"Objectives in Skirmish Scenarios" Topic

I've been working on a campaign system to flesh out a series of linked WWII skirmishes I've run lately with the same group of players. One of the mechanics is that the each side makes a choice of how they want their forces to be dispositioned for the campaign "turn", and based on this, a battle scenario is generated.

In cases where a pitched battle occurs (for example, Player 1 elects to defend a location, and player 2 attacks. Or both players attack the same area, etc) oftentimes, I will allot terrain objectives to be held or captured as part of the overall scenario goals, -- for simplicity we'll say 3 objectives.

My question is, should the GM just choose the objectives, and make them the same objectives for each side to capture, or should each side determine their own 3 objectives to capture/defend…or… should it be based on the situation:

for example, in a defend/attack situation, the defender chooses, or in attack/attack both sides choose their own, etc etc..

In the actual campaign system the disposition choices are a bit more detailed than just "attack" or "defend" but I tried to keep this as simple as possible.

If you can follow what I'm trying to describe, has anybody got any thoughts on this??

THanks
-CH

I have used a system that was in an old WI mag that may help.

It was that you play 6 games over the same terrain, same forces, with occasional reinforcements, returning casualties, etc. There were 3 day games and 3 night games, consecutive – so it made up for 3 days of campaign time.

There were 7 objectives, some different and some the same for both sides. Each player picked their objective for the game about to be played, and went about it. Come the next game, they picked one of those objectives that hadn't been played yet.

So in one game one player may be trying to capture the bridge, whilst the other may just be on patrol, or tasked with laying 3 landmines. It was possible that they may never meet, or they may but both run away as contact wasn't their objective, or one may want to fight and the other wouldn't, or finally (traditionally) both would be out for blood.

Myself and a friend played it twice with different situations (modern Chechnya & ACW) and it worked well for the modern one, less so for the ACW one, although that was because my heriocs in the first game wiped out most of my troops.

As there were only two of us & I had written all the scenarios, we randomised it with a simple D6 for each of us. You just looked up your own number rolled, and carried on with that task (still not telling the other).

If you have a GM then he could choose the objectives/scenarios for each side – setting up the conflict he wanted – or you could leave it at each player picking his/her own. Which would be my preference.

Also with a GM, the players wouldn't have to know what the other side's options were.

"My question is, should the GM just choose the objectives, and make them the same objectives for each side to capture, or should each side determine their own 3 objectives to capture/defend…or… should it be based on the situation: "

It is probably easier to have the umpire/scenario designer choose the objectives or have some sort of mechanism whereby players can pick them (the AK47 method works very well).

If you can avoid the playerss:

a) knowing what forces the other side has (at start anyway)
b) knowing what the other sides objectives are

then so much the better. Much more interesting trying to work out what the other lot are up to.

Baptism of Fire II has a nice scenario generator where each side might end up with a different objective or goal during the game.

The results for a force might be: patrol, 1 objective, 2 objectives , big push, outflank, surprise, clearance, prisoner, rearguard, delay, cut off, hold the line, or stag.

What might happen is that one side is trying to capture a prisoner, while the other is making a big push, etc.

Like Martin's suggestion that each side should be kept in the dark as regards to forces and objectives. Leads to those nice fog of war moments

This is Doc on David's computer. SONG OF THE SPLINTERED LANDS does something like what is suggested above for SONG OF BLADES AND HEROES. The warbands are of variable and unknown strength, and there are different "missions" such as Scout, Infiltrate, Raid, etc. -- and the option of changing one's mission to SURVIVE! In skirmish situations in particular it is often NOT evident what the other side is trying to accomplish.

Wow, THanks for the comments so far guys.

It seems like I'm on the right track as my system is similar in many ways to what you describe. My main concern was in those situations where both sides are tasked with taking/holding/defending objectives -- should they automatically be the same for both sides? You guys all seem to favor each side choosing their own objectives which I tend to like as well.

Mine are deliberately designed so that SOME of the mission pairings could conceivably allow both sides to win. A Scout mission is fulfilled by either revealing all markers on the table as dummies or as real, OR by capturing a single enemy and interrogating hm; at either point, the Scout is successful and the warband can return to their own board edge. If the enemy has a Hold mission, it is quite possible for both to win.

When a warband chooses (or randomly receives -- players decide beforehand how missions are generated) a Hold mission, they select a terrain feature that must be at least partly on the enemy's side of the table. If there were two such terrain features, it is perfectly possible for opposing warbands to each win by holding the different terrain.

In one of Sven Hassel's WWII novels, the German patrol runs into a Soviet patrol in a woods. Both patrols return to their resppective sides and report an enemy battalion in the woods. then the infantry from both sides sit in their trenches and watch artillery from both sides obliterate the woods.

I like the procedure of each side randomly determining how strong their force is (there's a victory point adjustment upward for weaker forces and downward for stronger forces) and THEN either choosing or being assigned a mission, and THEN selecting the specific troop types to comprise the warband. Some missions favor a larger number of weaker models, some favor a few powerful ones.

The GM should set the objectives for each side. In a skirmish game, intel should be fair to good; objective for the attacker should be known and attainable; objectives for the defender -- should be initially known but may change in mid game. For that matter you can always throw in a red herring just to add to the confusion (wounded staff officer; tank runs out of gas; who are those guys? -- they aren't supposed to be here!;

Patrol has a lot of these laid out for you.

mjc

You Pick

I have been in a couple games where both sides claimed victory and avoided direct confrontation as much as possible to achieve their victory conditions. At the end of the day both sides proclaimed victory and nobody was satisfied with the outcome.

If it is WW2, then both sides should have objectives imposed on them, think high command orders filtering down.

The best games tend to have objectives that can be at cross purposes.

Both sides having orders to take and hold a farm results in a slugfest.

One side having orders to hold the farm, and the other having orders to secure the road behind the farm can be interesting as both sides can win tactically, but side a would lose strategically in that circumstance (outflanked and supply route cut).

Dragon Gunner, you have just described typical WW2 skirmishes, both players played excellently, objectives acheived with minimum casualties.

I agree with FreddBloggs that you, the GM, should impose the objectives. Possibly, but not necessarily, the same objectives for both sides.

Maybe each side has one objective on each of several (at least 3) potential tables, but the players decide how to allocate their forces among the objectives/tables. For instance, Side A might distribute their forces evenly between 3 tables, but Side B puts half of its forces on table 2 to make sure it gets at least 1 objective.

You could also let each side keep a reserve force for counterattacks. Each time one side takes an objective/table, both sides have a decision to make: the losing side whether to commit reserves and counterattack; the winning side whether to commit reserves to help hold it, in case there is a counterattack.

I believe it was Sid Mieir who defined a good game as a series of interesting choices/decisions.

In skirmish games ive set up i have decided what the objectives were and then watched to see if the two players recognised them and defended/attacked them.

For instance a country crossroads, a wood and a farm,everything else was just fields.

AL