Matrix Games Forums

OK, so we can get this process started and to motivate me to finish up the written rules, I am starting this thread on the next, proposed GTotH campaign game.

The theme I am considering and currently researching will be based on the Battle of Bréville. It may be played from either or both sides, depending on interest. For getting 'feedback' on interest in participating I have created an online survey at Group Tigers on the Hunt Combat Campaign - Battle of Bréville.

And by all means, please feel free to post any comments or questions you may have that are not covered in the above survey.

Hmm, based on the poll results so far, it looks like the majority are willing to play this from either side.

If we have enough players we could go with a team vs team game. Not HUMAN vs HUMAN in each mission but group results vs group results with both sides playing against the AI using custom scenarios.

I went ahead and removed the survey link in my signature because there were quite a few votes already and since I will have to create each scenario for each player I didn't want to get flooded with interested people and then not be able to see this through. right now I am looking at 5 missions for each player/commander. The vote on which side to play this from were mostly either side but the people that did choose a side, chose the Germans over the British by almost 2-1.

I'll post more once I get time to go through everything and research the idea as far as OOB's. I think I can do 2 Battalions, either one on each side or 2 from the same side.

A small teaser . . . it's not the immediate Bréville area BUT the results of combat here might impact the reinforcements each side has access to in the main campaign game. [;)]

Tweaked the map some. Extended the beach so it takes more than a full turn to reach it from "water", unless you doubletime out in the open. Added debris for the seawall which should add vehicle bog chances and should also slow down any vehicles coming off the beach. Just hope the map is not too small for the forces I am building it for. [&:]

Looking forward to this!

Me too! (and this time, PIATs/PFs/PSKs will make tank hunting - our favourite pastime - much easier [:D]).

I too am ready to lead my company in this campaign. I'll keep an eye on the forum for any updates.

Working on the Mission Flow chart as we speak. Right now I am looking at 6 rounds total, so each commander will play 6 missions. That's 36 custom scenarios folks so this run is going to take much longer than the previous game and the reason I am working on the AAR form. I will nee dot rely heavily on each commander for keeping their OOB tracked during their mission so I can run the replacement and unit seasoning steps form those as opposed to opening TotH and a word doc and then repeatedly toggling back and forth between them making notes.

How this will work, after each round, with a team overall victory (majority of commanders get a victory) the next mission goes in one path, a team majority draw/loss, it goes in another. Basically each mission branches out to 2 others depending on the overall team result.

Next, this will either be a team vs team game with 3 British Commanders vs 3 German Commanders or all 6 on the German side. It will NOT be head to head but will be concurrently running campaigns with each team having their own mission flow chart where each player gets points (or loses points) for each mission they complete. The tentative point structure will be;

+2 - Major Victory
+1 - Minor Victory
0 - Draw
-1 - Minor Defeat
-2 - Major Defeat

The team with the highest score at the end wins.

For commands, these will be chosen by each player from the following, depending on the side you are on (this is also tentative);

GERMAN
* - Infantry Company
* - Pioneer Company (limited to one per team)

BRITISH
* - Parachute Company
* - Airlanding (Glider) Company
* - Commando Company (limited to one per team)

Hopefully that's clear as mud. [8D]

I strongly agree on increased involvement of the commanders to relieve you from part of the administrative work. The last round of the experimental GTotH campaign should highlight if any changes in the PDF report are required.

Again, in order to keep the administrative side as simple and straightforward as possible, I think it would be better to have commanders using one side only (Germans, as the majority of voters decided). Should you decide to make this a two-side campaign anyway, I'd like to be on the British side.

Here is the 'draft' German Mission Flow Chart.
KEY: Green arrow means Team Victory. Red means Team Draw or Defeat. Orange Means automatically fight that mission.

Here is the 'draft' British Mission Flow Chart.
KEY: Green arrow means Team Victory. Red means Team Draw or Defeat. Orange Means automatically fight that mission.

If those charts are too small let me know and I'll repost them in larger images. [:)]

I think they look great. I agree with an earlier post that there should be just one side chosen (British or German). Parallel campaigns seems like it would be a lot of work to maintain. However, that's just my opinion

It's very little extra work really. Going back through all the design steps, the amount of work needed is based on the number of players. I already have a custom Briefing and AAR form for the Germans and British (well they are about 95% done, still debating what to tweak).

In the previous game, each player got a totally custom and different scenario to include a different map. With 6+ players I am not so sure that individual, completely custom scenarios is feasible as I would have to generate that number of different missions and build them out using each map. What I am thinking of doing is to use the same map for each member of the team (they would have the same overall mission anyway) but with a custom generated enemy force (this part is still under design so please feel free to comment any thoughts [:)] ).

For the parallel campaign concept, they are not really parallel in that one team's next mission is NOT dependent on results from the other team. The next mission for the team is based on the team's current mission result, the majority win, they advance the green arrow, the majority draws or loses, follow the red arrow for the next mission and so on. For example, if both teams win the 1st mission, they both would advance to the next mission with the green arrow. So one team could be fighting in Amfreville with the other in Bois de Mont. The end of the campaign could end with the British team fighting over Breville While the Germans are storming the Orne River Bridge. You essentially have two different campaigns going on with separate paths, they just happen to be occurring at the same time and each team trying to rack up the most overall points. That's the only way I think I can carry this out with 2 different teams and keep it somewhat manageable.

Still working on the rules. I think I am putting in way too much information. I will probably cut them down to the minimum that players really need to know and go with that.

ORIGINAL: Double Deuce

I will probably cut them down to the minimum that players really need to know and go with that.

In brief: be ready for anything (and worse [:D]).

I'm going to keep working on finishing up the rules and tweaking the Mission Briefing and AAR form. In the meantime, if anyone has any questions, comments etc, please feel free to post them.

looks like you are doing a great job there double deuce