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.

[Shad]

Being admittedly somewhat obsessed with the statistics I would suggest that these campaigns be given the same treatment as the Cassino/Operation Epsom campaigns.

Of course I agree that they deserve a place on the site, but I don't think tossing in more "mega scenarios" like we have for Cassino is a good idea. Frankly, I don't even like having those Cassino scenarios in the database.

A better approach would be a dedicated section of the site for campaigns, which supports your play and helps present it in a way that other members can follow and enjoy.

There is always a long list of bugs and tweaks to make on the site, but currently the next outright new feature will be user image galleries and photos within AARs. It's high time we had these.

[rerathbun]

I agree with both of you. The campaigns should be in the site, but I like the idea of waiting until we can give them their own section. I did data entry for the Cassino and Normandy campaigns and will be happy to do the same for the new ones. I'll even redo the Cassino ones if Shad can't just 'move' them over.

I've been too intimidated by the time commitment for a campaign to try one. Maybe once PG-HQ supports them . . .

[campsawyer]

If nothing else I'd like the campaigns in the database.

This particular statement is at the heart of the campaign play issue. I have encountered many on this forum that have expressed issues with playing these campaign without representation in PG-HQ. The problem is that these campaigns don't fit into the statistics that Shad has put together currently in the site. Yes, we have the same battle statistics, turns, units, etc. But they are variable and fit into a bigger battle that will have new and different statistics all their own. Matt has the perfect example with turns. In one campaign, you will probably have 240 turns (24 turns per battle at an estimate of 10 battles per campaign) but this is just an guess. One play might yield more one might be less. From a campaign level new stats include how well a formation did in the campaign, wins/losses for a formation as well as use of CP points.

So, how is this represented? At this point, I don't know, but that is only because, few, if any, have played and we have no documentation on these to make any metrics that we can track these games. The best way to do this is to play them.

As for a "reward" for all this work, at this point I would suggest a campaign ribbon for completing a whole campaign. No this will not boost your number of turns in battle or the other stats, but its a reward and acknowledgement of the effort. (This will also be the simplest for our China based Web Overlord to implement. )

I would also ask for AAR's of the battles. These can be as extensive as what I am doing or simple to say what were the battles played formations engaged, battle locations and results. Basically, anything that can help figure out how to best fit these battles and campaigns into the existing three years of statistics.

So, why play the campaigns? For a different way of playing PG. For those that like stats, this is it. Just take a look at the spreadsheets that I post. Fully of data ready for analysis into stats. For those not into stats, new aspects of linked battles making you think about conservation of forces and logistics of losing the battle for the greater campaign.

[Matt W]

The time commitment to complete a campaign is tremendous but the time commitment to complete a battle is no more than a standard scenario. In most cases each side will have 1-3 battalions engaged (and later in the campaign these may be very thin indeed) and the maximum number of turns is 24, so consider these battles as very normal PG games. A campign will have a string of these but certainly no more than 30 and generally less than 20. Heck, First Axis and Go For Broke were 30 scenarios each and those were relatively easy to wrap your mind around. The differences are:

1. You are playing for control of a location. If you win the other side has to retire. The implications of these wins and losses frame what follows.
2. Any losses you experience stay with the unit. Replacements depend on use of logistics which could be used for more attacks. I "won" the West Wall campaign as the Americans but if I had to keep track of my losses I don't think a promotion would have been in the cards!
3. The goal is not to simply win battles but to acheive some objective which may require a string of battles.

Daniel and I were playing Lehr scenarios and my British forces convincingly cleared out the town of Tilly, yet 2 or 3 scenarios later I had to clear it out again! Turns out that my historical counterparts did not match my cardboard efforts in the first battle and therefore came back to the town later to clear it. I did not relish the idea of doing again, what I had already done, and this time against a larger force. If this had been a campaign as opposed to a scenario pack I would have held the location and not had to fight over it again.

If you do play games and supplements to completion (and I have argued in the past that such an approach is quite fun), then you will run into situations as I did in Tilly. Refighting a battle you have already won may still be fun but, darn it, you already won that one! I enjoy the feeling that there is something more than just a scenario victory happening and the campaigns provide that bonus.

Plus you really understand, finally, why you shouldn't let your transport be destroyed.

[vince hughes]

Judging by your last comment Matt on the Westwall completion. It may be that you need a campaign to rein in your blood-letting anyway heh heh !

Daniel told me in our last scenario that you are both blood-thirsty b*****ds (as then proved by his subsequent charge) and perhaps a campaign will drain this passe regard for PG life from your game :-)

(all above in jest of course)

[Shad]

As China-based Web Overlord, I ask that all campaign undertakers maintain and preserve copious notes so that when the day comes to build a campaign-adjunct to the site we will have lots of background material to draw from in shaping the required features and tools!

[campsawyer]

then you will run into situations as I did in Tilly

Indeed, I have one with Picardy in the Ivy Division. I am taking it very slow as it is quite the puzzler. Germans have eight PzVH's to rip into three unactivated US battalions. But the US has a full 105mm company in support that is just devastating on the German GREN's. Losses are high on both sides but even at turn 20 there is still hope for both sides.

To the campaign questions that one needs to ask, how much does one want to push for the win? Will it leave you vulnerable for counterattack later? How long do to you defend a location, to the end or just enough to hurt the enemy and counter attack with a bigger force.

All good puzzling questions that helps the game in the long run.

As for the Website Overlords, demand for data. I have spreadsheets to log all the campaigns with all the details. I had originally sent them over to APL for Daily Content visibility, but sense the APL site is down for the foreseen future. Email me for the one you want.

[Matt W]

The campaigns provide the stats geek with the functional equivalent of the old baseball games. Meticulous records are kept by the individual unit and each battle has its own records. The first turn of Brave But Futile resulted in three scenario record sheets. Loss charts for all three nationalities, campaign location records, etc., etc. Plus there are already AARs for those on Let's Play PG! I expect that Daniel will be posting his pictures there as well. While we will not necessarily have the in depth coverage that Alan has for his Ivy campaign it will be far more than the standard PG scenario!

[Hugmenot]

There is always a long list of bugs and tweaks to make on the site, but currently the next outright new feature will be user image galleries and photos within AARs. It's high time we had these.

Yes! Photos within AARs is the #1 item on my wanted list.

I do like the idea of a ribbon for completion of a campaign. One representing a noose would be appropriate for me if I continue to forget to move valuable assets out of harm's way.

I like seeing a decent size graveyard, but necessarily when it's my troops occupying most of it.