|
Post by stubram on May 7, 2016 11:11:03 GMT
Hi all As some of you may know, I luuuurve the campaigns, I do. As great as a one off game is, what really ties it together for me is the idea of a larger strategic impact - the ramifications of battles won or lost, positioning, support, environmental factors etc. My question is this - What style of campaign have people tried, and what have they found works best? - I've always done what I guess is called an open ended narrative campaign which goes on until there is a clear leader or interest wains.
-The pros are that you can adapt the story to fit the situation, there's no pressure to have 'x' games done by 'y' date, and really fires the imagination to take you to places you never thought of originally. -The cons are that it can be too open ended, and without a definitive goal or forced momentum, it can peter out of it's own accord (I actually don't mind this as I like to dip into campaigns from years ago with old friends, but clearly this won't work in a club setting). - I think another variance is a ladder campaign where the previous battle effects the next battle (winner of the previous round gets an extra 100 points, or an extra unit or something)
- A Tree campaign appears to be similar to the ladder, but with each battle leading to a different scenario based on who wins or loses. Like the ladder campaign, the steps/branches are laid out beforehand so everyone has a clear goal (the mini-campaign that Dave and I were playing in Battletech was like this, for example - though that was set against the backdrop of an opened ended narrative).
Both other the above offer a definitive goal to aim for and a way of working games around work/personal time, but for me have always appealed less than a full on narrative as I feel it takes away some of the grandeur and 'story' which is one of the big draws for me.
I've always liked the idea of a map based campaign, but have been told that it can get bogged down and have never been organised enough to try it.
Chaz's mention of a full on Anaconda campaign has got me fired up as it looks like (from what his blurb said) to be a very intensive campaign with far reaching events occurring on multiple levels.
My thoughts are basically leading to a big ol' Epic 40k campaign if people were interested, which raises another point - do people in our club like playing what they want, when they want, and don't like focusing on one game system for long periods (in other words - shut up and go away Steve)
|
|
|
Post by tango on May 7, 2016 15:25:20 GMT
That's why I liked Warzone. There was a clear objective not just a battle.
|
|
|
Post by madphil101 on May 7, 2016 17:06:35 GMT
I'd much rather fight a story than a game. I don't mind losing if the game is fun. I've always steered off tournament play for that very reason. It leads me to be competitive player in a way I don't like.
Much happier when my games link up, but I've always done that regardless. My leader is invariably Saltiivash the _____ and normally there's red boots on him. Long story. Not really funny but it's stuck. In 40k virtually every army is led by a mid level idiot with red boots.
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 7, 2016 17:57:51 GMT
via mobile
Post by stubram on May 7, 2016 17:57:51 GMT
That's why I liked Warzone. There was a clear objective not just a battle. I agree - changes the whole feel of the game.
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 7, 2016 19:51:46 GMT
For club games, I liked what we did with Battletech - run your force how you see fit, making the story fit around you and your games. I also liked the Deadzone one, but not the snipers. I'd be up for a more structured campaign, but these days just don't have the time to put into it outside of club night
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 7, 2016 21:04:32 GMT
via mobile
Post by stubram on May 7, 2016 21:04:32 GMT
I'd much rather fight a story than a game. I don't mind losing if the game is fun. I've always steered off tournament play for that very reason. It leads me to be competitive player in a way I don't like. Much happier when my games link up, but I've always done that regardless. My leader is invariably Saltiivash the _____ and normally there's red boots on him. Long story. Not really funny but it's stuck. In 40k virtually every army is led by a mid level idiot with red boots. Couldn't agree more. Tournaments being out a certain type of player, which I don't enjoy playing against. I always run a little monologue in my head when I play too- that's why I usually take pics of the battles. Sounds like you're happier doing the more narrative style, which I like. Iiiiinteresting
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 7, 2016 21:13:02 GMT
via mobile
Post by stubram on May 7, 2016 21:13:02 GMT
For club games, I liked what we did with Battletech - run your force how you see fit, making the story fit around you and your games. I also liked the Deadzone one, but not the snipers. I'd be up for a more structured campaign, but these days just don't have the time to put into it outside of club night That's the f#&ker. Club nights are mostly it for me too, which is actually fine if people are motivated enough to make 'x' Monday of the month campaign night, but other games and real life can get in the way. I rather liked the tree-style mini campaign set in the very fluffy narrative that we had for battletech. Given the choice, would you prefer something similar (I.e. flexibility and creativity of the narrative within highly structured skirmishes), or a map based campaign (with your own reasons for fighting there etc), with secret'orders'given to your groups to move/attack etc different areas (which you may remember you could do with the same skirmish generator we were using for our mini campaigns of battletech).
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 7, 2016 21:23:16 GMT
Both.
I've been looking at map based campaigns within a sort of imagi-nation setting for 6mm moderns. Minimal paperwork overhead, but you have to put in the hours on a club night to progress the campaign, which normally ends when one player is all powerful or interest fizzles out. Given the attention span of our club, I figure it'd last about a fortnight...
Mini campaign with fluff and consequences like BT would be the way ahead, I think.
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 7, 2016 21:53:29 GMT
via mobile
Post by stubram on May 7, 2016 21:53:29 GMT
Wise words. I really am intrigued by the idea of fighting over a map, but agree that if someone wasn't around when their territory was attacked, for example, then the whole thing grinds to a halt. You could incur penalties or instant losses, but that would just demotivate the person who missed out even further.
Consensus seems to be echoing my own thoughts (overriding narrative with structured scenarios) though may borrow some ideas of Chazes huuuuge campaign, even if I'm just spinning fluff and book keeping for my own benefit. May even crack out the Battlefleet Gothic for those who want to allow it to have an impact (reinforcements, air superiority. There's even rules built in to Epic for orbital bombardment and space deployment).
On another note Dave- always keen for more of the 'tech when you get time
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 7, 2016 22:30:33 GMT
...On another note Dave- always keen for more of the 'tech when you get time Happy to oblige. I've even got some paint on a few of them...
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 7, 2016 23:03:24 GMT
via mobile
Post by madphil101 on May 7, 2016 23:03:24 GMT
I always liked the way bloodbowl and necromunda "balanced you" so if you were vastly outmatched you get more experience and it didn't matter hugely in 3/6 missions...
|
|
|
Post by stubram on May 8, 2016 7:21:46 GMT
...On another note Dave- always keen for more of the 'tech when you get time Happy to oblige. I've even got some paint on a few of them... Sweeeet. Be good to see them
|
|
|
Post by stubram on May 8, 2016 7:30:24 GMT
I always liked the way bloodbowl and necromunda "balanced you" so if you were vastly outmatched you get more experience and it didn't matter hugely in 3/6 missions... Agreed. There is still a real incentive to play more/get more experience etc, but it didn't break the game. Clever idea, that. I suspect that, as Epic doesn't have a experience ladder system each game would be a fixed point amount anyway (I'm sure I could implement one without too much bother, but for big massive wargames, I think it'd just be another layer of complexity that we don't need). Battletech kinda did both - but that was OK as the points increase was already set for units gaining experience.
|
|
|
Post by ironskar on May 8, 2016 12:15:07 GMT
I think the last campaign I played was Kings of War by email with a mate. We set it up semi-map based with a limit of 6 campaign turns. It was all recorded here: sites.google.com/site/fantasywarrealms/home/campaign-rules-and-map this page shows the 'map' of the six territories in the game and at the bottom is a brief synopsis of each turn. The links on the left of the page outline more about how we made it work.
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 8, 2016 15:00:46 GMT
via mobile
Post by stubram on May 8, 2016 15:00:46 GMT
Excellent. Thanks for that Christina. Could look into a way of doing a campaign with an online segment to 'fill in the gaps' or round off weeks.
The creative juices are positivity gushing.
|
|
Balgin
Wyvern
Raphael
Posts: 536
|
Post by Balgin on May 8, 2016 15:29:27 GMT
I always liked the way bloodbowl and necromunda "balanced you" so if you were vastly outmatched you get more experience and it didn't matter hugely in 3/6 missions... They also had a good random narrative structure to help keep things interesting. I've seen a few other games attempt that too (Twelve Elements of War springs to mind. I believe Open Combat tries something similar but a bit less story and more simple campaign stuff). I love things that encourage me to build a story around my force. I mean I'll probably do that anyway but if others encourage and support that, that makes it that little bit more enjoyable to do so.
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 8, 2016 17:36:17 GMT
Excellent. Thanks for that Christina. Could look into a way of doing a campaign with an online segment to 'fill in the gaps' or round off weeks. The creative juices are positivity gushing. Try looking at matrix games
|
|
|
Post by stubram on May 8, 2016 21:29:40 GMT
Excellent. Thanks for that Christina. Could look into a way of doing a campaign with an online segment to 'fill in the gaps' or round off weeks. The creative juices are positivity gushing. Try looking at matrix gamesNot sure what that one is mate? Looks like a modern warfare scenario book
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 8, 2016 22:19:22 GMT
Matrix games are meant to be all about the reasoning behind a result, rather than the rules and dice throws. You could use the same reasoning for campaigns rather than the actual battle.
Typed by an infinite monkey
|
|
|
Post by chillatbmth on May 8, 2016 22:51:15 GMT
In 1980 I was part of the NATO exercise Operation Crusader - a very small part indeed.
After mobilisation we (a company of PBI) were defending a bridge over the river Rhine when first a Warthog tried to ruff us -- suck up on that SAM dude. Then the 101 airborne dropped in for a cup of tea and a quick chat as we shot them to bits.
Yippee we won and kicked they're butts............
No you do not, your all dead, said the Canadian umpire.
What!!!!!
Dead, they losing so a tactical nuke was called in and approved......................bustards
So someone on a sand table in Sandhurst used the campaign view of the battle front to make a different decision and we were back on the 3 tonners to be recycled elsewhere in the campaign. Or was it just a TEWT [Tactical Exercise without troops] but with boots on the ground.
What I like about campaigns is the logistic stuff, keeping your troops feed and ammoded up, using different routes of advance to try and arrive at the battlefield at the right time in the right place. None of this last model standing crap, live and fight another day. With draw in an orderly fashion and not get massacred in a rout.
In a GW futuristic campaign you can have Battlefleet Gothic, Epic, 40K in Forty minutes or even Inquisitor -- whatever game helps propel your campaign forward.
well I always wanted in but none I signed up to every got off the ground, but that has not stopped me wanting to do it.
|
|
|
Post by stubram on May 19, 2016 10:01:59 GMT
What I like about campaigns is the logistic stuff, keeping your troops feed and ammoded up, using different routes of advance to try and arrive at the battlefield at the right time in the right place. None of this last model standing crap, live and fight another day. With draw in an orderly fashion and not get massacred in a rout. In a GW futuristic campaign you can have Battlefleet Gothic, Epic, 40K in Forty minutes or even Inquisitor -- whatever game helps propel your campaign forward.well I always wanted in but none I signed up to every got off the ground, but that has not stopped me wanting to do it.Ah yes - the fully immersive campaign. I too have dreamed of this Mr Chaz. As you say, it's pretty amazing to have things starting at Battlefleet Gothic level, and scaling all the way down to Necromunda or Inquisitor (or even RPG). The obvious issue is that, as you can play any of the games systems (Gothic, Epic, 40k, Necromunda, Inquisitor, RPG) as their own self contained campaigns, there is a danger of unnecessarily adding whole weeks of gaming where nothing actually happens with regards to moving the plot/story forward. I can only see it working if - a) The campaign is linear ie. first phase is deep space battles/orbital superiority (Gothic), 2nd phase large troop actions (Epic), 3rd phase focal turning points (40k) etc. OR b) There's a games master who pushes it along and decides what the next battle game should be. It's also hampered by the fact that not everyone owns/wants to play all of the different games systems involved. As I own Gothic (but have only played about 3 games in 15 years!) and now am getting Epic'd up, I'm thinking of a Gothic/Epic map-based campaign with an orders system. Will look into practicalities whilst I'm painting my gallant few (thousand).
|
|
|
Campaigns
May 19, 2016 11:52:39 GMT
via mobile
Post by comstar on May 19, 2016 11:52:39 GMT
Gothic and Epic I have and played both together on more than one occasion a bit taxing but works well. I've even used Full Thrust and Gruntz side by side and also worked very well
|
|
|
Post by ironskar on May 19, 2016 17:57:48 GMT
Gothic/Epic sounds good, you would just have to write the campaign prior to keep it in check.
|
|
|
Post by stubram on May 19, 2016 20:35:36 GMT
I think the last campaign I played was Kings of War by email with a mate. We set it up semi-map based with a limit of 6 campaign turns. It was all recorded here: sites.google.com/site/fantasywarrealms/home/campaign-rules-and-map this page shows the 'map' of the six territories in the game and at the bottom is a brief synopsis of each turn. The links on the left of the page outline more about how we made it work. Would be good to catch up and find out how you ran it. Me and Dave have Battletech Interstellar operations which would lend itself really well to this - even if it was just to record orders and locations
|
|
Alien Dave
Friends of the Wyvern
I don't like snipers!
The Dave
Posts: 1,843
|
Post by Alien Dave on May 19, 2016 20:55:20 GMT
I think the last campaign I played was Kings of War by email with a mate. We set it up semi-map based with a limit of 6 campaign turns. It was all recorded here: sites.google.com/site/fantasywarrealms/home/campaign-rules-and-map this page shows the 'map' of the six territories in the game and at the bottom is a brief synopsis of each turn. The links on the left of the page outline more about how we made it work. Would be good to catch up and find out how you ran it. Me and Dave have Battletech Interstellar operations which would lend itself really well to this - even if it was just to record orders and locations From my PM to stubram: "....I've been looking at a program called Berthier for a modern naval campaign with Tim. [ It's an old programme, Sir, but it checks out. - Soz, just finished watching Star Wars again!] It's used for land campaigns, originally for Naps, but a few people have adapted it to other settings including Shipwreck our naval rules of choice. I may give it another look, see if it's got anything we can use, especially as it handles blind movement well, apparently. There's also Vassal, Screen Monkey and a few others that may be worth looking at. " DW
|
|