"Solo Campaign" Topic

I've decided to embark upon a solo campaign and am trying to get a feel for which might be most fun: squad, regimental, or army level. I plan to keep a campaign diary (per Featherstone) and name at least the officers. I have rules for each level. I just wonder which offers the most satisfactory return on investment (time, flavor, etc.). Thoughts?

I think the lower you go, the more the personalities comes through, along with a narrative. It is more "personal" at squad level. At the Army level, only a few characters have faces.

See the product Platoon Forward for ideas. link

I think they all have rewards. Squad, as dale points out, is very personal. You fight in a microcosm of the world. It does not matter what is going on around you in terms of what you are doing in the battle. The story can be made up as you go. no economics or diplomacy to worry about. only the deeps of the battlefield.

Platoon will almost certainly be similar. You still get the names of the officers etc. But now, you have gotten away from the patrol aspect. You are assaulting towns and so forth.

Regimental level you are playing in a big battle and can seize the important objective. Supplies and logistics come into play here. It is more complicated on a higher level but can be more rewarding if you like grander games.

Personally, the platoon level is what I'd play. It is a nice mix of both the extremes.

Actually, you could do all of those, e.g. low level with the storyline, and details about the characters, and then higher levels are either affected by the results at the tip of the spear, or vice versa.

It'll probably be best to concentrate mainly on the individuals in the squad/platoon, but there is no reason that other info, characters, and background can't be interspersed from time to time, to make it interesting.

For the higher levels, I'd just abstract the battle results a bit, unless you have lots of time to conduct combat with them.

I agree that squad is the way to go.

I've been running a WW2 squad campaign solo at: thewargamingaddict.com if you want to get an idea of how it goes.

The narrative – I find – keeps my interest alive and I am always wanting to find out what happens to the boys next.

I think regiment/battalion (I don't know what period you are thinking) will give the best scope for variety.

Squad level, I think, could get a bit samey (take that farmhouse, now take that farmhouse. Hey, there's this farmhouse….). I remember reading a personal account of WWII and the author saying that in a rifle squad, everything is a frontal assault.

Army might be too big to be personal. Gaming conferences and staff meetings?

But at battalion/regiment, I think there can be a lot of variety. The unit can take part in a battle. Be given it's own mission. Send out patrols. etc. If you've read the Sharpe books (regardless of your opinion as to writing, accuracy, blah blah blah) you can see the possibilities. Sharpe dealt with personalities up to army command level and down to Private and camp followers.

Again, it depends on the period. WWII-I'd think company would be pretty good.

Dale, "platoon forward" was a fantastic suggestion. Thanks, all. I
Ike the Sharpe comparison too.

Tacitus,

Hope you like Platoon Forward. If you have any questions just ask.
Dale,
Thanks for the suggestion.
Happy,
In PF you can deal with the army general, the private and the camp follower! The Sharpe's books are great. It was trying to capture Cross of Iron that got me started with PF in the first place.

Cheers

Joe