Co-operative Campaign

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Co-operative Campaign

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns >> Co-operative Campaign

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Co-operative Campaign - 4/12/2002 12:45:53 AM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

Anyone interested in partnering a Cooperative Campaign? I was thinking of the British in N. Africa ('40 to '42), or Indian infantry against the Japs (a tough one).

post here or email me at;

[email]dan@monosculpt.com[/email]

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

Post #: 1

The Way Forward! - 4/12/2002 10:57:09 AM

Tazman85

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/8/2000
From: Colwyn Bay,Wales,U.K.
Status: offline

I think that this idea,like that of the Campaign Collective(Russian Steel),is the way forward for SPW@W campaigning.They bring groups of enthusiasts closer together in a co-operative enviroment and make for more interesting scenarios than generated campaigns.I'd love to help but have no experience in mapmaking or scenario building,and have a rather thin WW2 library to boot....but could try my hand at playtesting and work it from there.Would love to see more campaigns like this...Italy..British/Canadians from beaches to Germany etc.

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 2

- 4/12/2002 11:20:09 AM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

your experience shouldn't matter, since you're the only one to reply :)

I'd like to play as an Australian armor force in Nov. 1940, starting with those funky little light tanks and armored cars. Historical accuracy isn't too important for me, as i prefer 'what if' battles.

Let me know your schedule. I could email you a map, for you to set the italians up on.

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 3

- 4/12/2002 2:44:28 PM

tiggwigg

Posts: 118
Joined: 5/17/2001
From: Australia
Status: offline

Australian Force? Now mate...you are talkin' my lingo...I'd like to wag me tongue with you guys to come up with a rip-snortin' game.

Yes, I am Australian...and following an Australian unit offers some great opportunities (or NZ, since I understand New Zealand units were the only army to fight in every major theatre).

Australians started off in North Africa during Connors blitzkrieg against the Italians (great for building up unit experience), then in Syria against the French Foreign Legion and Colonial forces, then to crete against paratroops and greece against panzers (great for loosing it again, so the force doesn't become invincible) back to North Africa against DAK...Tobruk, etc (I remember an Australian "cavalry charge" using bren carriers against an Italian fortified town...that would be plenty for Part 1...Part 2, if it ever comes up would be Japan, eg Milne Bay and Kokoda Trail, then on through New Guinea to Borneo.

I built a couple of medium scenarios in Russian Steel...that is the easy part...once you have an idea of how to balance them and the have to do's in building a scenario (things like set way-points for every enemy unit to their destination where there are the objectives, start of the scenario with the correct sides, dates, battle type, etc, since you can't change later...these and quite a few other things have to be done in the correct order of the AI just plays like crap).

The first step in the whole thing is to build the battle tree...this means some research to find potential battles and the conditions and the forces involved, then to decide what battles follow which, and where the alternate paths branch off, or come back together again...eg a unit fighting in Syria can't be getting mauled in Crete/Greece.

A battle should have some historical favour...a reasonably accurate battle run-down in the prelude screen, a vaguely accurate TOE...and a vaguely reasonable map...maps don't take long to build once you know how...the hard part is to get a map of the actual battlefield.

I like small to medium battles...for this reason Russian Steel has limited appeal to me...in some of the battles there were 400 units...that campaign is designed for aat least two tank companies plus infantry...and in some scenarios there is that again and more.

I like the Lost Victories approach...and would suggest a recommended core force of one infantry company and about 10 tanks at most...if a bigger battle is wanted from time to time the extra units would be pre-set auxilary units or support points.

Before going further I guess the question is how long you want the campaign to last...a string of 5 or 10 battles, or something more complex...Russian Steel has something like 40.

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 4

Co-operative campaign - 4/12/2002 9:33:26 PM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

All great ideas and follows along with what I was thinking. I wasn�t going to do the �greece or crete� porstions, but the Syrian campaign would be fun. After that a good pounding by the germans in the spring of �41, followed by the see-saw of the desert. I was planning on ending there, but would go to fight the japs if it were to continue.

I should explain what I mean by co-operative campaign, since it isn�t used the same by everyone. I am talking about a �long WWII� campaign where someone else sets up the opposing forces for you, instead of letting the computer do it. This happens one battle at a time, as you work your way through the campaign. The person setting up the AI for you acts as both the enemy, and as the gamemaster/story teller. It is not as planned out as a regular campaign, because it isn�t always balanced. You may, in fact, get wiped out on occasion, and need a ton of points and time to rebuild.

The advantage to this kind of campaign is it doesn�t need as much prep work, and can �balance� itself out on the fly (so to speak). The disadvantage is that you need a good partner to set up the enemy for you. This is a service that I�m willing to reciprocate on.

You can also do some really neat tricks in a campaign like this. For instance, you can play a four battle operation, keeping the same auxillery forces (that survive anyway), the same wrecks on the map, the same craters, etc.

This is what I mean by co-operative campaign. Let me know if you are interested. Your battles could be set up for the size of Core you prefer. Persoannaly, i like a bit more core; 2 tank companies and an infantry company, plus AA, AT, Motor attachments.

I have the first battle ready. The mission is to sieze a crossroads from the Italians, in order for follow on motor infantry to pass through.

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 5

Count Me In! - 4/13/2002 12:06:55 AM

Tazman85

Posts: 12
Joined: 11/8/2000
From: Colwyn Bay,Wales,U.K.
Status: offline

I like both ideas....We need more Russian Steel type multi-designer campaigns(How's the patch and update going guys?)....But ,If you don't mind having a rookie as a foil?,Will gladly set up opposition forces for you.What's the score on OOB's etc. Does this matter the same as email game?Let me know what you want and send me the first map with any details,instructions etc.Just got my core for RS sorted and am about to embark on Dubno....Isn't this one of yours A_B?

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 6

- 4/13/2002 12:51:25 AM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

I'll email you the map and instrucions in a minute. Dubno is mine, and you may hate me soon enough, or at least want revenge :)

It has changed a lot from my original settings though. The core used to be three times as big as it is currently, so i imagine someone trimed down the germans (i hope so anyway).

It is definately winnable though. Just play like you're a real commander - it is easy to develop a 'gamey' style of play, such as hugging the map edge and rushing around behind the enemy, not doing recon, not protecting your flanks and rear, expecting the enemy to be evenly matched, etc.

Do any of these gamey things and you may find yourself frustrated (and destroyed). Remember, the germans should be tough to beat in '41...

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 7

Re: Co-operative Campaign - 4/14/2002 6:14:51 AM

Gallo Rojo

Posts: 731
Joined: 10/26/2000
From: Argentina
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by A_B
[B] Indian infantry against the Japs (a tough one).

[email]dan@monosculpt.com[/email] [/B][/QUOTE]

Kohima-Impal ... both sides. what do you think?

I can help writting the story board if there are interest.
I got some material to do this.
Something shorter than Russian Steel (6-10 battles).

But I have no time to desing and scenario :(

_____________________________

The bayonet is a weapon with a worker on each end

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 8

Re: Re: Co-operative Campaign - 4/14/2002 6:24:11 AM

A_B

Posts: 296
Joined: 4/11/2001
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Gallo Rojo
[B]

Kohima-Impal ... both sides. what do you think?

I can help writting the story board if there are interest.
I got some material to do this.
Something shorter than Russian Steel (6-10 battles).

But I have no time to desing and scenario :( [/B][/QUOTE]

I have a nice Kohima map mostly done.

Yes, a indian campaign should be shorter... almost all infantry, and it would be a real game challenge since the indian infantry won't hold up very well to the Japs. It'll force the player to always keep plenty of reserve.

I was thinking of the whole war, which, admittedly, was mostly '44 and '45. But a few battles in '41/'42, during the initial invasion. Plus, possibly the british counter attack in '42. I'm going off memory here, but i think they did this.

'43 was pretty quite, except for the chindits. Maybe a diversionary raid in support of a chindit river crossing.

So '41/42 would be 3 to 4 battles

42' offensive; 2 to 3 battles

'44, three battles in Kohima

'45, 3 to 4 battles.

Significatly shorter than russian steel, 11 to 14 all together. Could be shorter even...

_____________________________

Unconventional war requires unconventional thought

(in reply to A_B)

Post #: 9