Campaigns

[hazelbark]

I am thinking of expending some grey matter on campaigns. But a lot of us have different concepts for campaigns. Personally I tend to be averse to the kind that have lots of logisitics of running a kingdom or empire, as quickly someone figures out how to mass produce whatever is needed to steam roll the neighbors. But generally what woudl you look for in a campaign that generates or has miniature battles?

Random ideas but please submit more.

1) Progressive campaigns. A series of battles say Alexander that represent his conquests sequentially.
2) Out of history, I want a map with siege adjudication and a point construction system.
3) Scenarios that allow assymetrical battles.
4) The sweep of history. The entire Roman empire or Mongol invasion of europe.
5) Rules that add more variety and complexity to the core game. Weather.

[berthier]

I am thinking of expending some grey matter on campaigns. But a lot of us have different concepts for campaigns. Personally I tend to be averse to the kind that have lots of logisitics of running a kingdom or empire, as quickly someone figures out how to mass produce whatever is needed to steam roll the neighbors. But generally what woudl you look for in a campaign that generates or has miniature battles?

Random ideas but please submit more.

1) Progressive campaigns. A series of battles say Alexander that represent his conquests sequentially.
2) Out of history, I want a map with siege adjudication and a point construction system.
3) Scenarios that allow assymetrical battles.
4) The sweep of history. The entire Roman empire or Mongol invasion of europe.
5) Rules that add more variety and complexity to the core game. Weather.

#2 is generally what I run but so far I have yet to find a suitable mechanism for sieges that feels right. I have tried area movement but the scale seems off so I have gone back to point to point ones such as this one---

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/berthiersdesk/khusroe.pdf

[richardsd]

I like 2 and 3!

[ravenflight]

I am thinking of expending some grey matter on campaigns. But a lot of us have different concepts for campaigns. Personally I tend to be averse to the kind that have lots of logisitics of running a kingdom or empire, as quickly someone figures out how to mass produce whatever is needed to steam roll the neighbors.

I hear what you're saying here, but I once briefly played a "Napoleon's Battles" campaign based loosly around 'Empires in Arms'. So, we played Empires in Arms and whenever there was a battle we'd count the number of factors and convert these into points.

So, you could do the same thing (assuming you're fighting in Europe). Say, for example, you were trying to recreate the 100 year's war (or at least 6 months of it). You'd have your '3 corps' running around, each with 10 'factors' in it of infantry and 2 factors of cavalry. Well, when you play the game you multiply the factors by 20 and that gives you the points.

So, you'd have 600 points of infantry and 120 points of mounted. Keep to the army lists and you'd be able to play a fairly balanced game... I'd think anyway.

Just a breif overview of what we did... you'd have to augment it to fit your needs.

[Polkovnik]

The trouble with map based campaigns is that you go to all the effort of setting it up and designing the rules, etc, and if it is at all realistic the whole thing only leads to two or three tabletop battles. After all, how many historic ancient campaigns had more than about three or four large scale pitched battles ? And quite often, if you lose one battle, that is the end for you.

Take the examples of Hannibal in Italy and Alexanders campaign in the East. If these were played as a campaign and the outcomes matched history, then The Punic wars campaign would last about 20 game years and have about 4 FOG battles, and the Alexander campaign would last 10 years and have about 4 battles. If Hannibal or Alexander lose a battle early on then the campaign is over.

So I prefer campaigns like your number 4, set over a long period of time, that are really just intended as a generator for tabletop battles that are not equal points, with some sort of overall victory conditions built in.

[Polkovnik]

There are alternatives to map based campaigns though. A couple of years ago we played an Imperial Rome campaign, using rules by
John Graham-Leigh, written in Slingshot. This was played using the DBM rules but would work equally well using FOG.
Each player is effectively a Roman family, and the campaign lasts many years, each turn being one year. At any one time, one player is
the Emperor, two are Prefects and the others are Senators. Each year, attacks on Roman territories are rolled for (so for examples
the Persians may attack in the East, or the Saxons in Britain), and either the Emperor or a Prefect commands the Roman army. The
barbarian army is controlled by a Senator. The size of the barbarian army is rolled randomly, and the Roman army depends on how many
legions are available in the province.
Points are scored for winning victories, with most points available to the Romans. The Emperor scores points if a Prefect wins a battle
also.
Random event chits are drawn each turn and can be played to scout the enemy forces, gain a barbarian ally, assassinate the Emperor or
gain popularity.
It worked really well, gave some interesting battles, and meant that everyone was involved right to the end.

The same kind of campaign could be used in other situations, although it works particularly well for Rome around 200AD - 250AD
because of the variety of enemies they faced and historically the amount of different Emperors there were over this period.

[shadowdragon]

I'm building up my armies for a campaign which would be the period from the rise of Persia to the Persian invasion of Greece / Carthaginian invasion of Sicily. The "nations" represented would be Early Persian, Neo-Babylonian, Indian, Late Dynastic Egypt, Skythian, Lydian, Thracian, various Classical Greek including Syracuse and Early Carthage. The size of a nation's armies would be determined by how many cities/provinces they control (sort of like the old game diplomacy). I'll probably have to modify the FoG lists somewhat but more points won't allow more "optimized" armies - often just more average troops. Turns would be one per campaigning season and would be more conceptual than map based (i.e., Persia invades India).

Haven't figured out what to do about navies though.

[hazelbark]

I have tried area movement but the scale seems off so I have gone back to point to point ones such as this one---

http://webzoom.freewebs.com/berthiersdesk/khusroe.pdf

I like the map. Like the idea.

[hazelbark]

There are alternatives to map based campaigns though. A couple of years ago we played an Imperial Rome campaign, using rules by
John Graham-Leigh, written in Slingshot. This was played using the DBM rules but would work equally well using FOG.
Each player is effectively a Roman family, and the campaign lasts many years, each turn being one year. At any one time, one player is
the Emperor, two are Prefects and the others are Senators.

I agree this and his ther variations I think he has an Assyrian one now are certainly a good approach.

[babyshark]

The ability to generate asymmetrical battles is important, IMHO. Also, and perhaps this goes to your #5, having rules for after the battle, such as pursuit of the losing army, an attempt to withdraw in good order, and how many of the destroyed / evaded off table BGs the loser gets back.

Marc

[will05]

One day when I can be bothered to get all the figures that I'll need together I would like to do a campaign loosely based on greece with all nations starting with undrilled light and/ or medium foot, and then let it build up from there.

[Inquisitore]

I have played some, and you could have a look here:
http://www.tagmata.it/campaigns.htm
Maybe you find some ideas you like.
You should have not problems to adapt to FoG the battle rules.

[hazelbark]

I have played some, and you could have a look here:
http://www.tagmata.it/campaigns.htm
Maybe you find some ideas you like.
You should have not problems to adapt to FoG the battle rules.

Good stuff

[hazelbark]

For those of you who remember the old DBA army system. I once melded this with the diplomacy board map. Each army was a DBA army. When you "supported" an army a la diplomacy rules we used the DBA flank march which was 3 elements.

If we were to do that with a FOG game. What do you think would be the best wy to handle it?

Assume the core battle is 800 or 900 points. The "support" would be additional troops and both sides could have them.

Would you require the flank march to be a 5th general?
How many points would you allow?
I would keep the 3 BG restriction.
Probably if the support came from a "rear" area it would arrive on its sides own base edge? Do you think it needs an additional +1 to arrive?
Since they are "extra" points the player would obviously buy an FC would you allow this or penalize it somehow?

[berthier]

I don't think an FC should be an option but there is also the question of how many points could be spent on the free contingent.

One way might be to consider the free contingent an ally and require it to follow the rules for an ally. Just a quick look through Storm of Arrows and I think you could buy a minimum sized ally for around 145 points not counting the general, so that might be workable.

[ravenflight]

For those of you who remember the old DBA army system. I once melded this with the diplomacy board map. Each army was a DBA army. When you "supported" an army a la diplomacy rules we used the DBA flank march which was 3 elements.

If we were to do that with a FOG game. What do you think would be the best wy to handle it?

Just off the cuff.

What if each player had a 600 point field army. From this they allocate their 150 point 'core' which is what would be used if they ever 'send' an allied contingent.

Each army would have three TC's as their stable of generals. For each two games they win they can promote a TC to an FC and an FC to an IC. THe IC (being the King) wouldn't be able to be used for an allied contingent but a promoted FC could. If a general is killed he's replaced with a TC in the next battle.

What do you think Mr Bark?

[Strategos69]

I have found that some boardgames are quite easy to be adapted to miniatures games and you have a guarantee that the game is balanced because they have usually been playstested. I recentñy bought Successors, the wars for Alexanders' Empire. It is a a game that where every player is a major general with minor generals around. It is a mixture of a card and board game. Generals recrute troops and form their armies accordingly. That way, instead of a points based systems it is a unit based system. I think it is not difficult to adapt, putting some restriction to the units you can have in an army and the types. In fact the limit is given by the cards (limited number of elephants so that there are no elephant armies and alike).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgo41QKA7bY

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/2645 ... rd-edition

There are several games of this kind. I have known that they are developping a game called Sicily and they are trying to have a compatibility system with miniature games.

http://www.zenturygames.com/
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/234/ ... s-carthage
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/1513 ... ic-of-rome

[Zephyr40k]

I've been working on some prospective FoG campaign rules. They are simple and streamlined, without even so much as a map. Let me know what you think:


Field of Glory Campaign Rules

The concept behind these rules is to give FoG players a very simple, streamlined framework within which to play their games of Field of Glory. As the purpose is for the campaign to facilitate the games, and not the other way around, the following distinctions have been made:

• There are no pre-set campaign turns. Players can play games of FoG as often or as rarely as they wish; there are no deadlines.
• There is no map. A map can be drawn, but it will be strictly cosmetic. Players do not need to worry about moving armies around a strategic map.
• As there is no map, there are no limits on who can play against whom. No more “I would like to play against Bob but he’s all the way on the other side of the continent.”
• There is no tracking of casualties or experience in between games in the basic rules.

That being said, there are multiple appendices that follow the basic rules that allow players to add whatever level of complexity they feel comfortable with.

Setting up the campaign
When a campaign begins, players are allocated a set number of territories. Territories are an abstract concept representing how much land your army controls. Each player starts the campaign with the same number of territories. The starting number of territories is determine via a simple formula:

(Starting # of territories) = 15 / (starting # of players + 1 )

And then round up. So it breaks down like this:

Starting #
of players Starting territories
per player
2 5
3 4
4 4
5 3
6 3
7 3
8 2
Etc Etc
New players can start the campaign at any time. They start with the same number of territories the other players began with.

Players choose an army type they will play for the campaign. If all players agree, they can limit their army choices to a set of FoG army books, but this is not usually recommended. Simply limiting it to Ancient, Medieval, or Renaissance should be sufficient.

For each of their starting territories, players choose a name (which can be historical, or not) and a terrain type. Terrain type can be any terrain type available to their army type. The only limit is they may not have more than two of any one particular terrain type.

Example: A player in a 3-player campaign chooses to play a Later Macedonian army. He gets 4 starting territories, which he chooses to name Athens, Philippia, Lacadeamon, and Salona. As his territory types are listed in the Rise of Rome book as “Agricultural, Developed, Hilly,” he allocates his terrain as such:

Territory Terrain
Athens Developed
Philippia Agricultural
Lacadeamon Agricultural
Salona Hilly

In the basic campaign rules, the terrain type has no effect except when determining the terrain at the beginning of a game.

Finally, players need to agree on the “basic size” of a game. 800 points is recommended, but other point levels can be used if the players agree,

And that is it for starting the campaign.


Playing games of FoG within the campaign
Playing a FoG game within the basic campaign rules is extremely simple. All the normal FoG rules are in effect except where stated otherwise below. Whenever two campaign players get together for a game, they perform the following additional steps:


1. Each player nominates one of their territories. This is the territory they are putting up as their “Stake.”
2. Players determine their starting points level. The player who currently has fewer territories gets a bonus of 50 points per territory his opponent controls in excess of his number of territories
a. Example: Two players meet for a game. Previously it had been agreed that the campaign would be played with a base of 800 point armies. Player A has 2 territories, player B has 4 territories. Therefore player A gets +100 points, or 900 points, as his base starting army size.
b. This is a balancing feature to the game to ensure that players who have a string of bad experiences can still participate in and enjoy the campaign. In game terms, it could be said that the empire with less territory is able to concentrate its forces better.
3. Players bid to determine who is attacker and who is the defender.
a. Both players secretly write down a number on a piece of paper and place it facedown on the table. This is the number of points they are “bidding” to be the attacker. This can be any number from 0 to their total army size, but bidding more than 25% of their army size would be quite foolish.
b. Both players reveal their bids simultaneously. The player who bid higher wins, and is the attacker.
c. The attacker must now reduce his army size by the amount of points that he bid. The defender keeps his basic army size.
i. Example: From the above case, now player A writes down “50”, while player B writes down “90.” They reveal their bids. Player B wins and will be the attacker in the upcoming game. So, for this game, player A gets 900 points, and player B gets 800 - 90 = 710 points. A tough game for B, but seeing as he has more territories, he must be a good player!
d. If the bids are tied, players discard their bid and bid secretly again. Repeat until there is a clear winner.
4. Play the game.
a. The game is assumed to take place in the territory that the defender put at stake. Use that territory’s terrain type to determine terrain placement.
b. Players should agree before the game whether they wish to play to army break point or to a set time / number of turns. Either way, the winner is determined via the normal FoG rules.
5. If the defender wins, there is no lasting result. If the attacker wins, the attacker takes the territory at stake from the defender.


Special note: No player can be reduced to less than one territory. If a player is down to one territory and loses as the defender, they remain at one territory and the winner instead gets a new territory; assume he is conquering formerly neutral lands. The winner can name this territory as he sees fit and can designate it as any terrain type.


And that is it. Feel free to continue playing the campaign until people get tired of it, or until one player wins by obtaining a set number of territories (twice their starting number of territories is a good goal).

[Zephyr40k]

Appendices: Optional Rules

Players can choose to use none, any, or all of these optional rules in their campaign. All players must agree on a campaign rule for it to be used.


Appendix A: Commanders
With this rule, players track their leaders’ growth and progress over time. The more experienced their commanders become, however, the more careful the players will want to be with them.

At the beginning of the campaign, each player starts with two commanders; one Troop Commander and one Field Commander. These commanders do not cost any points to field in a game, however players may not buy additional commanders with points as part of their army “build.”

Players should name their commanders and keep track of their experience in a roster. Players can field any and all of their commanders from their roster in a game (exceptions: dead, captured, and injured commanders, see below). These do not cost points against the army total.

Commanders earn Experience Points (xp) for participating in a battle. After every game, calculate the experience points available to the army based on the following:

Circumstance XP gained
Played a game +1
Won the battle Additional +2
Won against greater odds Additional +1


Players then split their earned XP among their commanders. Any commander who was on the table at the end of the game and was not broken or fleeing is eligible to receive XP.

Once a commander has earned enough XP, a player can spend them to promote the commander:

Promotion XP Cost
Promote Tactical Commander to Field Commander 3
Promote Field Commander to Inspired Commander 6
Create a new Troop Commander (Inspired Commanders only) 2

If a IC creates a new TC, the player should name him and add him to the roster. They start with zero XP.

If a commander is ever removed from the table during a game for any reason, roll a d6 and consult the following chart to determine what happens:

Die Roll Result
1 Lost: The commander is killed. Strike him from the roster.
2 Captured: The commander is captured by the enemy. The enemy player should note this on his roster. He can either execute the enemy commander immediately or hold him hostage. If he holds him, the player whose commander it is can ransom the commander back when the two players play another game in the future. Ransoming occurs before the beginning of a game, and uses points from the owning player’s army points total. It costs the owning player 25 points for a TC, 45 points for a Field Commander, and 75 points for an Inspired Commander. The owning player cannot use the captured commander in any way until he ransoms him back.
3 Injured: The commander is hurt and must sit out the next game the player plays.
4 Shamed: The commander loses a rank; Inspired Commanders become Field Commanders, Field Commanders become Troop Commanders, and Troop Commanders are treated as Lost (executed, demoted, et cetera).
5-6 Lucky escape: no ill effects upon the commander.

[Zephyr40k]

Appendix B: Legendary Units

Sometimes, through acts of heroism, gallantry, or bloody-minded savagery, units distinguish themselves beyond the norm, to where the bards sing songs about them for centuries – or at least, until they lose their aura of invincibility.

A player is able to create Legendary units in the following manner:

At the beginning of a battle, a player nominates any one of his battlegroups as “Marked for Glory.” He should have some kind of indicator next to the BG for reference. This BG earns “Glory Points” (GP) during the battle. It earns GPs for contributing dice to rolls that result in the following:

• Reduces the cohesion level of an enemy BG: one GP
• Results in the death of one or more enemy base: two GP
• Breaks an enemy BG: three GP
A Marked BG may never earn more than three GP per turn.

A player may move the “Marked for Glory” indicator from one of his units to a new BG at the beginning of his turn, but if this is done, all GPs earned so far in the game are lost.

If a Marked BG is broken or wiped out, all GPs earned so far in the game are lost.

At the end of the game, the player rolls 2d6. If the result is equal to or less than the number of GPs at the end of the game, then the Marked BG is elevated to “Legendary” status. Legendary BGs should be tracked on a roster. That BG is now “frozen” for all time in terms of its size, troop type, and capabilities. In addition, the player may upgrade the following by two notches: armor, quality, or training. An upgrade cannot take it above the normal maximum. (so therefore, if a BG is already Drilled, it cannot have its Training upgraded.)

Example: A Later Macedonian player has a Thureophoroi BG (Medium foot, protected, average, drilled, offensive spearman) of 6 bases achieve Legendary status. He can choose to upgrade its armor status to ‘armored’ and its quality status to ‘superior,’ or he can instead upgrade its quality status by two ranks, to ‘elite.’

A player may have up to three Legendary units on his roster at a time. They may deploy any one Legendary unit in a battle; said unit costs only as much as its normal (non-upgraded) cost.

A Legendary BG is lost and stricken from the roster if they are wiped out, or if they flee off the table. Any loss of bases suffered by the Legendary BG are permanent.

A player may dissolve a Legendary BG and strike them from his roster at any time in between games.

If the campaign is also using the Commanders rule, when a unit passes the Legendary roll, the player can choose to create one free Troop Commander and add him to the roster, instead of elevating the BG to Legendary status.