Campaign design help

[DoubleDeuce]

Just curious and figured the people hanging out in this section would know. I am currently working on my own campaign game/system using FoG as the tactical combat engine and there are some sticking points I am held up on that need to be clarified/worked out before I press forward. I have a map, a tentative system to track movement on that map and base OOB's to use for the game (I still need to convert them to appropriate BG's to represent those OOB's).

Of the campaigns that have been run here, which stands out as having the better (easier to manage) format? Basically if you were going to try running this type of multiplayer game, which format others have tried here would you steal ideas from?

[iandavidsmith]

Just curious and figured the people hanging out in this section would know. I am currently working on my own campaign game/system using FoG as the tactical combat engine and there are some sticking points I am held up on that need to be clarified/worked out before I press forward. I have a map, a tentative system to track movement on that map and base OOB's to use for the game (I still need to convert them to appropriate BG's to represent those OOB's).

Of the campaigns that have been run here, which stands out as having the better (easier to manage) format? Basically if you were going to try running this type of multiplayer game, which format others have tried here would you steal ideas from?

I thought the abstract mapping system of the lost world made things simpler. The Lost world was the most successful of the campaigns , it only fell apart when the organizer became quite ill. TGM might be able to shed more on the game system and what worked and what didn't.
Cheers
Ian

[deeter]

I really thought Mare Nostrum was the best 0rganized. Only six players, 10-year turns on a realtively correct map of the Mediterrainian. Army sizes were constant, but success determined how many actions could be undertaken per turn.

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Well here our my observations for the campaigns I was part of:

K of the Isles: small # players , highly detailed and "realistic" features ie hex movement attrition logistics: Keyth put game on hold for summer and disappeared...

Billgbers campaign: moderate # of players , simple camapign map area movement, simplified diplomacy, overall think it could have worked out quite well.... Billgber put game on hold for the summer and diappeared.....

100 Years War: large # of players revolving around the 2 main alliances Eng vs French Nice historical map with ara movement, simple yet realistic recruitmnet and logistics.. Relly gave a nice feel and the dipolcamy by players behind the scene (what i saw as i had a really minro role) felt like you were ready a history book. With finite golas and timeline this seemed to be the campaign that would work.... Scar called a halt for summer and disappeared.....

Uh do you see the pattern?? Never call a halt to a campaign to go on break, you end up vanishing w/o a trace!


LW not really sure what happened ... Many players did take a very passive roll even when Peter was around... Once Peter declared he was leaving i think many just tuned out...... When the final season started I had PM sevral players that i thought were still very active regarding decisions they needed to make in game and recievd no responses ...... I guess w/o the creator people lost interest... Hard to say though as there were over 20 players and thus over 20 reasons why it fizzled out...
Me and Davauthojo were handling the record keeping for the last active season and i will say, it was alot!

I would love to see the LW become active again, but i am not the owner of it... i think it would require a rework though

[maximvs]

I thought that the Lost World was very good at first, but once the extra little bits appeared (like players being dealt cards that produced more and more decision making that was not related to campaigning, and having to make revenue/building choices, obligatory attacks, etc) it became 'top heavy'.

The loan of troops from allies was a good idea, but even then there were complications about just when they could appear (which I never got the hang of - which was why I stopped my involvement because I couldn't understand what I was supposed to do next).

I think it's down to whether the player wants to be an 'emperor' and run his empire and play with the administration as well as fight battles; or whether the player just enjoys being a 'general' and likes to fight battles and let someone else run the rest.

If the campaign is run realistically like Lost World, this results of the first few battles soon starts a snowball effect where players who lose, have reduced revenue which increases their chance of losing again, which further increases their chance of losing, etc.

This is OK if the desired result is to identify the most successful player(s). But this system will always eventually drive out most of those participating!

But I wonder if a 'continuous campaign' would be more welcome to most players, where a defined world is provided where they can fight a potentially continuous string of battles (winning or losing) against a specific set of opponents. I don't see why the result of a defeat (annoying enough in itself) should automatically need incur extra penalties that themselves increase the chance of your next defeat.

[DoubleDeuce]

Thanks to everyone for the feedback. I will be re-reading through these posts and checking out the campaigns mentioned. Once I have done that I will likely post again asking for more feedback so I can further refine the project I am working on.

[Skanvak]

In my Rise of Rome Capaingn we use a real europenan map with area but we don't have movement per se (you can attack adjacent area, the winner take the area). Actually area or box on a real map regulate movement the same.

Unless you use hex which add a complexity layer, it should be nice.

We have used Vassal to keep track of campaign.

If I have an advice to give either make the camapign VERY short (4-6 turns) or have contengency for player dropping (or even you dropping).

[DoubleDeuce]

In my Rise of Rome Capaingn we use a real europenan map with area but we don't have movement per se (you can attack adjacent area, the winner take the area). Actually area or box on a real map regulate movement the same.

Unless you use hex which add a complexity layer, it should be nice.

We have used Vassal to keep track of campaign.

If I have an advice to give either make the camapign VERY short (4-6 turns) or have contengency for player dropping (or even you dropping).

I'm actually planning to use a regular style topographical map (no grids or hexes) and regulate movement based on the unit's marching speed across certain terrain. I have a program that will allow me to do this which will help greatly. My biggest obstacle will likely be implementing a replacement/income process and converting military strengths from detailed population data to FoG units.

I agree with keeping it short, and probably should be fairly small as well.

For contingency planning, the way I am looking to structure things is that there will be more than 1 player per faction. There will be a Baron who leads the faction, who will have 1 or more vassals. Should the baron drop out, one of his vassals can then step up till he returns or as the permanent new Baron. The Baron and each vassal with have their own troops.

[petergarnett]

I really enjoyed setting up & running Lost World and once I get the all clear health wise I hope to do another campaign.

Some ideas worked & some did not. I agree with maximvs that things got too complicated even if some players were enjoying the added attempts at realism. My main thrust was to both enable players to fight battles in a campaign context and to take them out of their comfort zone, i.e. not always to fight a battle of equal AP size.

Only partially successful I'm afraid and as noted the penalties for losing a string of battles were too harsh. Unfortunately it's hard to come up with a concept that both avoids league tables & has a purpose to a battle.

If there's anything useful out of LW please do adapt it to your own campaign. However I do mantain that using an abstract map is far far easily!

Hope to be back soon.

Rgs to all.

Peter

[deeter]

Hi Peter,

Hurry back!

Deeter

[TheGrayMouser]

Hey good to hear from ya Peter , hope all is well! When you get back into the FOG frame of mind, you should consider a lost world redux maybe tweak it so its easier on the time mgmt? Anyways , i have no doudt many players would flock back with you at the commanders chair, Regards , Steve .

[keyth]

Keyth put game on hold for summer and disappeared...

I have just returned - my apologies to all involved. I had a bad case of burnout and work went a bit mental for a while - due to being in various countries I had little 'continuity' time and by the time I realised how far KotI had slipped, I was a bit sheepish about 'fessing up to it.

I've not played since IF and need to get SaS, the latest patches and my FoG mojo back. I won't promise that I can manage kicking off a campaign again, but if I do it will be until the bitter end!

My apologies again for the campaign fizzling out and my long absence.

Cheers,

Keyth

[TheGrayMouser]

No better way to get your mojo back than to get the 3 expansions youve missed in your travels
Good to see ya back, was worried it was some kinda Bermuda Triangle thing , cheers!

[keyth]

No better way to get your mojo back than to get the 3 expansions youve missed in your travels
Good to see ya back, was worried it was some kinda Bermuda Triangle thing , cheers!

Thanks TGM I am just perusing the SaS armies now in preparation for some MP action in the near future!

Cheers,

Keyth

[iandavidsmith]

To Peter and Keyth,
Welcome back , i hope i speak for all when i say we enjoyed your work on the campaigns
but understand that real life gets in the way sometimes.Its more important to fix life first.
It not much good playing if its all work and not fun.
Cheers
Ian