"Objective questions on campaigns." Topic

1. How many campaigns have you played in?

2. How many of them ran the full term?

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done?

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?

7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began?

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?

9. How many players had fun with the campaign.

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?

11. Was there an umpire?

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not?

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.)

14.How was Victory determined?

15. Was the campaign fun, or work?

16. If work, was it worth the work?

Answer the questions please, no speculation or recommendations of this or that campaign system.

I have only done one campaign, it was a lot of work, but it was fun. The problem was that not everybody who was involved in the beginning stayed on until the end and the game just sort of fizzled out.
You need a group of gamers who are all interested in doing a campaign and realize the commitment.
It was great fun while it lasted.
The group I am with now is talking about doing a campaign game of the American revolution. My thought was to do Washington's New York campaign and not the entire war….If it ever happens I'll be sure to post.

1. Six, maybe seven total.

2. Two ran full term, a third ran to an early surrender with few games, as one player clearly out-thought the rest of us.

3. Three campaigns played to resolution through the game.

4. Typically they took several months, though my mostly solo campaign spans about 4 years and is ongoing.

5. Yes, conflicts were resolved on the table top.

6. The same players finished all but one, I think.

7. As #6 above.

8. I would say that all players were satisfied in only two of them. Probably one player in the third campaign.

9. I think all of the players had fun during each campaign, but not all enjoyed every aspect of each campaign. Record keeping can be a burden.

10. With one exception, the same number of players started and finished each campaign.

11. There was never a pure umpire.

12. I would play four of them again because they were fun. The others provided some fun, but failed in their purpose, so I wouldn't want to play them again.

13. The scale was grand political as defined by the original post.

14. In two campaigns, one side achieved victory conditions as defined prior to start, though both times, the losing side was still quite capable of continuing the fight. In one of those, the loser was actually far stronger than the victor, but didn't meet the victory condition as fast.

In the third campaign, one player had simply out-thought everyone else, and it was realized that nobody could beat him. This resulted in simply stopping the campaign after fighting only a few battles. I wish now that we had continued to fight on, as some of the battles would have been very interesting if futile.

15. I had fun with every campaign that I have participated in. Those that played to completion yielded a greater sense of satisfaction, and all of the campaigns involved tasks that were not always so much fun.

16. I would say that all of them were worth the work, some more than others. I would always prefer to be involved in a campaign, as opposed to only set piece battles, despite never being on the winning side of a campaign played to a conclusion

Three of the campaigns tried to involve too much, resulting in two failing to materialize beyond the planning/preparation phase.

My solo campaign has resulted in being the most satifying, though I miss aspects of the multi-player campaign.

3 or 4.
Some made it past the first couple of battles.
None ever fought to a conclusion.

I have been in 7 campaigns and every one of them ended when one side started to lose and the people on that side would no longer show up to continue. I very much like campaigns but make sure that you have people who are reliable and get along with each other well. Also keep the paperwork and booking keeping as streamlined as possible. If someone is willing to Umpire the campaign as well as mediate it will help things move along to a conclusion. The great thing about a campaign is that lopsided battles can occur but have some serious strategic impact on the overall course of the campaign.

1. Never played, but I have run 8. Two covered the ACW, the Battle of Britain, Jutland(one year later), a sprawling colonial game, The Falklands (1980's version), Caesar in Gaul and a 1066 Campaign.

2. Only one of the games ended early, Caesar in Gaul, as I tried to do too much and found myself snowed under with game events.

3. All but one.

4. I tried to make them last no more than 12 months. It all depended up how fast I could resolve a turn, send out information and get players turn instructions back to me.

5. Yes, but the interest of some players wains depending on what is going on.

6. no, had to replace a player that fell out of a game due to personal issues.

7. yes

8. Usually most were, unless one found themselves in a losing position early on.

9. At least 80%. The 1066 campaign was probably the best one I ever ran as everyone enjoyed it and the whole campaign came down to two seperate battles fought in the last game turn.

10. Usually looked to have 6 to 8 players. The colonial campaign had a dozen and was done by snail mail.

11. Yes, I was the umpire for all.

12. Yes and no, I'd like to play in a campaign but I'm hesitant to start another to umpire.

13.Most were simple military campaigns except for 1066, Caesar and the Colonial game, which had politics and some economic aspects.

14. Depended upon the campaign. I usually had goals outlined and a set time frame for those goals to be accomplished. The Battle of Britain came was done in weekly turns and was only 7 turns long.

15. Fun but also usually a lot of work.

16. Yes, as it was usually done for the entertainment of my friends.
7.

1. Too many to count! Certainly well over a dozen.

2. Only one (the last one, which I ran).

3. Ditto.

4. All answers from now on relate to the most recent one. It lasted four and a half years in real time.

5. Yes

6. No, because one player moved house.

7. No, as above.

8. All of them

9. All of them. At least, that's what they said. And they've come back for more…

10. Five regulars plus a couple not so regular started; one of the regulars didn't finish.

11. Yes.

12. Yes, because it was a good experience and because the way we ran it helped to maintain momentum.

13. Grand political game

14. By the rules of the boardgame rules we used for the map. Essentially we ran a boardgame but decided battles on the tabletop.

15. Fun. The boardgame took care of the work.

16. NA

A short explanation is in order. This campaign had no sides. The boardgame map moves were rolled randomly, and the players took sides in the tabletop games. We basically used it as multi-player battle generator. Easily the best way I've ever run a large-scale historical campaign, because even if players did drop out it wouldn't have mattered. My role as umpire was to translate the map results to the table.

I was in 3 large campaigns.
The 2 I saw completed used board games for the strategic games and miniatures for battle resolution. The board games were tested and provided clear victory conditions. I would play either one again. I think most folks enjoyed the campaigns. I enjoyed the AWI campaign where I was on the winning side and the 1814 France campaign where I was defeated and deposed.

The AWI campaign lasted 2 years, the 1814 campaign 1.

No umpire.

The AWI game used AH 1776 as the top level game – the whole war. The 1814 Game used OSG's Napoleon at Bay for the top game, the western France campaign.

I think that using a good board game makes everything much smoother. Otherwise people are alpha-testing a new game as they go, and they have invested much time and energy into. Finding out the top level game is badly flawed after people have put months into playing it is a pain.

It was worth it.

Since then the only campaigns I've run have been numerous DBA mini-campaigns. They are fun too, rather like burgers compared to multi-course meals.

My own experience

1. How many campaigns have you played in?
Nine.Ran five of them.

2. How many of them ran the full term?
One.

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?
One.

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time. Longest two years real earth time, two years game time. This was the one that completed. The others all lasted six months to two month real time, three turns on the average game time.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done? In two of them yes. The rest, no.

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?
Yes, but much fewer.

7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began? No. the game ended with about 25% of the original players actually PLAYING, the rest simply had stopped playing after three turns at most.

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?
The one that completed- 80%.

9. How many players had fun with the campaign.
About 25% in all cases, always the most active ones.

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?
On the average about 80% but most were inactive.

11. Was there an umpire?
Always.

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not? Yes. I feel none of them got a fair shake the problem was always that the rulers were framed on the assumption most of the players (80% were active).

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.) Most were the latter. Some were purpose built with only two to three players on a side.

14.How was Victory determined?
Both fulfillment of pre-ordained goals and relative powers/strengths of the players at the endd.

15. Was the campaign fun, or work? Both for me. mostly it was just work for other players. There was a direct correlation between the amount of work a player put into it and the fun he had.

16. If work, was it worth the work?
Yes.

Answer the questions please, no speculation or recommendations of this or that campaign system.

Interesting responses…my experience is that most campaigns collapse under their own weight…the scale of the campaign is too grand and the umpire is overwhelmed by the recordkeeping. Having said that I continue to think the concept can work under the right circumstances.

Towards that end I will be running a Napoleonic mini campaign at Historicon using the beta version of the Carnage and Glory computer moderated campaign system in conjunction with the computer moderated tactical system.

The campaign will be narrow in scope, about 20,000 French against the same number in a combined force of Austrians, Russians and Prussians in August, 1813. The campaign theater will be limited to an area south of Berlin and we'll run the opening phases of the campaign prior to the convention so we'll have the first battle ready to go. I have scheduled four campaign games over the convention weekend…we'll see how it goes. The beauty of the combined CG systems is the integration, all campaign records are generated and kept by the program, when a battle is required I'll just download the OB's complete with current strength, fatigue, etc, fight the battle, upload the units back into the system, complete with post battle casualties, fatigue, etc. and changes in unit morale, either up or down and experience to continue the campaign.

db

What's a campaign (for the purposes of your question)?

In the traditional sense of using an umpire to co-ordinate turns so battles can be resolved on a tabletop, I've played in and ran a few, and all but one petered out…

In the sense of running Snappy Nappy "Campaigns-in-a-Day," I've run a few of those (and played in one), and ALL were completed at the end of a long afternoon where the umpire (and most players) understood who "won" and who "lost."

1. How many campaigns have you played in?

Played. Hmm.

Traditional: 2 Napoleonic, 1 Pulp, and 1 Fantasy (HOTT).
Campaign in a Day: 2 Napoleonic

Ran as Umpire:

T: Five Sci-Fi, 1 Ancients
CiaD: At least five that I can point to MWAN After-Action Reports

2. How many of them ran the full term?

Trad: None
CiaD: 2

Umpired:

T: 1 Sci-Fi
CiaD: All

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?

Trad: None
CiaD: 2

Umpired:

T: 1 Sci-Fi
CiaD: All

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time.

A month to a couple months for those that did not finish. All CiaD were a long afternoon.

The 1 sci-fi that I umpired and completed took four years and four months, and did 98 turns (about two per month). Note that this game did NOT require people to show up at tabletops -- it was a PBeM where the umpire did all the battles…which is why it lasted so long and came to a conclusion.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done?

In all but the one sci-fi campaign that actually was completed, yes.

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?

For the completed sci-fi one, yes. For the others, generally yes, but they collapsed for the usual reasons.

7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began?

For the completed sci-fi one, no. Players were conquered by other players. There were eight at start, three at end, but the winner could not be touched by the combined weight of the remaining players.

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?

For the ones that did not finish, I would guess none, as the campaign was never completed.

9. How many players had fun with the campaign.

Harder to judge, but for the ones that did well, probably a lot, but for the ones that did not finish, apparently not enough.

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?

Mostly six. The sci-fi one that completed was eight. The largest CiaD was 21.

11. Was there an umpire?

In all of them, yes.

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not?

Well, we always start full of excitement…Sure.

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.)

CiaD: Military
Others: Usually included some neutrals, some production, etc.

14.How was Victory determined?

Usually territory gained (captured places), which often translated into points.

15. Was the campaign fun, or work?

Both. The key (as umpire) was to limit paperwork the player had to do -- players, including me I guess (and with just a little bit of tongue in cheek), just want to assign resources, get units, have it, and hopefully be clever enough in the rock-paper-scissors aspect of combat to have a chance to win, and, retrieve a bad situation to get close to equilibrium (and that chance to win).

16. If work, was it worth the work?

As umpire and player, yes. It's a nice conundrum to try and figure out what to do with limited resources and spend time planning the inevitable if-then moves.

For those that are interested in investigating a wide array of campaign rules and ideas, [plug], in March 2014 I published Campaign Secrets of Wargame Design, the fourth booklet in the Wally Simon series. It covers an array of periods and offers ideas based on Simon's campaigns that he played in or ran -- in a dozen articles, just about all with maps. $19 USD, available from onmilitarymatters.com or caliverbooks.com (UK)

For a table of contents list: type in the following in Google:

onmilitarymatters campaign secrets of wargame design

[end of plug]

Russ

I heartily recommend the booklet Russ is Plugging.

Being one of the accomplices of the late great Wally Simon, his PW review was a positive gold mine for the serious rules designer as Wally believed in the firm principle of Play-test to anhihilation. That is, don't play the game to make the rules work, play them till you shook the game to pieces or drove it into the bridge abutment to see where it didn't work, pick up the pieces and drag them back to the lab to study what went wrong.

I have the booklet and it's well worth the money.

BE ADVISED THOUGH! Many of you will find the material "dated" and seem like old hat, but that's not the goal. Russ is correct and what he is offering is Wally's ideas and methodology of investigation and testing. So if you're looking for some great means to run campaigns you will be sadly disappointed. However! If you are of the intellectual sort who enjoys batting around game concepts and ideas (and then smashing them to little bits) this book will be for you.

Wally was always guestioning and evaluating, and 90% of the time what wally would do would be to take parts OUT of a game that served no useful purpose or were not fun, or got into the way of the fun. Wally was also not shy about his opinions and evaluations, and he was able to eviscerate the proud with a few choice words. Wally never forgot we were in this hobby for fun, not to provide a graduate course.

Really late to the game here, but here's my answers:

1. How many campaigns have you played in?

One I'd consider a proper 'campaign' (as opposed to a league).

2. How many of them ran the full term?

This one did.

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?

One side surrendered in the face of overwhelming losses, so there was a definite decision.

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time.

18 months.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done?

We used the campaign combat system, which was fairly deep but not a 'tabletop' game in the traditional sense.

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?

IIRC we had two people who had to drop out and found substitutes.

7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began?

Yes.

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?

No one complained that they didn't like it.

9. How many players had fun with the campaign.

Everyone appears to have enjoyed, though I had minimal social contact with the opposing side.

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?

12 at the start, 12 at the finish.

11. Was there an umpire?

Yes.

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not?

Yes, the campaign was a lot of fun and had a lot of interesting decisions. The double blind nature of the campaign was very engaging.

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.)

Grand scale with construction, but only two sides (technically three factions, but two of the factions were basically on the same side, just slightly different objectives).

14.How was Victory determined?

Geographic objectives for each side were designated, though that's not how victory was actually determined in the end.

15. Was the campaign fun, or work?

It was a lot of fun, but also a fair bit of work.

16. If work, was it worth the work?

Absolutely.

-Will

Dear Will

No problem that you are "a little late to the game" I'm keeping it going to get as much data as I can.

Otto

1. How many campaigns have you played in?

Six.

2. How many of them ran the full term?

Two, with one ongoing and looking reasonably strong.

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?

One

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time.

My current one is ongoing at nine months. I think the previous maximum was four.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done?

Yes, always.

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?

Mostly solo campaigns, one multi-player kept the same players, one changed a few.

7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began?

Yes.

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?

I haven't been satisfied with two of my solo ones. A couple of players were unhappy with both the multi-player ones.

9. How many players had fun with the campaign.

Most of them, AFAIK.

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?

12 at the start, 12 at the finish.

11. Was there an umpire?

Yes, for the MPGs.

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not?

Yes, all of them.

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.)

Mostly simple military campaign, one had a political side. One was a tactical air warfare game.

14.How was Victory determined?

Geographic objectives for each side were designated, though that's not how victory was actually determined in the end.

15. Was the campaign fun, or work?

All were fun to some degree, only the solo ones were a lot of work.

16. If work, was it worth the work?

Yes.

OS Schmidt

Really late to the game but I campaign only solo for all the reasons every mentions. I use my campaign rules Platoon Forward for WW II ground/ Squadron Forward WW II air and now Rifles Forward Black powder ground.

1. How many campaigns have you played in?
60+

2. How many of them ran the full term?
They are not designed to end. I have saved the battle of the bulge, britain and Philadelphia though.

3. How many of them reached a definite decision through the game? This does not mean died by default when people lost interest, but actually reached a definite decision with a definite victor?
N/A see above

4. How long did they last? This is in real world time, not game time.
Hopefully most of my life.

5. Was table top resolution of conflicts done?
Yes- that is the point. To make your war games that much more interesting.

6. Did you end the game with the same players as you began?
Yep : )
7. Did you end the game with the same NUMBER of players as you began?
Yep : )

8. How many players were satisfied with the campaign?
100%
9. How many players had fun with the campaign.
100%

10. How many players were in the game at the start? Finish?
1/1
11. Was there an umpire?
not exactly-- the rules set up the defense and run random in game events and then post game events.

12. Would you want to play the campaign again? Why or why not?
Absolutly! It is great fun.

13. What was the scale of the campaign (simple military campaign, or a grand political game with independent countries etc.)
Skirmish but could be used up to company.

14.How was Victory determined?
Survival, medals, glory points and getting the girl.

15. Was the campaign fun, or work?
Fun Setting up the scenario takes 6 minutes. Post game takes about 8.

16. If work, was it worth the work?
N/A

Answer the questions please, no speculation or recommendations of this or that campaign system.

I only mention the campaigns so my answers make sense. I tried multiplayer games and gave up. Now it is great.

Cheers

Joe

Most memorable campaigns I was involved in:

- We took a US Army topo map of a slice of West Germany, and took two acetate sheets; one for NATO, one for Warsaw Pact. The NATO side had a number of different U.S./French/German units, to match the troops our group had for 6mm microarmor. The Warsaw Pact had Soviets and Poles, I think. The ref marked the front lines on the acetate sheets, and each side marked its own unit locations and arrows for movement orders on its own acetate sheets. The ref took both acetate sheets and overlaid them on the map to see where battles took place, and what troops were involved. It worked really well; we fought out 5-6 different battles of different sizes. The most memorable battle was when a French mech company retreated deep into a woods and was bypassed. They chose to come out of the woods at a point where a major highway ran through the woods, at the exact place and time where a major enemy column was passing through. The first two turns were an exciting ambush as the French shot up the column, then the column rallied and tried to wipe out the French mech company. Very tense.

- Another campaign lasted three years in real time, with turns usually submitted each month. This was a Napoleonic campaign, with a hex map with imaginary small nations (corresponding to each of the actual nations of the Napoleonic wars, as well as German/Portuguese etc minor countries run by the ref). There was a simplified economic system so players could recruit/train/field their own units. The players kept track of their own OB, supervised by the ref. We used Napoleon's Battles to resolve battles as wars were declared, alliances forged, and campaigns waged. Since many players lived geographically far away, they either appointed proxies to resolve the battles, or the ref commanded their troops against their enemies. Again, a lot of fun.