I was cogitating on campaign systems, and got to thinking that most 'fight the
battles' campaign rules have difficulties in that they either creating way too
many battles, a dearth there of, or simply too many mismatches.
I began to consider the tabletop the place where individual battles didn't
happen, but battle modifiers were created.
Straight winning equals better stats might be too hard, so I came up with a
mechanic that number of battles played increased overall fleet 'experience',
while winning battles gave a player some advantages, perhaps modifiers in
particular battles. As it was suggested by rules from Fourth Frontier War by
GDW, I decided to call it Admiral quality.
Throw in rules like 'only X battle(s) per turn per specific opponent counts'
cuts down on Tom and Dick recording twenty seven battles this week to snow
everyone not in their clique problems, along with other chrome that keeps
coming to mind, and I think this has the chance of keeping folks in the game.
Anybody try something like this in their group?
The_Beast
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
http://mail.csua.berkeley.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lFor my FT
gaming group the campaign is a mechanism to enable battles to be fought with
some meaning other than simply line up and smash each other. Designing a
campaign system where you don't play table top games seems counter intuitative
to me. You have then created a space board game.
Blocking enemy lines of advance and pinning down supply line raiders leads to
a number of possibly one sided games. We found these games generaly very quick
with one side trying to escape and either making it or not. So players could
go through a lot of such games. Sometimes players would negotiate the defeat
or escape of one side without needing to play.
Sometimes people got a surprise when a supposedly out manouvered enemey got
the drop on them.
The number of battles available is proportional to the number of points people
control. if players have ~3500 points when they start and 4 different fronts
750 points per front doesn't go very far so you don't have many ships and so
many battles.
John
________________________________
From: Doug Evans <devans@nebraska.edu>
To: gzg-l@mail.csua.berkeley.edu
Sent: Thu, 24 June, 2010 2:58:28 AM
Subject: [GZG] [FT] Campaigns battle generation
I was cogitating on campaign systems, and got to thinking that most 'fight the
battles' campaign rules have difficulties in that they either creating way too
many battles, a dearth there of, or simply too many mismatches.
I began to consider the tabletop the place where individual battles didn't
happen, but battle modifiers were created.
Straight winning equals better stats might be too hard, so I came up with a
mechanic that number of battles played increased overall fleet 'experience',
while winning battles gave a player some advantages, perhaps modifiers in
particular battles. As it was suggested by rules from Fourth Frontier War by
GDW, I decided to call it Admiral quality.
Throw in rules like 'only X battle(s) per turn per specific opponent counts'
cuts down on Tom and Dick recording twenty seven battles this week to snow
everyone not in their clique problems, along with other chrome that keeps
coming to mind, and I think this has the chance of keeping folks in the game.
Anybody try something like this in their group?
The_Beast
John Tailby wrote on 06/23/2010 11:09:52 PM:
> For my FT gaming group the campaign is a mechanism to enable battles
Absolutely! I may not have made myself clear, or you may simply disagree, my
intention was that the tabletop games had a definite bearing, but not directly
on individual campaign ship battles. Assuming four campaigners one opponent
battle counted, each player would have to participate in at least three games
per campaign turn to receive maximum benefits. Not enough? Make it X number of
opponent battles counted.
> Blocking enemy lines of advance and pinning down supply line raiders
Part of the 'chrome' to the campaign I saw was particular canned scenarios to
represent certain situations as you described. Figuring how they'd interact
with the campaign game got more hinky.
However, my experience with our players is that forlorn hope situations mostly
aren't much fun, and negotiating results depends more on the
non-tactical skills, which leaves those of us socially inept at a
disadvantage. Say, 90% of our players.
Not that I haven't seen desperate situations enjoyed, just tough to depend on.
> Sometimes people got a surprise when a supposedly out manouvered
Now there's a bit of a point; you're describing an operational campaign, 'play
the cards you're dealt', while I'm imagining more of a 4X, with building etc.
Also, folks can try to 'save up' for a really big battle. This can leave
periods of few battles, and if t here IS building/stockpiling the
battles that do result can be a bit big for any particular ruleset.
However, those fleets are all green crew. If you want them experienced, they
have to go out and play on the table. Canned scenarios can give variety and
balance, as well.
> John
I've not been dissuaded completely, but you've convinced me this may be useful
for only certain groups. Thanks!
The_Beast