Re: [NetEpic ML] Campaign System

From: Alberto Lagi <alagi_at_...>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2001 15:23:41 +0100

Hi.

I thanks you for your answer. Now my opinions:

> 1) To solve battles where one side has a much larger force and the result of
> the battle is given even before the actual battle is fought. I picture a
> battle where one side has has mustered 4k points and the other side has
> merely a couple of hundred. It takes a long time to fight a battle, so this
> would be quite boring for both parts.

This is true but you must consider other things, like scouting, ambushing and
territory advantages.
In normal battles we don't bore about this things because we are making a set
piece battle and they would alter the point balance.

A map based system, IMO must consider this points. Because modern warfare is
different from ancient battles, when two armies fought on the field where they
encountered.

Smaller sized armies would probably be scouting parties. So they could always
stand a change to evade battle with bigger and so (maybe) slower moving and more
difficult to command armies.

For inevitable battles you always could use a table system for determining the
outcome and losses. And I think it would also be fair to think a set of rules
for disengage from a losing battle.

I think we should bear in mind that the essence of a campaign is not only
fighting but also commanding.

Some of this ideas are already be included in the old CJ Mega-Wars campaign
system.

> 2) To build and reinforce armies. One could argue that a Space Marine and
> Eldar could much faster recover from mortal wounds while orks and imperial
> guardsmen dont. According to fluff, the IG regiments are never reinforced
> and must rely solely on the arrival of fresh regiments. It would be near
> impossible to make a production system to cover all the aspects of 40k
> fluff.

I would prefer limiting production o reinforcements as special events.
I imagine a campaign turn very short. In Mega-Wars one turn last one day, so
really you won't have time to build new weapons or train new troops.

> To overcome this problems I suggest:
> 1) The players involved in the campaign agrees upon a fixed number of
> armies, each with a fixed size, say 3k points.
>
> 2) Only 1 army can attack ar defend an area. I know this isnt quite
> realistic but gameballance is of the essence here.
>
> 3) Use the productionrules from Diplomacy.

Diplomacy! The simplest and yet the best board/strategy games I ever played!The
best method to break long-lasting friendships! :o)


> This means that certain keyareas on the map are suplycenters, and at the end
> of each campaignturn all armies
> are fully recovered. One supplycenter supports one army, you can never have
> more armies than you have supplycenters. When you loose a supplycenter, you
> loose an army and when you capture a new supplycenter, you get a new army.
>
> Any thoughts on this?

Well the system is simple and balanced, but if:

1) you always try to make equal sized battles
2) after a set number of turns you replenish all casualties
3) you cannot effectively use to fight more armies than your enemy (ie if you
have 5 armies and your opponent 3 you can effectively use only 3 armies to
fight).

Why bother with a campaign and a map system?
After all what are you aiming to is a number of equal sized battles, except when
a weaked army fight a fresh one, until one don't beat the other into submission.
At this point, IMO, it would be simplier and better to make a tree-linked serie
of battles, likes campaigns that sometimes GW make. After all in such condition
the map movements are mostly fluff.

Such system works well in Diplomacy because combat is not the focus of the
games.

Alberto
Received on Thu Mar 22 2001 - 14:23:41 UTC