Punic Wars MP Campaign

[w_michael]

After the Bactrian Empire Campaign is finished, I was thinking of running a Punic Wars campaign (1st or 2nd). I haven't settled on the campaign rules, but I think that two teams (Carthage vs. Rome) would be appropriate. If players rotated between playing each campaign leader/army each turn then the tedium of repeatedly playing the same army list vs. the same players would be mitigated. I have this map that I created for a DBA campaign (circa the 1st Punic War), but it would work for a FoG2 campaign easily.

1st Punic War Setup

FOG2_PunicWars.jpg (832.34 KiB) Viewed 5185 times

The brown lines are for army movement only, blue lines are for naval units only, and black lines are for both army and naval routes. Wider lines are for hazardous mountain or for long sea routes where movement may cause attrition losses.

Each area indicates the predominant terrain type (Agricultural, Hilly or Wooded) and the resources generated for the owner each year. Dark grey provinces are impassable and out of play in the scenario. Squares are either major cities, cities, or towns, which defines their intrinsic defences.

[Ironclad]

Great idea. Second Punic War is ideal campaign material and I like the idea of a team approach. Good looking map. Was trying to recall what the map in Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War looked like. I'd be interested in participating.

[rbodleyscott]

I'd be interested in participating.

Me too, as long as I can be Carthaginian.

[Doyley50]

I would like to put my name down too. Not worried which side.

[w_michael]

Great idea. Second Punic War is ideal campaign material and I like the idea of a team approach. Good looking map. Was trying to recall what the map in Hannibal: Rome and Carthage in the Second Punic War looked like. I'd be interested in participating.

When I have some time, I'll upload the starting map for the 2nd Punic War. The mapping software is very easy to work with and make changes.

[Ironclad]

Thanks. What mapping software do you use?

[mceochaidh]

Count me in. Happy to play Rome to balance against Richard's preference for Carthage.

Mac

[Ironclad]

If we are into preferences - Roman for me please.

[w_michael]

Just so everyone is clear, this is just a preliminary teaser. The campaign would not start any earlier than Jan 2018. I used the map from the S&T magazine game The Punic Wars (1975) as a basis for my map. I have three games covering the 2nd Punic War, so I would see which one would be the best fit for FoG2, or take ideas from all three.

[Aryaman]

I would be very interested in playing, and I would prefer to play Carthage, always trying to change history

[Hendricus]

I would like to participate.

[w_michael]

I threw together the starting position Campaign Map for the Second Punic War. The map is reduced in size to fit this page, but can be seen in more detail if it is downloaded and viewed in a browser or other app.

2nd Punic War

FOG2_2ndPunicWar.jpg (886.03 KiB) Viewed 4985 times

I'm still thinking about how best to adapt the rules for FoG2 play, but I can share these thoughts:
- The dark gold regions are pro-Carthaginian, and the dark red regions are pro-Roman
- The light gold and light red regions are controlled by Carthage and Rome respectively by virtue of the armies there
- There will be two teams of four players (generals)
- Armies are indicated by a flag symbol, and navies are indicated by a galley symbol.
- Carthaginian units are gold, Romans are red, and Syracuse (immobile) are green.
- A letter on a unit identifies the general in command (i.e. Carthaginian "A" is Hannibal)
- The number on a unit represents the strength, where each army point represents around 5,000 men (Roman legion sized), and each naval point represents 20 warships and an unspecified number of naval transports
- Regions are assigned predominant terrain and a resource value
- If a player has army points in a region equal to at least half a region's resource value then they control the region and gain access to the resource value as taxes
- Automatic victory is awarded if a team captures the enemy capital area
- Otherwise, victory is awarded to the team who controls the most resource points at the end of a certain number of turns

[Ironclad]

Looks good, thanks for the early update.

[Aryaman]

Have you thought out the terrain type for each region? I think it is not displayed on the map

[w_michael]

Have you thought out the terrain type for each region? I think it is not displayed on the map

The predominant terrain type is displayed after the region's name. For example, Hispania (H8) translates to hilly terrain worth 8 resource points. The terrain abbreviations are: (A)gricultural, (H)illy, and (W)ooded.

[Ironclad]

Is it a turn per year? What about sieges?

[MikeC_81]

I assume you are going to have first come first serve signups again like in Bactrian campaign or should we post here now?

[w_michael]

I assume you are going to have first come first serve signups again like in Bactrian campaign or should we post here now?

First come, first served. Just like before. The demand usually outstrips the positions available so I like to give everyone a fair opportunity to participate.

[w_michael]

Is it a turn per year? What about sieges?

I don't have the campaign game rules completely worked out yet. The turns will be yearly, but I am not sure that players will want to play 19 turns. The original game is open ended where you play until one side wins through an automatic victory or both sides agree to end the game and determine the winner based on controlled resource points (i.e. war fatigue = game fatigue).

The original game has sieges (and naval battles), but I haven't progressed that far in my thought process. Figuring out how to integrate the FoG2 battles into the game is my next priority, and it is tricky to get the balance right. You can stack 20 army strength points in an area, which is about 12,000 force points in FoG2, so the factors will have to be scaled with large armies since FoG2 has an upper limit of 2,000 FP. I also have to give some thought on to how to translate FoG2 losses back into the campaign game. In an open battle the losing side will have at least 40% losses, where an even battle in the original game had a 1/3 chance of both sides just suffering a 10% loss (i.e. a draw). Draws are rare in FoG2.

I also haven't decided whether to include campaign strategic/tactical ratings for leaders like the original game or just let each player use their raw talent. For example Hannibal and Scipio Africanus would have a rating of +3, Roman Consul Varro would have a rating of +1, and an army with no leader would be +0. The advantage of using named/rated leaders is that you can simulate Roman elections and have two of the Roman leaders be replaced with a random draw from a pool of Roman leaders at the beginning of each Roman turn. Initially Carthage would have the advantage in leadership, but Rome would have an advantage in resources. Off the top of my head, I was thinking that if you take the difference in leader ratings and give 10% x the difference in additional force points to the leader with the highest rating. For example, if Hannibal with 900 force points attacks Varro with 1,100 force points then Hannibal would use 1,080 force points in the battle.

[w_michael]

Thanks. What mapping software do you use?

I've used AutoREALM for more than a decade now. It is freeware found here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/autorealm/

I've made maps now for many campaigns: ancients, renaissance, fantasy, science fiction, etc. AutoREALM has always been able to meet my needs.