Campaign Suggestions

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Hey all,

Just wanted to start up a thread for anyone who has campaign suggestions!

Just a note: I am giving some thoughts toward the next campaign having a different structure; namely, something where players can get together and play games during the week at their conveinence (sp,) within a campaign structure, with the results of these games impacting on a big weekend game on a specially designed map. This map would in turn influence any "Random" games played during the upcoming week, which would in turn... blah blah blah, you get the idea. A structure like this would allow people who happen to be online and involved in the campaign to play games during the week that would affect the actual campaign, and be more flexible with peoples Real Life schedules.

Okay; anyway, any suggestions, please let me know in this thread:)

S!

Ash

[Hoffman]

Well, you could assign each side a set Corps.

And the Players are Colonels, and Generals within that Corps. They are assigned different units, etc. etc.

Random battles are merely skirmishes between units, but since they have a bearing on the Campaign, you are required to keep track of your casualties.

Say if you suffered under 250 Casualties in one engagement, you aren't penalized, because there are enough reserves to replenish your units.

So here I am, a Colonel in the 48th Heavy Assault Division. Leading a Light Battalion of 150 Royal Dragoons, 100 Scottish Greys, 100 Dutch Caribiners, 160 Green Jackets, 240 Light Infantry, and 200 Highlanders.

Say in my random engagement I suffer 100 Dragoons dead, and 150 Light Infantry dead. Since the Division has enough reserves to replenish my losses, I don't take away from the number of units, but instead I drop their Valor points down to simulate green troops.

In a Second Engagement, while at full strength, I suffer a horrific 500 Casualties.
Division can replace 250 of these men, but another 250 are still dead.
Meaning my Battalion is now short 250 men, I must therefore reallocate troops to reflect this.

In the Next battle, however, I suffer 15 Casualties.
Since Division can now relocate an extra 250 men, I now have 15 men missing from my Battalion.

But here's a problem, how do you subtract 15 from the current unit sizes?

Simple, they're wounded, not dead.
With 15 men gone, no penalty. But say, for instance, I had 75 Men 'wounded'. I'd take one of my units and drop their Valor to reflect the fact that they can't fight as well. But they can still fight.


I think this would had quite a bit to the realism of the Game. And drastically improve multiplayer combat.

As much as I love Multiplayer, going into a battle with 4 Heavy Regiments, agaisnt 4 Heavy Regiments is just asking for either an extremely laggy game, or a headache.
With people restricted by which Nation, Army, Corps, Division, Brigade, Regiment, we can not only improve the lag a bit, but also make Multiplayer a bit more interesting.

Personally, I'd like to be a Colonel in the Her Majesty's 48th Heavy Assault Division.
1st Brigade, 20th Regiment, 2nd Medium Battalion.
150 Royal Dragoons, 100 Scottish Grays, 100 Dutch Caribiners, 160 Green Jackets, 240 Light Infantry, 200 Highlanders, and 200 Line Infantry.
Just a regular 'lil Battalion!







For the Whole Real Life situations... We'd have to setup a Campaign map.
Not ingame, but a topographical map of the area in which the war is at.
The maps would have the general dispositions of the armies, and different Commanders could log encounters when and where, and on what terrain.
Thus we'd have a true war.
But we'd have to have map makers working overtime to build up a general group of battle sites.
Defensive positions of armies, etc. etc.

And one thing I'd really like to see, is actual maneuver.
When we have those large games of 4 on 4, instead of 4 Regiments bashing each other, one is designated as the forward Elements, and every so few minutes other units 'enter' the battlefield. And so we'd have Two Regiments bringing up their units, finding each other, and engaging. All the while having to maneuver troops for flanks, and then more and more units get called up as the battle heats up.
That way we'd avoid the gigantic melee. Which can be fun, if you don't mind waiting 20 seconds to issue a command.

[[GG]IrishBrigadier]

Hmm are you the Hoffman that has added me to your msn list?

[Hoffman]

I'd imagine so.

[flippyxtrem]

For the Whole Real Life situations... We'd have to setup a Campaign map.
Not ingame, but a topographical map of the area in which the war is at.
The maps would have the general dispositions of the armies, and different Commanders could log encounters when and where, and on what terrain.
Thus we'd have a true war.
But we'd have to have map makers working overtime to build up a general group of battle sites.
Defensive positions of armies, etc. etc.

And one thing I'd really like to see, is actual maneuver.
When we have those large games of 4 on 4, instead of 4 Regiments bashing each other, one is designated as the forward Elements, and every so few minutes other units 'enter' the battlefield. And so we'd have Two Regiments bringing up their units, finding each other, and engaging. All the while having to maneuver troops for flanks, and then more and more units get called up as the battle heats up.
That way we'd avoid the gigantic melee. Which can be fun, if you don't mind waiting 20 seconds to issue a command.

I like these ideas ....the First one though is just way to much work and calculation for the staff hosting the campaign ...

but the second idea is a GREAT ONE!! Im sure Ash and I will implement that idea

and the third one is already in progress...even some nice little surprises like that ...

Good STUFF!! ;D

O ya..Hoffman if im not on your MSN list...my email is...

[e-mail]

hope to see yah on MP

Cheers

[McClelland]

There is a solution to the first idea. You just allow each unit in your army 1 full reserve. Under one condition.

- If a unit loses over half (200 Man Line Inf unit101-200) of its men, it cannot be replenished nor brought back to the battle field.
-If it does lose less then 101, it can bring back 200 to the field on the next engagement.

I dont really know how your campaigns go so thats a general idea of how you can do it.

[flippyxtrem]

ash and I have a little idea cooked up like that...not exactly...but we got somthing a little simpler and gives the player a strategic thinking and a realistic experience...and also teamwork...alright Ive said to much...lol ;D

Cheers

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

I just want to get a feel on this:

If you had a choice of larger battles with the full 16 units per side, vs smaller battles that require maybe more coordination of fewer units, what ratio would you all prefer for the next campaign? 40/60 large vs small? 60/40 large vs small? I personally find myself REALLY enjoying the small (ie 8 units per player or so) games quite a bit; it really makes each unit precious, and makes it seem less likely to forget about units in the middle of battle.

Ash

[[GG]AndrewKent]

I think with 4 players per side, the 8 to 12 units per player makes for a very interesting game.

It's just a lot of fun having something a little different...new challenges.

Thanks,

AK

[flippyxtrem]

smaller maps are good....and larger ones are better for objectives!! ;D

thats gonna be a goal in this campaign...to make objectives for the armies...ooooo......ash we got alot of talking to do on skype!!

Cheers

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Just a check, Flip; did you get my email?

Ash

[flippyxtrem]

yes I did...but I dont want to type all my ideas to you when I just can say them...

and I'll write a reply for your email soon...you typed alot...and some of it was complicated...

Cheers

[[GG] Lord Ashram]

Ah good, no prob, I just wanted to make sure; I have messed up more email addys in the recent past than I can count:(

We'll skype it up soon.

Ash