Re: [Epic][E40k] Campaign Ideas

From: Erik Rutins <snowdo1_at_...>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 09:28:10 -0400

Sean:

> You welcome, I am slightly addicated to setting up and running
> campaigns, so I just couldn't resist replying :-).

Glad to hear it - I'm getting that way, too. This has been a lot more
fun than playing one-shot games, so far.

> > Okay, I was thinking of things in a fairly abstract manner for the
> > whole campaign system. Assume territories 1-9 are for player 1,
A-I
> > are for player 2. Here would be the arrangement:
> >
> > 147ADG
> > 258BEH
> > 369CFI
> >
> > So 7-9 and A-C would be the first lines of resistance. It's more
> > symbolic than anything else. In a more detailed world, 7,8 and 9
could
> > be on separate continents, but in each case they would represent a
part
> > of the initial forward line of contact. Hope that makes sense.
>
> Yep, thats very clear thanks! I may need to make the map like deeper
though,
> or the campaign maybe over very quick.


The map can absolutely be deeper, though you should then increase the
victory score total needed to win. My sense from the playtesting done
so far is that the above map offers a good compromise of strategy
without too much complexity. We're in the process of tying the
planetary campaigns described here into a more galactic campaign. i.e.
Each campaign determines the successful defense or loss of a world.
The players then determine where the next assault takes place. You can
also fight simultaneous campaigns for several planets along a front
line. It really starts to keep you on the edge of your seat...

> 1) Aircraft can fly recon missions. but enemy aircraft detachments
> ever territory they fly over may intercept them, as per the rules
> in Epic 40K. No friendly aircraft may come to aid of aircraft flying
> recon missions, by attempting to intercept enemy aircraft that are
> intercepting the aircraft flying a recon mission.

What did you think of the idea I wrote up about comparing intercept
values + d6 to see if a successful intercept had taken place? If you
allow everyone in a territory to intercept, it can quiclky become
suicidal to fly recon missions, IMHO. I think each detachment should
be resolved independently too, so no help from friendlies - but also, I
think intercepts should only be able to occur over your territories.

> 2)The recon mission may only be shot by flak in the territory they
are
> scouting, as they otherwise will be flying too high and fast to be
> targeted. Use the normal rules to resolve this.

This seems to also make recon very deadly. I don't think you generally
need to get as close to take photographs as to strafe or drop bombs.
Also, since each recon mission has a 6 on a d6 chance of
spotting/scouting an enemy detachment, I think each detachment should
also have a 1 in 6 chance of spotting them and trying to blow them out
of the sky. If you let every detachment fire at every recon flight
with all guns, where's the reason to fly recon?
 
> 2)Air detachment may fly only one mission a recon mission or
interception
> mission (attempting intercept enemy recon aircraft) each turn.
Flying
> a recon or interception mission means an aircraft detachment
inavailable
> battlefield ground support or interception mission later in the same
turn.

I was also thinking along these lines - declare the missions, use 'em,
that's it for the turn.

> 3)The only limit to the number of recon missions that maybe flown is
the
> number of aircraft detachments a side has.

I originally put a limit of three recons per territory just to make it
possible that you wouldn't spot everything in a territory. However, as
I re-think it this probably won't be too much of a problem with a 1 in
6 chance of successful recon. I'll revise it to your suggestion.

> 4)When a aircraft is in the territory that it wishs to recon roll a
1d6 for
> every enemy detachment in the territory. On roll of 1 a detachment
> must fully reveal its composition, on a roll of 2 a detachment only
> reveals what warengines (if any) are in the detachment, the type and
> the number of each type.

I originally thought 1d6 for each recon flight, but I like the way this
makes it easier to recon based on troop density in a territory. So, 1
in 6 chance per detachment, per recon flight. 1 in 3 chance to
discover war engines. This seems good, but I'm a bit concerned that
with unlimited recon flights it'll be easy to scout everything out...
we'll use your suggestion and playtest it to see how it works for now.
We can always fine-tune it, but I like the 1 die per detachment.

> 5)Treat transport missions in the same way as recon missions.

Here again, if you use all of your suggestions, transport missions
would be suicide (IMHO). The intercept and flak rules need to be a bit
less deadly to make any of this strategically worthwhile. I was also
planning to allow an intercept mission to escort a transport mission.
This would mean that when the enemy declared an intercept with two
detachments, you could peel off your escort and fight it out with one
of the intercepting detachments. Only one would hit the transport
detachment. Arguably, you could escort with as many detachments as you
like, but they would not be eligible for any other missions that turn
(including normal intercepts).

> > Well, here I disagree - let me explain what I was trying to
model...
> > It's not walking speed, but the ability for an organization to
respond
> > (I think this is what strategy rating represents). For instance,
the
> > marines are a very flexible, rapid deployment-type force, whereas
the
> > Imperial Guard is a lumbering giant. This allows the Marines to
> > out-maneuver the Guard strategically - while more moves doesn't
> > guarantee you superiority, I believe it adds flavor. The tyranids
> > would be the hardest hit, but since we allow them multiple supreme
> > commanders, by keeping at least one in each line they can actually
> > respond as quickly as anyone else. If you look at history,
Napoleon
> > often won because he was able to concentrate the various parts of
his
> > army much more quickly in a given area than his opponents could
> > respond. He had a higher strategy rating, and by out-thinking them
and
> > pre-positioning supplies and such he was able to hit where he
wanted to
> > with what he needed more often than not. Mind you, it didn't help
him
> > at Waterloo...
>
> I see your point, however I think this may make the game very
unbalanced in
> favour of armies with high strategy ratings. Also their is difference
> between strategy (ie Rommel commanding his army in the desert) and
Grand
> Strategy (ie deciding whether it is better attack Poland first, and
> then deal France)

What do you think of the 5 moves/attacks/responses +1 for every 2
strategy rating (rounded up) idea? So Tyranids would have 6 (+1 move
for each line of resistance, per supreme commander in that line),
Marines and Eldar would have 8. Remember you still get as many
responses as your opponent makes attacks, regardless of strategy
rating.

Maybe it should be 3 + rather than 5 +? So far we haven't had a
problem, but we have a limited selection of armies strategy-rating
wise. I'd love to have a Tyranid player here to try this out with.

> My reasoning was that drop pods and air transported troops can't
> survive as a organised force if they are isolated (i.e don't
> have a ground supply line). Thats why I suggest that they should
> only be able to land on the second line of resistance in.
>
> So to use your map, I which I have pasted below. The drop pods and
> airborne troops would only be able to be landed on territores 4,5 and

> 6. Then friendly troops would have take an adjacent territory to
> open a supply line. Otherwise the drop troops and airborne troops
> would count as isolated. Think of it as similar to the movie "The
> Bridge to Far"

Well, if you really want to simulate "A Bridge too Far", you should
allow drops into even the rearmost line of resistance. I think the
scenario would be like this:

Imperial British 6th(?) Paratroop Division drops into third line of
resistance.
Imperial American (101st?) Paratroop Division drops into second line of
resistance.
Imperial British Guard Armored Corp (XXX Corps?) attacks first line of
resistance.
Imperial American (82nd?) Paratroop Division supports attack on first
line of resistance.

Attack on first line of resistance succeeds, forces of the third
Tyranid Reich are driven back. Attack on second line of resistance
fails, forces retreat to first line of resistance.
Attack on third line of resistance succeeds. Forces are then
counter-attacked on the next turn and destroyed while isolated.

Of course, if you were smart you'd declare the attacks in order (1st
line, 2nd line, 3rd line) so you would know if you had a chance of
penetrating to third line or not before dropping the poor British
paratroops in. We're also simulating the low countries in a scale of
territories that are supposed to represent continents, but who cares?
<grin>

Anyway, enough silliness. I think the isolation rules would be enough
without saying that a third line airborne or dropship attack couldn't
be done. You can do it, just realize that it's a big risk and your
troops will probably have to survive at least a turn of attacks while
isolated. After all, think about how many times the Marines arrived at
a rebellious planet and immediately dropped into the governor's palace
of the capital city! If that isn't a dropship attack into a third line
of resistance major territory, I don't know what is...

Regards,

- Erik
Received on Thu May 08 1997 - 13:28:10 UTC