Brainstorming ideas, DW+GR

[Molon Labe]

I woke up having one of those headaches, but with pictures. Yeah, an idea!

What if we ran two simultaneous semi-dynamic campaigns? One with DW, and another with Ghost Recon. I was thinking along the lines of the context of some sort of land battle, with GR maps representing different pieces of real estate within the contested area. Naturally, the contested area would include a coastline. Both sides would have naval forces which are fighting to influence the events on land. For example, they might attempt to land tanks and/or troops. This in turn would effect which GR maps are being played; or perhaps even, which missions (the idea of one side having to play one of those tank intercept missions is very appealing because its so damn HARD!) Similarly, the events in the GW world might also affect what goes on in DW. For example, an airport map could represent one sides P-3 base; if it falls, that airport will not be available in the next DW session.

Working out the details will be a bit tough. On the DW side, I wouldn't want to set up the DW matches in the same style as the GDT was done because its just too much work. I was thinking more along the lines of having several missions pre-made, each representing a different part of the conflict and possibly being available to be chosen by the sides based on what they want to accomplish. Little things can be tweaked here and there on each go-around to represent choices made or changes in the OOB.

I think the GR side is easier. We'd just have to come up with standards for the structure of the fights (e.g. should there be AI, objectives, respawns, how many rounds do you play?). I'd let each side choose to attack one map each turn, so that would be two battles a turn. Maybe allow an extra fight if something extra happened in DW like a Spec forces team getting dropped off or the tanks example I already used. Of course if we wanted adversarial objective missions, that's something I never learned to do with IGOR and I don't know if I'm ever going to figure it out to, so that's probably not something I can do on my own.

Thoughts, comments, or rude remarks?

[Phil21]

Interesting idea!

Reading this alot of questions came into my mind, but fortunatly with some possible answers following (Since i've no real experineces with GR -never really played it - i keep my focus on DW):

#1: The general campaignsystem: You said it should be dynamic or at least semi-dynamic and i agree with that, but how can you keep it from getting too complex, too much work?
I think we would need a relative simple system which is easy to understand and to manage but is still dynamic enough. For example: look at the board game "Risk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_game). Every turn a player can decide where he wants to attack and how to spent his reinforcements. So he has to decide weather to attack his primary target or to attack a secondary target in an effort to bind his opponents supplies...simple, but with alot of (pontentional) dynamic. (This is just an example, i dont think that such a system would do it for a DW campaigne. At least not without some major modifications..)

#2: Symmetry: quite a simple but important question. There are two sides in DW with different available platforms. So do have all sides in genrerel all platforms like subs,FFG, P-3 and Helo or do they only have their own platforms (like in an fictional West vs. East scenario the East would only have Akulas plus KILOs compared to the West having subs plus FFG and airsupport). Its not a really complex question but we would have to decide rather early i think.
(I dont know if this is any problem in GR, im just talking about DW)

#3: How long will it be and how large will it be?: Is it going to be a larger conflict, maybe even WW3 or is it just a regional conflict? How can the to components (DW (sea) and GR (land)) be combined effectivly? How long is each mission, how many missions will be played and how often?
I think this question can be answered a bit easier if we answered the questions above first, but doing this without thinking about this point will be difficult.

#4: The Missions: How to build them? I would suggest to keep them quite simple with one large map which can be reused for different missions. Im thinking of a large area with some islands like in the pacific or a large coastal/gulf region. Using only one large map has the advantage you can use a quite detailed world without the need of remodelling it every time, cause all differeces like destroyed Airbases etc. could be integrated in just one map.
The single missions would just use a small part of it (the front line) and different operations could be played simultaniously.
Example: Blue is attacking with a navalbase with a small surface/submarine group, Red is defending it with some small units like KILOs and small AI vessels. The mission would be for Blue to break through the KILO defense line to reach a point from where it missiles could attack the base with greatest chaces of success.
On the other side, a Red sub is trying to get into range for an attack on an airbase deep in blues territory. A patroling P-3C has to find and stop it or to support the Surface group . Loosing the Airbase would mean loosing P-3 capability in a large region for some time, but loosing the harbour would mean for red to loose precious surface reinforcments and a safe harbour to resupply their subs.
I think you get my point..

So these are my major questions regarding this idea. My suggestion would be we have a smaller, regional conflict with two very different sides in a rather limited envoirment (terrrain, resources, time). Both teams would start in a different strategic position e.g. one as the "attacker" with a well prepared fleet and good positions but with less reinforcments on the long run.
The defending Team has the disadvantage of being suprised with the attack and with less combat ready units but the advantage of a larger industry, allies or what ever helps in such a conflict on the long run.
In this scenario Team As main target for the first part would be to destroy Team Bs bases and forces while they are unpreppared to even the odds, while Team Bs goal would be to save as much as possible to keep it long time advantage....
Things like e.g. time restricitions (Time until UNO or NATO etc. can react) or additional third parties could be added.

This is just one example for a possible scenarios, many more a imaginable so i'm not going into detail any further.

This is it from me for the moment, but as i said before i think its a great idea and if we can do it we should at least try it. I will think about it some more, especially about the technical aspects like building the missions.

Phil

[Molon Labe]

Thanks for the quick response! A few quick replies:



#1: The general campaignsystem: You said it should be dynamic or at least semi-dynamic and i agree with that, but how can you keep it from getting too complex, too much work?
I think we would need a relative simple system which is easy to understand and to manage but is still dynamic enough. For example: look at the board game "Risk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_game). Every turn a player can decide where he wants to attack and how to spent his reinforcements. So he has to decide weather to attack his primary target or to attack a secondary target in an effort to bind his opponents supplies...simple, but with alot of (pontentional) dynamic. (This is just an example, i dont think that such a system would do it for a DW campaigne. At least not without some major modifications..)
It definitely needs to be a simple system, and there is definitely a lot of room for discussion on it. The point that I'm starting from right now is that there would be a map of the land area divided up into sections, each segment representing a GR map. Each side would be able to choose which they'd want to try to take over, and then there would be a fight of some sort that would determine if that section was taken or not. On the DW side, I was thinking that there would be a fixed number of platforms that would be assigned to 1-3 tasks each turn or to a "reserve" fleet. By task, I mean "defend x" or "attack y." Something like that. I'd have scenarios ready-to-go for those attack/defend missions; I'd just tweak the platforms that are there based on what people chose. The outcome of those battles, most obviously would affect the order of battle (by sinking ships) and we'd also figure out some way for them to influence the GR matches--maybe by changing what areas are able to be attacked, changing the # of respawns, stuff like that. I have to have another look at IGOR [the GR mission editor] and see what options I have.



#2: Symmetry: quite a simple but important question. There are two sides in DW with different available platforms. So do have all sides in genrerel all platforms like subs,FFG, P-3 and Helo or do they only have their own platforms (like in an fictional West vs. East scenario the East would only have Akulas plus KILOs compared to the West having subs plus FFG and airsupport). Its not a really complex question but we would have to decide rather early i think.
(I dont know if this is any problem in GR, im just talking about DW)
My preference would be to do a Red-v-blue situation and figure out a way to make it about 50-50. That may well prove impossible in the planning stages, in which case I think a more symmetrical force-on-force type situation would make more sense.



#3: How long will it be and how large will it be?: Is it going to be a larger conflict, maybe even WW3 or is it just a regional conflict? How can the to components (DW (sea) and GR (land)) be combined effectivly? How long is each mission, how many missions will be played and how often?
I think this question can be answered a bit easier if we answered the questions above first, but doing this without thinking about this point will be difficult. The size of the combat area would be on the smaller side; like a civil war type situation or a conflict between two rather small states (perhaps with the US and Russia propping up opposing sides). Timewise, it's totally open to discussion on the practicalities. I was looking at 3 hr DW sessions are a starting target. Not sure about GR sessions, but it will be more or less based on what players would consider to be a satisfying and fair length.


#4: The Missions: How to build them? I would suggest to keep them quite simple with one large map which can be reused for different missions. Im thinking of a large area with some islands like in the pacific or a large coastal/gulf region. Using only one large map has the advantage you can use a quite detailed world without the need of remodelling it every time, cause all differeces like destroyed Airbases etc. could be integrated in just one map.
The single missions would just use a small part of it (the front line) and different operations could be played simultaniously.
Example: Blue is attacking with a navalbase with a small surface/submarine group, Red is defending it with some small units like KILOs and small AI vessels. The mission would be for Blue to break through the KILO defense line to reach a point from where it missiles could attack the base with greatest chaces of success.
On the other side, a Red sub is trying to get into range for an attack on an airbase deep in blues territory. A patroling P-3C has to find and stop it or to support the Surface group . Loosing the Airbase would mean loosing P-3 capability in a large region for some time, but loosing the harbour would mean for red to loose precious surface reinforcments and a safe harbour to resupply their subs.
I think you get my point..
I think we're about on the same page here.



So these are my major questions regarding this idea. My suggestion would be we have a smaller, regional conflict with two very different sides in a rather limited envoirment (terrrain, resources, time). Both teams would start in a different strategic position e.g. one as the "attacker" with a well prepared fleet and good positions but with less reinforcments on the long run.
The defending Team has the disadvantage of being suprised with the attack and with less combat ready units but the advantage of a larger industry, allies or what ever helps in such a conflict on the long run.
In this scenario Team As main target for the first part would be to destroy Team Bs bases and forces while they are unpreppared to even the odds, while Team Bs goal would be to save as much as possible to keep it long time advantage....
Things like e.g. time restricitions (Time until UNO or NATO etc. can react) or additional third parties could be added.

This is just one example for a possible scenarios, many more a imaginable so i'm not going into detail any further.

This is it from me for the moment, but as i said before i think its a great idea and if we can do it we should at least try it. I will think about it some more, especially about the technical aspects like building the missions.

Phil
Again, we seem to be thinking along the same lines--provided we can come up with something asymetric and balanced. That is my preference though.

[Phil21]

It definitely needs to be a simple system, and there is definitely a lot of room for discussion on it. The point that I'm starting from right now is that there would be a map of the land area divided up into sections, each segment representing a GR map. Each side would be able to choose which they'd want to try to take over, and then there would be a fight of some sort that would determine if that section was taken or not. On the DW side, I was thinking that there would be a fixed number of platforms that would be assigned to 1-3 tasks each turn or to a "reserve" fleet. By task, I mean "defend x" or "attack y." Something like that. I'd have scenarios ready-to-go for those attack/defend missions; I'd just tweak the platforms that are there based on what people chose. The outcome of those battles, most obviously would affect the order of battle (by sinking ships) and we'd also figure out some way for them to influence the GR matches--maybe by changing what areas are able to be attacked, changing the # of respawns, stuff like that. I have to have another look at IGOR [the GR mission editor] and see what options I have.


I like the idea of these segments on the land map. To make it possible to put more of these "Tank hunter" type missions you mentioned into the campaigne the segments should be kept quite low in mumbers. So its not that much of routine and you have more time for other missions than conquering segments (e.g. Special Forces etc.)

I have a suggestion how you could integrate Airfields, Navalbases and 'DW-Interferences' into this concept: Each segment has a small Militarybase as its "core". The Base is targetable in DW (its a large base with SAM-launchers, so its not a easy target for TLAMs etc) and if it takes damage during the mission, the troops for GR are reduced in the next 1-2 rounds.
If the segment contains additional a Airfield or a Navalbase, the segments are smaller (to contain only either large amounts of land or a larger base+airfield) but with more troops. I the Airfield takes damage the troops are reduced and if its damaged up to e.g. 50% its not usable for a specific amount of time. Same for the Navalbase.

I think the system of assigning different units some "Defend" or "Attack" a useful idea. Defending units would exist only as 'fictional' units, until they are attacked or the object they are defending is to be attacked in the next round (e.g. Team Red uses two KILOs to defend a port since 3 rounds, now Team Blue wants to attack that port and its the two KILOs against the attacking force in the next mission)



My preference would be to do a Red-v-blue situation and figure out a way to make it about 50-50. That may well prove impossible in the planning stages, in which case I think a more symmetrical force-on-force type situation would make more sense.

Totally agree with you here.



The size of the combat area would be on the smaller side; like a civil war type situation or a conflict between two rather small states (perhaps with the US and Russia propping up opposing sides). Timewise, it's totally open to discussion on the practicalities. I was looking at 3 hr DW sessions are a starting target. Not sure about GR sessions, but it will be more or less based on what players would consider to be a satisfying and fair length.

I would also say 3hrs are a good maximum for DW.

Im sure i forgot something, but thats al for now from me. Maybe some of the others post their oppinion too, so there's some more feedback. I think this would really help to find a good concept...

Phil

[Molon Labe]

Well, I snooped around GR a little bit more.

There are two useful game modes for our immediate purposes. One is called "Siege" mode, where one team is assigned the role of "attacker" and the other "defender." There is a designated area on the map that the attackers cannot be allowed into; if they are, they win the match. That seems like it works perfectly well for us. If that was the system we used for GR, then the role of DW could be to determine how many times the attacker gets to try and/or whether we allow the losing side to attempt to take it back. Unfortunately there isn't much we can do as far as customizing this mode; we can't even set different respawn limits. I might be able to move the spawning positions, but that's about it. The other mode is "Hamburger Hill," where the match is won or lost based on the amount of time in possession of a designated area. That works OK for the GR part but I wouldn't know how to integrate that into the overall system yet.

At this time, I don't have any confidence in my ability to make adversarial MP GR scenarios, so for the time being that is out. But, I wouldn't mind using devices such as the amphibious landing in DW to have force an AI battle or two (GR has missions that can be used to simulate the intercept of armored units and to simulate their being dislodged from entrenched positions. And, I can modify existing COOP missions without too much difficulty so we aren't necessarily limited to what GR already gives us.

So the setup I'm looking at right now is very parallel between DW and GR. In the GR world, there would be a scale representing the total strength of ground forces. From this number, a side can attack another side's possessions with a portion of that total strength. Part of that amount can be left in reserve for counter attacks, in case something is lost. On the DW side, assets would be similarly assigned to offensive or defensive missions, or left in reserve. The success or failure of the DW missions in one round will affect the available ground forces during the next round. The examples I have in mind right now are protecting/disrupting supply shipments to a base area and landing troops on a beach somewhere. There may be other mission types that work as well, or other ways for what goes on in DW to affect what is going on on land. But, I would be very hesitant to make LAM strikes a huge factor, simply because there is no real defense to them. AI SAM sites suck quite badly. I would limit GR influencing DW land targets to coastal targets that can be defended by SAM-shooting ships. Maybe a staging area for supplies at a port or something like that.

I think GR needs to push back a bit more at DW too instead of it just being a one-way relationship. There's already the airport idea, but I'm definitely up for ideas about what could be captured or blown up on land that might influence events at sea a bit. The idea I'm toying with is that certain spaces might have some sort of significance. For example, say we wanted to account for the mobility of land forces instead of just allowing them to be assigned anywhere. A small airfield might represent a hub from which troops could move to quickly. OK, that's GR affecting GR, but I'm working on it. Well, some spaces could always be dubbed to contain SSM or SAM batteries than can be blown up or captured.

[Phil21]

Hmm...GR influencing DW. I have an idea: Its just a simple and not even half finished idea, but it might help us in getting forward in the question how the two games can influence each other.

I just prepared a map to visualize what i have in mind. Its just a Map from the DW-Editor with some quick modifications made in paint (nothing else at hand right now):

http://www.commanders-academy.com/wiki/images/1/1b/2Map1.jpg

So, what can you see here. Both islands are divided into smaller fields, with a "core" - either a simple armybase, a airfield or a navalbase - in each. Fields can be either taken over by matches in GR, or in coastel regions by completing the referring objective in a DW-mission.
Now, what are the different bases good for? I dont really know yet, but there are a lot of possible things:
# Armybases are the standard way to controll a sector, they are just giving some reinforcments and the ability to defend a sector. They also allow you to slowly move troops.
# Airbases give the ability to use a P-3 in a certain area around the field (important for DW-Matches) and they increase the effectivity of your logistics. You can transfer troops from airfield to airfield and give air support (factors important for GR?)
# Navalbases, like Airbases increase your logistics but not the speed but the quantity and quality since heavy stuff like tanks can be transported much faster over sea (maybe there are generic convoys on some of the DW maps now?). They also allow you to position some more ships/subs in that region and to keep them at sea longer.

What is the scenario for this map: Team Red is trying to take over Team Blue. Red has to land as many troops in the first rounds as possible and then consolidate their bridgehead. Team blue has to gather it superior, but more scattered naval forces to keep Red from consolidating. If Red succeeds to consolidate Blue has little chances to get them back from their island. If Blue manages to keep Red from landing troops the little forces Red has left in Blues island have to be supplied via sea....and so on. Its just a quick example...nothing special.

This is just a suggestion, its far from being finished. Its just a way how it could be done. I'd be glad if you comment on this, especially if this is something you can imagine or ive im totally on the wrong track now.

Phil

[OneShot]

As for GR -> DW ... Stock GR alone has both an Airport as well as a Navy Base (incl. Subs, some sort of Warship and Freighter) so there are possibilities to blow stuff up which in turn could seriously affect DW. Like for example blowing one or more subs up in harbour which would then be out of the picture for protecting said harbour and thus enable the attacking force to invade more easily.

I don't have all maps commited to memory but with those in GR,DS & IT plus the community made stuff we should be able to have enough to allow enough interaction GR -> DW wise.

On the flipside I'd say DW missions could support GR for example by lighten up the defenses after a TLAM strike against the Airbase defenses and Troop Barracks.

I'll put some more thought into this after I got some sleep.

[subb]

Sounds good, feasible, but why settle for less (3 hours) when people are willing to give you more playing time up to 4.5 hours?

Also this opens the doors a bit wider for covert missions w/ room of escalation in MP DW, as in seal team insertion, where you are relying on stealth to reach a destination unharmed + insert team + reach safe distance + switch to GR + gain intel, blow stuff up, personnel rescue etc, + hump it back thru escalated GR defenses + switch to DW + extract seal team thru escalated DW defenses unharmed + get out alive unharmed = one heck of a mission.

We can also spin it for use of FFG and helo(insertion / extraction)

What the heck, sign me up, does GR have an M4 w iron sights? Crosshairs in FPS ruin it for me.

Seriously, this idea sounds like pwnage…. Let’s make it happen.

[Molon Labe]

A few quick responses

...About blowing stuff up unique to GR maps. At this time, this is something that can only be done in COOP mode, not adversarial. (until we get an IGOR expert on board) So unless we want to make more anti-AI missions, this might be out; or would have to be approximated by a side winning a match in that space and then you'd just assume whatever was there was demoed or captured.

Generally, I think I also need to put the kabash on any sort of substantial naval mobility accounting. That would put this in GDT-level complexity for the setup, and that's not something for which it will be easy to find someone to do. I know I don't have that sort of time.

....About GR visual interface. Standard GR is a crosshair, but some mods replace the crosshairs with reticles fitting for the weapon. I just installed CENTCOM, which uses a semi-transparent iron sight for a scopeless M4.


...about the map. That's close to what I had in mind; my thought was to have a single body of land with land forces already in contact from the beginning though, with both sides attempting to reinforce and turn the tide in their favor. I don't have any conceptual objections to having two islands though. Depends on what ends up being more practical.

[Phil21]

Generally, I think I also need to put the kabash on any sort of substantial naval mobility accounting. That would put this in GDT-level complexity for the setup, and that's not something for which it will be easy to find someone to do. I know I don't have that sort of time.


I think you are right with your point about Naval mobility consuming too much work & time. A more simplified system should work better, but then again it would be harder to integrate things like Airbases and Navalbases...I try to find something but this takes time so dont expect anything in that direction from my side atleast until tomorrow...



...about the map. That's close to what I had in mind; my thought was to have a single body of land with land forces already in contact from the beginning though, with both sides attempting to reinforce and turn the tide in their favor. I don't have any conceptual objections to having two islands though. Depends on what ends up being more practical.

The map was just a fast paint drawing taking the background of the DW-Editor, so it would be easy to modify it for using any other map. So thats no big deal, it can be completly adjusted to the concept. I prefered two different islands, but that was when i had quite a complex naval system in the back of my mind....

[Phil21]

Originally Posted by Molon Labe
Generally, I think I also need to put the kabash on any sort of substantial naval mobility accounting. That would put this in GDT-level complexity for the setup, and that's not something for which it will be easy to find someone to do. I know I don't have that sort of time.

I think you are right with your point about Naval mobility consuming too much work & time. A more simplified system should work better, but then again it would be harder to integrate things like Airbases and Navalbases...I try to find something but this takes time so dont expect anything in that direction from my side atleast until tomorrow...

Its been more than just one day but finally here is may answer...

So, i've thought about how the aspect of Navalbases and Airbases could be incuded but everytime i came to a result it was way to complex though. This seems to be a general problem. The (little) more you want it to be dynamic and realistic, the (very much) more its getting complex...

So i think its best to take the easy way, so here is my suggestion: The campaigne is divided into a certain number of rounds, each round is splitted into a DW and a GR match. (I dont talk about the GR.part here since i dont have that game/ do not really know it).

The DW-part would look like this: Every Team has a limited amount of available platforms, if one is lost, it cant be replaced that easy. What type of mission is played is chosen by the attacking Team. The attacking team changes every round, so its quite balanced. I dont know how exactly the missions would look like, because im no mission designer...

What do you think about this? Can this campaigne be realized, or should we keep it under "Brainstorming"? And who of you would like to take part (i know that my free time for this is quite short now, since my job doesnt give me much opportunity to play in the late evenings. Additionaly im sent on a course for the next two weeks starting monday, so i will be quite offline for this time...)

Phil

[Molon Labe]

Its been more than just one day but finally here is may answer...

So, i've thought about how the aspect of Navalbases and Airbases could be incuded but everytime i came to a result it was way to complex though. This seems to be a general problem. The (little) more you want it to be dynamic and realistic, the (very much) more its getting complex...

So i think its best to take the easy way, so here is my suggestion: The campaigne is divided into a certain number of rounds, each round is splitted into a DW and a GR match. (I dont talk about the GR.part here since i dont have that game/ do not really know it).

The DW-part would look like this: Every Team has a limited amount of available platforms, if one is lost, it cant be replaced that easy. What type of mission is played is chosen by the attacking Team. The attacking team changes every round, so its quite balanced. I dont know how exactly the missions would look like, because im no mission designer...

What do you think about this? Can this campaigne be realized, or should we keep it under "Brainstorming"? And who of you would like to take part (i know that my free time for this is quite short now, since my job doesnt give me much opportunity to play in the late evenings. Additionaly im sent on a course for the next two weeks starting monday, so i will be quite offline for this time...)

Phil
I like it. I have a slight difference of opinion in that I would allow multiple DW matches per round; I would let each side choose to attack if they wanted to. This goes back to my earlier thought about assigning available platforms to different tasks. More on this in a bit...

I think this is something that can be done if it's kept simple. So, the next step is to start fleshing it out into something a little more concrete. Once we have a system in place and we work out any kinks that come up when we do that, we'll have something we can offer to people to find out if there would be enough interest in it. The DW side is actually looking pretty good lately, Xfire is getting pretty solid and theres more people coming through Subsim than there were a few months ago. GR I'm not so sure about, I've played with Deathmerchant from the USVN recently but it was just 3 of us. I'm thinking 4 on 4 is about as small as you want to go for adversarial matches.

-----------
So, to make my thoughts more concrete, here is a more detailed proposal. Optional parts that make the system more complex are in italics.

For the DW system, each side would have a rather large OOB. The exact size will be meant to be large enough so that a side could lose a few fights and not end up losing the war right there. There might be reinforcements after x number of rounds if we need that to make it work. In addition to playables, the OOB would also include air defense cruisers/destroyers and amphibious transports and supply ships. If we can think of a good way to make "air support" factor into a GR match, we might also include a CSG. EDIT: The presence of a CSG could reduce the mobility of the opposing side's ground forces and prevent the use of MPAs. E.g., if no carrier is present, the opposing side can transport their troops on land vehicles (able to move 2 spaces) and do airlifts (see below). If the carrier is present, vehicles are considered to easy to spot and cannot be used, and aircraft are grounded.

Each round, the sides would assign all their platforms to different tasks. Tasks would include inserting special forces, landing troops, attacking ports or supply lines; or defending those ports/supply lines(escort)/coastal areas subject to landing. A DW match based on those attacking/defending combos should be rather easy to make quickly. Sides could even request scripted events, such as the spawning of landing craft when an amphib arrives at a designated location. The success/failure of the missions would be recorded, and any killed ships removed from the OOB. There would NOT be any accounting of loadouts or of location (beyond the fact that they were doing x this round). As an option, we might require that damaged ships are out of the fight for X number of rounds. For example, 1 round per 25%. Because there is no good way to do damage accounting, such repairs would not be optional. The repairs can take place at a shipyard located in the combat area, which means there will be an additional location for attacks to take place in. The difficulty in this is that we will need to take players' words for it as to the amount of damage to each platform. Replays can help with that a little, but replays will only display 'missile' or 'torpedo' and not show the type, so this is only so much help. I suppose repairs could also be made off-map, but at the cost of at least two additional rounds to account for transit time.

On the GR side, matches would be created based on assignment of military strength, which would be represented by a number. 1 unit of strength allows a side to attack a map space once. Alternately, 1 unit might represent one complete spawn of a GR team, or individual soldiers. This may be more useful for loss recording. Spaces can be attacked more than once in the same turn. Units not assigned to attack are left on defense. I can think of two ways to handle defense. One is for defense simply be the same as reserve. The defense/reserve can be called immediately to any space that it attacked or taken until they run out of reserves. Alternately, we would have some level of ground force mobility accounting. Ground forces would actually be assigned to map spaces, and only those in the space being attacked, or in a non-attacked space adjacent to the attacked space, would be eligible for defending that space. Units could only move so many spaces per round (probably 1) and airfields would allow for enhanced mobility (large airfield [stock GR map] can airlift to any space [C-130/para], small airfield (Island Thunder map) can airlift to a space within X radius [Helo insertion].

Only spaces adjacent to spaces held by friendly units can be attacked. If mobility accounting is used, then only spaces adjacent to where the attacking unit is located may be attacked. The exception to this rule would be if units are transported by sea. Submarines or perhaps other platforms too, by scripting, can elect to pick up 1 unit (or other amount of units corresponding to enough strength to conduct 1 attack). Amphibious ships would be able to pick up a correspondingly large number. These units could then land troops on coastal spaces in a DW match; if the landing is successful it will count as an attack of appropriate strength against that particular space. In future turns, these units must be allocated separately from the main force unless and until their beachhead is connected to friendly controlled territory. They can also be reunited with the main force by having an amphibious rescue/SOF pickup mission performed in DW. If we want tanks, then the OOB would include LSTs which could land armored units with AI troops. These units can be assigned to take over spaces; the defending side would be able to play a COOP match to stop that from happening, or to dislodge them after they take a space.

If an attack is not opposed by any defenders, then the attackers take possession of that space. If the attack is opposed, then a GR match will decide the outcome. Each attack is represented by a single Seige match in GR. The GR map used for the match will be a map assigned from the beginning to correspond with the map space being contested. Each match will have a designated # of players allowed and a designated # of respawns (GR player input requested to decide on a fair #). Note that different respawn amounts cannot be assigned to each side, so this must be standardized. There will also be a designated time limit. If they fail to win the Seige match, then if they have remaining attacking units, another GR match will begin. If they do not have additional units, then the fight is over and the map space does not change sides. If the attacking side wins the Seige match, then they take possession of that space, and the victorious unit and any other attacking units not yet used are then considered the defending units in that space. If the side that lost the space has any defending units not yet used, then it may chose to counterattack. This can go back and forth as long as a side has unused units. (Note that a unit that wins its match is not considered 'used' for these purposes, only units that lose are considered used. Thus, a single defending unit can defend against multiple attacks if it keeps winning.) If mobility accounting is used, losing units that are not wiped out are considered to have retreated to an adjacent friendly controlled space. If no space exists, they are considered captured and are removed from the OOB. Note that prison facilities exist in stock GR and in the CENTCOM mod, so we may have an option for a COOP rescue mission if this is done.
The initial OOB would give each side a certain number of units, based on having enough so that a fair amount of game time can be spent in GR right away. Any time a GR team is wiped out (match lost with all soldiers killed), that side's strength decreases by one unit. Alternately, the total number of casualties can be accounted for each match, with losses being tallied based upon either the # of spawn-teams wipes or total # of deaths. If by total deaths, then total wounded soldiers could also be accounted for; that # of units will be removed from the available forces for one round. Note that the # of troops and spawns per match cannot be changed, so any casualty accounting will be rounded down; a team that wins its match with one survivor will be back at "full strength" if it is involved in anther match that turn. The # of units available would increase based upon supply shipments arriving (ammo, fuel, food, clean socks and boots :biggrin:). Also, reinforcements may become available every X rounds which may be transported to the combat area by amphibious ships.

If we did an asymmetric Red v. Blue OOB, then Red would be given the initial advantage on the ground, but with Blue having the potential to turn the tide if it is successful in the DW realm. The Blue navy would be primarily concerned with reinforcing and rescuing the besieged troops, while the Red navy would attempt to preserve their land supremacy until it is too late for Blue to stop them.

[Phil21]

I like it. I have a slight difference of opinion in that I would allow multiple DW matches per round; I would let each side choose to attack if they wanted to. This goes back to my earlier thought about assigning available platforms to different tasks. More on this in a bit...

makes sense, so why not :biggrin:



For the DW system, each side would have a rather large OOB. The exact size will be meant to be large enough so that a side could lose a few fights and not end up losing the war right there. There might be reinforcements after x number of rounds if we need that to make it work. In addition to playables, the OOB would also include air defense cruisers/destroyers and amphibious transports and supply ships. If we can think of a good way to make "air support" factor into a GR match, we might also include a CSG.

If its not too much work to build such a map/missions, than its a great idea!



Each round, the sides would assign all their platforms to different tasks. Tasks would include inserting special forces, landing troops, attacking ports or supply lines; or defending those ports/supply lines(escort)/coastal areas subject to landing. A DW match based on those attacking/defending combos should be rather easy to make quickly. Sides could even request scripted events, such as the spawning of landing craft when an amphib arrives at a designated location. The success/failure of the missions would be recorded, and any killed ships removed from the OOB. There would NOT be any accounting of loadouts or of location (beyond the fact that they were doing x this round). As an option, we might require that damaged ships are out of the fight for X number of rounds. For example, 1 round per 25%. Because there is no good way to do damage accounting, such repairs would not be optional. The repairs can take place at a shipyard located in the combat area, which means there will be an additional location for attacks to take place in. The difficulty in this is that we will need to take players' words for it as to the amount of damage to each platform. Replays can help with that a little, but replays will only display 'missile' or 'torpedo' and not show the type, so this is only so much help. I suppose repairs could also be made off-map, but at the cost of at least two additional rounds to account for transit time.


Since it is hardly possible to determine which ship was x% damaged in game i think we should either not include this feature, or keep it really simple (e.g. damaged Units out of fight for 2 hours, larger units like Carriers etc. 3 rounds)

Dont know how reliable scripts are in DW, so maybe we need a bit testing here whether to use them or not.




Only spaces adjacent to spaces held by friendly units can be attacked. If mobility accounting is used, then only spaces adjacent to where the attacking unit is located may be attacked. The exception to this rule would be if units are transported by sea. Submarines or perhaps other platforms too, by scripting, can elect to pick up 1 unit (or other amount of units corresponding to enough strength to conduct 1 attack). Amphibious ships would be able to pick up a correspondingly large number. These units could then land troops on coastal spaces in a DW match; if the landing is successful it will count as an attack of appropriate strength against that particular space. In future turns, these units must be allocated separately from the main force unless and until their beachhead is connected to friendly controlled territory. They can also be reunited with the main force by having an amphibious rescue/SOF pickup mission performed in DW. If we want tanks, then the OOB would include LSTs which could land armored units with AI troops. These units can be assigned to take over spaces; the defending side would be able to play a COOP match to stop that from happening, or to dislodge them after they take a space.

Sounds good! I like the idea of landing forces via scripted AI vessels, although we should see if these scripts are reliable enough (so we dont waste alot of time testing new missions for the campaigne).



The initial OOB would give each side a certain number of units, based on having enough so that a fair amount of game time can be spent in GR right away. Any time a GR team is wiped out (match lost with all soldiers killed), that side's strength decreases by one unit. Alternately, the total number of casualties can be accounted for each match, with losses being tallied based upon either the # of spawn-teams wipes or total # of deaths. If by total deaths, then total wounded soldiers could also be accounted for; that # of units will be removed from the available forces for one round. Note that the # of troops and spawns per match cannot be changed, so any casualty accounting will be rounded down; a team that wins its match with one survivor will be back at "full strength" if it is involved in anther match that turn. The # of units available would increase based upon supply shipments arriving (ammo, fuel, food, clean socks and boots :biggrin:). Also, reinforcements may become available every X rounds which may be transported to the combat area by amphibious ships.

The limited number of Units in the OOB for DW sounds good to me. Since i dont really know how these things work in GR i trust your judgement what system to use :wink:



If we did an asymmetric Red v. Blue OOB, then Red would be given the initial advantage on the ground, but with Blue having the potential to turn the tide if it is successful in the DW realm. The Blue navy would be primarily concerned with reinforcing and rescuing the besieged troops, while the Red navy would attempt to preserve their land supremacy until it is too late for Blue to stop them.

So, i would say....we (almost) have our concept! Just the last few minor questions and we are done.Though we might wait for some comments from the ohters to know what they think before continuing working on the exact map etc.

Phil

[Molon Labe]

About ship damage. It is possible to determine the damage of a ship if we know what weapon hit it. Or if someone just told us. Being absolutely sure can be a problem though, it depends on the level of trust we get from people and/or if we get replays. Come to think of it, if the #of platforms aren't too high, it wouldn't be that hard for me to use event triggers to record this info. The output from those triggers would be visible in the debrief files.

I don't like damage because it's hard to track. I like damage because it means we have a use for shipyards, which are a potential target for both DW attacks and are areas of GR conquest.


About scripting DW missions. The kind of things I had in mind were pre-programming the course of AI ships, landing LSTs on the beach, or spawning landing craft or SOF rafts. That's all easy stuff that I've done before.

New idea: Some of the ground strength budget can be used to create SSM/SAM batteries in friendly controlled spaces. 1 unit = 1 battery is probably fine; doesn't seem like that would get out of control.

---------------
I'm still in the single land mass mode of thinking. Did you want to make the case for the two island option? I was thinking to move forward on this, we'd figure out the map first, then the ground force allocations, then reinforcement/supply amounts, then the DW OOB needed to sustain/oppose that... and so on.

[Phil21]

If you can handle the damage issue in the missions it would be great. And if the scripting you had in mind is easy and simple enough, why not?
I also like your idea about the SSM/SAM batteries, this would give more strategic depth, just make sure it has a proper limit.

Single land mass is ok. Im looking right now for a place on the DW world map where we could put this. IMHO the map should have: one land mass large enough for different GR missions, several more or less connected parts so that landing operations are a good alternative to land operations and a large portion of free ocean so we are not limited to coastel operations. Something like a large island with two states on it, maybe a few additional tiny islands...thats what i had in mind, but i would go with everything else too.

Phil

[Molon Labe]

For Red v. Blue type scenarios, I had Sri Lanka and Taiwan in mind already. Both have coastlines that have deep water, making it easy to place naval bases there. They would already have been invaded by Red with Blue land forces holding out, waiting for the cavalry to arrive and save their asses.

You're right about needing incentives to go for the landing. This is all going to be caught up in what strategic objectives are located in different areas, so let's talk about Strategic targets...

Naval bases: I'm thinking 2 per side. This is where supply ships (Cargo ships) dock to increase that sides supplies. I was thinking these should very much be in the rear, but spread out so that they require separate defense priorities. 2 means that there's more to defend and that you can afford to lose one. A portion of a side's supply reserves can be located here, represented by DW buildings that are eligible to be destroyed.

Air Bases: 1, maybe 2 per side. Centrally located. P-3s and possibly C-130s (airmobile) fly out of here. If we want this damageable in DW, then we move it near the coast.

Air strips: # depends on size of map; at least 2 per side. These create mobility nodes from which forces can be transported around by chopper; allows rapid redeployment in response to attacks and to get units to the front quickly. They'll be scattered around the map.

Shipyards: 1 per side. Placement in a semi-forward area, making it a lucrative target.

POW Camps: 1 per side, about as far forward as the shipyard. Where captured units go, duh.

Supply bases: These can include Naval Bases, Airstrips, and Airfields, and also separate bases. Capturing these will result in the transfer of ground forces power from one side to another. If we are not using mobility accounting, then there would just be some % that automatically goes into each base, say up to 25% of the total forces divided between the bases. If we are using mobility accounting, then we could use the same allocations, but losses but be distributed to specific units. I would simply let the losing side determine where those losses would occur (they decide who gets the fuel/ammo and who gets stiffed.)

"Supply lines:" As mentioned in an earlier post, even if mobility accounting is not used, ground forces cannot be allocated from the main pool to defend or attack from spaces that are not connected with the main body. Spaces that are cut off have only the troops that were landed there/were there when the connecting space fell. Those units are at risk of being captured or wiped out unless the "supply line" is restored. If mobility accounting is used, obviously, to get units into that space they must be able to move there, and that won't happen until they can retake the connecting spaces or air drop reinforcements. Spaces that have SAMs installed in them may not be overflown for airlift purposes. :biggrin:

These should hopefully provide plenty of reasons to land troops behind the front lines.

[Phil21]

Short answer since i dont have much time:

Sri Lanka is afaik too large for one standard DWmap, so we would have to split them. Haven't checked Taiwan yet, but it sounds better. So the next step would be to create some kind of ALPHA-Version of the map we want to use.
As for the rest of your concept i totally agree with you and i would vote for keeping most of the itallic 'optional' stuff.

Phil

[TLAM Strike]

If you can handle the damage issue in the missions it would be great. And if the scripting you had in mind is easy and simple enough, why not?
I also like your idea about the SSM/SAM batteries, this would give more strategic depth, just make sure it has a proper limit.

Single land mass is ok. Im looking right now for a place on the DW world map where we could put this. IMHO the map should have: one land mass large enough for different GR missions, several more or less connected parts so that landing operations are a good alternative to land operations and a large portion of free ocean so we are not limited to coastel operations. Something like a large island with two states on it, maybe a few additional tiny islands...thats what i had in mind, but i would go with everything else too.

Phil

Try the Persian Gulf area. There are a bunch of small islands that Iran occupies (the UAE claims some them) plus two decent sized islands (Bahrain and Quasim) and two penisulas (Qatar and UAE/Oman). The waters are quite shallow though taking away some of the advantage subs have.

I'm working on a base map for the area which includes all the air bases and naval bases in the region. It should be done soon so take a peek at its posted.

[Molon Labe]

We don't want to go too small, or else you'll have a huge number of entities in DW all piled on top of each other. I wanted to keep the "offensive" and "defensive" zones separate enough to avoid total chaos.

[Molon Labe]

Running with an asymetric Red v. Blue over Sri Lanka...

I made a map that's split into roughly hexagonal spaces, but with them contorted a bit to keep certain terrain together and to prevent little 'sliver' spaces from occuring. It's about 10 spaces long (N-S) and 5-6 wide at the widest parts (E-W). Blue controls all territory from the bottom to 5 rows up. (about half the length, but easily a majority of total land mass.)

http://home.insightbb.com/%7Enotenoughsand/SriLanka_bases.jpg
The squares are naval bases and shipyards, the crosses are airbases, the large dots are airstrips, and the small dots are supply bases.

My initial thought was to give Red 20 units and Blue 10 units to start, and to have 6 units added by way of supply shipments per turn. Assuming the GR matches cut evenly both ways, and nothing in DW happens to change this, Red will win this fight in about 5-6 turns. If that seems like a fair setup, the next thing to figure out is how to determine reinforcement levels and the DW OOB to make the fight on land end up about a stalemate with equal DW performances and to tilt towards Blue if they start cleaning up on the sea. I also need to talk to some GR players though, to get a feel for just how many matches should be played per round; in this setup, its in the 10-15 range. (Each lasting only a few minutes though, they are not 2-6 hrs like DW matches!)

[Phil21]

Looks great so far. Maybe you could add some colored lines for the actual frontline, but thats just details...


My thoughts:
Reinforcments in DW for Red could be two or three convoys from the continent to the nearest harbour (via random waypoints). These convoys would contain only merchants (as long as none of Reds few starting units would be assigned to them), so a P3 could detect them and link their positions to some Blue surface or subsurface group to finish them of. Each lost ship would cut the reinforcments for the next round.
This would bring blue in need of doing a lot of long reconnaissance missions with their P3s instead of hunting subs. Reds primary targets would be the airfields then, to strip blue of an effective way to locate their convoys.

Blue reinforcments via sea would be convoys coming from every in the world, but not their neighbourhood (because blue gets help from countries on other continents)... so they would take some time. Blue would be without reinforcments for the first few rounds giving Red the ability to concentrate on military targets like bases etc. Successfully doing so would decrease blues chances of getting a convoy home, because since they are international they would fear to be attacked if blue lacks naval supperioraty in the region and - of course - blue has less units to defend them. They would be some easy prey for Reds few subs...

Phil

[TLAM Strike]

Looks great so far. Maybe you could add some colored lines for the actual frontline, but thats just details...


My thoughts:
Reinforcments in DW for Red could be two or three convoys from the continent to the nearest harbour (via random waypoints). These convoys would contain only merchants (as long as none of Reds few starting units would be assigned to them), so a P3 could detect them and link their positions to some Blue surface or subsurface group to finish them of. Each lost ship would cut the reinforcments for the next round.
This would bring blue in need of doing a lot of long reconnaissance missions with their P3s instead of hunting subs. Reds primary targets would be the airfields then, to strip blue of an effective way to locate their convoys.

Blue reinforcments via sea would be convoys coming from every in the world, but not their neighbourhood (because blue gets help from countries on other continents)... so they would take some time. Blue would be without reinforcments for the first few rounds giving Red the ability to concentrate on military targets like bases etc. Successfully doing so would decrease blues chances of getting a convoy home, because since they are international they would fear to be attacked if blue lacks naval supperioraty in the region and - of course - blue has less units to defend them. They would be some easy prey for Reds few subs...

Phil

Not giving the convoy escort would be bad with a capital B. If the P-3 detects it they could attack with their own missiles and even do a few 1000lb mine runs WWII style. A single P-3 could take out something like 3-5 merchantmen. Maybe give the convoy a small AAW escort that sticks with them so the Red side can't take that ship and send it against the blue side when its the cargo ships deliver the goods and head back.

[Phil21]

Not giving the convoy escort would be bad with a capital B. If the P-3 detects it they could attack with their own missiles and even do a few 1000lb mine runs WWII style. A single P-3 could take out something like 3-5 merchantmen. Maybe give the convoy a small AAW escort that sticks with them so the Red side can't take that ship and send it against the blue side when its the cargo ships deliver the goods and head back.

Your are right with your point about the P3 taking out the merchantmen itself, haven't really thought of that.
The Problem will be to find aa AAW escort that keeps off a P3 and most of its missiles (what about torpedos?), but is vulnerable to other ASM like TASM or Harpoon (or euqivalent russian ASM). My idea was to use the large range of these weapons far beyond the senor range of their carrying platform. If the subs would have to go near to the convoys to use their torps, they would need very much time.

An alternative: After initial detection is given early enough one of the 'attack missions' available for Blue/Red would be to attack this convoy (giving a rough position & course/speed from the P3 of the last round). This would solve the problem of the P3 attacking the Convoy itself and could be explained with something like this: Since Blue has very few operational P3 at the beginning it is important for them to stay operational, so no risks like attacking anything - even if it is only poorly escorted - are taken.

Another thing: as i mentioned before, it looks like im completly cut off from internet communication since im sent on a course for the next two weeks, so this is likely to be the last post im doing for this time in this forum :damnit:. Just wanted to let you know this, so you dont wait for any responses you expect from etc...just in case their is something like a poll on this or any other subject.

Phil

[Molon Labe]

Regarding Red's supply lines... its got two naval bases ready to accept shipments. The supply ships could just be periodic AI spawns or part of the the side's OOB. I like OOB better, but spawns are a bit simpler and are fine too. And the question of what is defending the supply line is actually quite simple...whatever units Red assigns to protect the shipments are protecting the shipments. :wink:

[Molon Labe]

Your are right with your point about the P3 taking out the merchantmen itself, haven't really thought of that.
The Problem will be to find aa AAW escort that keeps off a P3 and most of its missiles (what about torpedos?), but is vulnerable to other ASM like TASM or Harpoon (or euqivalent russian ASM). My idea was to use the large range of these weapons far beyond the senor range of their carrying platform. If the subs would have to go near to the convoys to use their torps, they would need very much time.
That's not hard at all. The OHP, for one, I think should appear in limited numbers on Red side to give them the ability to steer formations. Also, most of India's surface ships as modeled have low to moderate missile defense capability. 2 or 3 together can be tough to crack, but on their own the P-3 would tear them up with SLAM-ERs quite easily.



An alternative: After initial detection is given early enough one of the 'attack missions' available for Blue/Red would be to attack this convoy (giving a rough position & course/speed from the P3 of the last round). This would solve the problem of the P3 attacking the Convoy itself and could be explained with something like this: Since Blue has very few operational P3 at the beginning it is important for them to stay operational, so no risks like attacking anything - even if it is only poorly escorted - are taken.Do we need to do anything like that? If the P-3 is on site, the other attacking forces will get its link data. If it isn't, they don't and have to use their own sensors. Since the attacking side will have a pretty good idea where the supply ships are headed (naval base), I don't see any fairness problem with not having advance information. If a side just wants to RTB the P-3 at the beginning after getting detecting the targets, and doesn't want to waste a players time to fly that mission, that's fine too... That can be done with waypoints or triggers and scripts.

[TLAM Strike]

That's not hard at all. The OHP, for one, I think should appear in limited numbers on Red side to give them the ability to steer formations. Also, most of India's surface ships as modeled have low to moderate missile defense capability. 2 or 3 together can be tough to crack, but on their own the P-3 would tear them up with SLAM-ERs quite easily. Maybe a Charlies F. Adams DDG or one of the French SM-1 equipped ships.

[Maxed2Death]

Hmm....Thanks for pointing me to this Molon. Damned good idea ...I like it a lot :smile:

I will have another read of this thread later, and get my brainstorming brain out of its' box, and see if I can't come up with some suggestions.

Just so you know I played GR AWf and enjoyed that too. I guess you guys are on the second game.

If its ok I think I might mention this over at DW PL.MP site. I am sure they might be interested in something like this.

[Molon Labe]

I'm actually talking about the original GR here.

I don't have GRAW and I don't know too much about it, but if it is more of an infantry simulation than it is doomer FPS, and if using it would allow more people to participate in the GR component, then I'd consider using it instead.

Another possibility is dropping GR and coming up with a system to abstract what happens on land. I mean, we are DW players here...I can only think of 3 GR players that visit this forum.

The DW.pl guys are a good group, if they were interested in doing something like this or had any ideas, I'd be happy to hear them.

[OneShot]

As for GRAW ... both GRAW and its successor GRAW 2 are IMHO no use within our parameters. You can only have small groups of max 3 or 4 people online and I'm not so sure how good the COOP mode / mission editor is.

My suggestion would be to stick to GR (incl. its official AddOns and whatever Mods we need). Or as ML suggested to abstract the action on land based on some rules we create.

Aside from Tactical Shooters like GR we might consider using Strategy Games like Combat Mission:Shock Force or something in that category to fight the land battles.

[Molon Labe]

Good thinking. I'm downloading the demo now, between it and the manual I should get a pretty good idea if this could work. I like what I see on the webpage though. I'm pretty sure Luftwolf plays this too, so we may have an expert to lean on. Have you been playing it too or is it just something you've heard of?

[OneShot]

I have GRAW for the PC and I prolly buy GRAW2 somewhen in the near future. So far I can only speak for the SP mode as I have yet to play GRAW online but I know that the number of people who can play together has been reduced to about 3 or 4 (in one team - I guess you can have up to 8 in ADV mode).

As far as that part goes, GRAW2 hasnt made an improvement ... at least to my knowledge.

Luftwolf only has GRAW/GRAW2 for the XBox 360 ... I think there are a few differences between the PC and XBox version.

[Molon Labe]

I meant CM. :biggrin: Read most of the manual today, and it looks very impressive in terms of realism and in mission design.

[OneShot]

Luftwolf definitly plays the old WW2 Combat Mission titles ... but I'm not sure if he plays the new one CM:SF ... but then maybe he does. I do have CM:SF (but to be honest havent played that much with it yet) and with a capable mission creator it might very well be suited at least within the constraints of the game (only certain units available) meaning we cant simulate everything on land with it.

We might even consider a mix of 2 or more land-warfare games like CMSF and GR to deal with certain situations ... for example GR for a small SF attack or recon mission against a specific target and CMSF for platoon and company size actions.

That would leave the question if you would want to simulate anything above company level anyway.

[Molon Labe]

I think with CM I'd try to figure out what the US forces likely to respond would be, and base the US OOB off that. Red's OOB would then be chosen so that it's large enough to get the job done unless the US is able to deliver most of its forces.

I'm only beginning to grasp what CM can do and what it can't, but it does look promising. It has an air support feature, which could be activated if a side has a CSG in the area, allowing DW events to more directly impact the CM world. There are options to control the amount of ammo available to the forces, which we can vary based on successful supply shipments. And even if there are an insufficient number of off-the-shelf maps appropriate for use, there is a powerful editor that allows the building of maps from scratch. Also, because its a simulation on the operational level, there's no need for abstraction from forces landed to forces available in game. All that needs to be abstracted is when those forces go from existing to becoming available for a commander to deploy--that can be done according to a set schedule (carrier group arrives in X turns, land forces stationed at base/MPC A arrive in theatre in Y turns, etc.).

I am concerned though, that Red forces might be too weak to put up a good fight even against a small US force. But hopefully the best Red units are quite good and the "soft" factors can be used to create a good matchup. It also appears that red and blue forces can be mixed and matched for MP purposes, which is important because only US forces in CM can call in air support. I would strongly consider putting JTACs on the Red side if that's possible.

[Phil21]

I just read your very....late AAR and some questions came into my mind:

1. How large (in DW dimensions) was that conflictarea? Was it 'just' one DW-map (i used them for my earlier images) or were that larger areas?

2. Is there a way to read out the replay.dat? I stumbled upon a thread at subsim where someone asked about it, but no answer was given IIRC.
Or is there some statement by SCS which code they used for the replay?

3. How were the operations taken out. Was there a single MP-Mission for everey battle or was there only one Session takingout all of the operations?

I am asking this because im thinking of something how to make things easier for the DW-part of the campaign.
If all the operations were in (for large conflicts) relativ small area for DW-Missions, then we could use the replay (which contains all the necessary information) to read out the results (if a tool exists).
If not, AAR would still be easier to made, since you only have one replay to watch (with Show Truth).

For making the missions, i have found a tool which generates relativ simple MP Sub-vs-Sub missions in predefined areas with adjustable conditions. Maybe such a tool could be extended to support the editing of Missions (by giving the frame for each turn which only needs to be adjusted).
Sure, this is very optimistic, but even if only parts of this can be realized it would be a help.

[Molon Labe]

I just read your very....late AAR and some questions came into my mind:

1. How large (in DW dimensions) was that conflictarea? Was it 'just' one DW-map (i used them for my earlier images) or were that larger areas? The AO was the Caribbean Sea, generally bounded by Nicaragua to the west, Cuba to the north, Colombia to the east, and the central american coast to the south. There is a map on the AAR page which should clarify.



2. Is there a way to read out the replay.dat? I stumbled upon a thread at subsim where someone asked about it, but no answer was given IIRC.
Or is there some statement by SCS which code they used for the replay? Just mark it read only, play another mission, exit, and the after action replay will display the preserved replay data instead of the data for the current mission. Works best if you use the same map as you used when the preserved replay was created.



3. How were the operations taken out. Was there a single MP-Mission for everey battle or was there only one Session takingout all of the operations?
There was an elaborate (and very time consuming) system of mobility accounting that was used to determine when platforms were in close enough proximity to detect another. If a detection was made, the relevant side/player was informed and given the option to engage. If an engage order was received, a DW map was created reflecting the tactical situation those platforms were in, and a match was scheduled.



I am asking this because im thinking of something how to make things easier for the DW-part of the campaign.
If all the operations were in (for large conflicts) relativ small area for DW-Missions, then we could use the replay (which contains all the necessary information) to read out the results (if a tool exists).
If not, AAR would still be easier to made, since you only have one replay to watch (with Show Truth). While not completely infeasible, this approach has significant limitations. MP sessions in general are limited to 2-3 hours, after that it becomes very impractical, especially when a large number of players are needed. So, you'd need to have all the units participating in the action to be within a relatively small area to begin with. You would also have to live with the fact that units not participating in the action would be revealed to the opposing side at the end of the match. If you didn't include those units on the map, then you would need an alternative system of mobility accounting to use during the times they were not in combat, and in that case you're back where you started.

That being said, I think there is a very real possibility that DW, or maybe even Fleet Command, in SP mode, might be used by the GM to track the movement of ships, potentially eliminating the need for a hex system and allowing more realistic movement, timekeeping and detection systems to be implemented. It might even require less communication between the GM and fleet commanders because standing transit orders would be easier to implement. Providing the teams with a current map of their positions and reported contacts would be as simple as running DW/FC twice (once on each side) and taking a screenshot, saving some of the GM's time as well.

In fact, I'm going to post some of those ideas in the GDT forum while they're fresh in my head.


For making the missions, i have found a tool which generates relativ simple MP Sub-vs-Sub missions in predefined areas with adjustable conditions. Maybe such a tool could be extended to support the editing of Missions (by giving the frame for each turn which only needs to be adjusted).
Sure, this is very optimistic, but even if only parts of this can be realized it would be a help. A tool like that could be of use to make some matches more dynamic, provided that its use would yield a tactical situation consistent with the situation created by the players.

[TLAM Strike]

For ground battles 'Steal Panthers: Main Battle Tank" could be considered since it has a massive database of units however the graphics are dated. But on the plus side its opearting requirements are low, it has a mission and map editor and its free.

[Molon Labe]

Well, I got the hang of the CM demo and I'm impressed as hell with it. And the Syrian forces are adequate to take on the US units, you just have to use different tactics and be ready to accept casualties.

Definitely worth considering...

[Phil21]

Ok, the discussion moved from combining two games to reducing the workload for a campaign. But some questions here are not answered, too. (I'm writing this under the assumption that we take the more 'less persisten/dynamic turn-based system', meaning fixed turns with relativ determined possiblities for each site.)

I don't know how well suited CM is for the landpart since i didn't have the time to try the demo, yet. So here is just a bit about the DW-part of it:

Earlier we talked about that the conflict should be rather small, regional. If we keep it in the size of a DW-Map (as some older maps on page 1&2 show) we would still have an area some hundreds of miles across, but with the advantage of using a single map. Then we could use a template with almost all the fixed installations and some random merchant traffic, patrol traffic. Of course this implies giving up some of the mobility/detection accounting, since it would complicate the transits and missions.
So there would only be the choice for the attacking site where to strike with which force....and for the defending site where to post its defenses or counterattack.

So, is this the current situation or do you want the more persistent way?

[Molon Labe]

There wouldn't really be any mobility accounting at all going on here, at least not for naval forces. All that complicated stuff is cut out. Here, the platforms are just ordered on missions, e.g. attack/defend X. Units that are assigned to the same objectives will end up in fights against each other. I guess this more or less means that it is assumed that all naval forces in theatre can reach their objectives during whatever unit of time a turn represents.

There might be some sort of mobility accounting with land forces, it depends whether that corner should be cut too. I'm guessing that if we use CM instead of GR for the land component, mobility accounting would probably NOT be done. The sides would just bid whatever units they wanted for a contested space, which would then be the units placed in the CM scenario when it's time to fight it out.

[Phil21]

There wouldn't really be any mobility accounting at all going on here, at least not for naval forces. All that complicated stuff is cut out. Here, the platforms are just ordered on missions, e.g. attack/defend X. Units that are assigned to the same objectives will end up in fights against each other. I guess this more or less means that it is assumed that all naval forces in theatre can reach their objectives during whatever unit of time a turn represents.


Well, you could implement TLAM Strikes idea of large sectors. Movement would follow some simple and abstract rules. Here is an example for this:
Surface crafts:
Surface units can perform the following tasks:
1. ASW-patrol/search: Units search for submarines in the sector they are in (detection is calculated with %-chance for detecting the sub, depending on searching platform and hunted platform)
2. Attack: either attack enemy surface units in an adjacent sector by moving into that sector, or (counter-)attack units coming/being into your sector.
3. Escort: Unit escorts either merchants an that area ( If a sub attacks a merchant, the unit is near the attacked vessel e.g. forming a convoy with others...) or forms a group with other units.
4. 'Guard': e.g. CSG could controll airspace in this sector - maybe even in the adjacent sectors - rendering P-3 operations impossible for the enemy, ASW-units do ASW-patrols... (only for larger units like carriers or groups with different types of units)
5. Move: from one sector to another (if there are no enemy forces else they would engage each other like in point 2)
6. Land attack: when using a template for landbases etc. you could fire cruise missiles at land targets. if they hit something important (like airfields, etc.) its reflected in the next round.

submarines:
1. patrol sector: generic merchant traffic is known, %-chance to detect enemy submarines (low), single units (med) and battle groups (high).
2. transit: sub moves from one sector to another adjacent one. The sector you arrive in is searched, but with a decreased chance relativ to 'patrol sector'.
3. Attack: like surface 2
4. Land Attack: like surface 6
5. Escort: like surface 3

Aircover, especially P-3 operations would come from airfield on land. A P-3 on airfield X could search either all the adjacent sectors with lower chances or only a single adjacent one with higher chances.

If there is some sort of action, e.g. sub found an enemy unit in its sector and chose to attack, a mission is generated with the given template but only with the military units of the given sector.
Each full turn is diveded into two parts: Movement and attacks by side A / B. Every unit has to be moved or assigned to a mission, after that the other side has its turn. After every full turn things like intelligence and results are given to the sides or are published completly.

This is only a quick thought of how such rules could look like, but i think they are much easier to apply than a persistent system. Though it would still not account supplies like ammo & fuel or damage taken in prior battles.



There might be some sort of mobility accounting with land forces, it depends whether that corner should be cut too. I'm guessing that if we use CM instead of GR for the land component, mobility accounting would probably NOT be done. The sides would just bid whatever units they wanted for a contested space, which would then be the units placed in the CM scenario when it's time to fight it out.

You could also use a simpified accounting with (maybe smaller) sectors: motorized units could travel two sectors, infantery only one. Airfields could transport units from one airfield to another in a round...

[Molon Labe]

It depends on just how much work we want this to be. Once you start doing mobility accounting, that itself requires some admin, and with it also comes loadout accounting and the admin that comes with that. And you need detection rules. And a feedback and reporting system.

On the land side of things, their equivalent of loadout accounting would be ammo levels, which would definitely be a good thing to have if we used CMSF. Ammo levels can be adjusted in the editor for those units (not possible in GR!), and this of course is a factor that can be influenced by events at sea. Again, though, a question of complexity. It wouldn't be so bad if ammo shortages were force-wide instead of specific to platoons (or whatever unit is tracked).

[Phil21]

It depends on just how much work we want this to be. Once you start doing mobility accounting, that itself requires some admin, and with it also comes loadout accounting and the admin that comes with that. And you need detection rules. And a feedback and reporting system.


Well, we could drop the loadout accounting, this would save a lot of work for the admins/missioncreators. Feedback would be the debrief.txt from Dangerous Waters. It should contain all the battle information we need (who was killed by who, neutral ships destroyed, scripts, triggers) and its a simple to read textfile.

Detection rules can be kept quite simple. "P-3 has 50%/20% Chance to find a SSN in its Sector while doing ASW-search in one sector/multiple sectors" for example.If there is a sub the admins rolls a dice...

But the easiest way would still be to drop the entire mobility/loadout accounting and to keep only the generell unit accounting.

[Molon Labe]

Well, we could drop the loadout accounting, this would save a lot of work for the admins/missioncreators.
IMO, you either treat them as if they can leave and reload between battles, or you treat them as being deployed with whatever they've got. I can't accept a world in which units magically refresh and change their loadouts at sea whenever they wish.



Feedback would be the debrief.txt from Dangerous Waters. It should contain all the battle information we need (who was killed by who, neutral ships destroyed, scripts, triggers) and its a simple to read textfile. I meant feedback from detections, failed searches, that sort of thing. The original concept doesn't require any information to be given to the players during the turns, IIRC... although it's possible that on some level where will be some maritime reconaisance of CSGs (if present) and ESGs/supply convoys. So some feedback is probably necessary no matter what.... but when you're tracking things in space-time, more information has to be given to the player... maps, for example, take a bit of time to prepare and post.



Detection rules can be kept quite simple. "P-3 has 50%/20% Chance to find a SSN in its Sector while doing ASW-search in one sector/multiple sectors" for example.If there is a sub the admins rolls a dice...
True enough. Assuming we can live with the realism vs. complexity balance that we end up with anyways, which we won't know until we actually make those rules and see what sacrifices are involved.

[Phil21]

IMO, you either treat them as if they can leave and reload between battles, or you treat them as being deployed with whatever they've got. I can't accept a world in which units magically refresh and change their loadouts at sea whenever they wish.


I don't know how complex it is to specify a loadout for a vessel in the editor, but i know it can be quite complex to get all the information regarding the used weapons after the match (i'm thinking of a SH3 online-campaign and how we had to keep track of the sunk tonnage, earned points and how they were invested in new subs etc. until someone with skills in creating databases came along and built one for us). If we can't find a way to solve this i would go for the simpler way, no mobility/loadout accounting for naval vessels. It will be getting more complex when all the details need to be specified, so keeping it simpler is probably better way...though we would lose an important aspect.



I meant feedback from detections, failed searches, that sort of thing. The original concept doesn't require any information to be given to the players during the turns, IIRC... although it's possible that on some level where will be some maritime reconaisance of CSGs (if present) and ESGs/supply convoys. So some feedback is probably necessary no matter what.... but when you're tracking things in space-time, more information has to be given to the player... maps, for example, take a bit of time to prepare and post.

Hm...true. Every action taken by one side will likely give new information to them, so they have to react to them. Making all the decisions before could solve this, but you would loose alot of the tactical depth since you can't react spontaniously. But also here: dropping mobility accounting would also decrease this problem alot....