As far as I can tell the only real difference between campaign play and
scenario play is in a campaign you have a pretty good idea of what your
opponent is going to be bringing to the table. Sure, she can pay the penalties
and bring in a brand new class of ship, but it isn't going to be a fleet you
aren't expecting.
So, the probing battles determine your opponent is carrier heavy. Refits
occur, you lose weapons and add PDS's. The game runs on.
In a scenario often you have no clue about your opponents
ships unless you are playing FB-only ships.
How would I correct this? Pretty easy for a ref. Both sides show up with
ships. You hand a copy of all SSDs to everyone involved. Both sides are then
allowed to make mods totalling no more than, say, 15% on the existing ships.
Ok. Warning everyone that I am a campaign-balance/"high-reality"
nutcase...
> As far as I can tell the only real difference between campaign
Not really. Scenario development is about (in general) building two sets of
forces within the context of the scenario who have a somewhat equal chance to
win (unless is designed to be unequal ala the K.Maru) Campaign development
starts out with the same premise that the sides are somewhat equal (unless
otherwise designed that way FWR) and then lets the players decide upon the
forces they want to bring to each scenario.
Alternately you can set up a campaign that is basically a set of linear
scenarios with various triggered events that occur depending upon what has
happened in the previous scenarios.
> Sure, she can pay the penalties and bring in a brand
Why would they be able to do that <innocent look>. Heck, IMO, that's part of
the fun of campaign play (Sean Connery impersonation: "He brought a knife to a
gunfight...") Most (ok, I'll say it, ALL that I can remember) campaign rules
I've seen forbid that sort of thing, It's contrary to the point of a campaign
somewhat.
> So, the probing battles determine your opponent is carrier
It depends upon how long the campaign has been set up for and what the scale
is actually. Is it a campaign (ie. Pacific Theatre of WWII), a
mini-campaign
(say... Wake during WWII pardon any mistakes my WWII naval isn't that
great), or a macro-campaign (all of WWII) The LaFayette Incident from FT
is
a pretty good example of a mini-campaign for FT.
Note that there are no refits, no reinforcements, and a gross limit on the
number of ship classes available to both the attacker and the defender.
Are you *including* refits? Is there strategic movement involved in the
campaign? Are you also tracking economies? Are you building the armed forces
from the ground up or are you just working with a starting force? Are there
going to be technological advances available during the campaign (often what a
refit would probably include)
Refits don't occur via magic, they need a slip, a workforce, and supply of
components for each ship. Also, when a ship is being refitted it isn't
fighting, and what happens when there is a lightning fast, surprise raid on
your major shipyard and naval base right as the war starts...
The same goes for reinforcements...
> In a scenario often you have no clue about your opponents
True.
> How would I correct this? Pretty easy for a ref. Both
I wouldn't allow that at all before the game started, and would only allow it
during the course of the campaign if the "timeline" allowed for it. As a
player I would probably also only allow it if I could target the shipyard
where the refit was occurring...
Many (most...??) campaigns work best with a ref, especially as they get more
and more complex. When you start factoring in vessel production, economic
output/commerce raiding, fleet-level command and control, things get
complicated very quickly.
The key is how much detail you want. The other key is to run the campaign in a
similar manner to DS or SG. Give each side a couple of the same objectives and
then give them each a couple that apply only to them from a pool of four or
five that the opposing player knows about (random draw works well). Scenarios
are about winning the battle, campaigns are about winning the war in very
loose terms.