Re: [Epic][E40k] Campaign Ideas

From: Erik Rutins <snowdo1_at_...>
Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 16:49:57 -0400

Temp:

> What if you have more than 2 players? I'd like to see some ideas on
a

The rules can be used for three players without a problem. Just
pretend that everyone's first line of resistance touches, etc. The
turn sequence can handle multiple players, just figure out where they
fit in order and go for it.

In terms of league play, you could also take this system, make it a
little less abstract, and actually draw up a map to figure out exactly
where everyone is, etc. However, as I read on...

> league-style campaign. Personally, I don't like the idea of having
to keep
> track of which unit is where. It will get endlessly complicated in
> multiplayer games. It would be okay for a friendly group, but

Really all you need is 9 stacks per side for your detachment sheets.
You could also circumvent this ala a system like the new Warhammer 5th
Campaign system, where you simply have territories and decide which to
defend, then fight a battle. Then you don't have to have front lines
or rear areas. Personally, I think it's worth the extra work to get
the added strategy. Besides, the record keeping here is still nowhere
near something like Mighty Empires or one of the classic large scale
wargames.

> unfortunately, I've seen very few leagues where the games were
entirely
> friendly (usually there are at least 1 or 2 folks who get personal).
I also
> suspect that with the influx of younger (less mature) players the
trend will
> only get worse.

Hm.. as I think I mentioned before, one of the guys I play with always
takes things personally. However, he's been alright with the system so
far (with the understanding that it's a playtest for revisions). Maybe
making up a small board with the abstract territories and small markers
to represent detachments would help people visualize?

> I also don't see much incentive to taking territory. You get a point
or
> two, but you spread your forces quickly. I think you could sit back
and
> wait on your opponent to attack you. The majority of your forces
could be

I see your point here, and I think it's a valid observation. There's a
flaw there we need to fix. What do you think would be the best way of
amending the victory conditions to encourage offense as well as
defense? (Currently we've been quite offensive just to test the system
and beat each other up, but I definitely see your point about defense
having the advantage).

> One last observation, I would think that huge detachments would be
the say
> to go for efficiency of response. Since you can only move about 5
> detachments, it would be wise to have gigantic detachments. Sure you
lose
> some battlefield mobility, but 4 500pt detachments are likely to
defeat 6
> 250 point detachments regardless of the battlefield mobility.

We've tested several variants here, and we're not sure which is best
yet. They are:

1 Move can affect one detachment
1 Move can affect all detachments in a territory
1 Attack can affect one detachment
1 Attack can affect all detachments in a territory
1 Attack can affect all detachments in a line of resistance
1 Response can affect one detachment
1 Response can affect one territory

So far, we like the following the best:

1 Move = 1 Detachment
1 Attack = 1 Territory
1 Response = 1 Detachment

What do you think the best option(s) are?

> I'm not raggin on you, just pointing out what seem to be flaws. I
certainly
> haven't bothered to come up with any rules.

Thanks for your comments, and don't worry - I'm not one of the folks
that take it personally. Nothing would make me happier than to have
you all hammer at this for a while until we have a really good system.
I'm no lone wolf game designer, just a player with too many ideas...

Regards,

- Erik
Received on Thu May 08 1997 - 20:49:57 UTC