"What would you look for in a campaign system?" Topic

Hi Jim,
There may have been a thyphus epidemic, as some new scholarship suggests. I think the figures for the Russian army in winter pursuit are perhaps more telling. And the Prussian figures do not seem extrodinary considering the elapsed campaign time, almost all of it in the relatively immediate presence of the French. No matter- I personally have no interest in a campaign system that doesn not account for the factors previously mentioned. For example, If you start with units that are filled with men "unfit for duty", then as a commander you better take it into consideration. You should certainly have to deal with the effects. All in all, Clausewitz was not a fellow to fudge figures, and i think we can assume he saw firsthand the effects of campaign attrition.
Best,
Rob

Hi Rob,

Didn't mean to suggest that those factors shouldn't be considered, nor did I mean to suggest that Clausewitz inflated his numbers. Forced marching would put additional strain on an army, so, yes, if you force march your troops a lot, you should be adding modifiers to your attrition role. If your supply is inadequate or the line has been cut or there is a lack of forage in a given campaign area you should be adding modifiers to your attrition roll. If you are marching continuously with inexperienced troops or raw conscripts you should be adding modifiers to your attrition role. If there's a typhus outbreak…maybe a special scenario rule… you should be adding large modifiers to your attrition role. I'm only suggesting that Clausewitz was perhaps making a point more than anything else and chose examples which would more fully get that point across. However, a well-trained, veteran army, properly vetted, well supplied and also prepared for forced marching and foraging, shouldn't attrit very quickly. Therefore, I don't think an attrition roll should be made every turn depending on the time scale of the campaign and even if made, there should be circumstances where the probability is low that your army is going to lose significant numbers.

A priority list for CG components.
1. Interaction between the CG and the table top system as far as movement and combat is concerned & Victory Conditions.
2. The operational map/operational movement rates.
3. Intelligence gradations on enemy force whereabouts, numbers, dispositions, types.
4. Supply—well, partially or not.
5. Forced Marching/Fatigue
6. Attrition/Straggling Losses/Weather Effects
If a person can get the first three right, the last three will fall into place. Please let me know if I missed anything. But I were making my own I would work on it in that approximate order.

Jim

Hi Jim,
You wrote,
"However, a well-trained, veteran army, properly vetted, well supplied and also prepared for forced marching and foraging, shouldn't attrit very quickly."
I think many of us us wargamers would like to think that is the case, as we like our units full strength when they get to the table top! However, it is wishful thinking :)
This example may illustrate why Clausewitz uses the language he uses to describe the effects of movment attrition on an army: in 1805, Friant's division left Vienna and marched 40 hours straight to the battlefield at Austerlitz. Of @ 7000 that began the march, @3800 arived on the field, ready to fight after taking a few hours rest!. These were arguably some of the best trained, prepared, and outfitted troops anywhere. Most units of other armys that year would have had considerably less than a thousand ready to fight. Of course, over 24 hours many of these seasoned veterans caught up (because of experience and march discipline), but you can see that even the first day of a 'energetic' movement such as this will reduce combat strength considerably, quickly. Less extreme, imagine a 'forced march' of only 25 miles-but no halt except at night, for just a few days in a row..and you have exponential long-term attrition because catching up becomes more and more difficult. Add in weather and supply issues, and it becomes clear why, traveling only half that distance or less per day, 4 years later, Charles acutely felt the need to halt his army for a full day after only four days march, just to preserve cohesiveness and combat power when maneuvering within the French sphere of influence- Something he really did not want to have to do, and did not decide on lightly. I would postulate that moving an army of this period is something only a few wargamers have ever had to attempt with such real frictions built into their rules, because it 'bogs things down' and its 'less fun' -as well as being impractical to keep track of without computer. It is also extremely challenging from a gaming standpoint, and lucky dice exist only at the juncture where preparedness meets opportunity.
Best,
Rob

Sorry… I meant to note that I think you have the essential CG components right, but I would vote the other way, and propose that that until 4,5 & 6 are modeled you can't properly get 1,2 and 3 sorted out.
Cheers,
R

Rob,
I'm surprised 3800 even arrived ! WOW 40 hours straight ? That a confirmation of French marching prowess. It would not have been attempted if they were anything less than well-trained, veterans. Those numbers are similar to AP Hill's "Light" division's attrition rate on his forced march to Antietam. That is an extreme example, and if used on the table top, I would agree the effects should be similar. Again, that only re-emphasizes my point. Clausewitz was making a point.

I do agree, that consecutive 25 mile marches in a row for any troops will cause straggling losses. I know the French reputation for fast marching, and I suspect there are rules that give them those march rates as a standard. Is that too much ? Troops can do a 25 miler when called upon and veteran troops will make it with few losses to straggling/men falling out. But consecutive days in a row a general is asking to be leading no one when his division arrives ! Alternatively, one might argue, a 25 miler would be an impossibility with conscript, inexperienced or raw troops.

Again, what was the composition of Charles' army ? Were his men foraging ? How was there supply set up ? There are a lot of factors to consider, but giving the French as a whole better march rates makes sense from all I've read. Moreover, the more experienced or veteran a formation is from whichever nationality, their straggling/attrition rates should be lower AND they should have the capability of making forced marches when necessary, the French especially so.

I disagree. With 1-3 you have a campaign, with 4-6 you have quartermaster :)

The computer is the quartermaster, and the staff.

So, what does the computing quartermaster say about 10,000 veterans marching 15 miles a day for seven days straight in fair weather when they are fully supplied ?

Jim

Also, does your campaign system accout for/allow troops to arrive on the table top during the battle ? In short, what's the time scale/ground scale for both the CG and the table top ?

How specific is the intelligence information given ? Is there a gradation ? Do opposing players know beforehand the exact composition of the forces they are facing even if they don't know exactly where they are during the CG ?

I think I see you use historical maps as well. I guess no hexes. I'd also be interested to know how you set march rates and their penalties.

Yes, I see you've got a quartermaster alright :)

Jim

I think I'd rather see the computer give a number of troops arriving every hour or so, that way you can use the computer to give you inputs for whatever game you're playing on the table.

HI,
I think 10-15 miles per day (in theater-significantly different than marching to a theater)is the best any army, French included could hope to average over a week or two without real negative effects, perhaps less with halts averaged in on a longer march. Logistical planning is everything. Logistical bean counting is for the CPU.

Of course, the point Clausewitz makes is, whatever the march distance and conditions there is attrition, and the more days in row of movement, the higher it gets by degrees. Even on perfect roads in perfect supply with full stomachs. In anything less than perfect conditions movement attrition is a significant drain on combat power that must be counterd by planning, and has to be accounted for in a campaign system. If you are moving everyday for a couple of weeks, you are going to have a significant loss of combat power until halt and recovery, with it's attendant requirements of provision and shelter. If that is not planned for you will be in a dicey position. The computer can track it all, and the player/commander make decisions based on the realities of the conditions his forces are in at any given time. Time on the move is the force that wears away the instrument. Any campaign that did not require (or have)significant consideration given to hospitals, reinforcements, and logistical structure would have lasted less than a month, or quite fortunately did last less than a month. If the planning and execution works, the army is a usable tool, if not, the commander would absolutly tried to avoid engagement for good reasons.

There is some debate about march rates-French communications practices and march proceedures gave them a relative advantage-except when they didn't. The key factor seems to have been experience. Better drilled armies move more efficently-not necessarily more quickly, but in relative sense it translates to 'faster' in terms of responsiveness to orders and plans, and in getting more bodys to the point of contact when it counts. It's a question of modeling march rates as a function of mph, or as a function of communication and delay. I tend to think in terms of the latter, assuming men and horses have the pretty much the same speed capability no mater where from, but some armies march in ways that create speed through efficency- less baggage, shorter columns, better guides, earlier start times etc….
Rob

Rob,
I think in terms of the French, where Napoleon was directing supply, logistical and reinforcement resources would've been critical, as would the composition of the troops he was commanding. I'm willing to bet he formed veteran corps which he gave logistical and supply preferences to and in turn asked them to do more hard and fast marching in critical situations or in critical campaigns than he would of other less capable formations. It was about pulling all of the inherent advantages that the French system had to offer around him and within his reach for his own use. The scale of some of the campaigns were so immense though that even with the best resources gathered around him, their weight paled in comparison to the numbers Napoleon was managing or facing. So, in Spain for instance, logistically the French would've been operating as a second team perhaps with fewer resources, not to mention they were probably getting conscripts by the bundle for on the job training, while experienced soldiers were getting pulled out to what Napoleon thought were more critical theatres… namely where he was, but perhaps not always..

The point being, that while supply and logistics is critically important and is the framework for campaigning, what really decided the Austerlitz campaign was that Napoleon fooled the Prussians and Russians TWICE. First strategically … in the operational theater, and then second tactically… on the battlefield. Furthermore, what nearly won the Waterloo campaign for Napoleon was that he scored a strategic success, but was unable to follow it up with a tactical victory over the British. The greater efficiency of French communications, intelligence gathering, maneuver, etc… were a necessary but not sufficient part of the strategic success. It was Napoleon's plan which brought it all off and the inherent "speed" of the French forces seems to have been present even at that late date. In both battles forces were arriving throughout the day from within the operational theater and making a difference for one side or the other and in both battles, ground level tactics ultimately decided the issue, not supply.

I guess the question is, did Wellington win in the Peninsula b/c of supply or did supply enable Wellington to win through his better formulation of strategy and tactics? Given the results at Waterloo, I would tend towards the latter. Any army can march and live well when supplied, but an army wins when it has a general who can strategically and tactically outmatch his opponent… and a little luck always helps too :)

Jim

Jim,

You are certainly right about Napoleons use of 'elite' forces in rapid maneuver. Without such instruments, such maneuvers were impossible for other armies because of the sure attrition they would have caused.
Logistical problems, either from poor planing or circumstance, will mitigate any advantages gained by tactical victories, given enough time. Certainly tactical victories may shorten a campaign, even end it. An army with logistical and supply problems must hope so. If denied that, well, there are many more examples of the latter producing eventual defeat than the former insuring lasting victory. Most campaigns are not so short, and Napoleon was at the end of his rope at Austerlitz in many logistical ways. Suppose that battle wasn't so decisive? In my basement it might not be. What then? All I'm saying is that you have to model it in a campaign system or the player commander can initiate utterly unrealistic maneuvers and can ignore the consequences of many actions.
In Spain, Russia, Germany and France, tactical victories could not support the armies in the field or win the campaigns. Waterloo is exceptional, completly unlike any other campaign in almost every way, and too short to be an good example of what Napoleonic campaigns were really about. Not sure you can say it was anything like a strategic success, though it began with strategic suprise. Seperating the Prussians from the British and forcing them to withdraw East instead of Northwest would have been a strategic success, but the tactical victory at Ligny that might have caused that was incomplete.
Possibly D'erlon would have mattered there, but communications problems prevented effective strategic movement. His corps marched quickly, but not efficently. :)

Rob

GQG wrote: "Friant's division left Vienna and marched 40 hours straight to the battlefield at Austerlitz. Of @ 7000 that began the march, @3800 arived on the field, ready to fight after taking a few hours rest!."

After considering this piece of information, I would move "Forced Marching/Fatigue" higher up on the priority list than supply. That's a great decision for a player to make. Force march the units as quickly as possible over long distances to a battle and risk losing a lot them even if temporarily to straggling/falling out… or take your take time and get all of them there? The gap is where the immediate OPERATIONAL area meets the table top battlefield, IMHO. In a STRATEGIC CG, I entirely agree with you that everything you've pointed out IS important, even critically so, but within the time frame of the armies drawing together for a battle over a few crucial days, less so.

Excerpted from your excellent website under Tactical Considerations:

"Eye for ground was a critical skill for any general of the time, one that was developed by experience, and indispensable to success. Commanders always attempted to find a battleground that would favor their armies, always a prime consideration during pre-battle maneuver. Often the outcome of a battle was later seen to have been strongly influenced by their success in finding it beforehand…"

Jim

OK. I concede that point. Waterloo was an operational success, followed by a tactical defeat. Yes, strategic success would've been a "W" in both columns :)

Jim

Hi,
The interface between the strategic and the tactical is the most difficult part. The condition of the troops has to be translated to the board, the formations, types and number and Length of Columns factored into the arrival times and places. Weather and visibility play a part as well.
Choosing ones ground was always preferable, and often decisive when it happened that there was good ground to choose.
Short campaigns of a less than a week were rare, but there were often series of strokes and counterstrokes that could be considered 'scenes' in the overall play. Maneuver to battle in a few crucial days was of course not happening in a vaccum, and would have to be understood in the light of, and certainly influenced by, the strategic picture.
Intelligence is as much about terrain as anything else in its charter. Perhaps Commanders should get a tactical map of anyplace on the strategic map they are, and tactical maps should be available in varying reliabilities from the umpire/system when scouting procures them.
Rob

napoleoniccampaigns.com

Wow, is this discussion still going on?!

Some really interesting and indepth stuff here that I need to read at leisure.

However, I can answer a couple of points.

First, this system isn't designed to be overly period specific, so the intention is that modules be switched on or off as the group sees fit.

Secondly, at present daily attrition is modelled (although poorly researched it is there. I intend to make this tweakable too, so if you have specific ideas you'll be able to implement them in terms of numbers of men lost per day.

Thirdly, at present because the maps we're using have nodes around 20m apart and movement is NOT simultaneous (I honestly don't think it can be with my technical ability) one side moves then the other (randomly determined each day). Contact is made at the end of the day and the battle is fought the following day. Troops moving to that location during the "battle day" are flagged as such on the orbat. How you choose to interface that into the tabletop will be down to you.

above all, what I'm trying to do is create a system which will be useable for everyone, from those who just want a system which will give them a bit of Fog of war, to those who want to see just how hard it is to move large bodies of men over a road network of their choosing, and keep those men in fighting shape numbers wise, and supplied.

Absolutely above all though, the system must be fun for all levels of choice.

I've had some thoughts and am beginning to work those up into something that I can show.

GQG wrote: "Most campaigns are not so short, and Napoleon was at the end of his rope at Austerlitz in many logistical ways. Suppose that battle wasn't so decisive?"

That he was at the end of his logistical rope was half the deception! If the tactical portion hadn't been so decisive, the argument can be made either that the French would still have won but less decisively or they would have lost tactically. The question remains, could the Grand Army have been decisively crushed? When you have troops that are willing to march 40 hours straight, I think the probability is extremely low that the Russians and Prussians could have destroyed the Grand Army at that point in time. Yes, it could have been defeated with troops streaming back to Vienna unsupplied and losses/captures along the way, but I think the Grand Army was extremely resilient in 1805, which is probably why Napoleon even took the chance.

GQG wrote: "The interface between the strategic and the tactical is the most difficult part"

That's why I think operational CG's would be easier to manage. Ideally, the operational campaign would fit nicely into the strategic campaign and all three levels; tactical (tabletop)-operational-strategic could work together. Operational CG's could be done for any battle regardless of the length of the strategic campaign and could use maps which are focused on say the area around Friedland. The operational CG would be about generating a major battle within a more clearly defined tactical geographic area. Knowing or re-creating the historical tactical terrain would be difficult, but perhaps the CPU could help with that? If historical OB's and deployments were set up beforehand, the historical battlefield might be the location all sides will be drawn to anyway, but it allows for some alternative decision-making and maneuvering and the battle itself wouldn't necessarily be an exacting replica or recreation of the tactical historical battle. And yes, variables of supply and forced marching and march rates should play a role in the players thinking, so that yes, if a player decides to try and get on the supply line of the opposing army, he may force his opponent to respond. If he in fact CUTS it, that may translate into tabletop penalties for the opposing army depending on how long it has been cut and the nationality. It is also likely to force an all out immediate battle.

Peterborough wrote: "Thirdly, at present because the maps we're using have nodes around 20m apart and movement is NOT simultaneous (I honestly don't think it can be with my technical ability) one side moves then the other (randomly determined each day)."

Simultaneity of movement would not be necessary and "IGOUGO" is fine if at the operational level say every turn is an hour. Someone usually always gets a head start anyway or gains the initiative, and if the most an infantry unit can move is 3 miles per turn ? There's plenty of granularity. Think of it this way a player may opt to force march b/c his opponent has the movement initiative, the question becomes how many hours of forced marching before a unit starts to suffer morale and/or exhaustion and straggling penalties ?

Also, on an operational map communication lag time is far less, so information flow could be considered more or less instantaneous. The kinds and types of intelligence on the enemy would be more important.

GQG, excerpted from your website:

"Prior to engagement, advance outposts of each army will have attempted to secure particular positions of advantage and observation. Some units will be close to the enemy in advanced outposts in woods or villages. Armies will generally begin deployment into a line of battle at about one mile distance apart, and take positions just within or just out of effective cannon shot (about 1,000 yards). To the rear of each army to a depth of about one mile are stationed reserves, secondary units and support materials. The army order of battle and subsequent order of march will often inform the deployment of a force in the presence of the enemy, as the first units down the road take initial positions to cover the rest of the army as it arrives."

For an operational CG, ½ mile or 1 mile square map components would work well, IMO.

BD, Sorry but I think you're looking at or for something completely different to what I'm proposing. I am trying to do something that will run for example the Peninsular War, not the run up to Salamanca for example. There's no reason I couldn't set it up so that a turn is a time period less than a day but that's not really what I am trying to achieve.

PB, exactly and I know ! :)

I've been reading this with interest.

One things for sure, if anyone ever releases a product that does all the stuff Grand Quartier General/Bottom Dollar are talking about, WITHOUT an umpire.. Well…I'd pay almost anything for it. Hell, I think I'd pay $1,000 USD for something that managed that level of 'realism' and therefore would allow me to accurately play Napoleonic campaigns for years to come, with a mate, and without an umpire.

If it worked… and you didn't need an IT degree and 3 months data entry to run it!

Chaos in the command no birds eye view, make is real & as hard as possible for the players as GM can make it, that is commanders.

We are campaign Kentucky here in the, at a Battle just south of Frankfort the US thought they had the CS player by the B***s, he thought he should retreat, until a messanger turns up and says hi we have a Corps arriving in an hour, his face just lit up…..talk about morale.

pessa00,

The thing is, it realy is possible to have something that works very close to that, perhaps with some minimal objective (umpire) input -and I sure wish I could do it, because, like you, I would pay 1k for it to allow me to do the same, and I know there are at least 20 people in the world that also would-so not only would I have it for me, but it would probably be worth my time!

napoleoniccampaigns.com

I've not forgotten about this, I've been working away quietly behind the scenes and nearly have something to show.

Sweet!

Been thinking about it and would be tough to do it with tacticals though. Grand tactical would be fine. Your average tactical table at 6 x 4 with 1'' = 40 yard ground scale is only like 1 ½ by 1 mile, a giant tactical table at 12 x 6 is 3 miles by 1 ½ miles. If both sides deploy their main forces about a mile away from each other on average for the big battles, then ideally you want a table top that is at least 3 miles in depth which you can get with a 12 x 6 foot table comfortably using a grand tactical scale at 1''=100 or 80 yards which would be a monstrous 6 miles by 3 miles. Even a moderate 6 x 4 table at the grand tactical scale is 3 miles by 2. Not bad.

I'm sure most everyone else has probably figured this stuff out already, but its good to know it I guess.

Idle thought:

For my campaign system and maps, the nodes and road network are all mapped in as grid points and so an abstract sector could be isolated and arithmetically enlarged – magnified. It would require extra manual effort on map edges currently.

Once magnified, random details and grand tactical road networks could be generated/invented to create a randomized playing area that would serve as a shared arena for a grand tactical wargame. The abstraction and randomness would be akin to what generally occurs when you translate to tactical table space (and choose not to go with google earth precision).

These grand tactical maps would only be as good as the devised generation system and so, assuming imperfection, there could be a means for a GM to modify them.

The problem of space on the table is always there…I'm at 1" equals 60 paces with my frontages and my range sticks, so my table has to be 6x15 (all I can fit lengthwise) and there are 3x3 pieces to make it wider at particular points on the long sides of the perimeter if necessary. Even with that for multi-corps per side battles and most grand-tactical deployment movement we still need to mark off some unit positions on a dry erase board (usually for reserves). Such was the new nature and size of Napoleonic battles!

Hi Malcolm,

I keep coming back to the hope that someday the strategic map in a campaign system will be a fairly accurate one for the period, no worse than the post road map and as good as the Germany maps linked to on napoleoniccampaigns.com This so better maps from 50 to 100 years later such as the Austrian military survey maps could be used to program actual terrain instead of random generation when transferring from the strategic to the grand tactical. Or Google earth precision…but hey, I'm a dreamer!

Rob, are your campaign maps broken down into squares or hexes ? It would seem that it might make onboard deployment a little easier to manage.

It's always hexes, or virtual pins on the operational scale map in photoshop. (marking the head of the maneuver elements, the column & the tail, with both methods using a formula for march formation length).

With the former I have 8.5 x 11 1/4" graph paper with a 5 mile scale hex at 1" to the mile pre-printed on it (grand tactical map). Major terrain is drawn in. Then the table area is marked on that. The table is then put on another piece of 8.5 x 11 graph paper with 12 lines per inch (tactical map), and the terrain, units etc marked there.

With the latter, using landmarks, I transfer from a strategic map to points on Austrian survey maps with the rail lines photoshopped out, blow it up and use a rerctangle tool to mark the table area, adding details of terrain. I check the area on Google Earth first before doing any terrain to get a birds eye view of what I'm trying to represent on the table. This is most useful, and leads to a more insightful understanding of an area to be represented

OK, GQG. You talked me into it. Next time you run a campaign in NJ, I'm in.

How about you play a remote FROM your chair in Jersey down the road in a PBEM? I know we will be starting one of those sooner, perhaps even to try out the C&G campaign rules at the end of the year (possible), probably before any online system is ready to go…Pvt message me here or leave a contact e-mail addy in a comment on the campaign website or join the Yahoo group linked there, and we can contact you about it later.

I've already been playing remote FROM my chair :)

Thanks, I'll think about it.

About four years ago I developed a campaign system that

1. Has no map.
2. Has all the elements of classic campaigns where the player is the head of a coutnry, diplomacy, public relations, economics, scandal, armies, wars, and special actions as well.
3. There is absolute NO record keeping, no bookeeping, no complex set up, and no computer.
4. When we used it in our group we could set up the campaign game at the start of our gaming night, play the campaign game for 15 minutes and have generated three or four actions that were interesting enough to have a battle with, then resolve the rest by abstract resolution.
5. When the night was done it took about 15 minutes to pack up the campaign game. You could pack it up at any point, any moment and it would be completely ready for the next game.
6. The system worked with one to twelve players, but there's no reason you couldn't have had more.
7. The game allowed for the absence of players, either for a short or long time, and allowed for players to be out for other committments for a lenght of time.
8. It allowed for players to drop out and new ones to re-enter.
9. It required no computer.
10. It was equally useable as an GM scenario generator, or as a campgaign game and could switch back and forth between.
11. It allowed none, one, some, or all the participants to win.
12. It was designed for a face to face group but I am modifying it for a mail game, either surface or e.
13. It's been playtested and works.

Sounds too good to be true? It's true, all of it.

HOWEVER!

It requires playes to accept the design parameters and the scope and pitch of the game. You enter the game at two points. The first is as a King where you make the top level decisions of a king. You drop out of the game when there's a table top action and re-enter it as a general. There you play the battle. All the rest of the stuff just happens and is done by others. If they don't do their job we assume that the battle or event that MIGHT have happened had they done it, did not, or you lost by the abstract resolution. If you're at the battle, we assume verything went well. No need to trace the path of a biscuit from the bakers oven to the soldiers mouth. That's for company clerks to do.

Interesting comments, reflecting all the cheers and moans from our group over the past 25 years. Biggest problem? Consistantly getting together, followed by drop out. Once a campaign 'halts' waiting for a big battle, that's the end of it, usually. Napoleonic campaigns. Ancient campaigns. Fantasy campaigns. A little bit, then poof.

E-mail and proxies help (can't make a game, no problem -- so an so will command your troops!) if the troops are available.

I ran one campaign via e-mail that came to a conclusion. Space Empire type with starships and armies, tech advances, and so on. It lasted for 4 years and 4 months, had 96 turns (technically, turns were due every 2 weeks, so that pace held up well), and started out with 8 empires (players) all isolated and equal at the start and then came down to one huge empire, one small empire, and one teeny tiny empire of two solar systems.

Not a single miniatures game on a tabletop (heresy!). All the battles over solar systems were done by me, so no need for people to show up. In effect, it was a black box -- you stuffed in ships and troops, and I ran the battle according to player preferences.

One key: No alliances. Every players' forces are hostile to all others. Obviously, tough to do for a historical campaign, but I've played in enough space campaigns where alliances absolutely wreck players (and the game, too).

Before the campaign, I asked players whether they wanted an "open" or "closed" system. "Open" meant all info was like a boardgame -- everybody knows everything about everybody. "Closed" meant you only could get info via scouting, invasions, drones, and spies. All the players chose the closed system.

Hence, fog of war was immense, and players soon weighed sending in intel assets or just invading blind. When they invaded neutral systems, they did mostly fine, but against other players…some close battles there. Each player chose a "Kick or Stick" number that would be matched against the defender to see whether there was a fight or whether the fleet was allowed to withdraw. If there was a fight, each player chose a retreat percentage (of ships destroyed) that would trigger a withdrawal if exceeded.

Economics/Logistics were "simple." I put that in quotes because I used a spreadsheet to track everything. The player had x resources and spent it on units (like Axis and Allies). Every system generates x amount of resources based on "cities" and city levels, however, if you built too many cities on a system, you run the risk of resource depletion. The bigger the unit, the more cities/resources it took (that little one-city outpost in the back end of sector is not going to be churning out dreadnoughts). Likewise, some players turned a system into a giant factory-ville where the system was depleted of resources, but could turn out huge ships (or many small ships/troop units). Players loved to send raiding fleets over enemy systems and blast the cities (and hence enemy production and resources) into slag. The spreadsheet calculated everything.

Individual ships/troops were NOT tracked, although over the course of the campaign, single units would exist on their own and generate their own mythos. One memorable one was a scoutship sent to a system without any planets to serve as a tripwire in case enemy ships headed into the sector. It stayed there, without relief (or shore leave for that matter) for 11 and a half YEARS (44 turns -- almost half the game, as each turn was 3 months) before an enemy poked its nose into the system and chased it back to civilization. Imagine the Captain's log from that ship!

Of the eight players, three were there at the end, two fought until the bitter end, and two quit when they were about at the end of their rope. The other one quit when he was ahead, only he didn't know it. What he knew was that he was being pummeled by two empires and spent too much (real) time plotting where his ships and troops needed to be to thwart these two (who did NOT know the other was attacking this same empire -- fog of war is great). He was doing a great job of it too, but figured he would eventually lose. As it turned out, each of those two empires were attacked "in the back" so to speak in turn. When a player withdraw, I rolled a d6 -- 1 reverse action (if attacking, go to defense, etc), 2-5 continue same course of action, and 6 double down on current action (be more aggressive, be more defensive).

In any case, at the end of the campaign -- the one huge empire was doubling the other empires' combined production and resources and the players knew it from spies, etc. The winner's Victory Points were virtually unassailable, and so the campaign came to a close.

One last thing. I compiled a copy of all the turns (quite a bit of purple prose that had little to do with the game, but much to do with the atmosphere) and it came out to about 450,000 words (a paperback book page is about 300 to 350 words depending on font, leading etc), which I whittled down to about 325,000 or so. I had copies made, put it in a notebook, and had one for every player. Then I hosted a pizza party to give them all a copy and answer any questions. I found that a fitting end to a campaign.

And now working on refining it for even smoother operation…

Very cool. I would be very interested in the updated campaign system. Seems like it would make running a campaign possible without quite so much paperwork.

Glitches are being shaken out and a working system is on the horizon. If you have ever wished generalship, to work as one with your fellow hobbyists and compatriots, now is the time to make yourselves availabe for both playtesting and cheer leading.

A way to resolve some contacts by the system, when players do not want to put the fight on the table.

It might be that the fight is too small or so one-sided that the outnumbered side won't play a table game.

I handled that by just allowing either side to coincide the battle before we set up for it and take a certain amount of casualties on a chart we used.

That keeps us from setting up the table and putting out all the troops, all for one side to just move off the table. The winning side gets to up their morale or add victory points for whatever system you are using.

We also allow each side to have a certain amount of cavalry scouts. They don't count for anything except to find the enemy. If two scouts show up on the same square they fight it out by using a chart. You don't have to put them on the table.

You can use your main cavalry units to do this too. But in that case there would have to be a battle if neither side coincided. You may have to use them if all your scouts are eliminated.

The Empire Campaign System does the same with a tad more complexity. The trick is to get it 'off paper' and into the procssor. TY Kai- time coming.

GQG
wow – sounds v interesting – have sent you a pm.

Wow Russ, that sounds impressive!

I'd love to see the rules, or at least an outline of them that you used, if you happen to be able to share it.

Sounds like it would be a great campaign, even if run as just a smaller portion of the above.

I always used a variation on the DBM campaign system.

I added in an "external factors" dice roll to allow for things happening outside my control.

Basically, you roll 3 six sided dice and add them (the average is 10.5).

Times by 10 gives you a percentage score to spend on a new army. How many points depends on what your rules say an good army size is. Example – 400 point DBM army rolling 3 would only get 120 points while 18 would get you 720 points.

Reasoning – While this is definitely not fair, it is Historical. The history books would write it up as a superb strategic surprise attack that shook an unprepared enemy.

Times by 1 gives you replacement points to spend either repairing or reinforcing your army or even making a new one. Whether you use the basic 400 point army as the level or your existing army points are up to you though your existing army allows for the inclusion of your "success" factor. A Phyric victory could really spoil your day.

Reasoning – an 18 would indicate that the government or people are fully behind you or are rich, powerful and secure enough to recover (USA during WW2). A three could indicate that (1) the politicians aren't happy with you losses and won't replace them (British army under Haig), (2)they've decided to open up another front stripping you of much needed supplies and men or (3) somethings gone seriously wrong back home. This could well be a civil war, a coup or whatever makes your campaign more interesting. Again not fair but historically accurate.

You can add in plus or minus factors depending on how much territory you control, how many victories/defeats you've had, etc. It's entirely possible to "roll" higher than 18 or lower than 0 (a minus figure indicates you lose this percentage of points – government interference, mass desertions, etc.)

If you want to include a points system then use the points difference and keep track. For instance if the 180 point DBM army beat the 720 point DBM army then that player gets 540 victory points while the 720 point army winning would either get nothing (if you want a big difference at the end of the campaign) or -540 victory points (if you want a close run thing at the end). This is nothing to do with winning the campaign but who's the best player. The campaigns loser fights well but is still overwhelmed yet is still a winner. It gives everyone an incentive to carry on playing.

A note on players leaving a campaign midway through for whatever reason. Use history as a guide. Real rulers did just abandon their nations when they where losing. See what happened to their nations.

An easy way to deal with this is a simple die roll.

Each territory/map/region that the departing player controlled rolls a die (1-3 independent and is controlled by the most capable enemy of whoever is invading it at the moment, 2-5 joins the most powerful allied faction on their borders, 6 surrenders to the greatest threat on their borders). Take note of the regions they originally owned though. If they either come back or a new player wants to join, they roll for each of the original regions and on a 1-2 these regions revert to their control. Not fair but historically feasible. They have to fight what amounts to either a guerilla war or a rebellion with severely limited forces (think Bonny Prince Charlie).

Starting a redo of my campaign rules. Right now the game allows for 12 countries (which can be either real or Imagainary) and which a country can have up to 2 of 24 possible characteristics which define the countries (NOT the armies). This is because there is no map. So for example the country of Russia/Gulagia has the special characteristics of "Vast Land" which means you need more wagons to operate in, Another country has "Vast Wealth" which means it gets 18 notes (the monopoly money of the game) rather than the normal 12) etc.

The whole thing is designed to be able to be put up, played, and a gameable contact made in 15 minutes with which we can then go to the table top with, fightout to a definite conclusion in three to four hours and pack up in 15 minutes at any time in the turn sequence and pick up next game sequenece exactly where we left off. There's also no record keeping, bookeeping, or map to set up, and moves are all done by simple declaration.

The game has alliances, economics, secret societies, all sorts of maneuvers, Diplomatic Congress' etc., and lots of variety. You even get intrigue, statesmen, skull-duggery, rumor mongering, and the chance to slander your oponnent.

The reason for the rewrite is I want to simplify some of the mechanics and streamline it even more. I'm not happy with some conceptual parts and want to do better. Right now the whole thing is 12 pages single spaced, 12 pt, 3/4" margins, and I want to re-arrange some things to make it easier, and, of course, to add in a new model which are coalitions, and dynastic alliances.

The game can be played by one to 12 players, and can be won by none, one, some, or all the players. This is because you can have national and dynastic goals that do not necessarily conflict with other players and therefore long term alliances are really possible.

I also designed it because generating scenarios and plans for one-up games is very easy to use with the game. But the real reason I made it was to get down to the 15 minutes set up and 15 minutes take down at the end of a session, and I didn't want players to have to play a game to play a game, that is, play one game to get to play another game.

It's fairly easy to do.

Hi Oschmidt,

Any chance of showing us the the rewrite? Your system sounds intiguing.

Regards

I'd be interested too, Oschmidt – it sounds as though you've been thinking about this for a long time…

Hi Gavin,

I (and by extension my club) are interested in a getting a computer moderated campaign set of rules set up for our big monthly Napoleonic games.

I tried to add comments on your blog, but was unable and likewise was unable to register on the campaign system forums (bot questions seem bugged).

I was wondering if you needed further beta testers or had a release version yet.

If you get a chance to read this you can catch me here: malefricmusings.blogspot.com

:)