CMMC HQ - Academy

CMMC Field Manual
This document was written by Fionn Kelly, one of the founding fathers of the CMMC, and as such is a kind of statement of general principles and a good adjunct to the CMMC FAQ.

Index
1. Introduction
2. Eligibility to Participate
3. GMs: Roles and Rules
4. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

1. Introduction
The aim of the Meta-Campaign, in my mind, is to create a Role-Playing campaign game using Combat Mission as the tactical combat engine and to give players the chance to fight historically possible battles using realistic forces, realistic chains of command and providing a fun, authentic learning experience for all involved.

It is also one of my goals to run this meta-campaign with full Fog of War so as to create multiple layers of challenge and involvement for the player. Not only will the player fight tactical battles, he or she will also serve as a staff and play his or her role in formulating plans, issuing orders to subordinate units (if the commander), running the logistics section.

2. Eligibility to Participate
While it will be helpful to have a basic understanding of military matters every effort will be made by the GMs (GamesMasters) to aid the players and brief them as to their responsibilities and how they should carry them out PRIOR to the beginning of the game. Furthermore GMs will also be on hand at all times during the game to answer any questions gamers have.

An effort will be made to provide everyone who takes on a staff officer role with tutorials and report templates etc so that they can learn more about what an officer in their staff position was expected to do in World War II and use the templates for their in-game reports so as to minimize their workload. I am currently looking for various officer reports from all the nations modeled in Combat Mission from this era so that staff officers can be taught how officers of the time wrote so as to ensure the maximum authenticity and degree of role-playing possible.

In essence anyone who has even a passing familiarity with wargaming should find it very easy to grasp the fundamentals and fit right in.

All players must be willing to role-play and do all they can to maintain the FOW as it is essential to maintain FOW and role-playing for the enjoyment of the game by their comrades.

3. GMs: Roles and Rules
What is a GM? Basically a Games Master is the God of the game. Any of you who have played D&D or board games should be familiar with the concept of the DM/GM (Dungeon Master/Game Master) or Umpire. The GM fulfils the same role in the Combat Mission Meta-Campaign. To those of you unfamiliar with DMs or Umpires I will say that basically the GM’s role is to implement and interpret the rules of the game and to work with the players to create the best gaming environment possible in as timely a fashion as is possible.

GMs are responsible for rules interpretation and will be responsible for the following:

Ensuring all turn movies of all battles are handed in (for eventual posting to CMHQ and to check for cheating if such allegations are made).

Writing a short (1 page) summary of each battle which occurs which will be posted with the battle scenario file when this is released for download by visitors.

Ensuring NO cheating occurs. They will review ALL email correspondence between the players to ensure that everyone is role-playing and to ensure that no breaches of FOW ( deliberate or inadvertent) occur.

They will ensure play is fair and apply the rules fairly.

The Combat Mission Meta-Campaign will “marry” a particular GM with a particular division so that all the members of the divisional staff and its combat battalion commanders will know of ONE person they can go to with all their questions about rules, concepts and implementation. Over the course of the meta-campaign this should foster a close working environment which will greatly aid in the implementation of the game. Nothing is as disturbing to a PBEM game than having umpires who are virtually unreachable to the players.

4. Frequently Asked Questions
What do I mean by a “historically possible battle”?

Well, I want players to use historical TO&Es and will base the campaign in a historical setting, e.g. the fighting in the Hurtgen, or the fighting around Bastogne during the Bulge etc BUT once the battle is set up it will be up to the commanders on both sides to gain victory for their sides. For example, if the Germans could take Bastogne then it is entirely possible that the Germans could defeat the relieving American tank forces and win a complete victory.

What is essential is that the campaign start with a reasonable approximation of history and then be allowed to develop all by itself. For example, if we were simulating Operation Overlord then the Supreme Allied Commander would have the right to allocate different locations for the airdrops and beach landings. He would be limited to ONLY those units which were historically available but he would have complete freedom in how to use them (although probably there would be a proviso that he must use them in Normandy and not Cherbourg so that a month’s work on maps doesn’t go down the drain ).

Isn’t there a danger that a GM will become attached to a unit and bias battles etc. in favor of “his” division?

No, all GMs have been evaluated and recruited with a view to ensuring that they will be able to fulfill their duties impartially and will not take favor on either side. Any GM who fails in this duty will be instantly and irrevocably removed from his/her position. Being a GM is both an honor and a responsibility as well as being a great deal of work. I am confident that everyone who has volunteered and been accepted so far will perform their duties perfectly.

What EXACTLY will a GM do in the meta-campaign?

Well, I’ll deal with this in point format:

The GM will be available to answer the questions of all players in his division or corps or army. The GM should be able to provide factual answers to most player questions quickly and will pass any questions he is unable to answer to the Chief GM for him to answer.

One of the most important things a GM can do is to provide the players with interpretations of the rules. Very often players will think of a plan but be unsure how the game legislates for certain peculiar aspects of their plan. At this point in time they often approach the GM and ask him how the rules apply to their plan. Again, either the GM will know the answer instantly and provide the players with a general answer on how this situation is to be treated in-game or he will pass this to the Chief GM for him to answer.

GMs are the guardians of the rules and, as such, they are charged with ensuring that all players abide by those rules. GMs will read ALL emails passed between players to ensure that no intentional FOW breaches occur and to alert the Chief GM if breaches do occur so that he can take immediate, irrevocable, drastic action.

GMs are responsible for applying all of the game’s rules to its participants equally. If a message is garbled in transit, if a grid reference is incorrectly copied by a radio operator or if your staff car gets strafed by Jabos and your persona is killed then you have the GM to blame.

GMs are responsible, in large part, for creating the battles between players. When GMs receive orders from the players they read those orders and, on the GMs versions of these maps, they plot the moves of the players battalion and constituent companies. Whenever two opposing battalions are close enough combat is initiated and orders are sent out for the specific portions of the map over which the battle is to be fought to be copied while the GMs of the divisions from which the two opposing battalions come get together and work out where combat is to be initiated and under what circumstances.

In short your divisional GM will be your rules interpreter, rules implementer and, often, executioner.

Hey, my guys had been occupying a position for two days and yet when the enemy attacked I found that none of my men were dug in. I think my divisional GM should be removed for being a moron. No army unit would occupy a position for 2 days without digging in. Surely he should know that? Shouldn’t it be in the rules?

Quite simply the GMs can ONLY interpret what orders they receive from you. If you tell your men to occupy a wooded hill but do not order them to dig in then the GM is quite within his rights to assume that you, as an officer, were negligent and simply didn’t order them to dig in.

One of my VERY clearest rules for this game is that GMs are NOT to save players from themselves. Any player who neglects to give clear orders to dig in or send out a platoon well in advance of his main road column should not be in the least surprised when his negligence leads to his entire battalion beginning the fight without any protective foxholes or if the fight begins with his entire main road column firmly inside the kill zone of a Schwere Panzer Abteilung.

No-one can make rules to protect players from every omission they might make and it is my intention that rather than sometimes correcting player errors and sometimes allowing them to be we will simply never correct player errors and will let you all learn to be accurate and think of all eventualities or pay the price in your men’s blood.

How precise should my orders be?

Well, one of the GMs said it best when, in an email to me he urged me, when writing this to “ be sure to include a description of stressed out, hung-over, sadistic GMs meeting at 0200 in a smoke-filled chat room over a huge stack of opposing battalion orders, with wives, kids, bosses, and professors beating on the door, with the battles due out REAL SOON, and the GMs finding an ambiguous set of orders... This would serve not only as a disclaimer of liability, but would also encourage players to do their jobs well or suffer the consequences. And stress that these consequences are apt to be brutal under the circumstances...”

This statement sums it up well… Imprecise orders mean that GMs MUST interpret orders. Interpretation of orders leads to things not going precisely as you would wish/expect. Interpretation of orders by tired, harassed GMs who are extremely annoyed that they’ve got yet another batch of imprecise, poorly written orders is going to ONLY result in the worst possible interpretations.

If you really care for your battalions you would do well to make your orders as precise as possible. On the other hand if you have a 100 page operations order for your troops don’t be surprised if the GM decides it got garbled in transmission and paragraph 2c on page 93 isn’t fully implemented. A GM has a home life too and reading 100 pages isn’t anyone’s idea of fun…

Obviously corps and army level orders need to be very long but battalion-level orders should definitely be doable in 2 or 3 pages + picture. We’ll be showing you mockups of these just so you can get the idea for yourselves and we’ll discuss them fully prior to the CMMC beginning.

I don’t know how to write orders, from what you said above this makes it sound like I’ll be at a disadvantage in the game right?

No, not necessarily, each army will be given a specific format for giving their orders based on the order formats used by the armies at the time. These formats will be given out a long time prior to the beginning of the game and are easy to utilise so no-one will be at any disadvantage. These order formats also allow orders to be given precisely, thus cutting down on the amount of time needed by players to draft orders.

MOST importantly, however, the order format is going to be the preferred means of receiving orders by all GMs and those players who value being on the “good side” of the maniacal demons I’ve recruited to GM would be advised to stick as closely to the disseminated formats as possible.

I will, in the fullness of time, disseminate precise, comprehensive and clear instructions as to the format and requirements of communications between players in-game and will answer any and all questions about this as well as, later, providing sample orders so that everyone can see what is expected and learn how to create these orders. Standardisation is important in such an endeavour as, otherwise, GMs will have to deal with 200 uniquely different ways of giving orders and the headache for GMS would increase massively.

Ah, maybe if I’m enough of a bother the GM will give in to my demands to give my battalion/regiment./division preferential treatment?

And so the topic of player-killing raises its head. In every game there are always a few people who complain about everything and generally make the GM’s life hell. Thankfully, in World War II a lot of officers commanding divisions, regiments, battalions etc were killed in unexpected artillery barrages, freak car accidents or got strokes etc.

If someone is truly being impossible and continues their impossible behaviour despite several warnings then the odds of that shaving cut on their chin turning gangrenous, infecting a sinus and penetrating into the skull cavity and causing a fulminating infection which kills quickly increase dramatically ;).

How final is the GM’s decision about something? Can I get a decision reversed?

It is possible to get decisions by the divisional GM reversed but this is ONLY possible by going directly to the Chief GM. Suffice it to say that it is extremely unlikely that the Chief GM will find the divisional GM at fault. If the 101st Airborne is deemed to have lost its entire divisional command staff in the marshes near its LZ and this means the GM tells you that you have drowned before being able to issue a single order and thus your divisional CO persona is dead then, while it is terribly bad luck, it is within the realms of what is possible within the rules and will be upheld.

So, while GMs will apply the rules and may sometimes inflict terribly bad luck upon players the Chief GM will NOT look kindly on requests to change one’s luck. On the other hand if you can point to a rule which is being incorrectly applied then there is every chance the GM’s decision will be reversed and a “clarification” issued to all players so that the rule is more fully understood.

Complaints: Against other players

When complaints are made against another player the GM for the complaining player should be informed of the complaint and given ALL evidence relating to the complaint. The complaining player’s GM will then contact the GM of the player who is being complained against to check if any previous complaints have been made against this player and to ask if the GM of the player who is being complained against has noticed any questionable behaviour which may constitute attempts to cheat etc. (I imagine that most complaints would be about cheating.)

At this point in time the two GMs would sent a joint dossier to the Chief GM containing the original complaint and all evidence supporting the complaint as well as any evidence and context which their investigations have uncovered as well as each of their personal conclusions regarding the complaint.

The Chief GM will consider the evidence, ask such questions as he sees fit and may, if he wishes, discuss the issue with both GMs and both players involved either by email or ICQ as he sees fit. If it is deemed that the complaint was erroneous early on then the player who is being complained about need never find out a complaint was made. On the other hand if there is real evidence of some wrong-doing then the player who is being accused will definitely be given the chance to discuss this with the Chief GM.

In short, if you are complained about for some reason but there is no basis to this complaint the odds are you won’t hear about it. IF, on the other hand, it is felt that there might be a case to answer you can rest assured you will be given a chance to explain and be given more than your fair share of time to refute any complaints. I do think that this mechanism shouldn’t be necessary in the meta-campaign though as we seem to have a good bunch of players here but it pays to try to cover all the eventualities as much as possible.

Complaints: Against GMs

Complaints against GMs should be sent DIRECTLY to the Chief GM (whose email address will be published as the game begins) and only to the Chief GM. If you feel a GM is not being fair and wish to complain then this is the sort of thing that should be sent to the Chief GM. The GMs are a very fair and dedicated group so it is highly unlikely that complaints will be upheld. Remember that, in war, “Shit Happens” and so a run of bad luck is just that instead of proof of a “Bad GM”.