"Campaign Rules" Topic

What set of rules are people using to run campaigns.

I'm looking for something that covers map movement, logistics and hardships for units between battles on the table top.

Not sure it would cover everything you want, but there's the old AH 1776, which is a strategic game.

That sounds interesting. Use a board game for strategic moves but resolve battles using wargame figures on a tabletop.

We use AH's 1776. Since each counter has a numbered strength point it's easy to organize and track units for the table top battles.

I've used it (AH 1776) several times and it makes a great campaign background. You can just play it as a straight boardgame using the usual rules and fight out the battles you want. We used 1 battalion equals 1 point on the counters.

And SPI (S&T Magazine) had a similar game which could be used.

Jim

We are using the Volley and Bayonet rules for the ACW which with some minor tweeks could be used for AWI

I should have noted, we are currently using modified version of AH 1776. Good to hear others are using it to.

ColCampbell, do you recall which issue of SPI

Frederick, I've played Volley and Bayonet before. Its been a few years but I don't recall it having campaign rules.

Frederick the Great by SPI/AH. Excellent game of maneuver that has good supply rules and disorganization for losers in battle. Relatively low counter density makes for easy play, and strength points convert to any miniatures rules.

Fun, too.

AH 1776 is a great game for campaigns if you're willing to do the book-keeping. You need to keep track of everything on the board between sessions, not too onerous. I was in a game that ran during the bicentennial using it.

You need to think about how to transfer the board game contact to the game table and determine terrain, also which hex-side the losing side retreats from, etc.

You can use the game system to fight one-sided battles rather than transfer them to the table. Be aware that a savvy player can wipe out a small force using the game system, where a table battle might allow the smaller side to escape without crushing losses.

Ironwolf, Volley and Bayonet had a campaign system that used GDW's "A House Divided" as the base. The campaign system was in the V&B scenario book "Battles of the Civil War". You didn't need to own "A House Divided" to play but it wouldn't hurt.

The Perfect Captain offer Swamp Fox which is a campaign system for the Southern theatre of the war. It has the advantage of being free.

Age of Reason has a nifty campaign game called Sport of Kings. It is a lot of fun to play.

I would second AH Frederick the Great as well.

I did it all in my campaign rules, but don't use a map. It only slows the game down and is a frightful encumberance. Don't need it. Any campaign depends if you with to engage the enemy, avoid the enemy or do administrative stuff. If your enemy want's to engage you, he will, if he wants to avoid you, he will. All that's needed are to know the intentions and you can toss the map in the rubbish. It only gets in the way and makes huge control and book-keeping troubles.

In my (mostly failed) experience, the goal of a campaign is to give the tabletop battles context and meaning, and to avoid "point battle" types of games.

The ones that came off best for me came when I acted as a moderator. I would scan a regional map and send it to the (active) players, and ask them to mark their movements and let me know what (if any) purpose lay behind them. I would supply the "fog of war" myself--orders getting misunderstood, troops getting lost, someone leaving the artillery reserve in Genoa or forgetting the potato salad.

I hid behind a pretense of neutral dice rolling to generate these "random" results, but in reality I would ponder deeply on questions like "Would Beauregard actually work with Longstreet? Hell no," and Lo and Behold, he's late to the battle.

The advantages are thus: you get good games, some players will actually send in orders if they can do it at work, and you can play on both sides as a sub-commander. The disadvantages: you can't have hyper-competitive types play, or idiots who can't understand why the 1000 foot high general can't see anything.

Good luck. A good (and completed) campaign is the Holy Grail of wargaming. And like the Grail, you're lucky to even get a glimpse of it.

Dear Mallen

That's pretty much what I do in toto. There's a few things that "tart it up." But it's basically I ask each of the principle commanders "Tell me what your intentions are for the next period, in secret." I then take these intentions compare them, resolve what happened from the conflicting intentions (if any, and plan next months game from that, filling in the whole backstory itself. There's almost no work for anyone and I use a very simple accounting system. No body complains, everyone is happy, there's almost no work to do and we always have good battles.

I've come to believe that the essence of wargames is and always will be the table top battle and that's what people are interested in. Get away from that you're venturing into deep water without a life preserver.

Everyone says they would like all this detail, but they really don't and the proof is that when you give it to them, they scatter like scared rabbits.

The Carnage and Glory computer moderated tactical system now has a campaign system. The campaign system is in final development stage and I will be running a mini campaign, Trenton, December 1776, at Cold Wars in March. See my post on this Board for more details.

The CG system will do everything you suggest you are interested in and is fully integrated with the tactical system, allowing a seamless interface between campaign movement and transition into battle with all attrition, fatigue, etc. incurred during the strategic movement phase brought forward into the battle. And then all the battlefield losses, killed and wounded, as well as loss or gain of morale are uploaded back into the campaign once the battle is over.

Linking campaigns and battles is, to me, the essence of miniature wargaming, not a black hole to be avoided. It is not for the fainthearted but if done correctly can produce very interesting and rewarding tabletop gaming.

Oldnorthstate: We've communicated on your C&G campaign rules. It fits perfect for what we want to do. But I was under the impression you were still working on them and it would not be released for awhile.

vtsaogames: "campaign system was in the V&B scenario book "Battles of the Civil War".

I did not know this, I will see if I can find a copy online to check it out. Thanky everyone for all information on different rule sets.

For something different try this: Steve Haller "Campaigning without maps" The Courier vol. 1 no. 1. Avalible as a person for $3. USD
Steve uses the Guilford Courthouse campaign as a model. There are three inter connected battles with a couple options for commanders. Worked well when I tried it.

On last thought on the Otto/Mallen approach. If you really want to add to the entertainment value, use period maps in the local language. You end up with orders like "March from the village of Tzcnn across the river Argle-Bargle and occupy the town of Pvcnn." The chance for mishap is deep and wide. Campaigns in Bohemia, Poland, et. all are great for that.

I think maps are great for campaigning. I don't actually see the point of doing it without to be honest. It would be like running battles without miniatures!!! Period maps are even better!

I agree, maps add flavor to the campaign. So must have maps and the idea of using period maps sounds fun. lol

Ironwolf,

The Carnage and Glory campaign rules are in final development…the playtests have gone well and assuming there aren't any problems with the system during the Cold Wars Trenton campaign it should be ready for general release sometime later this spring…if not sooner.