GHQ Campaign

[fullmetaljacket]

As always there is several of us in the northern Indiana group that would be interested in joining in on the campaign. Just let me know what when and where or what needs to be done. At this time I'm pumping out tanks and units for little wars in april for JB's game he is holding.

fullmetaljacket

[jb]

Gentlemen Mk1,Will, and FMJ,
Thanks for the replies. I'm sure there is plenty of interest for a miniture campaign. What needs to be done right now is to know what specific interest anybody would have in it.
Mk1, I know you have the forces you stated,and Will interest in N.Africa plays right in there.
So far we are considering 1941. The idea is that we have a few theaters of operation. Each theater should be operated by theater (2)commanders. These commanders would coordinate battles that develope in their theaters and report results. A theater commander could have several different "clubs" to coordinate these battles,maybe even one club. Keep in mind that a "club" would consist of two sides or opponents.
Maps of theaters would be developed by me and forwarded to the theater coordinaters.
Cama is (has) putting up a website to use for the campaign. He has got a recruiting site and other great things on it. He will let us know when it is up and running
We also want to devise a very simple system that would bring replacements,i.e. troops,supplies,etc to the theater commanders.
Right now I really don't have any intention of mapping 2/3 of the world using any program. I will use real countries and grid them. I don't really want to have hundreds of grids in a given theater (excluding the Naval). The grids will be rather general with possibly (possibly) smaller grids within. The grids will contain certain terrain feature to define it as a general terrain type. For instance mountainous,jungle,desert,developed,somewhat developed,etc. If a battle is about to happen or recon forces want a look in the same area, a map with the terrain types will be produced. These more specified terrain maps will then be put in a data base. This is just in case a later battle happens in the same area.
Another thing that Cama and discussed is using GHQ's micro Amour the game as the campaign basis rules. These are just a general idea right now. if any of you have something to add lets hear it.
Thanks.
JB

[1ComOpsCtr]

KISS... "Keep it Simple Stupid" should be the code by which a campaign is run.

Using an existing system, like the "DAK-2" game or "Eastern Front" makes a lot of sense especially if the participants have "real lives" and can't spend hours doing book keeping or making entries in journals or long e-mail AARs.

One thing Games Workshop did that made their campaign system work is that they gave a venue for the games and let the individual gamers conduct the battles and submit a victory notification. That seemed to work as well as can be expected for a world wide campaign participated by many, many gamers.

I might suggest a modification to their system using the point system from the rules based on the "cost of victory". How much did it cost for the winning side to win the battle - vs - how much did it cost for the side that lost to do so...

Will

[jb]

KISS... "Keep it Simple Stupid" should be the code by which a campaign is run.

Using an existing system, like the "DAK-2" game or "Eastern Front" makes a lot of sense especially if the participants have "real lives" and can't spend hours doing book keeping or making entries in journals or long e-mail AARs.

One thing Games Workshop did that made their campaign system work is that they gave a venue for the games and let the individual gamers conduct the battles and submit a victory notification. That seemed to work as well as can be expected for a world wide campaign participated by many, many gamers.

I might suggest a modification to their system using the point system from the rules based on the "cost of victory". How much did it cost for the winning side to win the battle - vs - how much did it cost for the side that lost to do so...

Will

KISS,yes that will be the guiding key word for this project. Anything that gets too complicated will chase away most participants rather quick.
I'm not familiar with either of the two above "systems". If you count a third,Eastern Front from 30 years ago, I am familiar with that. I don't want it even that complicated.
A forementioned point system will be neccessary, especially for creating and refiting combat units. I did glance through the DAK-2 site you linked. I will really need to look at it more close to see if could shed some ideas. Thanks for that link.
JB

[dougeagle]

Not too sound so naive, but what set of rules would be used with this campaign?

[1ComOpsCtr]

GHQ rules have a basic point system.

Using the same basic rules allows decisions and playing constraints to be uniform across the whole range of theaters and time periods.

The most successful examples I can think of off hand is the Warhammer 40K campaigns that are conducted on a "world scale" both in the scope of the campaign and the level of participation by players, and are based on the Warhammer 40K rules set.

We here in the St. Louis area plan to use the GHQ rules set within the framework of the DAK-2 board game system for the whole North African Campaign. The great advantage of using the existing Theater level game is that it provides details of the units, supplies, and replacements, etc... allowing overall commanders to conduct general movement to indicate encounters, and the local commanders (gamers) to pick the encounter they wish to game in miniature. The results of the local games can be fed into an overall victory point track which will influence things like replacements, supply, and morale.

But those are just my simple minded ramblings...

Will

[av8rmongo]

The idea of a grand campaign appeals to me but I don't do WWII on land (No philosophical reason, just financial). I do however game 1/2400 WWII naval. How do you see that fitting in?

Pail

[1ComOpsCtr]

In the Med Naval played almost as important a part as the land Army. Supply and replacement equipment was the name of the game.

Naval players for the Med will have almost as much work as the land players.

Will

[fullmetaljacket]

Another thought to think about that would be to get a spreadsheet list of all people that would play in the campaign. I have a excel spreadsheet that lists all my GHQ armor name, ghq number, and quanity. that way who ever is in charge would have a master list of all the units that everyone has. If need be send me a PM and i can send you a copy of my list as an example. All that is needed is excel which most computers ship with at this time.

Also i like the idea of differenet regions of the north american continent. i.e. Chicago northern indiana area being italy or western europe, canada eastern europe and russia. this way you set aside one day a month to play the games. Each region having a overall commander for each side. then he could have sub commanders. One game a month will allow for sides to get map movement. battles completed, and reinforcements issued. the over all commanders would be in charge or map movements, issuing of new units or reinforcements etc. As well as taking charge of units also in a battle. then if need be we could have a system set up that transfering a panzer unit from one region to another would take maybe two months to complete the travel, and you could also have a die rule for certain events that could take place. I.E. air attacks(depending on time from of the war.) train break downs extending travel time, partasian attacks you get the general idea, and that could be done with a simple die rule and then the overall game master notifying the respected sides.

Are we talking a total war ie naval, air, and land? If so i saw a set used last year for air to air combat kind of simple and nice to use. just my two cents worth and suggestions.

Fullmetaljacket

[kgpanzer]

This is something I would be interested in..count me in. BTW has it be decided on what time era will be done
Ar

[1ComOpsCtr]

I think it would be a big mistake to limit what part of the campaign a certain portion of the country or continent could participate in... WE ARE LOOKING TO INCLUDE AS MANY POTENTIAL GAMERS AS POSSIBLE... Don't limit interest by limiting a region to a particular place.

I have armies in several areas... If the Midwest is limited to France or Libya quite frankly you can count me out!

Anyone anywhere should be able to fight varying sized games, within the time period being fought at the time, in any theater of the campaign as long as they follow the rules and use appropriate equipment for the period.

When we are doing the first half of 1940 any group of players should be able to fight any Theater of the war as long as the equipment and OB closely duplicate the period. When the second half of 1940 comes along same applies. WITHIN REASON!!! The Germans can't use Tigers in 1940 or 1941. The Allies can't use Pershings prior to '45 unless we include "development" in the campaign which I believe is not a good idea.

The idea is to be "ALL INCLUSIVE", not EXCLUSIVE.

Will

[jb]

A lot of good ideas, this is helping point things in the right direction.
To get as many players involved is a capitol idea. The only problem that I've realised about this is where to put who where. For instance N Africa, if everyone wants to play the Afrika Korps. I know there is a possibility of DAK having more than they really had. Still, if the DAK only had several small divisions we might run into too many wanting to join their ranks. I can only think that for starters We need to have everybody sign for one nationality,a first,second,and third choice of theater. This will be in the recruiting section of the website. Once the rosters are filled we will have to assign. As for the method of assigning? Don't know specifically yet.
As for you Naval guys,yes, you are needed. We are going to need players for the Atlantic,and the Medditerranian. These are vital due to the fact of supplies for theaters. These supplies relate to points. These points will be on ships that are in turn part of convoys. Need I say more for you strategists.
As for air power the only thing I can think of now is using the Naval version of a game I now use. I am open for ideas.
Keep the ideas coming,and your eyes open for the website. We will probably start recruiting ASAP,and see where we can go from there.
JB

[Mk 1]

I can see the potential for complexity growing here, as we consider how to allow any gamers anywhere to fight any battle they want, yet try to keep to a consolidated stategic cause-and-effect campaign flow.

But I think it can be done, and can be managed, with a bit of care.

One model I would propose for examination is the WW2 OnLine massive multiplayer online game. They run campaigns that start at May, 1940, with thousands of participants in something like 16 different countries IIRC.

It is a computer battlefield, a first person shooter game, and a for-profit fee-supported enterprise, so we should not expect to pick up too much from it that reads directly on our undertaking. But if we look at the strategic level of the game, I think we may get some usable insights.

There is only one "map". It is published for all players to see. There is a high command on each side (in the case of WW2 OnLine, there is a German, French, AND British high command). The high commands make decisions regarding factory outputs and R&D expenditures (to bring new weapons into the game sooner vs. later). They also assign areas of operation to the various brigades, which have their own command staffs. Brigade commands assign objectives and communicate to the troops (players who log in to get a little action), calling for attacks on a town, or for defense of a bridge, or whatever. Usually when they set up a new objective, they assign an Officer in Charge (OIC) for that undertaking, who will coordinate players in the game. With the objective and OIC identified, individual players with some rank can set up missions into which any players can spawn.

We could do something with some similar layering, although perhaps not as extensive (nor real-time). A theater map. A commander (or command staff) for each participating nation. Regional commanders, who would probably be guys who can gather a group for a game.

I could see it working kind of like this:

A A-force regional commander (in X-town) petitions the A command staff for a mission in Cyrenica. The command staff assigns an objective, and a set of possible resources from the national forces' pool. The regional commander then makes up a force from as many of those resources as he actually owns (or can buy and paint-up by game time), and reports back on what he'll actually use. The command staff then notifies the opposing B staff that an attack is being launched in Cyrenica, and tells them to prepare a defense.

The B command staff contacts their B-force commander in Xton, and tells him the pool of forces he can draw from, and the map points he will have to defend. He reports back to B staff which forces he will use at what point on the map.

A and B guys in Xton get together, A guy tells B guy where he is attacking, and B guy already has a force allocation to put on the table. The battle goes down. Both report back the results of the game (Oy Vey, they've broken through!) and their losses (which are then removed from the national pool).

No need to synchronize calendars. If no one fights in the Levant, nothing happens in that theater, while the battles in Cyrenica continue and results are registered.

If you have two guys to fight in any given region (and A guy and a B guy in Xton), I think you've got it.

Just an idea. Ready for disection. Have at.

[fullmetaljacket]

Aye MK1 i to played fot almost 2 yrs in WW2 online German 16 ID unit. A fun game and interesting to a point had some miss guided armor capabilites like a machine gun taking out a panzer III.

any way i was thinking the same type of concept for a game map. If cama is going to host a website the site could have a theater map up for all to view. Only thing might make a difference is in WW2 online you could only have 4 attack orders per side if i remeber right? Or we coudl scale down the cities on the map so you would have units based in each city or zone. Ie then you could split up the whole front to north, central, and south commands. Of course you can also have air and naval to. the whole idea of using a map such as WW2 online is a great idea.

This could be a great way to get people interested in our hobby. Just need to keep everything in order and running smoothly. My suggestion is to have a group of 10 to 20 to play test for 3 or 4 months then open it up to all comers. Also like ww2 online have a start date and end date or another specfic winning option or victory condition. As for sides i wish to play German at this time so you can put me on the force list thanks.

fullmetaljacket

[kgpanzer]

Add me to the germans force list as well please
thanks
Ar