Wargame campaigns

[martin goddard]

What are your experiences with wargames campaigns.
These  are campaigns which allow a number of miniatures battles that affect and are related to each other. Usually involving more than 2 players.
Are they becoming less of more popular?

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

I've enjoyed them in the past, in a club setting.

You do really need all the participants to turn up each week, though.

Our tabletop rules were pretty simple, which allowed for a lot of movement and fighting of an evening.

Simon

[Panzer21]

Wargame campaigns require an umpire who can motivate players to give orders / directions on a regular basis and players who are sufficiently motivated to participate. This may seem obvious, but if either is lacking or begins to wane, usually results in the campaign collapsing.
The rules should be as simple as possible with minimal bookkeeping and simplified movement - box to box or province /area to province / area.
The aim should be to generate battles.

I've participated in very enjoyable campaigns - the Sport of Kings SYW campaign from Warfare in the Age of Reason rules and a TYW version of Soldier King by GDW.
Less enjoyable was a more realistic TYW game and a Greek hoplite colony / exploration game that collapsed due to the slow start and players drifting off. The former was due to being far from the main action.

Campaign newsletters are essential with players who contribute material.

Neil

[Noggin]

I spent a considerable amount of time organising and running an ACW campaign only to have it ruined by a member of the club who questioned every rule and wanted umpteen things changed, at which point I stopped running a campaign and now play very enjoyable ones solo.

[John Watson]

I found that they used to peter out before they finished. The nail in the coffin for me though was a campaign I umpired in which the umpire's decision was final, but there was still one player who challenged every decision that went against him. So I don't do anything that lasts longer than one day now.
John

[Bankinista]

I have participated in, or run, many campaigns varying from 3 to a dozen participants. Some were even pre-internet and involved hand written instructions and use of the postal service! All have fizzled out without reaching a conclusion. (Actually I can't say all. I'm in a 1745 one at the moment albeit there has been a 3 month pause since McDonald of Burger inflicted a stunning/lucky defeat on Government forces.) I can't point to a common fizzle factor but would go towards "weakest link in the chain" – players and umpire.

I dislike games with no background at all – a stand up punch up between equal forces doesn't make much sense or tie-in to my understanding of reality. What half decent general would commit to battle on a 50:50 win:lose basis unless he had no choice? Tally my bananas. The bigger picture/campaign may give him no choice. For this reason I always liked the RFCM approach of a mini-campaign pre game. I tried to take this one step further (The Mill 13)  with my AK47 mapless campaign which I hope others have found of use.

Derek of Cambridge

[martin goddard]

There are various aspects to making a campaign work.
Here are some possible discussion points?

1. Campaign needs to move on without one slow/diverted player stopping progress.
2. Games need to be worth fighting. No "running away" or traversing battles.
3. Good communication between players.
4. About 6 players to give enough avenues for campaign progress.
5. A method for deciding the outcomes if players cannot get to play the battle.
6. A centrally viewable map of progress etc.
7. Limit the campaign duration to a short time. 3 months. Otherwise interest and lives change.
8. Someone else will probably fight your battles.In fact this might be preferable?
9. A period for which players have armies.
10.A period for which players have the same rules or other suitable period sets.
11. Players need to take part in at least 6 battles.
12. Campaign victory conditions. Comprehensive and varied. Rather than just "take the capital".
13. Historical campaigns need to be avoided as players would bring pre cnceptions and detailed knowledge they wish to be included.


Quick thoughts re RFCM could be PBI,HI,AK,CK, SCW. They all have forces players will already own. ROF, BB, SB have fewer owners/players.
PBI is the most owned/played?

martin

[Panzer21]

It's also useful to use a boardgame if one is available. Preferably one which transfers the battles to a separate "battle board" or similar. The main challenge is transferring the cardboard counters to tabletop units.

Another option is the mini-campaign. I did one many years ago for the early SCW. It's available here (without map - just create a series of linked boxes):

https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/aband/v6n1/ab61colu.htm

Also a great resource for old wargaming magazines:

https://stefanov.no-ip.org/MagWeb/maglist.htm

Neil

[martin goddard]

Thanks Neil,  All good to chew on.

martin

[Colonel Kilgore]

I'll be controversial and challenge Martin's point #6.

During lockdown, Big Mike ran a fun ECW campaign by email. There was a real "fog of war" not knowing who was doing what, or where they were.

If Mike's still got the details, having been outwitted at every turn (it may be that the other side had a WhatsApp group to collaborate their actions, rather than putiing all communications through our illustrious Umprie...) I'd love to know the "big picture" one day.

Simon

[martin goddard]

That is interesting . Maybe Big Mike can give some details here?


martin

[Leman (Andy)]

I have no idea about their general popularity. As a club member for 27 years I never experienced one that lasted. I did have a very successful campaign at home with one other player in 2017/18 using the BBB system. All the major battles of the first four weeks of the FPW were fought in chronological order. As a rather poor player, with the French army, I lost every single battle. Needless to say, we didn't bother with Sedan. I thought I would enjoy campaigning as a solo player, and I may give it a go again, probably in post-Roman Britain using the Dux Brittaniarum rules, which are designed for campaigning. However, in most other periods I much prefer to play out scenarios, either historical or C S Grant style.

[martin goddard]

Maybe this is a runner?

martin

[JohnWyatt]

I've never participated in a multi player campaign that didn't fizzle out after a few sessions, but many years ago a friend (now sadly deceased) and I successfully completed a two-player campaign using PBI. It was based on the D Day landings and associated events, and as far as I can recall we used a system whereby battles were also taking place off the table, which I think was lifted from another PP set - was it Hey You in the Jail? That was useful as it gave the feeling that there was a bigger context to the on table action and provided a rationale for various special rules and events we dropped in.

For my solo campaigning I've tended to keep things very simple (i.e. not attempting to model hidden movement or excessive logistical detail) but trying to find some kind of "hook" to give me a flavour of the historical period - one of the more ambitious being a chevauchée style campaign which had sieges, martyrs, pretenders and material plundered from Shakespeare's history plays. Not particularly historical, but good fun.

[steve_holmes_11]

I would recommend a very lightweight (modern gaming) approach to campaigns.

Don't assemble every battalion form the 1812 invasion of Russia with hidden movement on a scale map.

Instead take a look at some of the early RFCM games.
You know those ones where you nominated three forces, and then fought one of the clashes.

A light campaign can do something similar, but fight all three battles.
A classic involves an invasion - three invading forces marching on three different routes.
Three initial battles with most casualties recovering, but defeated force suffering some reductions.

Then your grand finale brings all three invasions together for a big battle featuring the survivors of the earlier battles.