I remember one of Adam's postings from last year describing some
WH40K (I think) players using the "Hordes of the Things/De Bellis
Antiquitatis" minicampaign system for SF, with star systems replacing the
cities.
One thing most people get wrong in a campaign is the "Too Much Stuff"
syndrome. There are more decisions to make, and therefore more gamer activity
and involvement, if everyone is stretched too thin. Say each player has a home
system and 2 other worlds. Let each player have enough
points to build about 2 small non-FTL defence vessels (Mass 12-ish) for
each
colony, and 3 for the Homeworld. Give each player 1500-ish points for
FTL forces (cf the DBA "Field Army"). Each world gets a free defence
station/dock say Mass 30.
Ignore new construction for the moment- think
Crimea/Russo-Japanese
War/Spanish-American War rather than WW2. Assume that planets will
surrender rather than face orbital bombardment. Assume that
recce-drones
tell everyone where everyone is going. Assume that travel is along
warplines or similar, a la Warp-War.
Try something like that, and then add other aspects, eg and especially,
simultaneous hidden strategic movement. Event cards can be prepared in
advance, with things like "extra effort at shipyards gets you 150 points worth
of ships completed early" or "design flaw prevents your fighters attacking
ships successfully this turn" etc.
Just a few suggestions Rob Paul NERC IVEM Oxford
PS If you ever come across a copy of Donald Featherstone's "Wargames
Campaigns", it's full of good ideas. It deals mainly with pre-20th
century land warfare, but I think a fair amount would translate to FT and
DSII.
As far as legislating stuff with new rules goes, the thing that is needed most
is a system for refitting and repair of damaged spaceships.
How long does it take to repair hull damage or a weapons system or a drive
system? Does it depend on the size of the ship?
How much resources (points? mass?) does it cost?
What kind of space station do you need in order to do the repairs, and how
much do they cost? Are there different sizes of stations for repairing
different sizes of ships?
A powergamer with a couple of superships may be able to hit hard, but they can
only hit a couple of places at a time, and once they've hit a star system,
they have to sit there if they want to keep it. Meanwhile, a player with a
more balanced force can take & hold the star systems they need to win the
campaign.
Also, the supership powergamer will have to go back to the dockyard after a
few battles, and that will keep them from taking & holding anything until
their force is back up to strength, especially if the time needed to repair
their ships keeps them out of the campaign for too long.
OK...Let's do this:
First, leave the choice of ship types upto the players...I think the problem
will go away by itself...
Then, Why don't we as FT players who are interested in a full campain system
come up with one? Then Jon could wrap it up and publish it for us?
Start with the campain rules listed in the book (page FT33-35...Yes I
FINALLY got a copy of FT and MT!)
Pull out Starfire's Empire rules...Lots of interesting ideas we could weld on
without plagerism. (The New Empire rules)
Keep the rules fast and loose, like the FT game. That way we can adapt it to
any setting we want.
It must be able to handle campains like in the book, explorations, to full
empires battling it out... This means the economics must be simple and
adaptable.
Jon (or someone with DS2/SG2) can do the interfacing with those games.
Particularly the time to train/assemble ground forces.
Just some thoughts to stimulate things...
> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Rick Rutherford wrote:
> Also, the supership powergamer will have to go back to the dockyard
Ahem. Meanwhile, his lesser opponents are DEAD, so much space dust. Let's not
forget that. If you don't have the time to repair an existing ship, you
certainly don't have the time to build ships from scratch.
> On Thu, 27 Mar 1997, Rick Rutherford wrote:
Let's
> not forget that. If you don't have the time to repair an existing ship,
I think the implication of Rick's point is that yes, SOME of the opposition
are dead, but they've got a lot more ships (smaller ones, admittedly) and
probably haven't even committed some to battle yet; if the powergamer's big
ships are in the repair yard, the opponent can send a couple of (relatively)
puny frigates to calmly take the star system that is now defended only by a
customs cutter....:)
It reminds me of one of Jim Webster's articles in one of the wargames mags, in
which he introduced the MGIAT, standing for "My God, It's A Tank"... this
being the militia or irregular infantryman's reaction to ANY vehicle bigger
than a Toyota pickup with a.50 cal MG on the back! The point is that force is
relative, and what you really need is to ensure that for the second battle you
have more operational strength left than the
enemy.....
I've been working on campaign rules for about 6 months now, but the still
require a lot of tweaking. At 50+ pages, I'm STILL not done yet.
The level of resolution required for a campaign on the level I'm trying to
simulate has forced me to add a few new systems and modify others. FTL drives
are costed out according to the speed they can move during a campaign turn;
they cost half what regular drives cost for the same "speed". I use different
armor rules, and I've modified James Butler's Bridge rules to simulate the
amount of ships a single flagship can command. I've added a few campaign level
systems: Cryo Units (for moving large amounts of population from point a to
point b), Colony Modules (Sets up a
base habitat), and Repair/Resupply Modules (for fixing ships too damaged
to make it back to base), etc.
Campaign level turns are 1 month, broken into 4 1-week segments.
I've
come up with like 50+ random events cards, as well as what I feel is a
pretty strong backbone for legendary character creation (it's a mini FMA RPG
in its own right). Anyway, I'm toying with the idea of buying a domain name
and setting up my own site; when I do, I'll post my mad FT Campaign ravings
there.
Take care,
> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
You're right -- it's time to step back and examine the assumptions:
In the two campaign games I've played, one lasted two months (game time), and
one lasted 6 months. We used the campaign rules in the back of More Thrust as
a starting point, and played on a hex grid where it takes one day (game time)
to go from hex to hex. We felt that there wasn't enough time to build new
ships, so we all started with 7000 points worth of ships, and we made up some
simple, streamlined repair rules to keep our damaged ships in play during the
campaign.
So...given these two assumptions (no new shipbuilding, and a relatively short
duration in "game time"), an official set of rules for
refit/repair
of damaged ships will help keep things balanced.
> Mikko Kurki-Suonio writes:
@:)... If you don't have the time to repair an existing ship, you @:)
certainly don't have the time to build ships from scratch.
This is true. It does remind me of one very successful campaign I participated
in some time ago (this was (duck yet again) SFB but could easily be modified
to pretty much any space combat system). The theory was that each player was
running a small mining operation in
orbit around a wormhole which would spew out valuable ore-containing
asteroids at some regular interval. The players got "money" for
harvesting the asteroids, and/or less money for gathering information
about the wormhole. Players were allowed to perform limited repairs on their
ships between turns and were also allowed to "purchase" new ships from home.
This system allowed us to have both repairs and new
ships simultaneously - it was quite similar to the "prestige" system
used in Panzer General, for those of you who've played that.
My current group is now considering running a modified version of this
campaign (I and one of the others were in the original campaign) because it
was a simple and straightforward way to create nasty combat situations, what
with everybody rushing in with their fleets and not enough asteroids to go
around. It did lack quite a bit in the variation department, given that the
scenarios were all pretty
self-similar, but its advantages keep bringing it to the top in our
campaign arguments.
Well if you assume it was 5 to 1 and 3 died then it is a question of how long
it takes to build 3 vs repairing 1. No matter what, the remaining 2 will have
free rain for awhile.
Paul
Sounds like you may have TOO much detail for my tastes.
Paul
----------
From: Donald A. Chipman III [SMTP:tre@intelli.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 1997 6:15 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: campaigns
I've been working on campaign rules for about 6 months now, but the
still require a lot of tweaking. At 50+ pages, I'm STILL not done yet.
The level of resolution required for a campaign on the level I'm trying to
simulate has forced me to add a few new systems and modify others. FTL drives
are costed out according to the speed they can move during a campaign turn;
they cost half what regular drives cost for the same "speed". I use different
armor rules, and I've modified James Butler's Bridge rules to simulate the
amount of ships a single flagship can command. I've added a few campaign level
systems: Cryo Units (for moving large amounts of population from point a to
point b), Colony Modules (Sets up
a base habitat), and Repair/Resupply Modules (for fixing ships too
damaged to make it back to base), etc.
Campaign level turns are 1 month, broken into 4 1-week segments. I've
come up with like 50+ random events cards, as well as what I feel is a
pretty strong backbone for legendary character creation (it's a mini FMA RPG
in its own right). Anyway, I'm toying with the idea of buying a domain name
and setting up my own site; when I do, I'll post my mad FT Campaign ravings
there.
Take care,
Tre
This brings up a good point. Any campaign system would have to either be what
I call "operational level", like Rick's example below, or "strategic level",
like Star Wars or Master of Orion. The operational level campaign is easier I
think because there is no
construction, only repair/replacement.
The strategic campaign gets into the whole economics of empires which is hard
to do well and even harder to do simply.
How about "FT Front" where the player is commander of "Alpha Fleet" stationed
on the rim of "Omega
Sector." He/she has a set fleet and a set level of repair/resupply
points. Replacements come in on a
schedule. Wins/losses and a few die roles determine whether the
repair/resupply/replacement pool
goes up/down and/or comes sooner/later. There would be no "exploration"
only scouting. Auxiliary ships would be like "terrain" and have to be
defended as would starbases/repair depots.
Paul
----------
From: Rick Rutherford [SMTP:rickr@ss1.digex.net]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 1997 2:25 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: campaigns
> On Fri, 28 Mar 1997, Mikko Kurki-Suonio wrote:
You're right-it's time to step back and examine the assumptions:
In the two campaign games I've played, one lasted two months (game time), and
one lasted 6 months. We used the campaign rules in the back of More Thrust as
a starting point, and played on a hex grid where it takes one day (game time)
to go from hex to hex. We felt that there wasn't enough time to build new
ships, so we all started with 7000 points worth of ships, and we made up some
simple, streamlined repair rules to keep our damaged ships in play during the
campaign. So...given these two assumptions (no new shipbuilding, and a
relatively short duration in "game time"), an official set of rules for
refit/repair of damaged ships will help keep things balanced.
> Paul wrote:
> How about "FT Front" where the player is commander of "Alpha Fleet"
stationed
> on the rim of "Omega
This fits much more with my own thinking about FT campaigns than the "grand
imperial strategic" type does; it also gives possibilities for all sorts of
fun with random events and interference from higher command levels - you
might get some replacements coming in, but equally NavFltCom might suddenly
decide that they need to steal one of YOUR cruiser squadrons to reinforce
someone else's sector... This sort of setup will, I think, give a lot of fun
without some of the
<<<Well if you assume it was 5 to 1 and 3 died then it is a question of how
long it takes to build 3 vs repairing 1. No matter what, the remaining 2 will
have free rain for awhile.
> In a message dated 97-03-27 11:12:27 EST, Rob Paul wrote:
> I remember one of Adam's postings from last year describing
<snip>
> Ignore new construction for the moment-
Or don't. As long as we're "borrowing" from other systems, how about lifting
the ship replacement rules from GDW's Imperium? In short, at no economic cost
cap ships return to play after 2 turns, lesser ships after
1.
Replacements are limited to 1 ship/turn, but can be "stacked up" into
the future. The schedule of replacements can be accelerated by permanently
eliminating ships due to re-enter play on an earlier turn. Upon
review, maybe an example is called for.
Turn 1 - Say 3 DD's are destroyed. 1 would return to play on turn 2, 1
on turn 3, and the last on turn 4.
Turn 2 - Bad luck. A BB was sunk. The soonest that it could reappear is
turn 4 (2 turn wait on cap ships, remember?). But because a DD is already
scheduled to reappear on turn 4, the BB must wait until turn 5. However, the
player has the option of permanently removing the DD from play to allow the BB
to come in on turn 4.
Now throw in a "points per system controlled" economic system and you've got
yourself a campaign game.
> Just a few suggestions
Good ones, IMHO.
No, I don't think that works very well either for the kind of campaign Jon is
describing. The reason to limit replacements and, especially, rebuilding is
not because of complexity (although that is certainly an issue) but because of
time frame. If each campaign turn is a week or even a month are you going to
replace a BB that quickly? Of course in the future they could very well spit
them out in an hour, but, if you want to keep things along current lines, then
the only way to get replacements is by having them allocated to you. The same
with repairs. A certain level of repairs could be done fairly quickly (look at
the Yorktown in WW2) but many could also take months.
Paul
----------
From: WENMESS@aol.com [SMTP:WENMESS@aol.com]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 1997 11:53 AM
To: FTGZG-L@bolton.ac.uk
Subject: Re: campaigns
> In a message dated 97-03-27 11:12:27 EST, Rob Paul wrote:
<snip>
> Ignore new construction for the moment-
Or don't. As long as we're "borrowing" from other systems, how about lifting
the ship replacement rules from GDW's Imperium? In short, at no economic cost
cap ships return to play after 2 turns, lesser ships after
1. Replacements are limited to 1 ship/turn, but can be "stacked up"
into the future. The schedule of replacements can be accelerated by
permanently eliminating ships due to re-enter play on an earlier turn.
Upon review, maybe an example is called for.
Turn 1 - Say 3 DD's are destroyed. 1 would return to play on turn 2, 1
on turn 3, and the last on turn 4.
Turn 2 - Bad luck. A BB was sunk. The soonest that it could reappear is
turn 4 (2 turn wait on cap ships, remember?). But because a DD is already
scheduled to reappear on turn 4, the BB must wait until turn 5. However, the
player has the option of permanently removing the DD from play to allow the BB
to come in on turn 4. Now throw in a "points per system controlled" economic
system and you've got yourself a campaign game.
> Just a few suggestions
My best campaign was in BattleTech. We ran a small mercenary unit. This
concept would also translate to Full Thrust easily. Each player runs a
"flight" of ships. Monetary concerns, reputation, repairs all would add
motovation. I know I played a lot different than I did in one-shot
battles. I also designed my Mech differently also (less ammo dependant
weapons, easier maintenance). The campaign I was in was an ongoing campaign (I
was in it every other saturday for about 5 hours for over 2 happy years).
Brian Bell pdga6560@csi.com
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pdga6560/fthome.html
Includes the Full Thrust Ship Registry Is your ship design here?
We run a mercenary campaign. Forces are limited to a maximum point total for
each type of force -- fleet, ground, and skirmish. Players take turns
writing "contracts" between mercenary groups and
governments/corporations.
The other players then "bid" on the contract, with low bid getting the job.
The player can then subcontract to others (e.g., my ground force is based
exclusively on VTOLs, so when I get a ground contract I sub to someone who has
artillery or armor). Cash earned is spent to replace consumable supplies
(one-shot weapons and fighters in FT, for examples) or to build new
equipment. Works pretty well in that games are NOT necessarily balanced
> Date: Fri, 28 Mar 1997 22:38:38 +0000
> Paul wrote:
stationed
> >on the rim of "Omega
I had an idea for a campaign game that worked along these lines. You were in
charge of a sector with various systems which were assigned a reinforcement
point value. Each system you held entitled you to roll on a reinforcement
table. The table had 10 reinforcement squadrons available. The catch was that
you could only roll a D6. The larger Superdreadnought squadrons were at the
high end of the table. Picket squadrons were at the bottom. If you wanted to
get the larger squadrons you had to sacrifice reinforcement rolls.
For example you hold 3 systems whose total reinforcement point value is 4. You
can roll on the table 5 times (getting anything from picket squadrons to
cruiser squadrons, if you're lucky). Or you
could sacrifice 2 rolls to get a +2 roll on the table potentially
giving you a chance for one of the larger squadrons. Yet you are still
guaranteed better than a picket squadron even if you roll badly.
While I didn't get to test this idea in play I beleive it would create an
interesting campaign game, particularly if you had some political elements
thrown in. Politics in wargaming is always a huge spanner waiting to be thrown
in the works.
> In a message dated 97-03-29 , Paul Calvi wrote:
> No, I don't think that works very well either for the kind of campaign
> not because of complexity (although that is certainly an issue) but
> of time frame. If each campaign turn is a week or even a month are you
Looks like I left out a vital bit of info; each turn in "Imperium" is 1 year.
During a turn, a player is likely to see only one or two major fleet
actions, and two or three "feints". Given what amounts to an area
movement system (that the DBA campaign system was pointing towards) and an
extended time frame, the players are placed at a higher command level (theater
commander?) and the detail work that a squadron commander faces is abstracted.
It may not work for the type campaign Jon is describing (but I haven't worked
my way through that thread yet ;-) ). However it does work with a
campaign where the emphasis is on playing interrelated FT scenarios, and where
the players involved don't have the time or the interest to handle the
detailwork.
I guess my objective is a campaign that can be played over 4 or 5 long Sunday
afternoons (including battles) while not having the non-battle
consderations abstracted into irrelevance. Which was why I like the example
stemming DBA in the firstplace.
One way that I thought about enforcing auxillary ships was instead of just
taking over the spaceways is to have to assualt the planet itself. HIGHLY
abstract rules for planetary assaults could be modified from the boarding
party rules. The defender could by extra troops to fortify his planets. The
attacker would need troopships (maybe alot of troopships). These could be
military hulls (not very many of them) or they could be merchant hulls (more
but need support).
THe only thing I haben't quite figured out is a good set of economics.
+++++++++++++++
+------------+ +----------------+
> On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Eric Fialkowski wrote:
HIGHLY
> abstract rules for planetary assaults could be modified from the
Why not play them out using Dirtside II?:)
DSII provides an excellent way of playing out the planetary actions, but in a
pure FT campaign, the "dirtside" actions need to be abstracted so as to not
slow down the game play. Each side could start with a certain number of points
(as for the ships). These ground troops could then be moved around from system
to system by transports. Of course, this could lead to a referee requirement
"to keep people honest."
Win Barker Imagineer Solutions onQue
> ----------