Thinking about campaigns again. What are the characteristics of a good
campaign game? a. simple (intended to generate battles rather than for its own
sake) b. provision for quickly resolving "uninteresting" battles
c. gives context to battles / provides reason for fighting uneven
battles d. unit histories add color e. provides inducement to fight (so both
sides don't just sit there and build)
f. minimizes penalty for fighting (eg with cheap/free replacements)
g. limits attempts to build an unstoppable horde (eg high maintenance costs)
h. minimal record keeping
Anything else?
One way is to start unbalanced. One side has fewer resources but easily
defended systems, while the other side has many resources, a small fleet and
many vulnerable systems. The smaller side will have to strike fast to gain
resources to hold off the growing power of the larger side. This could lead to
decisive battles early and middle in the game and then maybe one side or the
other conceeding as the weight of systems, resources and fleet favor one side
or the other.
The problem with games that start out will all sides equal is that it's too
easy to hold the staus quo. When there is already "movement" and obvious
vulnerability, its easier to keep the players moving.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
[quoted original message omitted]
Me:
> > Thinking about campaigns again. What are the characteristics of a
Karl Heinz said:
> My preference too, but some gamers like economy and politics
I think you can include economy and politics without getting too
complicated--but it kind of depends on the scale. If your units are
companies and your time scale is 4 hour turns, you won't be doing much
with the economy. Politics kind of depends on the players--you can
Scale would generally fall into something like:
Tactical -- A short series of battles. Too short for any economics
outside of limited unit repairs/replacements.
General -- simple economics. Time enough to build units during the
game.
Strategic -- Economics as complex as you can stand. Every factor can be
adjusted, ect.
Other ideas:
Movement of armies/fleets could be made on a simple square grid, with
major features, ect. (the strategic map) I think the system can be made
generic enough to function as a battle generator for DS or FT with minor
modifications for each setting. (how to
buy/build new units, terain effects, ect.)
If this can be worked out, maybe St Jon would include it in the next
books FT/FB/BDS/ect.
Donald Hosford
> Laserlight wrote:
> Me:
From: Donald Hosford Hosford.Donald@acd.net
> Scale would generally fall into something like:
Roger Burton West has written the start of a tiered campaign
system--it's somewhere on www.firedrake.org , don't see the link at the
moment
On or about Wed, Jul 03, 2002 at 08:38:52AM -0400,
> --- Karl Heinz wrote:
I feel the "some" is going to be a small majority. I personally wargame for
the sake of conflict and battle, economics is important, I agree, but in my
view it's a means to an end (constraints on forces and
tactics/strategy). Politics doesn't need rules to be
realistic. ;-D
> > b. provision for quickly resolving "uninteresting"
I fiddled with this concept for space battles since I'm more interested in
ground pounding. Seems like a quick opposing die roll based on the "combat
factors" of each side would be all it would take.
> > c. gives context to battles / provides reason for
Should be more than economics, unless capture of a resource gives a
significant ROI. Religious sights, monuments, artifacts, any which could give
the controlling play points or advantages, might be good motivators.
> > d. unit histories add color
Hmm, but they may need extra motivation to continue playing the campaign game.
If it restricts battles too much, it ceases to be a useful tool to generate
[FT|DS|SG] Games.
> > g. limits attempts to build an unstoppable horde
Absolute on the record keeping. But as far as maintenance costs... it depends
on how quick a campaign you would want. A shorter, decisive game might be more
desirable to a long, drawn out one. I think it's more important that a player
be able to make a winning move once they've reached that point where they
dominate the "board."
For example, the computer game Age of Empires has a number of these downfalls:
1) Most of the playing time is spent on gathering resources and researching
new technology. When you finally do have an army you're willing to venture out
with the battles are quick and bloody... and then it's
back to the gather/research routine again. That's not
how I want to play a *wargame*. 2) Its not easy to win. Once you smashed your
opponents army, you still have to demolish every
single structure and character he/she/it has created.
Makes for a long an anticlimactic process.
When you switch to pen and paper (or counter and board), these become even
more tedious. I don't want to sit around and take a turn where all I do is
make tick marks on my resource sheet while I wait for enough credits to build
a decent army.
Well, to back up my suggestions with content, I've posted the rough draft of
the campaign system I've been working on for the list's general perusal at
http://home.vol.com/jfriant/sucs/
Donald Hosford schrieb:
> Movement of armies/fleets could be made on a simple
For ground campaigns, I don't like a square grid, even if it's easy to draw.
More precisely, I don't like the way most games handle movement on a square
grid. Either no diagonal movement is allowed or diagonal movement is allowed,
but costs the same as straight movement. Both
distort significantly the distance/time a unit needs to move
diagonally.
A fairly simple solution is to reckon movement in movement points in the
following fashion: A move across an edge costs two points, a diagonal one
three points. This is a reasonable approximation to the
relative costs of the same movement on a grid-free map ( 2/3 = 1.5
compared to the accurate SQRT(2) = 1.41...).
Of course, for interstellar space, you can PSB any mode of FTL travel
calculation.
Greetings
> > Movement of armies/fleets could be made on a simple
Or just use 1 point for moving across an edge, and 1.5 points for moving
diagonally. This was done in several vintage wargames from the 60's that I
used to play years ago.
> Of course, for interstellar space, you can PSB any mode of FTL travel
You can't beat cubes for space. I built a method based on hexagonal close
packed lattice structures, but it was much more trouble then the sqrt(
x^2 +
y^2 + z^2 ).
> More precisely, I don't like the way most games handle movement on a
Mage Knight Dungeons uses a square grid, and diagonal moves cost an additional
movement point, added to the cost of the square.
> On 3-Jul-02 at 10:50, John Sowerby (sowerbyj@fiu.edu) wrote:
What's wrong with using a hex grid?
> What's wrong with using a hex grid?
Can''t say hex, people will think we're all evil magic using Satanists out to
destroy society.....
Roger Books schrieb:
> On 3-Jul-02 at 10:50, John Sowerby (sowerbyj@fiu.edu)
What does moving through a flat, easy square cost?
> What's wrong with using a hex grid?
Not too much, at least not for a published game.
For a home-made game, they are somewhat tedious to draw.
Also, most real-world maps are based on square grids, so they are a bit
of an entry barrier for beginners.
Greetings
On 3-Jul-02 at 12:11, KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
(KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de)
wrote:
The quick fix for home made hexes using squares is this:
Draw columns for the width of your hexes, then draw in every other column with
squares. In the remaining alternating columns, shift the
squares down 1/2 a length to that they overlap 2 squares to each side.
So effectively, each square will contact 6 others - in otherwords a
hex-like arrangement.
Interestingly enough I was thinking of having my basement tiled in this way so
that the floor could be used for hex based games.
--Binhan
> -----Original Message-----
> > What's wrong with using a hex grid?
Depends on the level of sophistication of the game designers computer and
software. If he has a descent graphic package, hexes are a snap.
> Also, most real-world maps are based on square grids, so they are a
Good point.
Roger Books schrieb:
> What's wrong with using a hex grid?
Or a free-format grid a la Diplomacy and too
many other games I could name?
From: ~ On Behalf Of KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de
Sent: 03 July 2002 17:10
Subject: Re: [Campaign] Criteria
> For a home-made game, they are somewhat
Many years ago one could buy pre-printed hex
grids in a variety of scales. Anyone seen these around recently?
For FT campaigns, use Binhan's method to draw a hexagonal pattern of dots, but
don't join them up! The dots become solar systems, or null points where ships
would rest between jumps.
Not for beginners or the innumerate: get one of Nyrath's excellent local maps*
and read
off the XYZ co-ordinates of interesting
stars. Calculate the distance between them and present a drawn map of the
"established space lanes" to the less favoured. If they want to go wandering
off into the wilderness, tell them you have your Autonomous Force Reaction
Table, err, Encounter Table ready for them.
* via www.projectrho.com, I think.
-- =======================================
Nathan "SPI flashback" Girdler
http://www.geocities.com/Jake_Staines/
A program called battletec map editor. With a little work you can have a white
background numbered hex map with thatever symbols, traderoutes etc that you
want. Takes a little work to get used to altering the tiles used for each hex
but it is a very good program.
[quoted original message omitted]
--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> Thinking about campaigns again. What are the
Strategic Campaigns bore me silly.
Maybe I'm a totally unique freak of nature, but I want a campaign system that
doesn't feel like Command and Conquer. I want "Here's what you have Admiral
(or General), use it wisely." Maybe some reinforcements,
but pretty much only frigates--you loose your only
Dreadnought, you're screwed.
You see, when you get into the whole gather
resources/build cycle, you're essentially running as
the President/Legislature but with no political
restraints. Oh, and micromanaging your military down to a tedious level.
And if you do have political restraints, you spend more time worrying (as do
RL politicians) about keeping your people happy rather than fighting, which is
what I care about.
> Maybe I'm a totally unique freak of nature, but I want
It depends on what you want. If your unit is battlegroups and your
turn is three months, you can build replacements--but if the campaign
is set up correctly, you'll still have to be careful with your resources.
When I wrote the list of requirements, I was careful not to specify
scale. Could be fleets and years--could be squads and hours.
> The quick fix for home made hexes using squares is this:
Around here, I've seen mats of small (1"-2") mosaic tiling, including
hex tiles. Perhaps you can find some of those?
Greetings
I think square grids and hexagonal grids are both nifty.
I just threw out the "squares" as a generic term for "map space". One could
include move point costs for both...that way players can use either they want.
The more generic the "core rules" are, the easier it will be to adapt them to
any setting.
As for the maps:
You could always make a square/hexagonal grid on a transparancy sheet.
Then just place it on top of a map sheet...
Considering that we are dealing with armies/fleets, most units will have
only 1 or 2 movepoints anyway.
Donald Hosford schrieb:
> Considering that we are dealing with armies/fleets, most
Again, this depends on the time scale. An extreme example is Victory Game's
'Peloponnesian war'. That had game turns of a full season per turn, and units
could move any distance they wished. Freedom of movement was restricted mainly
by rules that allowed easy interception of moving units. Worked well for the
intended scale.
The game didn't have a grid, but points (cities) linked by possible movement
routes. This is topologically equivalent to a map with areas,
BTW. Such a point / route map is an attractive option for interstellar
games, depending on your FTL mechanism. It is not that popular for ground
warfare, but it can be useful there too. At the strategic level, movement
routes can also be fairly restricted due to logistics, geography and available
infrastructure.
Greetings Karl Heinz
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
Yeah. But since most frontier planets don't have
shipyards capable of scratch-building warships, where
do you build them?
Oh, and how does your central government feel about you putting together a
fleet without their approval?
From: John Atkinson <johnmatkinson@yahoo.com>
> Yeah. But since most frontier planets don't have
At your systems which *do* have shipyards, I should imagine. Then you have to
take time to transfer them to the front. If you're
playing with the three-months-per-turn scale and in the GZGverse or
anything remotely like it, it will take less than 1 turn for ships to make the
transit. Of course, it depends on what you're assuming about scale. It sounds
as if you are thinking of build rates from a strategic scale (eg 3 months),
but a time frame that's more suited to a campaign
> Oh, and how does your central government feel about
<grin> "Shows commendable initiative." Of course, you could make a strong case
for "the organizer did not have a regrettable accident" as being equivalent to
"the organizer had at least tacit Imperial approval"
Why are you assuming that the ship building is done without government
John Atkinson schrieb:
> Yeah. But since most frontier planets don't have
It all depends on the scale and basic assumptions of your campaign.
If the frontier planets have some repair facilities or shipyards for
small craft, they might convert / upgrade vessels and build corvettes
or other small craft. Add convenient assumptions about their capabilities
(e.g.can only produce beam weaponry, can produce armour but not shields etc).
As to the central government: if they are not really able to supply ships to
the frontier, they may actually encourage the colonies to do
something for self-defence, e.g. Australia and Britain in WWII.
Or the government may be so far away/unconcerned that the locals can
pretty much do what they want, as long as it's not a threat to the central
government.
Greetings
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
> It all depends on the scale and basic assumptions of
And therein lies the rub. Design a campaign system where tiny frontier
colonies can build battleships and it won't work for my vision of the
GZGverse, where the PAU can barely manage any capital ship construction
(states in corrected FB that the heart of their battleline is 5 BDNs purchased
from ESU) never mind Planet Podunk.
On the other hand, those who like the "strategic"
scale where they are playing pen-and-paper versions of
Command and Conquer won't be happy if they can't build a shipyard in 60
seconds that can produce battleships as fast as their workers can bring in
resources.
> As to the central government: if they are not really
Again, depends on your assumptions.
IMU, there's a tight control over FTL cores capable of moving capital ships,
as well as very limited slip space in a handful of yards.
Laserlight's IFed has such limited shipbuilding capabilities that they pretty
much make nothing but a handful of large drives with a tiny crew cabin
strapped on, then dock a pack of destroyers and cruisers to 'em and call that
a squadron.
> --- KH.Ranitzsch@t-online.de wrote:
JohnA said:
> And therein lies the rub. Design a campaign system
John, nothing is keeping you from designing a strategic (or operational, or
grand strategic) campaign with reasonable assumptions.
I agree that the non-Canon powers have a remarkable tendency to
inflated the size of their fleets, but how about give us an example of the way
it should be done?
> Laserlight's IFed has such limited shipbuilding
Not exactly--shipyard capacity is okay, it's FTL drives (and
maintenance, techs, etc) that are in short supply. As far as the "nothing
but"...
http://home.quixnet.net/~deboe/gzg/if/ifships.htm has a couple of
other ships listed which don't exactly fit your description. I imagine the NRE
intelligence office just overlooked the SDNs... <g>
A couple caveats about that site, BTW--a) at least one design is
slightly off (1 mass too much IIRC); and b) in the next three weeks I'm going
to rebuild the site. (No really, I am...I mean it this
> --- Laserlight <laserlight@quixnet.net> wrote:
> John, nothing is keeping you from designing a
However, any campaign system that tries to be all things to all men is going
to have difficulty doing so.
And frankly, would also bore me senseless.:)
> I agree that the non-Canon powers have a remarkable
Nope. I like my NRE the way it is.:) Although I will point out that I have
relatively more cruisers and destroyers per cap ship than some nonC nations I
could mention.
> description. I
Nope. We probably have an agent in each crew. The handful of those that exist
are probably a)Under direct control of the head of state, b)watched by NI and
NRE agents specifically tasked for such, c)Only rarely committed to battle
because of the threat posed by their loss.
> A couple caveats about that site, BTW--a) at least
For the first time since when?:)
> For FT campaigns, use Binhan's method to
A nifty trick to handle 3-d movement with such maps is the one in the
old Waddington's 4000AD game. The colour and size of the stars indicate their
vertical position. Bright, big stardots are in the top layer, smaller, darker
dots lower down. That game has two levels, but I think the system could handle
up to 5 levels or so without too many problems.
Greetings
> Nope. I like my NRE the way it is.
I was saying "how about give an example of the way a campaign *should*
be" -- no complaining if you can't also offer a solution <g>
> > description. I imagine the NRE intelligence office just
A lot more likely that the IF has agents in the NRE crews, though. ("Oh yeah?"
"Yeah!" "Sez who!" "Sez me!" etc etc)
> handful of those that exist are probably
Yes, but that has nothing to do with your initial statement.
> b)watched by NI and NRE agents specifically tasked for such,
Shouldn't imagine it's too hard to keep track of them, they're big
G'day,
> JohnA said:
The campaign down here had long build times for big things (an SDN would have
taken 36 turns to build at an existing shipyard...) and it worked fine you saw
people relying more on small ships, actually doing scouting, not over
committing forces (and pulling out if you jumped in and realised there were a
lot more there than you'd expected), trying to capture ships rather than
destroy them, forming treaties etc etc.
In case you're interested its at
http://www.users.bigpond.com/derekfulton/Just%20whose%20planet%20is%20th
is%2 0anyway.htm
sorry for the long url, you can also find it by going to
http://www.users.bigpond.com/derekfulton/
and hitting the "Just whose planet is this anyway?!" link.
As to "non-Canon powers have a remarkable tendency to inflated the size
of their fleets" I guess that comes down to personal views on the sheer size
of available resources and how much can be automated as we head out into the
stars;)
Cheers
> --- Beth.Fulton@csiro.au wrote:
Not a bad framework for a campaign based around an assumption of scattered
inhabited planets which can be easily exploited and will produce economic
resources more or less on demand.
What I prefer is the sort of campaign Don's kicking off Sunday (hopefully).
Theater is one solar system, and the attacking force has X resources and no
more. It's a fairly large advantage for the attackers, but
they have a pretty hard time limit--they have to be in
place and install defensive systems before the IFed can get in reinforcements
and before the UNSC can try to send a peacekeeping force.
The preliminary FT game is going to be a walkover--a
Mongol battlegroup and an NRE Strike Carrier Group
knocking out the in-system STL defense ships. Then
there's a series of DSII games and maybe a SGII game involving Templar PA
going up against a bunker complex.
> As to "non-Canon powers have a remarkable tendency
Yeah. After all, the crew sizes are pretty small on FT ships. For all it's
nearly 800 hulls, the NRE Navy actually has less than 100,000 ship crewmen (OO
might still have the total tonnage on hand, and tonnage = crewman). The USN
has nearly 400K personell on active duty today (well, as of July 1). I don't
know how many are on comissioned warships, but it's not an insignificant
percentage considering that there are 12 carriers each with over 5,000 crewmen
(3K ship's company, 2K air wing), and destroyers have over 300.