"How do you define "Wargames campaign" ?" Topic

What it says.

When someone says "Wargames campaign" what does that mean to you?

A series of sequential games, each new game altered by the game that preceded it.

Agree with Flashman. I would add the campaign shouldn't be more important than battles fought on table

The simplest (that I am now playing): a series of battles with no map movement, each battle having some effect on the next.

More complex (played in days gone by): using a strategic board game or similar with battles being resolved by miniatures games. Lots of fun, lots of work. Bad board game decisions can have more influence than the battles.

A series of linked games that has just started to get really interesting when somebody quits, fraging the whole thing.

+1 Flashman

Agree with Flashman – I also think of a campaign as something that includes a strategic and logistical element

Plus of course the chance to give your mini commanders outrageous names

One of two options:

1. something which gives a series of battle some sort of strategic context (linked scenarios, carried over losses, whatever). It probably doesn't involve a map.

Something like this may run for years and years.

2. the whole shebang with maps, orders, multiple players, lots of arguments about how to set table top battles up etc.

Something like this starts off with a great rush of enthusiam and generally falls apart after three or four battles, particularly when one side starts to 'lose'.

In a figure gaming context, I have generally found option 1. works best to produce interesting tabletop battles. If I want to fight an operational game then I will play a game designed for that specific purpose (which ma indeed involve figures, or may not).

I basically think at the base level it's:
1. A system where multiple battles are required to resolve (ie, you can lose a battle and still win the war)
2. A system where the outcome of prior battles influences the next battle in some fashion

And that's really it.

Now for what I PREFER in a campaign, that's a different question….

-Will

Something which gives context to a series of figure games.

I've played a 'campaign' which was effectively an approach march to a battle, had detailed maps, orders of march, scouting etc and was resolved into a single figure game (though it could have been more). At the other end of the scale a multi-player DBA empire-building campaign in which losses were generally not carried over and actions and army size was determined by card play. Both those had strategic maps, whereas the ladder campaigns I've played are much more abstract.

I would add a bit to Flasman14's excellent definition.

We play multi-team campaigns, so multiple game outcomes may feed into any one.

Also, for us, a campaign may roll in "external" factors, like the broader context of the political environment or the changing availability of resources on a dying world.

Agree with Flashman

A structure that links individual table top battles together into an over-arching narrative where an ultimate end, and winner is decided by the sequence. The effects of previous battles should have some effect on present battles but cannot be deterministic. Primarily the linking in a narrative.

However! The individual players must be able to make choices in the campaign otherwise it's just a linked story.

Tjree points are critical.

Actions MUST be resolved on table top battles.

The campaign must generate interesting and more or less fair table top battles.

The campaign must be structured so that if any player(s) drop out the campaign can continue.

A tall order.

The campaign must generate interesting and more or less fair table top battles.

I disagree. Actually, this is one of the things I like about campaign play. A force that is overmatched in one battle (or several) can whittle away at the "stronger" force over time (while risking less of their total capability in each engagement) and still win.

One of my favorite mechanisms is the "tide" of the campaign. Forces that win a lot get "overconfident" and "sloppy". Forces that lose a lot become "desperate" and "motivated". Typical "tide" mechanics award bonuses and penalties to sides in the initial conditions for a battle based on their current state.

"How do you define "Wargames campaign" ?"

More than one battle, linked in some way.

and more or less fair table top battles.

How do you define "more or less fair"?

Actually some of the more interesting games I have played wouldn't have been set up as a normal game. I'm thinking in particular of having to build a pontoon and cross a river. I had a large advantage in numbers, but it all came down to whether the few infantry I eventually managed to get across the bridge could form square in time.

However! The individual players must be able to make choices in the campaign otherwise it's just a linked story.

Yea, agree 100% with this; if there's no strategic choices to make than it's not really a campaign, it's a narrated set of scenarios. You don't want to overwhelm players with choices, but you don't want to let everything run on rails either.

How do you define "more or less fair"?

Well, that tolerance is going to vary by group, but in general you probably want to avoid stuff like:
1. One side is outmatched by 3:1 or worse and the scenario is a stand-up fight, or worse, the inferior force must attack and take the enemy position. Even worse if the superior force is ambushing the inferior force in some fashion. (if the inferior force is defending that's different)
2. Any scenario with 'race' victory conditions and one side is substantially less maneuverable than the other (ie, objective is take and hold Mount Dread in the table center for X turns and one side are the Riders of Rohan and the other side are Dwarves).
3. Scenarios involving attacks against fortified positions and the attacking force has already lost all of the equipment needed to carry the day.

Now, in the right circumstances some of these scenarios CAN be fun; Scenario 1 can turn into 'hit and run attack to inflict casualties and then retreat' if done right for example. But if the campaign is producing a bunch of badly lopsided scenarios it's not going to be fun for long.

-Will

But if the campaign is producing a bunch of badly lopsided scenarios it's not going to be fun for long.

"Lopsided" scenarios as you describe them can produce some of the most interesting games. Yes, the result might be a foregone conclusion, but how well can the underdog do?

Besides, the whole point of startegic manoeuvre is to produce a "lopsided" scenario if possible…

"Lopsided" scenarios as you describe them can produce some of the most interesting games. Yes, the result might be a foregone conclusion, but how well can the underdog do?

Yes, they CAN be interesting, but they often are NOT interesting. A battle where one side is outnumbered 10:1 and cannot retreat or dig in is not likely going to be worth the time to set up and play. As I said, what's reasonable is going vary by group, and in a campaign the occasional lopsided battle is probably inevitable, but you generally want the players to have more fights where they can accomplish something useful (even if that useful thing isn't 'win the tactical battle') than fights where one side is moped off the table by turn 2. It's not 'lopsided scenarios are terrible and never do them', it's 'try to not generate *too many* lopsided scenarios'.

Besides, the whole point of startegic manoeuvre is to produce a "lopsided" scenario if possible…

Yes, and if you're playing an operational or strategic wargame that is what you're supposed to be doing; setting up as many situations where the odds are massively in your favor as possible. But when you translate those encounters into tabletop game scenarios they often end up being Godzilla vs. Bambi and even less interesting than that to play.

The least fun sort of campaign in my experience is a series Godzilla vs. Bambi fights (with the sides alternating who is Godzilla) followed by one giant fight as the two Godzilla formations blunder into each other. You could have skipped the campaign and gone right to the giant fight.

-Will

To all those who are in favor of lopsided scenarios, they are fun when you're on the superior side. Not so much when you're on the inferior. Now and then is OK, but a steady diet of them will soon turn you off.

By fair I mean that the lesser side still has some reasonable chance of victory IN THE COMMON VIEW OF "VICTORY". A victory condition where you are wiped out but you take 10 guys with you is not a victory in any common way. In my 18th Century Imaginations Campaign we have had several battles where one side was outnumbered two to one, one battle where it was three to one. In all cases the structure of the campaign allowed for overwhelming victory by the lesser side, (if they got lucky or the enemy played idiotically. In actual fact there was two draws, and two cases where the winner (the larger) won by two victory points out of a possible of twelve.

In my experience underdogs derive little pleasure from doing well. It's like taking on a freight train with a baby perambulator. Not much fun once he baby gets squashed the first two or three times coupled with the knowledge that the baby is still going to get squashed whatever you do.

Now and then is OK, but a steady diet of them will soon turn you off.

As has been said many many times before in these forums (fora?) it is all in how you couch the "victory conditions". Yes you are going to "lose" (in the accepted sense of the term), but are you going to lose dismally or spectacularly? FFL at Camarone anyone? Spectacular losses can be the stuff of legends …

Yeah, Thermopylae isn't any fun for the Spartans, and there is not victory possible for them. You may not have heard of it, since it is such a lopsided battle that nobody games it.

Most of Little Crow's War is also lopsided. That is what makes it a great campaign setting rather than a source for great one-off games (though there are a couple that stand alone). Also, there are a couple of engagements (I hesitate to call them battles) that were massacres; we don't game those.

Godzilla vs. Bambi

This is a great movie.

At 3:1 or worse the best you are likely to do is inflict casualties or delay on an opponent. While this can seem artificial in a one-off battle (hold on until turn 7), in a campaign context this might well have an effect later on.

As has been said many many times before in these forums (fora?) it is all in how you couch the "victory conditions". Yes you are going to "lose" (in the accepted sense of the term), but are you going to lose dismally or spectacularly? FFL at Camarone anyone? Spectacular losses can be the stuff of legends …

Yes, good scenario design plays a huge role in making mis-matched games fun. But here's the rub in a campaign; the campaign context determines (or should determine) what victory means. That is what makes campaign design challenging, since you can't simply arbitrarily create a scenario and set the victory conditions however you want. The tactical object of the scenario is linked to the operational/strategic situation, which can easily mean that you have situation where a force in vastly inferior and *cannot achieve a meaningful outcome in terms of the campaign*.

Let's take the valiant Last Stand scenario; your force is so badly outnumbered you're doomed and the only question is how long you'll last and how many you can take with you.

Case A: The Last Stand force is buying time for the rest of the army to retreat and regroup after losing the prior scenario. The longer they last the better chance their army will have in the next scenario. The force ratio and terrain is such that the defenders have a chance to inflict some casualties before they are destroyed. This is an *excellent* scenario, with balanced victory conditions, clear strategic stakes and instant emotional investment. Good job!

Case B: The Last Stand force was a detached unit that managed to blunder into the main enemy army and has no escape route. It doesn't matter how long they last, no help can arrive and the enemy doesn't need to get anywhere in a timely fashion. The force ratio and terrain are such that the defenders will likely be destroyed well before they do any damage. This is as a *terrible* scenario, with unbalanced victory conditions, no strategic stakes and marginal emotional investment. Bad Job!

Now the obvious answer is 'Play Case A and don't play Case B you idiot!' and that's right. But that problem is that your campaign rules and situation might *create* Case B more often than Case A if you're not careful. That is that makes campaign design so challenging and interesting.

Yeah, Thermopylae isn't any fun for the Spartans, and there is not victory possible for them. You may not have heard of it, since it is such a lopsided battle that nobody games it.

Yes, but the Spartans had a clear objective of strategic significance to fight for. There are far more 'small forces blunders into larger forces, dies, does nothing' scenarios in history. We often don't play those.

At 3:1 or worse the best you are likely to do is inflict casualties or delay on an opponent. While this can seem artificial in a one-off battle (hold on until turn 7), in a campaign context this might well have an effect later on.

Absolutely, this why context is important; an inferior force able to fight on the defensive against a superior force to delay or cause attrition is a perfectly good scenario. It's other scenarios were the inferior force has to accomplish something it really can't accomplish that often turn out to be bad ones. And in a campaign you have less control over that then you would in a one-off scenario design.

So to reiterate; lopsided scenarios aren't inherently bad. But as a campaign designer you need to make sure that they only happen often enough and in ways that turn out to be interesting, and not so often or in uniteresting ways so that they drag the campaign down.

-Will

wminsing is correct. To manage his type A good scenario is the key, but how does one do that UNLESS ONE CREATES it ahead of time, that is creates the NEXT SCENARIO before the present one. That's a degree of fiddling in the campaign that really destroys the campaign. How does one counter with a player who would say he would not involve himself in the LATER scenario necessitating the heroic stand as opposed to the massacre. Far more likely as he points out is the case of B where player Pat sends his main army down one road and a detatchment down the other, only to find out that the route his detatchment is taking is straight into the maw of the enemy's whole army. the loss may also not be recoverable in game terms within the time of the campaign.

The problem then is the ex-post facto rationalization falls apart.

You either let the players make their own mistakes, which is the essence of a campaign, or you simply arrange an amusement park ride for them which no matter how fearsome the monsters in the fun-house, everyone knows they are not going to get eaten. Further as umpire you have the problem that there is no guarantee that the players, if they get into trouble by their own mistakes, will hang around to get themselves out of it. If you call them up and say "Hey Mike, sorry to say this but you know that detatchment you sent down the road to see if the enemy was flanking you, well sad news his whole army is coming down that road and you are going to have to fight a battle at odds of 1 to five.

Guarantee he won't show up for that game, AND he won't show up for the next one where he is being flanked, AND he's 1/5 of his forces down.

All players go into campaigns with visions of a definitive proof they are nascent Napoleons with a baton in their knapsack, no one goes in with the idea of being "the unfortunate General Mack."

That's why I adopted the rules and procedures in my Imagi-Nation Campaign which puts a maximum limit on forces on both ends of the spectrum and has the umpire around to massage the battles one way or the other to lessen the amount of "unfortunate" general Mack might have to suffer in any one battle.

In the specific case I enumerated in "The Battle of Chimichanga" Mike Lorenzo is meeting a force of an Army and A brigade with a single brigade. He can't use his "get out of battle free card" the Fortress because the Sweetans are dragging along a Siege Brigade which would invalidate that. So he is posing a single brigade which I have augmented as best I could with terrain, but it will probably not effect the outcome too much. So what Mike is doing is sending off a sacrificial detatchment. At the end of the battle, both Mike's sacrificial detatchment AND the Sweetan Army and Brigade will go to the bank and have to be renewed. This is because Mike wants to use his army and another brigade (which HE just got revived from the Bank) elsewhere. That makes good sense. However, he IS chancing that Sweeta might win not only the battle, but the whole campaign by racking up an overwhelming tactical victory which will translate to an overwhelming strategic victory and end the campaign. If he gets 9 or more victory points, which he cold do.

It's a risk. Mike certainly would have used his fortress if the Sweetans had not the siege brigade.

Mike is gambling. That's what players are supposed to do in campaigns. In all cases I am happy because Mike is making the decisions. I'm not leading them through the fun-house.

If the campaign is good and fun -then players will have fun with it -including lopsided battles.
if not perhaps the GM is not running a campaign that is interesting enough to keep their attention.

If as a GM you only have battles that are fair and balanced you are indeed putting your players on a track -Most likely to feed your own ego .
Those are the campaigns that wither and die .
You need to allow a gamer to out-think and out-maneuver his opponents . If you don't it is the equivalent of 1st grade sports -(we don't keep score -everyone gets a medal )
The same with having too many ways that their mistakes aren't costly ("I can buy back this army ")
Too many GM's forget the campaign is for the players and not just for themselves.

Guarantee he won't show up for that game, AND he won't show up for the next one where he is being flanked, AND he's 1/5 of his forces down.

All players go into campaigns with visions of a definitive proof they are nascent Napoleons with a baton in their knapsack, no one goes in with the idea of being "the unfortunate General Mack."

Again, you're going to have to blame that on your players. If they see themselves as the unfortunate General Mack and not Leonidas, that's on them. I've seen many players come to this game and relish the challenge.

If you have players in your campaign that won't show up for games that they are at a disadvantage that is on you . As a GM you should be aware of the shortcomings of your players ,I am sure that that player has always been that way .
Perhaps the rest of the campaign just isn't interesting enough to make up for the situation?

I agree with Etotheipi, but it is also on the GM . Most gamers that I have played in campaigns DO NOT go in with those visions ,they go in to have a good time with their friends .
However – GM's tend to attract players like themselves – So if your players …