Slitherine

Another campaign option is to eschew complicated campaign rules and use the system that we are using for the Bactrian Empire, 250 BC campaign. This would be the map for a 10-player, Carthage Challenged campaign style tournament: Carthage and Nova Carthago comprise the Carthaginian Empire. They may not attack each other unless there are no other viable opponents (i.e. a civil war).

Nation - Army List:
Nova Carthago - Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Iberia - Spanish 300-10 BC
Transalpine Gauls - Gallic 300-101 BC
Massilia - Greek (Western) 280-49 BC
Cisalpine Gauls - Gauls - Gallic 300-101 BC
Illyria - Illyrian 350 BC - 25 AD
Rome - Roman 280-220 BC
Syracuse - Syracusan 280-211 BC
Carthage - Carthaginian 280-263 BC
Numidia - Numidian or Moorish 220-56 BC

Your campaign, your choice of course but I don't like this model for the Punic wars. What works well for Bactria seems less suited for the Punic wars where Rome and Carthage were the dominant powers and the rest were dwarfed by the war machines of both. Thats why your idea of a team approach looked particularly suitable using the more detailed map. Easy for me to talk however - its whatever you feel confortable managing.

Ironclad wrote:Your campaign, your choice of course but I don't like this model for the Punic wars. What works well for Bactria seems less suited for the Punic wars where Rome and Carthage were the dominant powers and the rest were dwarfed by the war machines of both. Thats why your idea of a team approach looked particularly suitable using the more detailed map. Easy for me to talk however - its whatever you feel confortable managing.

Thanks for the feedback. You are the second person to say to me that they like the team approach for the Punic Wars. I've played in a team-based, miniatures Second Punic War campaign before and the challenge is to prevent the same two people (Carthaginian and Roman), in the same theatre, fighting each other turn after turn, using the same army lists. A couple of times is fun, but after that it becomes tedious. That is why I will incorporate a player rotation at the start of each turn so that you change theatres and immediate opponents, if not the army list.

I've been continuing the development of the team-based campaign rules, currently working on a formula to translate campaign army strength points into FoG2 force points prior to a battle. I think that a side in a FoG2 battle should have a minimum of 600 force points, which is about the size of a Roman legion. The maximum size is 2,000 force points, so FoG2 can be used to fight campaign battles where the defender is outnumbered up to 3 to 1.

You are right it can get boring with the same opposition and armies for repeated battles. Rotation of players could also include opportunities for them to take on occasional assignments of minor powers battle commands if these occur during the campaign eg Macedonia, Massilia, Gauls, Spanish, Syracuse, Numidians. Players could be allocated for these one off battles regardless of their normal Roman/Carthaginian affiliation if not commanding the respective Roman/Carthaginian force in the battle. This could also be extended if any revolting regions led to single battles for such as Bruttians, Campanians and others of the above.

I'll be working on the board game to campaign rules conversion more over the Christmas holidays.

I will continue to work on the campaign rules for the Punic Wars, but I will wait until the Bactrian Campaign that I am running is finished (we are on turn 5 of 6) before I GM an new campaign.

I will give a 1-week advance notice for the time and date pf the campaign sign-up, so it will be on a first come, first served basis.

Must be super complex to design for a team game.

I'm afraid that I am over committed at the moment and will not be able to start this campaign for a few months. I'll continue to develop the rules so that they are ready when my time frees up.