|
Post by sadukar09 on Jun 5, 2014 12:36:12 GMT
This is what I worked out so far. Both China and MEF need to cross three provinces to get to the DMZ. They are available immediately. The Chinese or MEF players can play another faction until their units get to the frontlines? USSR and Japan only have two provinces to cross, but can only join the battle after 3 turns. The last provinces of each side have special limitations on what types of decks can be used to attack. I still need to do research on the order of battle.
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Jun 5, 2014 13:19:09 GMT
First of all, a big thanks to Charles Murray for setting up this brilliant forum. There are a lot of great ideas which have bandied about on the original sub-reddit thread. This thread will get the ball rolling when deciding on factors of the campaign. Please, feel free to post any ideas you have and the best will be implemented in a clear-cut fashion; this campaign is a community effort and there are no hard-and-fast rules or the perfect template for carrying it out. I will update the list below with the ideas that seem most attractive to everyone and which can be worked in to the campaign. - Second Korean War theme
- Map based on administrative regions of the Korean peninsula
- US, China, North Korea & South Korea
- 20% of players on either team can play as their ally (US & China)
- Theme-restricted decks
- One deck per player
Please, discuss items which are in the list; they are not final and need to be scrutinised by the community. As for topics which need to be discussed and decided upon; a map with a dedicated editor, the assignment of in-game maps to the campaign map, who should be the elected General to act as a team leader and what their role includes, the inclusion of After Action Reports and how they should be formatted.
|
|
|
Post by mafiapenguin on Jun 5, 2014 17:42:03 GMT
What era are we looking at? 60s 70s 80s 90s as it does effect the various decks people will build
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 17:51:29 GMT
I remember we were thinking about setting it in the 90's, though really any era works. This would mean that we'd build our decks to match our nation's military during that time, which means that a faction like the US wouldn't be fielding WW2 surplus into the 90's even if they can field it in Wargame. I'd also like to submit my candidacy to lead REDFOR in this. ^.^
I like the rules so far, and the map Sadukar has built for us. I've started allocating people to NATO and PACT and given each a special part of the forum (hopefully they can see it). I'm not sure we can feasibly simulate losses, though if someone can think of a way, that would be awesome. (Maybe by deleting cards from your deck?) I think we should play Total Destruction for the most part, since battles don't have a set time limit and often go on until one side pushes the other out of the battlespace, not until they reach a certain score. I also think we should allow retreats (if one side feels the battle is no longer worth it) on the condition that they physically get all of their troops back to their FOB or a spawn point before ending the battle.
EDIT: I've moved Sadukar's post into this thread so we can comment on what he as so far.
|
|
|
Post by octamurk on Jun 5, 2014 19:07:01 GMT
* Having players be responsible for individual formations could be problematic in that we must coordinate games so that every individual player responsible for a formation in a particular battle has to be on at the same time. Instead, perhaps individual players can submit decks/formations for use, but when the game begins, the team as a whole decides which units go where using polls etc; when players are required for battle, and the players for games can be anyone on the team first come first serve. This would also eliminate the problem of one side having more players than the other side as long as each side has enough players to fill games.
* I'd strongly prefer that the game mode be conquest.
* Losses could be simulated by removing enough cards to at least equal the points value of losses sustained
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 5, 2014 20:00:08 GMT
I'm wary of simulating losses and trying to edit decks, forcing the removal of components from decks sounds cool, but it could end up gimping decks and forcing people to choose between essential components. The deck building system seems to already be balanced so that you just about can't quite get everything you need in.
I also prefer conquest, I feel it's a better representation of who controls an area, and a 'retreat' is much easier to pull off, the defending team simply pulling back and letting the winners win.
This of course is only relevant if we track losses for some other purpose, say extra tokens on the map. Maybe each campaign turn we count each sides losses, and the side that lost the lead gets a bonus (campaign only, we can't really edit in game stuff), like initiative in the case of a draw or extra forces on the map.
Player availability is also an issue, I'm wary of the idea of only assigning one player to each deck token on a map, what if that player isn't there? What if American players attack European players, when do they play? I like the idea of theme restricted decks though.
I think what I'm getting at most of all here is that the campaign should be a way of setting up matches between people, moving stuff around on the map should probably be mostly about restricting the choices people have of deck theme (and nation ofc) and defining the map and/or defender (maybe if the time limit is short, and the defender wins on the campaign map in the case of a draw. If we do want to restrict people to one deck then any counters on the map probably need to be abstract.
This is all especially relevant if one side has more tokens in a fight than the other, wargame doesn't have an attack/defend mode we can really use for this. Unless having less players at the beginning gives the same effect as players leaving, in which case that would be viable.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 20:02:51 GMT
* Having players be responsible for individual formations could be problematic in that we must coordinate games so that every individual player responsible for a formation in a particular battle has to be on at the same time. Instead, perhaps individual players can submit decks/formations for use, but when the game begins, the team as a whole decides which units go where using polls etc; when players are required for battle, and the players for games can be anyone on the team first come first serve. This would also eliminate the problem of one side having more players than the other side as long as each side has enough players to fill games. This is a good point, though I also like the idea of people owning their own divisions and building a history around them. * I'd strongly prefer that the game mode be conquest. I can see why you would feel that way, though battles IRL aren't decided by grabbing land and holding on to it for as long as possible. I would prefer Total Destruction since––along with rules regarding decks––encourage offensive maneuvers. * Losses could be simulated by removing enough cards to at least equal the points value of losses sustained Right. Here's another idea: Cards that only lose a few of their units gain in veterancy instead of disappearing. Over time, decks would grow smaller and more elite, which would be cool to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 5, 2014 20:12:39 GMT
units becoming more elite sounds interesting, though most units only have one or two levels of veterancey choice, and what if they aren't wiped out but do see combat?
I like us each submitting decks (units) and perhaps we get dibs on playing as them if they get into a fight?
I can see that total destruction encourages more offense than destruction, but so does conquest. Conquest also better represents taking and holding ground, which we're doing here with a map, and battles are really decided by who is still in place and who retreats. Not that strategic withdrawal isn't a thing, but I don't think it's what we're going with on this map.
Still very suspicious of removing cards as casualties. What if you only loose a few units from each card. Who's going to go through the losses and decide what dissapears and what doesn't. What about the way deck building is balanced around availability, not the total points cost of everything?
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 20:47:44 GMT
Still very suspicious of removing cards as casualties. What if you only loose a few units from each card. Who's going to go through the losses and decide what dissapears and what doesn't. What about the way deck building is balanced around availability, not the total points cost of everything? Units with high veterancy have lower availability, so we could swap in units that saw combat but didn't get wiped out entirely with veteran units, i.e. less of that unit (given losses), but those that remain are more elite since they saw combat.
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Jun 5, 2014 20:50:59 GMT
This campaign will hopefully be the first of many, so with that being said there should be as little complexity and bureaucracy as a possible; using this initial Korean campaign to inspire more and better-managed campaigns having learnt from the mistakes we will make in this campaign. I will attempt to write a back-story, as I am a keen writer and live with my friend who is studying international relations so it will have authenticity.
Game Mode: I am in agreement with octamurk, that the game should be Conquest. My reason for this is that it would simulate the objective-based nature of warfare, as opposed to the attritional nature of Total Destruction. Though the idea of a time-limit does irk me, battles are rarely fought to the utter destruction of a formation and more for the strategic objectives based on a risk/reward factor.
Decks: The era will be 90s and rightly so, nations should not be fielding WW2-era equipment/troops (N. Korea being somewhat of an exception). In the spirit of simplicity , there shouldn't be any era limits on decks, yet there must be a minimum. How about a 1970 lower limit to BLUEFOR and 1950 for REDFOR? Or would it be best to look at each of the four factions individually?
The Campaign Map: Brilliant work Sadukar on the campaign map; this should be the one used. I believe China should be able to come from 7, 6, 14 and 13. In regards to marine landings, it should only be achievable on an enemy province which is connected to friendly territory; REDFOR can only attack the West coast and BLUEFOR the East coast.
Allies: At the beginning of the Turn 1, both Koreas will be fully mobilised as the reigniting of hostilities has been on the cards for a while, however players of Chinese decks may only appear on the upper campaign map on Turn 3. BLUEFOR have a single US deck at a location of their choosing, whilst also having a Turn 3 appearance of US decks at 2, 7, 15 and 14. The numbers of allied decks should be limited.
Generals: Seeing as Charles Murray has put himself forward for REDFOR, I shall for BLUEFOR! A twenty-deck limit for the two teams of 10 players (2 decks each, explanation below) seems suitable for the sort of numbers we are attracting. I believe Generals should decide on the composition of their teams decks and then players make the deck based on a theme. For example, with 20 decks, the BLUEFOR general might decide to have 4 airborne, 8 mechanized, 6 armoured, 1 marine and 1 support.
2 Decks per person: I believe after a players deck has been destroyed, they have the opportunity to play a secondary deck after waiting a turn for it to be mobilised. This creates the replayability for a player if they are crushed in the initial turns, allows for greater strategic depth whilst limiting the player-count and the number of battlegroups being played at one time to 10, creating an uncluttered battlespace.
Let me know your thoughts so far on the above. Do contest some ideas if they seem ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 21:30:39 GMT
Story: I would love to see what you come up with! Should we each assume the role of a character and those interested in the roleplay element could build a story around them?
Game Mode: I can absolutely see the merit in your arguments, though it seems like conquest would encourage both teams––even the one who is attacking according to the campaign map––to divide the map and camp instead of pushing each other out of the battlespace. True, Total Destruction is about attrition, but so is Conquest. Only in Conquest, one team is encouraged to grab slightly more than half of the map and then camp and wait for the points to tick away (determined not by who is actually winning the armed engagement). I agree that Total Destruction wouldn't be realistic if we had no mechanic to allow players to withdraw, since it would be two forces fighting to the death. With a mechanic to withdraw, one side can pull back if it decides the objective isn't worth the losses.
Decks: I agree with what has been said here. octamurk has a point when he says that if we all assign specific units to each player, we might find ourselves lacking players to play with if people go inactive or can't come because of time zones. How do you think we should rectify this?
The Campaign Map: I'm also interested in fleet movements. How would the REDFOR/BLUFOR fleets work?
Allies: No argument here.
Generals: Understood! Maybe we shouldn't call them "Generals," since we're all high-ranking military officers, maybe we could go with historical titles accorded to the leaders of BLUFOR and REDFOR theaters?
2 Decks per person: This is a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 5, 2014 21:38:55 GMT
On decks: The answer is to not have players assigned to specific points on the map. When a battle happens the players that are available play it.
Perhaps each "unit" on the map is actually a battlegroup, each player playing as only part of that battlegroup? Then maybe if the loosing side has more than one battlegroup in a fight, they can ask for a second match, then the final match points of both games are added up.
We can still have players only use one type or one single deck, we just can't tie them to one location.
|
|
|
Post by sadukar09 on Jun 5, 2014 21:51:06 GMT
This is a good point, though I also like the idea of people owning their own divisions and building a history around them. This is probably easier than looking up the order of battle. I guess as long as the name coincides with the real life naming conventions, it's cool.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 21:59:27 GMT
On decks: The answer is to not have players assigned to specific points on the map. When a battle happens the players that are available play it. Perhaps each "unit" on the map is actually a battlegroup, each player playing as only part of that battlegroup? Then maybe if the loosing side has more than one battlegroup in a fight, they can ask for a second match, then the final match points of both games are added up. We can still have players only use one type or one single deck, we just can't tie them to one location. We're thinking of defining the composition of those battlegroups (ex: one armored regiment and two mechanized infantry regiments) so we can play out strategy on the campaign map. I like your ideas, though.
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 5, 2014 22:18:28 GMT
On decks: The answer is to not have players assigned to specific points on the map. When a battle happens the players that are available play it. Perhaps each "unit" on the map is actually a battlegroup, each player playing as only part of that battlegroup? Then maybe if the loosing side has more than one battlegroup in a fight, they can ask for a second match, then the final match points of both games are added up. We can still have players only use one type or one single deck, we just can't tie them to one location. We're thinking of defining the composition of those battlegroups (ex: one armored regiment and two mechanized infantry regiments) so we can play out strategy on the campaign map. I like your ideas, though. Yeah that could be interesting. It would mean that people would play the decks that are available rather than their one deck, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, give people variety. So say a 2v2, people can pick which of the two units they use (eg an infantry regiment is 3x motorised, armoured is armoured + 2 mech) or whatever, and fourth is either a wildcard, support or a requirement (say marines for a marine battlegroup)
|
|