Campaign "Scenarios"

[Matt W]

This issue may have come up previously but I thought I would raise it again. The PG universe includes three types of campaigns to date.

The first are the Campaigns and Commanders series of scenarios which can be played as a unified set to campaign completion, with a winner and loser over 7-14 scenarios. There are six of these already defined (three in the Eastern Front book, Poland, Russia 1941 and the end of war campaign, two in the King's Officer's book covering the early and late desert war, and the Kokoda Trail campaign)

The second utilizes the historical maps for Cassino and Beyond Normandy to show a campaign progressing across the map in several "day" turns where units are activated and used to fight battles in sections of the board. There are three of these, Operation Epsom which is included in The King's Officers and uses the Beyond Normandy maps, and two for Cassino, one for the Americans and a later one showing the multinational attack.

These campaigns are shown in the PG-HQ database as either a series of scenarios for the Campaigns and Commanders/Kokoda Trailcampaigns or as large single scenarios for the second set.

There is a thrid set of campaigns which use the activation mechansim of the Cassino/Operation Epsom campaigns while using a variable board selection and battle definition mechanism. In essence there are campaign locations which are usually defined by two board types (e.g. town, river, hill, open, mixed, etc.) and based on the player's activations battles will be fought for control of the location. There are four such campaigns to date. These are the Ivy Division campaign (Steadfast and Loyal) included in Winter Soldiers, the Panzer Lehr campaign (Brave But Futile) in Panzer Lehr, and the two Cold War campaigns included in Hammer and Sickle and Patton's Nightmare.

From what I understand, the primary reason that these aren't included as scenarios in PG-HQ is the variability of mapboards and turns. The specific forces involved are listed. I have found that the campaigns are actually quite challenging and enjoyable as they provide a rudimentary level of operational movement and operational decision making on top of the tactical play we all enjoy. The variability of the mapboards, etc. gives the player a chance to shape the battle, which is typically just provided to us scenario by scenario.

Being admittedly somewhat obsessed with the statistics I would suggest that these campaigns be given the same treatment as the Cassino/Operation Epsom campaigns. The units listed should be put in as the ones involved. For maps there are lists in each campaign (Brave But Futile contains 22) and for turns I would use 36 per each campaign turn. A typical battle uses 24 turns, some battles are shorter at 12 turns. There are often more than one battle per turn and a particularly successful attack may generate an exploitation attack. As an example, Daniel and I just finished the first turn of a Brave But Futile campaign, we used 12 different boards, played three battles covering 60 turns. 36 turns may end up being too low a number but what the heck, let's get these in the database.

There are two current campaigns being played with extensive AAR coverage in Let's Play PG! Alan is playing the Ivy Campaign solo and Daniel and I are playing Brave But Futile. If nothing else I'd like the campaigns in the database. I'd also be interested if anyone else has played these and what your reaction to the system is. Let me know what you think.