Operational Level WWII Game: Combat Operations

[choppinlt]

2 years ago I posted about my game concept called Combat Operations Overlord (COO). Since that time it has evolved and advanced. Today it is simply called Combat Operations because it initially will cover June of 1944 in Normandy, Italy, and Eastern Front. The time scope will be increased with the release of DLC that will be specific to each Front. So players can concentrate on a particular area of interest without needing the DLC for the fronts or time period. The game is being premiered tonight at http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2015/08/introducing-combat-operations-new_24.html so go over and check it all out. What will set this apart we want to allow 16 players to be assigned command roles. Additionally, CO has been designed from the beginning to allow the option of manual tactical battle resolution using any game/method players want to use. So CO could be a campaign layer for your tactical game. Read more about it at the link above, and feel free to comment or ask questions here too.
-Matt

[Pinetree]

Looking good. Good luck!!

[JasonPratt]

Pretty squeeworthy! (Also, I'm a fan of the blog.  O0 ) Hope it does well!

[sandman2575]

Additionally, CO has been designed from the beginning to allow the option of manual tactical battle resolution using any game/method players want to use. So CO could be a campaign layer for your tactical game.

A solution to Combat Mission's most glaring weakness?  Intriguing.

[choppinlt]

sandman2575, that is where a large part of my motivation came from! The more I started to think about it, I realized there was no need to limit anyone from using it! Heck, CO doesn't care if people use rock, paper, scissors to resolve the battle, it only wants the final results. Ofcourse people don't have to fight out the battles, because they can be resolved quickly with the CO battle resolution system. In fact I imagine most of my battles will be auto resolve with only a few key battles being played out manually. But players at least have options.

[Cyrano]

...and the comments section on the blog post devolves into nonsense about "hey, t'aint purty enough!"

What nonsense...

The quest for a user-friendly operational layer for CM has proven chimerical.  I wish you better luck.

Best,

Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)

[sandman2575]

The quest for a user-friendly operational layer for CM has proven chimerical. 

I admire the guys who have the patience to graft the John Tiller games onto CMx2 to create an operational layer -- but it's hardly surprising that their method hasn't caught on.   :o

&Matt -- Kudos to you and your team for following through on this project. A bunch of questions occur to me about how this would work with Combat Mission -- but the most obvious is -- are you envisioning this as strictly a tool for multiplayer (like the "Tiller Panzer Campaigns + Combat Mission" method mentioned above) -- because it seems one of the major hurdles for using this as a CMx2 'campaign generator' for single-player is that there would be no AI plans - ?

[Skoop]

I'm curious how this will work.  I dabled in the tiller games as the campaign layer, and what kills that system is the book keeping between the two interfaces let alone AI plans.  The issue with combat mission is that there's no easy way to import or export data back'n forth.

[Swatter]

It does look interesting. Definitely worth keeping an eye on.

[choppinlt]

Sandman, thank you very much. Now to your question.... I primarily consider this a multiplayer game, however it will have the option for single player mode. To be honest, the complexity of the AI will be directly proportional to the amount of funding we acquire during our kickstarter campaign that is tentatively scheduled for September 1. If we meet our goal, we will have a basic AI to allow for single player mode, but more money means more dedicated resources to a more advanced AI. As for CM, there is no direct link to CM (yet), so it would be up to the single player to figure out what he wanted to do with the OOB that was generated and how to play it out. Single player campaign with single player manual battle resolution is capability we want, but it is not our highest priority at the moment.

Skoop, CO will minimize the book keeping because it will provide a detailed OOB and environmental factors for each side. It is up to the players to set up their own battles however they want....but they will have the OOB given to them. Players will need to keep track of battle length, who holds the battlefield, and the casualties sustained. CO will prompt the players for the information it wants for results, then CO will apply those results and continue. The rest will be seamless. There is some record keeping, but this is the best we can do until BFC joins forces with us to build an interface with CM. I am hoping that CO will help inspire some apps for CM in terms of tracking casualties. It's probably been looked at, but I will throw it out there. I hope this answers your questions!

[sandman2575]

Appreciate the additional info. -- will def. keep an eye out for the Kickstarter. 

[Skoop]

Until the link with cm is developed, this potential game is no better than the tiller games that people are using now.  It's kinda of a catch 22, bf won't help you until your game is established, but a cm player like me won't touch your game until the import export function is linked between your game and cm. 

I think a successful kickstarter will make a great statement to bf and finally get off their arses and add this feature we have all been longing for.  I stopped buying bf modules after RT because I strongly disagree with their slow module dev cycle.  Adding this feature ASAP would strongly show a commitment to future progression of the series. 

[kohlenklau]

I have participated in 2 and organized 3 CMPzC Operations that combined JTS Panzer Campaigns with a CM title.

Matt does have an opportunity to create a better way than CMPzC.
Even without the BFC direct link, there is potential that his Combat Operations game could be written to include several key features that would make it much better versus using John Tiller.

1. CO should include a simple internal headcount tracker to allow a single place to enter the post-CM battle results. (JTS requires external software or ol' pencil and paper).

2. The CO operational map will reflect actual dimensions that can go towards developing or adhoc selecting a CM battle map. It can export an overlay cropped specifically  to support the CM map editing. 2 adjoining CM maps being produced will have excellent to perfect match up at the edges.
(JTS has the hex system derived from the actual terrain and development of the CM battle map is then a liberal process with limitations on tactics and continuity across hexes).

3. The specific CM OOB's can be optionally used in the CO scenarios so no adjustments are needed in initial creation or to apply losses.
(JTS requires some creative assumptions to create the unit to match CM and when you apply losses.)

4. CO could use the same air power or artillery combinations that CM uses. (JTS air power and artillery strength must be edited to match typical presence in a CM battle.)

5. CO tactical battle objectives could be available to match the CM objectives. Exit? Occupy? Destroy enemy units? (JTS has an assault system which does not match well to the creation of a CM battle.)

6. CO could have an internal AAR system to produce a battle report that could be available on the Buckeyebg.com website or posted elsewhere. (JTS is a lash up. Bubblegum and baling wire. The AAR is something that falls through the cracks right away because it DOES take effort. But if folks do not see the fun, then they are not inclined to participate and the popularity of this genre of "OP+Tac" doesn't go upwards....)

7. CO must have editable saved game files. (JTS does have great capability here but not perfect.)

Bottomline, I am pretty sure right now I am the most experienced person out there combining CM and JTS PzC and I see that there is definite potential here that CO COULD make the process better/easier/simpler for me or I would not back it up.

Then if someday BFC can provide a direct link to create a battle...whoa Nelly!

[choppinlt]

Kohlenklau, I'm not certain that we will be able to achieve exactly how you suggest, but most of it will be addressed. I am vaguely aware of how CMPzC works, but I value your first hand input so thank you. I see you on the BFC forum all the time trying to organize campaigns.

Skoop, you're right it is a catch 22. That is why we need all the support we can get right now from anyone remotely interested in a link, because if we don't get the support then there is no operational link...perhaps ever! Furthermore it would support BFC's view that the market wanting the operational link isn't large enough to cover their investment in creating an interface for CM. So again you are right that a successful KS will go a long way.

[kohlenklau]

Forgot a biggy!

2.a. CO Maps are editable and any WW2 battle area could be created in detail. (JTS maps are not editable. You can only crop out from what they have already made. I had to substitute an area of Crete to be Ortona in Italy!)

Anyway, these criticisms or doubts are very natural and understandable. 2 years ago I shot some of the same general distrust or disbelief at Matt and only recently after 2 years of actually hands on using the CMPzC lash up with JTS Panzer Campaigns in great detail as the organizer handling all the aspects of the operation do I see the opportunity that exists here if the community supports the development of CO via kickstarter.