Battle Games Poll?

[richvalle]

"I've always wanted battles that are more... linked. Like 'if you lost 6-10 steps of Inf in battle 1 make 4 starting Inf reduced at setup.'"

I almost put in a similar comment, and a lot of times in a battle game its different operational units in the various scenarios, so that would be hard to do.   However, I wouldn't mind seeing mini-campaigns.  Similar to what's done in Cassino and other places, just on a smaller scale.

Yes, exactly. I was thinking of Cassino as well. It's way cool but so large. I'd love to seem something smaller. I was hoping the Battle Games would be it. It kind of is in goals but not so much as one battle doesn't effect others. 

[Matt W]

"battles that are more... linked"

The campaigns like Brave but Futile or Steadfast and Loyal had those provisions. On the other hand the mechanism to create the scenarios was not historical but rather meant to be evocative of the types of battles that would have been fought. Plus the paperwork was daunting.

Something like Spearhead would be perfect for some kind of amalgam of the Battle Game concept and some aspects of attrition, however, that would create a cascading effect in the "game" part of PG where a player who lost (potentially badly) in an early scenario is now incapable of recovering, rendering the play of the subsequent scenarios a forgone conclusion. We are trying to not only reflect the history but to give players a game that is playable and enjoyable for both sides. I designing the campaign game for the Inchon landings I tried to point out the effect of any North Korean "win" in the Perimeter battles, with an NKPA win requiring a much more significant victory by MacArthur's gamble. In reality, of course, an NKPA victory of the type required in the Battle Game would most likely have caused a postponement in the invasion if not an outright cancellation.

The coming campaigns in Fire in the Steppe will have some of that "wearing" effect included. In designing the Battle Games for the scenarios that will ultimately end up in Armata Romana, for example, units that appear in multiple sequential Battle Games may have adjustments to morale as well as unit losses.

In most Battle Games the actual units involved are not the same from scenario to scenario and the scenario designers have spent considerable time determining the OOB to be what was available historically. Typically we don't change those (unless we are doing an Alt-History scenario in which case we can and will do anything to -fix- a balance problem). As a result, the Battle Games focus on operational goals rather than the attritional aspects of the combat.

I understand the desire for smaller Battle Games and am considering focusing the Battle Games on a subsection of the scenarios which encompass the operational aspects of a particular engagement. The completist in me wants every scenario to have a greater purpose but I think I can keep that in check...

[richvalle]

"battles that are more... linked"

The campaigns like Brave but Futile or Steadfast and Loyal had those provisions.  On the other hand the mechanism to create the scenarios was not historical but rather meant to be evocative of the types of battles that would have been fought.  Plus the paperwork was daunting.

Something like Spearhead would be perfect for some kind of amalgam of the Battle Game concept and some aspects of attrition, however, that would create a cascading effect in the "game" part of PG where a player who lost (potentially badly) in an early scenario is now incapable of recovering, rendering the play of the subsequent scenarios a forgone conclusion.  We are trying to not only reflect the history but to give players a game that is playable and enjoyable for both sides.  I designing the campaign game for the Inchon landings I tried to point out the effect of any North Korean "win" in the Perimeter battles, with an NKPA win requiring a much more significant victory by MacArthur's gamble.  In reality, of course, an NKPA victory of the type required in the Battle Game would most likely have caused a postponement in the invasion if not an outright cancellation.

The coming campaigns in Fire in the Steppe will have some of that "wearing" effect included.  In designing the Battle Games for the scenarios that will ultimately end up in Armata Romana, for example, units that appear in multiple sequential Battle Games may have adjustments to morale as well as unit losses.

In most Battle Games the actual units involved are not the same from scenario to scenario and the scenario designers have spent considerable time determining the OOB to be 

Yeah, I'm playing some Spearhead right now and was thinking it could work well for a mini-campaign. 

I hear you on the issue of losing one battle badly and it throwing later games. Though I suspect people willing to play such campaigns would be able to take it in stride and either surrender or push on knowing it was a forlorn hope. 

If there was some sort of point system to rebuild units or if later battles had more units show up then what could happen is if someone loses battle one badly they just 'retreat' from battle 2 and... no that's not going to work. If it's a linked battle, say, around capturing a town running from battle 2 gives the town to the other side negating the rest of the battles. 

I guess the rule in such a thing is "don't lose badly".   

In a way that's kind of what I want though. Where preserving the troops is as important as winning so you have them around for later battles. It could help stop last turn banzai rushes to take a town hex no matter the cost so you get the extra 3 VP's. 

The Fire in the Steppes thing sounds great. I look forward to hearing about it/playing it. 

Thanks.

[Matt W]

"If there was some sort of point system to rebuild units or if later battles had more units show up then what could happen is if someone loses battle one badly they just 'retreat' from battle 2 and... no that's not going to work. If it's a linked battle, say, around capturing a town running from battle 2 gives the town to the other side negating the rest of the battles. "

Look for the Winter Soldiers scenario book. It includes one of the first real campaign games for PG. Called "Steadfast and Loyal" it gives you the chance to take the 4th Infantry from Normandy to Germany. Like "Brave but Futile" in the Panzer Lehr supplement, it includes a point system that permits you to rebuild units, etc. at the cost of being less active in a turn (a turn being a PG scenario. As I mentioned before, though, the scenarios aren't historical but rather evocative.

"Where preserving the troops is as important as winning so you have them around for later battles."

You won't like the 1941 Soviets or the NKPA....

Seriously, though, some of the armed forces that we have modeled in PG were less concerned with force preservation than others. We need to pay more attention to that in the victory conditions.

One victory condition I have been introducing is the ability of the operational defender to blunt the attacker by reducing their initiative. I know that I could do the same thing with loss targets but the idea of taking the wind out of the attacker's sails seems to me to be a better fit viscerally. Get the attacker down to a zero initiative and you've done your job. From an operational perspective that means no "advance after combat", for example.

[triangular_cube]

I wonder how many people even remember the Vorontsovo campaign? Just curious

[plloyd1010]

Do you mean the battle described in CMH Pub 104-22-1? Or something else like Operation Winter Storm

[triangular_cube]

Do you mean the battle described in CMH Pub 104-22-1? Or something else like Operation Winter Storm

The mini campaign in the original Panzer Grenadier.

[plloyd1010]

I would like to see that. Have you got a copy somewhere?

[triangular_cube]

I would like to see that. Have you got a copy somewhere?

PM me your email address. I took some legible photos of my hardcopy.

Its basically a linking campaign for the 3 Vorontsovo scenarios with casualties carrying over.

[richvalle]

"If there was some sort of point system to rebuild units or if later battles had more units show up then what could happen is if someone loses battle one badly they just 'retreat' from battle 2 and... no that's not going to work. If it's a linked battle, say, around capturing a town running from battle 2 gives the town to the other side negating the rest of the battles. "

Look for the Winter Soldiers scenario book.  It includes one of the first real campaign games for PG.  Called "Steadfast and Loyal" it gives you the chance to take the 4th Infantry from Normandy to Germany.  Like "Brave but Futile" in the Panzer Lehr supplement, it includes a point system that permits you to rebuild units, etc. at the cost of being less active in a turn (a turn being a PG scenario.  As I mentioned before, though, the scenarios aren't historical but rather evocative.

"Where preserving the troops is as important as winning so you have them around for later battles."

You won't like the 1941 Soviets or the NKPA....

Seriously, though, some of the armed forces that we have modeled in PG were less concerned with force preservation than others.  We need to pay more attention to that in the victory conditions.  

One victory condition I have been introducing is the ability of the operational defender to blunt the attacker by reducing their initiative.  I know that I could do the same thing with loss targets but the idea of taking the wind out of the attacker's sails seems to me to be a better fit viscerally.  Get the attacker down to a zero initiative and you've done your job.  From an operational perspective that means no "advance after combat", for example.

Thanks Matt. I have Winter Soldiers but have never looked at the campaign in there. I'll check it out and see how it looks.

I agree about the Init reduction. Gives a nice feel vs just inflicting casualties.  It could also effect play a bit. Sometimes you take shots at non-dem units in order to try and blunt someone's attack. If the stress is on reducing the Init you might want to pound the Dem unit to rack up the casualties. 

I would like to see that. Have you got a copy somewhere?

PM me your email address. I took some legible photos of my hardcopy.

Its basically a linking campaign for the 3 Vorontsovo scenarios with casualties carrying over.

I'd be curious on how that was implemented and how well it worked.