How campaigns were fought

[Strategos69]

Does anyone think this is a good idea or can you think of reasons why this would be bad?

What you have decided to carry on is fine. I have remembered that there is a PC game that you may know, Rome Total War. Its official campaign has the problems we have told you: it is very common to see Rome conquering Carthage in lees than five years. So you may take a look into a mod that increases its realism:

http://www.rometotalrealism.org

You may apply some of their rules to your tabletop games. Points to consider:
- Sieges were very long and the chances of succeeding in capturing one big city were small. There are not many examples, but remember that Carthage siege was 3 years long and Syracuse 2 years. Bribing was also a common way to enter in a city.
- One fact is to conquer a city and another is to keep it. Some rules about military presence in core cities of an enemy state would be advisable.
- I have seen that, unfortunately, peace agreements are not common in campaign games (people just wanting to fight one each other). So some rules to encourage them would be nice. I mean, peace should be the objective.

[timmy1]

[quote="Brainsnaffler"]Wow! Lots of comments! :o I am familiar with 'The Art of War' but its one of those books I have never got around to reading. Perhaps now I will (tisk, and I call myself a wargamer eh?).

All of these comments and links are very useful and so thanks for them. I think I need to be more clear though, I'm not actually drawing modern warfare tactics and employing them with ancient armies, I am merely drawing a comparison as modern armies as these are composed of divisions and are in many ways committed to battle seperately. Ancient armies are clearly committed as a whole and not Battle Group by Battle Group to use FOG expressions.

I was just wanting to get clarity on how these wars were fought. It seems that they happen by simply raising another army providing the commander survives, and they have enough time and / or money to do so.

I will be sure to look heavily into logistics. Basically, I will use cities that provide an amount of equipment, food and money to whomever controls them. Each troop type will have different upkeep costs for this. If they run out of supplies, then bad things happen. I also have a system for trying to send messages which can be waylaid or other things happen to them.

Does anyone think this is a good idea or can you think of reasons why this would be bad?[/quote]

Scott, I understand where you are going. One word of warning. Cities as a base works for civilised societies in a limited sense but most people lived in villages, most agricultural production was local and many states did not have cities. 3 examples to show cities may not be the key. Rome was successful in it's wars because (this might not be agreed by everyone) it could bring large amounts of manpower into the field. Hanibal inflicts a series of major defeats on Rome but the Romans end up 14 years later with still having a bigger army. Taxation plays it's part here. When Julius C invades Gaul he is feeding a large army hundreds of miles from anything the Romans would call a city. There are lots of arguments about how he did it but cities were not a part. Finally look at Darius I of Persia and his invasion of Skythia. No cities there and lots of skirmishes.

[brianredworth]

YOU GOULD DO WORSE THAN READ TONT BATH'S WRG ORGANISING A WARGAME CAMPAIN BOOK, IT COVERS MOST OR THE BASICS.

[hazelbark]

If you want something of realistic, I will strongly advise you to put lots of efforts in representing logistics.

Then you don't need minatures only excel and a map. Or paper and pen. Or abacus and papyrus.

You are right. The probelm is that a once you can focus on logistics you show up with 10 times as the other guy and slaughter him and you win. No need for lead.

[Draka]

Agreed. The oldest saying (almost) goes "Amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics." Tournaments and most miniatures games are based loosely on balance - in real war the whole idea of generalship is to make bloody damn sure it is NEVER equal and as unbalanced in your favor as you can rig it. Campaign games are board games or nowadays computer games - it will be very hard to truly have balanced games if your logistical model bears any resemblance to reality.

[Jason_Langlois]

In FoG, the "campaign" is really abstracted into the Pre-Battle Initiative. Whoever has the initiative is the one who's managed, for whatever reason, to maneuver the enemy into giving battle after what is likely a long and protracted effort.

[SirGarnet]

Reminds me of an excellent Napoleonic campaign with very few battles, since one side or the other would naturally try to avoid a fight or withdraw quickly if it appeared unfavorable, unless forced to defend a particular location.

If the object is to fight battles rather than simply win by strategic maneuver and economic pressure, the incentives need to encourage battles.

One way to deal with typical imbalance is to take a page from FoG and set up battles in terms of Advantage/Even/Disadvantage if the numbers are not grossly disproportionate (as well as offensive/defensive posture being affected by the strategic game), in order to give and advantage in points to one side but not overwhelming. You could also place a limit on the maximum size of an army to discourage players from just piling up troops.

Unless the gamemaster or the players delight in accounting, I would be wary of excessive logistical overhead. Dealing with the balance of a few geographically or politically generated resources over time is enough to keep the players thinking and active.

[Strategos69]

You are right. The probelm is that a once you can focus on logistics you show up with 10 times as the other guy and slaughter him and you win. No need for lead.

Sometimes it is more funny to play a game in disadvantage. In Rome Total War, for example, after having tried several factions and difficulty levels, the next challenge is to win with the minima troops necessary. That makes you a good tactician.

Anyway, it is true that a map based campaign is played more in a board or the Excel file than with the miniatures, so if you are just willing to play battles you will not enjoy it. Or, even worse, you will have many kamikaze players that will be likely destroyed in a few years. Why did Carthaginians tried to surrender several times in the three Punic wars? Because it was the smartest thing they could do in those conditions. Players who just like to play battles do not understand that, so maybe, if you have that type of players, you will enjoy more a less complex campaign centered in one battle. Two armies, a reduced map, clear objectives (logistic included as objectives) that provoke the combat will be enough to have fun for several sessions.

[Brainsnaffler]

You are right. The probelm is that a once you can focus on logistics you show up with 10 times as the other guy and slaughter him and you win. No need for lead.

As many of you have suggested, there is a need to address the "balance" of the armies. I have worked out the possiblity of making alliences, trading defending, moving or attacking. As such, it is possible to take over land via alliences. There is also the possibility of sea battles. Logistics do come into it as an army needs supplying every game turn and there are consequences for not paying, feeding or providing equipment to the troops.

In terms of balancing armies, an army may only be, say, 800 points. It must also have at least one commander. Any more troops raised will be assigned to a second army, not joined onto the first. This provides an equal balance in game terms, BUT, any bases lost in combat are permenantly lost until they are purchased back. Therefore, although the battle groups remain, not all battle groups will be at full strength.

Much of the stuff I have included in the campaign will divert from reality as it would never really be an equal battle all the time as mentioned on this thread, but thats ok. For me an enjoyable game would be giving a chance for both sides to win, whilst providing a realistic feel of the ancient world. It is still a game after all. If people play nations that have no chance in hell of winning, then they will be asking themselves why bother?

[hazelbark]

Sometimes it is more funny to play a game in disadvantage.

Anyway, it is true that a map based campaign is played more in a board or the Excel file than with the miniatures, so if you are just willing to play battles you will not enjoy it.

Players who just like to play battles do not understand that, so maybe, if you have that type of players, you will enjoy more a less complex campaign centered in one battle. Two armies, a reduced map, clear objectives (logistic included as objectives) that provoke the combat will be enough to have fun for several sessions.

I don't disagree with your point and very much do enjoy campaigns and scenarios etc. For instance I have zero interest in miniatures in several time periods including the combustion engine era. But I do like operational campaigns in that period.

You really need to be certain that the players and the ref all have the same view (i.e. operational campaign or close battles).

I recently played a napoleonic campaign where there was no epic battle, because one side did a good job of mugging isolated formations until the final battle looked like Little Big Horn. Fun campaign, lousy miniatures game.

[SirGarnet]

I recently played a napoleonic campaign where there was no epic battle, because one side did a good job of mugging isolated formations until the final battle looked like Little Big Horn. Fun campaign, lousy miniatures game.

Ah yes, it is said the true acme of strategy is to win a campaign without fighting, because your expert maneuvering lulls your weary opponents into a helpless sleep.

[dave_r]

If you want an excellent example of an army that had to win and conducted the campaign accordingly then I strongly suggest you read about the first crusade.

This was effectively a "bunch of hooligans" who went out to "Prod Buttock". One serious loss and they were finished as they were in a foreign land.

There are unfortunately not a massive amount of genuine reports that aren't tainted by later propaganda (i.e. those who knew how it finished), but I strongly suggest Christopher Tyermans God's Wars, which gives a blow by blow account of all the crusades, how they were funded and what went right / wrong and all the internal squablling during the crusades. Although annoyingly doesn't go into much detail about the actual battles...