by playing fresh, i may get some stuff that is really hard, or too easy. That's ok, cause it's just like real war.
[QUOTE] 2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder...
[QUOTE] 1) Scenario designer does his/her best shot at assigned job, computer tests it until satisfactory initial results achieved[QUOTE] I imagine a few of us who are the most advanced in the campaign will, in essence, playtest as we go. Corrections will be made for follow-on testers, to correct problems. This won't be balance, you say? I like that. Balanced battles in a campaign are boring. If a battle is going pretty well, you know you're about to get hit with a WBW surprise. If the surprise isn't very serious, you know you have another one coming. And you also know they'll never be too serious. So, by playing fresh, i may get some stuff that is really hard, or too easy. That's ok, cause it's just like real war.
[QUOTE] 2) play tests it solitaire 2-3 times until all seems more or less as planned - will have to use a representational unit for the core force as a placeholder...
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
-
Gen. Maczek
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tychy, Poland
Whoa there Darroch! Before u do any unneccessary work!
Im already about half way through doing Bagration! Still just about everything else is free though, as all the others are still arguing about core forces and other such things, while the 'rest' of us are actualy working :rolleyes:.
Regards.
Gen Maczek
Im already about half way through doing Bagration! Still just about everything else is free though, as all the others are still arguing about core forces and other such things, while the 'rest' of us are actualy working :rolleyes:
.Regards.
Gen Maczek
Gen Maczek:
not to worry - nothing started yet...
Have a good situational overview of Orsha and of the Liberation of Minsk courtesy of a book called "Operation Bagration" by Steven Zaloga...
He has two big graphics that offer a panoramic view of the battlelfields from 20,000 feet
That's the main reason I thought to do Bagration - because I had good data.
I'll wait until there's a plan.
not to worry - nothing started yet...
Have a good situational overview of Orsha and of the Liberation of Minsk courtesy of a book called "Operation Bagration" by Steven Zaloga...
He has two big graphics that offer a panoramic view of the battlelfields from 20,000 feet
That's the main reason I thought to do Bagration - because I had good data.
I'll wait until there's a plan.
Darrach, do you have a way to get the images to Gen. Maczek? Scan as a jpeg and email them to him? Maczek lives in Poland, and may live in near the areas of where Bagration finished. That would be something, to have someone make the maps after walking the terrain 
. We should hire a russian historian to this around Moscow and Kursk for us, unless there are some russian on the board. I haven't seen any, but i used to play CC against a russian.
Gen. Mazcek, can you send Darrock and I an idea of what you're planning? I'm going to emal you the first battle, including the pre-picked core for you to try out - should be tomorrow.
About the next campiagn. I like your Polish Campaign idea. It would basicly be a long WWII campaign following the British path, but start in poland first. Then a couple in France 1940, and then probably to the desert, but not till late '41, for the releif of Tobruk.
. We should hire a russian historian to this around Moscow and Kursk for us, unless there are some russian on the board. I haven't seen any, but i used to play CC against a russian.Gen. Mazcek, can you send Darrock and I an idea of what you're planning? I'm going to emal you the first battle, including the pre-picked core for you to try out - should be tomorrow.
About the next campiagn. I like your Polish Campaign idea. It would basicly be a long WWII campaign following the British path, but start in poland first. Then a couple in France 1940, and then probably to the desert, but not till late '41, for the releif of Tobruk.
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
re: sending JPEGS of graphics - I think I can figure out how but need email address.
thought occurred that BAGRATION was a pretty big affair - probably lots of room for various views.
There was the Bagramyan pincer and the Rokossovskii pincer for starts, then the flank attacks out of the swamps, I just read about 3rd Gds Tank Corps with mostly Shermans going after the 505 Heavy Panzer with 29 Tigers - Germans claimed 128 tanks destroyed but lost all their Tigers...that would be a scrap..
Plus, I found Mellenthin refers to the Galicia attacks that followed the destruction of HG Mitte...provides enough data for an "operation"
a little coordination is all we need.
Cheers
thought occurred that BAGRATION was a pretty big affair - probably lots of room for various views.
There was the Bagramyan pincer and the Rokossovskii pincer for starts, then the flank attacks out of the swamps, I just read about 3rd Gds Tank Corps with mostly Shermans going after the 505 Heavy Panzer with 29 Tigers - Germans claimed 128 tanks destroyed but lost all their Tigers...that would be a scrap..
Plus, I found Mellenthin refers to the Galicia attacks that followed the destruction of HG Mitte...provides enough data for an "operation"
a little coordination is all we need.
Cheers
-
Gen. Maczek
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tychy, Poland
Hello again...
To be honest I am concentrating on the later part of Bagration (July-August) simply because I know the terrain very well (I pass through it a lot on the way to visit family, up North). I also have a fair amount of good data on the fighting here (although to be honest, I prefer sacrificing total authenticity in favour of a more enjoyable game). Since you have such good data and material, why not consider enlarging the original suggestion of 3/4 battles for Bagration to 5/6...I can share the work with Darroch, he taking the early-mid part of the operation while I continue with what I have started.
Obviously this might mean making cuts somwhere else, but I believe Bagration to be worthy of a more detailed look.
Regards.
Gen. Maczek
ps. I have the brief for the first scenario transalted (advance near Siedlce, as a part of 2nd Guards Cavalry Corps) and I am just about ready to send it to anyone willing to take the rough end of the stick and play test it.
To be honest I am concentrating on the later part of Bagration (July-August) simply because I know the terrain very well (I pass through it a lot on the way to visit family, up North). I also have a fair amount of good data on the fighting here (although to be honest, I prefer sacrificing total authenticity in favour of a more enjoyable game). Since you have such good data and material, why not consider enlarging the original suggestion of 3/4 battles for Bagration to 5/6...I can share the work with Darroch, he taking the early-mid part of the operation while I continue with what I have started.
Obviously this might mean making cuts somwhere else, but I believe Bagration to be worthy of a more detailed look.
Regards.
Gen. Maczek
ps. I have the brief for the first scenario transalted (advance near Siedlce, as a part of 2nd Guards Cavalry Corps) and I am just about ready to send it to anyone willing to take the rough end of the stick and play test it.
I think 5-6 battles in the operation would be ok. To make the game fun, it will have to be less historic. The germans weren't putting up much of a fight, and were very short on equipment. Success could be a made a matter of attrition (or lack of it). Six consecutive battles with no rebuild points, and your core force starts to loose its edge.
If we need to drop a couple battles, it could come from winter of 44, or the 44/45. I don't think we should sacrafice any of '43, it was to important to the war. Winter of '44 will be very fun too, at the Korsun pocket - destroying tons of desperate Germans .
So we'll probably have to loose some from '45. I think people may be getting pretty board at this point anyway, and it would be hard to keep up the challenge in game terms, without taking great liberties with history. Perhaps we should have the russians invade Iran in '45. We'd get some better battles fighting US/UK forces for the domination of the Middle east, lol.
Mike, i read your battle brief last night - very good. One point though. The english language has many good swear words other than 'shit'. I'm sure we can furthar you grasp of the english language by informing you of these, if you so desire
.
dan
If we need to drop a couple battles, it could come from winter of 44, or the 44/45. I don't think we should sacrafice any of '43, it was to important to the war. Winter of '44 will be very fun too, at the Korsun pocket - destroying tons of desperate Germans
. So we'll probably have to loose some from '45. I think people may be getting pretty board at this point anyway, and it would be hard to keep up the challenge in game terms, without taking great liberties with history. Perhaps we should have the russians invade Iran in '45. We'd get some better battles fighting US/UK forces for the domination of the Middle east, lol.
Mike, i read your battle brief last night - very good. One point though. The english language has many good swear words other than 'shit'. I'm sure we can furthar you grasp of the english language by informing you of these, if you so desire
.dan
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
Welcome aboard Kutalic. I'll email the info we have so far. There are about 5 of us who are involved right now, and anther 10 with interest but very little time.
battle three should be interesting - tough to build right though. You interested?
I'm going to be mailing out battle one to a few play testers this afternoon.
battle three should be interesting - tough to build right though. You interested?
I'm going to be mailing out battle one to a few play testers this afternoon.
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
-
Gen. Maczek
- Posts: 70
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 8:00 am
- Location: Tychy, Poland
As I said before, my English is not perfect...Or perhaps simply lacking in several departmentsOriginally posted by A_B:
Mike, i read your battle brief last night - very good. One point though. The english language has many good swear words other than 'shit'. I'm sure we can furthar you grasp of the english language by informing you of these, if you so desire
dan
BTW, please send me a copy of that first battle.
Regards.
Gen. Maczek
Yeah it looks a little tough but I think its doable. The trick is as always play balance -- making it challenging without making it impossible. I'm assuming that the Soviets will go in a little beat up so won't design something that will utterly clobber a clear-thinking player.
I like the river crossing aspect adds a twist.
I like the river crossing aspect adds a twist.
-
Gallo Rojo
- Posts: 701
- Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2000 8:00 am
- Location: Argentina
Originally posted by kutalik:
Hey all,
Back from academic research land. The collective sounds very, very promising. Having lazily worked on a SCW campaign now since version 4.something I have to say I want something I can play too.
If you're still looking for volunteers count me in. Battle 3 looks pretty interesting...
Hi Kutalik! Is good to see you on this project!
By the way... how does goes this Madrid campaign?
Best regards
The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end
Update;
the first battle has been sent out to playtesters. We'll try to finish it by thursday for those who want it.
The core force (if you choose to take the 'selected core'), consists of the following;
Recce Company (with attached engineer platoon)
2 Rifle companies (each platoon has 3 rifle squads, and one smg squad, and attached MG and AT rifle section)
1 smg company (same as above, but platoons have 2 smg squads, and two auto rifle squads)
Weapons Company with morter platoon, AT gun platoon (76mm), Heavy MG platoon, AT rifle platoon, 2 truck platoons.
Tank Company - three platoons of five tanks each. 2 are t/34's, and 3 are BT7's.
2 x Truck Companies - three platoons of five each (used to motorize infantry, and upgrade when possible).
45mm at gun platoon
37mm aa gun platoon
2 platoons of wagons (for above guns)
This campaign is for those that like their battles big and bloody. There won't be any hiding behind support and auxillery units. Usually, your core will be it.
It's not to late to join the fun, but you gotta set up at least one battle to play. this is a collective effort, so do your homework (via Wild Bills lessons), and do your part.
A_B
the first battle has been sent out to playtesters. We'll try to finish it by thursday for those who want it.
The core force (if you choose to take the 'selected core'), consists of the following;
Recce Company (with attached engineer platoon)
2 Rifle companies (each platoon has 3 rifle squads, and one smg squad, and attached MG and AT rifle section)
1 smg company (same as above, but platoons have 2 smg squads, and two auto rifle squads)
Weapons Company with morter platoon, AT gun platoon (76mm), Heavy MG platoon, AT rifle platoon, 2 truck platoons.
Tank Company - three platoons of five tanks each. 2 are t/34's, and 3 are BT7's.
2 x Truck Companies - three platoons of five each (used to motorize infantry, and upgrade when possible).
45mm at gun platoon
37mm aa gun platoon
2 platoons of wagons (for above guns)
This campaign is for those that like their battles big and bloody. There won't be any hiding behind support and auxillery units. Usually, your core will be it.
It's not to late to join the fun, but you gotta set up at least one battle to play. this is a collective effort, so do your homework (via Wild Bills lessons), and do your part.
A_B
Unconventional war requires unconventional thought
Hi A_B and all others involved
I did find from Battle1beta little things that needs to be taken care of if you are using this *Collective* -core as I am going to do. This should be used atleast to testing to get opposite force ( GE )balanced to some level of difficulty. I did mail my suggestions for fixing the problem.
mosh
I did find from Battle1beta little things that needs to be taken care of if you are using this *Collective* -core as I am going to do. This should be used atleast to testing to get opposite force ( GE )balanced to some level of difficulty. I did mail my suggestions for fixing the problem.
mosh
salute
mosh
If its not rotten, shoot again
mosh
If its not rotten, shoot again