GHQ Campaign

[1ComOpsCtr]

Do we really want to make the campaign as complicated, detailed, and time consuming as it appears. What is wrong with posting a location (like the area around a town or river crossing), a point total for each side, the units and general "force mix" (tanks/guns/infantry/Air), and letting the players make the game as simple or complicated as they wish. After they reach a conclusion they report who won (how many points they lost to achieve victory) and who lost (how many points they lost). If the location is fought for more than once by more than one group what does that matter... the point totals will determine who "took the ground" in the end and will provide a victory point total based of the average of the games played during the period set aside for those games to be played.

The true winner comes from the ratio of Force Applied/Cost of victory/map hexes gained.

This is perhaps an over-simplification, but I strongly believe simple is much better than complicated if you are trying to attract gamers to participate. If, on the other hand, you are planning to keep the campaign within the fairly tight forum community you can make the campaign as complicated as the individuals running it wish to make it because it will have a very limited audience.

I believe a campaign needs to be the vehicle (an "overall framework") for as many games as are possible for as many players (existing and new) possible, not an exact hex-by hex conquest of a mapboard. It really shouldn't matter to the individuals running the campaign who wins, but rather that the participants had a good time at their level of gaming.

Will

[av8rmongo]

Will has a point. If this campaign (or maybe it should be Campaign) is going to be successful it is important to clearly articulate from the beginning where the horse ends and where the cart begins.

Is the focus on conducting a strategic level Campaign or is it to get the most people interested/involved in a campaign scenario?

If the focus is on the Campaign (with a capitol C), which it sounds like is the goal, then I think you do have to have a more rigid structure of how you determine who fights what battles, how and when.

If the focus is on the campaign (with lowercase c), as I think Will is leaning towards, then there is a great deal more flexability since it the tactical (face to face) game that is more important than the (virtual) war.

For WWII I'm a naval only guy so I don't really have a dog in this fight but here's a suggestion that might allow potential players some flexibility in how they game. Will has said that he will not game if he is limited to France or Libya because of his geographic location. Can't blame anyone for having a preference. Instead of dictating who has to game what regions why not open it up to a lottery or bidding system?

Here's one way it might work. The General Staff, or whatever we call the head dudes, make their strategic plans. At some point their forces are going to come into contact. At these potential battle sites the respective General Staffs determine what the maximum available forces would be and prepare a list. There would be one list for each potential battle giving maximum forces available for both sides.
The local gaming groups would then have an opportunity to look at these lists, decide which ones appeal to them and then provide a "bid" back to the General Staff. "I can win that battle with one MG jeep platoon" sort of thing. The local gamers could prepare a bid for each possible battle in case their primary choice wasn't acceptable. Their bid could be based on "Hey nobody here has any French forces," or whatever.
Once all the local groups send in their bids the General Staffs have to get together and haggle over which proposals they want to accept. And as Will says there should be thought given to the economy of force not just the ability to achieve some objective. The General Staffs then report back to the local groups what their assignments are. The local groups then have X days, weeks, months or whatever to get together and game out their scenario.
There is a great deal of discussion and deliberation in this outline - always a problem. It also doesn't allow local gaming groups to have any promise of gaming a true campaign at their local shop, one month they're in France the next month there in the Soviet Union etc. But it does increase the possibility of including people who otherwise might not be interested because they don't do Africa or whatever.

Again, I'm just a Naval guy so if you like the idea use it, if not trhow it out.

Paul

[fullmetaljacket]

A lot of good points from Will and Paul. If we do it the way will is explaining it then it would be more like flames of war or a weekend type con gaming event, which is fine by me. I would prefer a more detailed and advanced campaign type of game. I figured that we would still get a lot of interest especially with only doing map, supply, and battles once a month allowing a month to bid, issue orders, assign commanders or orders the rest of the month. I would also caution that we make sure that we have plenty of sub commanders incase real life gets in the way of a battle on a specfic weekend. Any way just giving my two cents worth and i will go either way the overall leaders decide to go with this idea. I think it will be a real good experience. i know ever since i meet JB a year ago, we have had several good sessions and games and have gotten to know several good guys in the janseville WI area.

fullmetaljacket

[jb]

Thanks for all the feedback. It is truly vital.
First off the Navy has a big say so in it,so please keep that in mind. As for complexity I believe the only ones it should be complex for are the few that need to direct it. Everybody else should be concerned about their commands and getting orders from their respective theater/region commands. Don't get me wrong,I believe we need to play "chess" not "checkers" too. I like all the ideas that everybody is kicking around here. from what I see we will get something off the ground to everyones liking.
Right now I am in the throws of getting ready for Little Wars (14 April). In between times for that I will be working on theater maps. The sign up will be on the website that Cama is doing.
As for the sign up, what do you guys think about signing up for a specific "theater" first. This would seem to make more sense than saying I want to be a " --" or whatever to find out we just have too many of "whatever". Also if we have a dead theater I could use a randomiser to find out the effect it has,on the rest of the "War", if there are no players for it. I also plan on using a randomised effect for Naval actions if no Naval personnel "volunteer".
JB

[1ComOpsCtr]

We have at least two Naval Guys:

Again, I'm just a Naval guy so if you like the idea use it, if not throw it out.
Paul (av8rmongo)

Here in the St. Louis area there are many individuals who participate in 1/2400 Naval gaming. At a mini convention last Saturday I saw several WW2 naval simulation being played, so I am sure we can find players to fight on all sides of the Med engagements. I have a fairly complete Italian fleet I would like to see in action myself so I don't think the Naval part is going to be a problem.

Picture moved to "Micronauts" thread...

I will say again... KEEP THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE! And we will have players join the fun.

Will

[fullmetaljacket]

Will nice ships by the way, what are the red and white stripes for? Also have you ever found any world war one ships besides British, German, and Russian? I have found some from another company besides GHQ. I will not mention here but they start with the letter P. Huge selection all countries austria, chile, italy, USA and others, but the detaii is no where near GHQ quality. Just wondering if you or anyone else reading these forums have found 1/2400 scale world war one naval ships besides the countries of Britian, Germany, and Russia. Thanks

fullmetaljacket

[kgpanzer]

Will nice ships by the way, what are the red and white stripes for? Also have you ever found any world war one ships besides British, German, and Russian? I have found some from another company besides GHQ. I will not mention here but they start with the letter P. Huge selection all countries austria, chile, italy, USA and others, but the detaii is no where near GHQ quality. Just wondering if you or anyone else reading these forums have found 1/2400 scale world war one naval ships besides the countries of Britian, Germany, and Russia. Thanks

fullmetaljacket

I have a fairly large collection of WW1 german and UK for sell here in the near future
Ar most are ghq

[jb]

Yes ,nice ships Will.
My idea of simplicity is this. Everyone plays their games like they do now,they just have a chain of command to report their results to.In this fashion everyone's tactical efforts play in to "big" picture. I use the term "Chain of Command" VERY loosely. I would call this a directory,but that just dosen't have the ring to it that we need.
This will also lead some of us wanting to play different levels of operations. Some just want to get to the down and dirty of shooting it out in the mud and dust,snow,whatever. Others will just want to move Divisions, Corps,and Armies around. Naval will be at the same levels. Maybe we will have some plan hatched to sneak into a harbor at Alexadria with midget subs,condoned by the CinC Regia Marina. On the same token will the RM be bottled up Toronto again?
This campaign should be simple enough for the players of the lower levels not to worry about a lot of "paper work". If supplies get to the front line units they will told they can have the company or so of MkIVs,Battalion of Infantry,and other stuff that got through to Tripolitania. This would of course be delved out by the higher command. These are the poor sots that need to do some paper work.
The point system (GHQ rules) should be used as basis for the things that get through by the Navy. Each type of ship that is capable of bringing in supplies will given a maximum point capacity to haul. If they get through to their destination the Tanks ,troops,arty,trucks,fuel will be given to the theater commander. Who knows maybe the theater commander may have a guy just to handle this stuff. I know of a number of players who love to do just that.
As for naval rules-Any suggestions?
JB

[1ComOpsCtr]

I am sorry I posted that picture, which has turned this thread off topic. I will reply on the Micronaut thread...

Will

[av8rmongo]

For Naval rules I am most familiar with the Harpoon and Command at Sea products from Clash of Arms - having a (very small) voice in the ongoing development of Harpoon. These rules have a ground combat system, logically called GCS, that abstracts ground combat at an tactical/operational level. The reason I mention this here is along with that they have lift capacities for ships and boats from LCVP to the Queen Mary. It should be very easy to convert from the carriage point from that system to the GHQ rules point system. The hard part is the load plan - which supplies/units will be loaded on which ships. But that would be hard under any rules - a bad choice and an unfortunate sinking could ruin an entire operation.

I know there are partisans for every rule set and I guess I'm no exception but I'm willing to go wioth what ever the group consensus is. How far out is GHQ Naval rules - just to keep it in the family?

Paul

[cbovill]

There is a small group of us out here in Las Vegas that have been planning and building for a campaign game of the Battle of the Atlantic, and it seems like what we have been planning would dovetail very nicely into this grand plan being discussed. I have built a rather thorough British Royal Navy and German Kriegsmarine for the Atlantic covering 1939 - 1942 and a friend of mine is building the merchant navy for the British right now. He has also designed a campaign level map that he will be getting printed on a large scale so we can plot force dispostions over time and use intercepts to determine battles with monthly turns. I'll talk to the guys out here to see if they are interested in joining in, I'm pretty sure they will be.

We went with SeeKrieg V rules because they cover the Germans which is sometimes hard to find in naval rules and they also cover convoy battles too, including what is loaded in what hold of what ship. We are also creating an add-on set of rules to beef up the campaign side of the ruleset.

Chris

[kgpanzer]

Seekreig IMO is the best naval rules
Ar

[av8rmongo]

Will there be a separate place to sign up for Naval engagements? Also, is there a way to get in on the Strategic level rather than just the tactical?

Paul

[jb]

OK guys here's the basic website, there will be more added soon.

If you have speakers, turn up the volume:

http://members.shaw.ca/gvdyck/index.html

Maps are still needed, but they will be simple, I promise!

Also, I will have forms for signing up soon.

JB is working on the maps, and between us, we should be able to have this thing going before too long.

Cheers,

Grant

Grant why don't we activate the website for signups? In this way we can figure out who wants to do what and where. I will not be able to get to the maps in ernest for 3 weeks.
We also need to have peolple specify if they are going to do the Naval.
JB

[kgpanzer]

Being 1941 are we going to start with the opening stage of barbarossa?
Ar