Campaign Italia [Redux]

[Heiko Alkema]

vs

It is September 15th 1943. Allied armies have landed on the Italian mainland and are beginning to consolidate their forces and push inland. Opposite them, a massive German army and the few Italians that chose to fight with them stand ready to fight back.

The fate of Italy and Europe at large rests on the outcome of this confrontation. You and your comrades will determine that outcome. Which flag will you fight under?

---

CAMPAIGN RESTART

This campaign will take place over a series of stages consisting of battles of various sizes. The narrative of this campaign is entirely on the shoulders of you the player. There is no set outcome other than that which you fight for.

Normal battle rules will apply for all battles. Players will be required to choose one and only one character with which to play in this campaign. There is no official limit on the number of battles you may participate in, but if you take part in one battle you may be barred from future battles in favor of a player who has not.

NPC units will be pre-set and supplied, you will not have to use your own NPCs. Unit numbers and the map will not be revealed until after player participation has been confirmed.

Sign-ups will be posted for each individual battle. Sign-ups for the first stage of the campaign will be posted shortly.

Added Features:

- A campaign map has been introduced as a visual guide to the progress of the campaign. The outcomes of the battles will not only affect later battles but also the territory your side holds.

- Any player that possess an officer character will have a say in which territories are attacked. If multiple officers are possessed the player must pick one and only one to be their avatar for mission planning. The officer you use for mission planning does not have to be the character you use for combat though they must be on the same side.

- Who attacks and who defends will be decided with a relatively simple system. One side will start with momentum (in this case the Axis) and attack a territory of their choosing. Should they win, they take the territory and retain their momentum and choose the next territory to dispute. Should they lose, they lose their momentum and a battle is fought without a territory target. The winner of this battle gains momentum and picks the next territory to attack.

- Since this is a new thing for IO the rules are subject to change at any time as this idea is developed.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask them here.

[Daniel Brennan]

Interesting concept. I commend you on thinking of such an innovative idea. Who knows, I might even take part?!

Do normal battle rules apply in terms of death and POWs, etc?

[Edward"Butcher"McMillan]

Great stuff Heiko, I'll most likely throw my hat into the mix, but think I'd rather mod if we find enough people to commit.

-JT

[Heiko Alkema]

Jun 26, 2011 20:19:01 GMT Daniel Brennan said:

Do normal battle rules apply in terms of death and POWs, etc?

Yep. Best to at least keep that bit simple.

[∬: Gero A. Fritz]

I have a question or two.

If a battle is won, the territory is claimed correct? What happens if a side were to start losing and were pushed back several paces, losing all the territories? They're claimed by the enemy right? What if your side started to win again and push forwards - they claim them back, again, right?

Does this mean the campaign will go on and on, and on, and on, until one side finally captures all the enemy territories completely or their side has no more alive players left to eradicate?

What I'm asking, is there a set limit of battles or could this campaign possibly go back and forth, depending on wins and loses circumstances, until one side has no more active members left to use or no territories remaining? If your map above is used as a visual reference and each little territory is one battle, that means there is at least 18 battles to be fought, if the Allies were to lose constantly?

Would you mind explaining the battle structure to me please? I'm probably reading this all wrong.

[Christopher J. D'Dario]

Sweet!!! Seejay wants in!!!

[Heiko Alkema]

Jun 26, 2011 22:06:09 GMT ∬: Gero A. Fritz said:

I have a question or two.

If a battle is won, the territory is claimed correct? What happens if a side were to start losing and were pushed back several paces, losing all the territories? They're claimed by the enemy right? What if your side started to win again and push forwards - they claim them back, again, right?

Does this mean the campaign will go on and on, and on, and on, until one side finally captures all the enemy territories completely or their side has no more alive players left to eradicate?

What I'm asking, is there a set limit of battles or could this campaign possibly go back and forth, depending on wins and loses circumstances, until one side has no more active members left to use or no territories remaining? If your map above is used as a visual reference and each little territory is one battle, that means there is at least 18 battles to be fought, if the Allies were to lose constantly?

Would you mind explaining the battle structure to me please? I'm probably reading this all wrong.

Nope, you're right this could last forever. Like I said, this is still a work in progress and subject to change as needed. A public alpha, if you will. The idea will continue to evolve as we go along. Any input from the players on things they'd like to see added could and probably would be incorperated but we're going to start simple.

I do have a contingency if one side does gains a clear dominance of this map... I have a larger map. One that encompasses the entire Mediterranean theater. But that probably won't happen.

[∬: Alexei Nikitin]

do i get dibs in this campagn seeing as i was supposed to be in the other one? i just cant post until july 5th
~Adam

[∬: Gero A. Fritz]

Jun 26, 2011 22:52:46 GMT Heiko Alkema said:

Jun 26, 2011 22:06:09 GMT ∬: Gero A. Fritz said:

I have a question or two.

If a battle is won, the territory is claimed correct? What happens if a side were to start losing and were pushed back several paces, losing all the territories? They're claimed by the enemy right? What if your side started to win again and push forwards - they claim them back, again, right?

Does this mean the campaign will go on and on, and on, and on, until one side finally captures all the enemy territories completely or their side has no more alive players left to eradicate?

What I'm asking, is there a set limit of battles or could this campaign possibly go back and forth, depending on wins and loses circumstances, until one side has no more active members left to use or no territories remaining? If your map above is used as a visual reference and each little territory is one battle, that means there is at least 18 battles to be fought, if the Allies were to lose constantly?

Would you mind explaining the battle structure to me please? I'm probably reading this all wrong.

Nope, you're right this could last forever. Like I said, this is still a work in progress and subject to change as needed. A public alpha, if you will. The idea will continue to evolve as we go along. Any input from the players on things they'd like to see added could and probably would be incorperated but we're going to start simple.

I do have a contingency if one side does gains a clear dominance of this map... I have a larger map. One that encompasses the entire Mediterranean theater. But that probably won't happen.

The thought of the Mediterranean Theater map you just showed me is very scary. I'm a little worried that this current campaign could march on for a very long time as it is.

I'm not sure that this will work very well, but I'm willing to give it a shot, like anything, don't knock it until you've tried it. I have a few suggestions however that could maybe help the progression of the campaign to end sooner and make it more tactical. If I may suggest?

You said officers or a commanding officer has to choose the next territory to invade? What if certain territories held "value" and I could go into deep detail on how you could set up a whole intelligence scheme, supply route scheme and other various things that could bolster one side or the other in this war. To keep it simple however, what if certain territories simply held strategic value?

Let's say TERRITORY 5 held ammunition dumps and this is highlighted on the map in bright yellow or something. If captured, then obviously bonuses could incur for that captives of that territory, like;

- All vehicles are upgraded with MG mounts (including Jeeps/kubelwagens)
- Infantry have 25% more ammunition above standard.
- All NCOs gain X1 grenade. So Corporals, Sergeants and all ranked NCO members.

Simple upgrades that could turn the tide in battles and move the campaign along quicker, possibly and make it more strategic for each side.

Other territory bonuses could include:
- VIP Compounds.
Let's just say that maybe there's a valued target within the territory, political or military orientated. One side has to defend/escort the VIP and the other has to capture/kill it.

If captured, then the next battle's unit statistics are revealed and you get to choose either extra vehicles or infantry for the next battle. Say 25% more units to take or something.

- Command Post.
Similar the VIP, but instead one side is defending a compound whilst under siege. If captured, then instead of unit bonuses for the next battle, you get a support bonus that either consists of artillery, air support or mortars maybe?

- Fuel dump.
Like the ammunition dump within a territory, the fuel dump allows you to fuel all vehicles for the next or upcoming battle (so long as that territory is owned by the side) and allows vehicles to last longer in battle and travel/traverse more ground within a battle too.

Could also make it so it allowed one side to take an extra vehicle or two maybe? The fuel allowing them to stage a scouting party or bring extra tanks.



I could keep going on and on, but just simple objectives on some of the territories, not all of them, that enable one side to push harder with their momentum you was talking about. This could possibly give battles a quicker fight time and it makes it more objectively strategic for each side to discuss about.

Thought I would throw that out there. Thanks for reading.

[PuNk! ™]

I have a question. Is it only the one ranking officer that calls the shots or do all the officers have a shared appeal on what happens next? I have a feeling both sides will be having more than one officer, naturally, I just wasn't sure personally how it will work. Whether it's the highest ranking that has the overall say or this council you spoke off, letting all officers have a shared vote equally?

Just curious.

Another question I just thought off whilst I'm on the ball, I'm assuming each nationality is kept separate during this campaign when it comes to receiving orders? For instance, let's say Major Patterson enters the Allied bout of this conflict, will he be able to commandeer control of all the British nationality players or will they kept as a separate entity?

I only ask, because for one, the nationality update has been implemented onto the site since any last real proper campaign and it could get very confusing with British, American, Italian and German units and vehicles in one battle and the chain of command as to whom can control what?

Just wondering. Hope you get the gist of what I'm questioning?
~Danny

[Heiko Alkema]

First let me say that these are all excellent questions and exactly what I was hoping for when I asked for them.

I'll start with Punk's simpler questions.

Is it only the one ranking officer that calls the shots or do all the officers have a shared appeal on what happens next?

No one officer will have authority over the others unless the players themselves decide to cede that power to someone. Officially, every player will have an equal say. If a clear consensus isn't reached, the most popular option will be implemented. Now, If there is a even split then rank will come into play and the option that has the approval of the highest ranked character will be implemented.

I'm assuming each nationality is kept separate during this campaign when it comes to receiving orders? For instance, let's say Major Patterson enters the Allied bout of this conflict, will he be able to commandeer control of all the British nationality players or will they kept as a separate entity?

Now do you mean as (1) a separate entity in making decisions for the progress of the campaign? Or do you mean (2) in battle?

(1) As separate entities in the over-campaign, I would love to have the four nationalities operate independent of one another but my concern is that there won't be enough British or Italian characters to maintain themselves. We have a whopping two total Italian characters and just a handful of Brits.

If we can drum up enough active British characters then I could see having the four operate independently and allot "momentum" to the individual units instead of a whole side.

(2) In battle has the same problems as the over-campaign. Will we have enough players to fill the required slots from one nationality? If we don't then it will just work like it does in a normal battle with the highest ranking character on either side having general authority regardless of nationality.

- These two are going to have to be done together or not at all. I don't really see doing one and not the other. If you guys think we can manage having essentially a 2 v 2 campaign, then I'm willing to run it that way.

---

Now for Gero's. First, i've kicked around similar if not the same ideas myself. The reason you don't see them yet is that I want to start simple and work in more complex rules as we iron things out with the basics first.

Now, territories with value is definitely something I want to work in and will probably be one of the first things added. Even if it's something as simple as a given number of territories being designated "victory points" and the capture of a set percentage of the total victory points would win the campaign. A more complex system would give every province a value from 1 to 10 and, again, capturing a certain percentage of the total available would win the campaign.

The second thing I'd like to add to see more complex strategy would be a kind of strategic reserve given to each side. This reserve would allot a certain number of tanks, special NPCs, and normal NPCs boosts (numbers) to each side that can be added to the provided units for any given battle. So say, the Axis are attacking a very valuable territory and want to assure victory. They allot two tanks and a number of special NPCs from the reserve to augment the provided forces. The Allies can pull from their reserves for defense as well.

Third, the idea of supply lines has not escaped me either. Attacking an isolated province should logically handicap the defenders in terms of ammunition, supplies, morale, and perhaps even unit numbers. Whether this would be a system of simply if there are no connecting territories it's considered "out of supply" or if we lay out fixed supply lines with a territory only being considered in supple if there is a unbroken line between it and a designated supply center. Illustration

Special territories that grant bonuses are also something of interest, but I'd like to get these first three and the basic ironed out before something like that got underway.

And I can't stress enough that your input is always welcome and that this campaign is something of a test bed and will change as we go along.

[∬: Gero A. Fritz]

A more complex system would give every province a value from 1 to 10 and, again, capturing a certain percentage of the total available would win the campaign.

Giving each territory a set value of victory points is a splendid idea in my opinion. If you choose to give some territories VIP status for specific bonuses, can still be achieved, but I feel regardless that your idea of adding victory points for each territory would most certainly draw a finish line for the campaign. Coming up with the unique number of victory points needed to win the campaign however, could be a tricky task. Finding the moderator number that's between too much and too little usually takes pre-empt tests, so you could get away with abandoning the victory point scheme until next campaign? Still, I think it's completely required for this type of battle system.

The second thing I'd like to add to see more complex strategy would be a kind of strategic reserve given to each side. This reserve would allot a certain number of tanks, special NPCs, and normal NPCs boosts (numbers) to each side that can be added to the provided units for any given battle.

That is a very interesting idea and I'm intrigued by it. So with this reserve, would anyone be able to feed from it? Non-Coms and Commissioned or balloted ranked commanders only? I think it would be wise if the reserves were placed under the authority or authorities of trusted people who have the overrule to whom has access to the reserves. Perhaps it could be a written rule that 1. It requires a majority vote/agreement amongst officers before the reserves can be accessed. 2. An officer is chosen to be the reserve commander and holds equal rule (if not the commanding officer) to that of the commanding officer when dealing with the reserve numbers.

I know the first option is probably common sense to have an overall agreement on how the reserves are handled, but if one person is placed in charge of the reserves and their say is equal to the commanding officer's in regards to how the reserves are used, this entrusts responsibility down the rank and instils a line of authority. Gives people a job to play.

This reserve idea is ingenious and I think with the more territory claimed, the reserves grow or get replenished.

Third, the idea of supply lines has not escaped me either. Attacking an isolated province should logically handicap the defenders in terms of ammunition, supplies, morale, and perhaps even unit numbers. Whether this would be a system of simply if there are no connecting territories it's considered "out of supply" or if we lay out fixed supply lines with a territory only being considered in supple if there is a unbroken line between it and a designated supply center. Illustration

I'm happy to see you picked up on my supply line comment. To put it simple, if a supply line is cut and the defending territory is isolated, they simply have no choice of the reserves you spoke off and gain no additional bonuses (like the ammo' dump or fuel dump I suggested prior, if added).

So these units will, as you explained, have no support or bonus additions and lack a morale that's to be desired. For all purpose, they will be at their lowest low and although there is always a slim chance of succeeding, their fighting power is incredibly decreased.

I like the illustration map by the way. Looks perfect.

Special territories that grant bonuses are also something of interest, but I'd like to get these first three and the basic ironed out before something like that got underway.

That is understandable.

[Edward"Butcher"McMillan]

This is awesome!

I do just wanna point out one issue that I think could happen if these great ideas are implemented into this campaign once they have had the bugs worked out.

I don't see the momentum and supply line ideas meshing well and I'll tell you why I think such. Let's say the Allies make a push and it goes well and then the Axis stop them some 3 or 4 territories in and now they choose where the next battle takes place and retake the first territory the Allies came through at, effectively cutting off 2 or 3 Allied territories. Well with the Axis still in control of the next battle they could essentially take those remaining Allied territories with some ease since they are cut off. The Allies could do nothing but sit back and watch, while really the remaing forces outside of this small area would be trying to make a push to help their surrounded friends right? With momentum no outside help could arrive until you successfully defend an attack with little to no supplies against a well supplied enemy...and you'd be on your own.

Not trying to bring down the over all joy this seems to be creating, but felt the need to point this out IF these ideas make it farther than the drawing board.

-JT

[∬: Gero A. Fritz]

Jun 28, 2011 22:58:34 GMT Edward"Butcher"McMillan said:

This is awesome!

I do just wanna point out one issue that I think could happen if these great ideas are implemented into this campaign once they have had the bugs worked out.

I don't see the momentum and supply line ideas meshing well and I'll tell you why I think such. Let's say the Allies make a push and it goes well and then the Axis stop them some 3 or 4 territories in and now they choose where the next battle takes place and retake the first territory the Allies came through at, effectively cutting off 2 or 3 Allied territories. Well with the Axis still in control of the next battle they could essentially take those remaining Allied territories with some ease since they are cut off. The Allies could do nothing but sit back and watch, while really the remaing forces outside of this small area would be trying to make a push to help their surrounded friends right? With momentum no outside help could arrive until you successfully defend an attack with little to no supplies against a well supplied enemy...and you'd be on your own.

Not trying to bring down the over all joy this seems to be creating, but felt the need to point this out IF these ideas make it farther than the drawing board.

-JT

Maybe you only have momentum if the supply line/s connect in the general direction of your next focused attack? Like I said in my post prior, territories cut off from supply lines would effectively have no support or additional bonuses earned by controlling fuel or ammo' dumps if they're included in the campaign. So the same should go for the momentum? No supply routes connecting, no momentum.

If that is what you're getting at...? I'm sure Heiko will sort this out.

[Heiko Alkema]

Jun 28, 2011 22:58:34 GMT Edward"Butcher"McMillan said:

I don't see the momentum and supply line ideas meshing well and I'll tell you why I think such. Let's say the Allies make a push and it goes well and then the Axis stop them some 3 or 4 territories in and now they choose where the next battle takes place and retake the first territory the Allies came through at, effectively cutting off 2 or 3 Allied territories. Well with the Axis still in control of the next battle they could essentially take those remaining Allied territories with some ease since they are cut off. The Allies could do nothing but sit back and watch, while really the remaing forces outside of this small area would be trying to make a push to help their surrounded friends right? With momentum no outside help could arrive until you successfully defend an attack with little to no supplies against a well supplied enemy...and you'd be on your own.

Or, that's just good strategic thinking on the part of the Axis. Unless I'm misunderstanding something.

When you say that this is what I'm seeing:

Stage 1: Allied Advance

The Allies push forward from a supply center along a narrow supply corridor.

Stage 2: Axis Counter Attack

The Axis halt the advance and then go for the throat, taking a the supply center at the base of their territorial gains. After this the Axis would then steamroll those two isolated territories.

I see nothing wrong with scenario and would applaud the Axis for effectively exploiting the Allied failure to secure the flanks of their advance. And if the Allies were sufficiently worried about losing that supply line they could allot a sizable chunk of their reserves to the defense of it.

But again, I could be misunderstanding what you mean.