"Have You Ever Played in a Wargaming Campaign?" Topic

Have you participated in a miniature wargaming campaign?

More than once.

Absolutely. Including the first Bathtub Barbarossa.

Yes, but usually linked to a painting challenge, which works for a while but when your painting falls off so does your interest in the campaign.

Yes. Many times.

Yes, I think they are a great way to wargame, but can easily go awry with work etc. In Germany in the mid 90s I was introduced to a Napoleon's Battles campaign. It was run by the ADC to our General, the campaign maps were behind the General's secret maps in his office and we would get a message to pop round for a briefing when the boss was out!

Tally Ho!

Yes, numerous times.

All the time. I'm playing in an ACW campaign now, and my CY6! group is in its fourth year of playing through the official campaign books.

I've also run plenty of short ones, mostly one-day mini-campaigns using DBA or my own AoS rules.

- Ix

Of course. Now ask me if I ever finished one

A time or two.

Yes many times. They make the table top battles far more interesting and the scenario is pretty much written for you by the campaign situation.

I like campaigns with strategic map based movement.

Yes

Many times, none to completion. In every single one once a player suffers a major setback they quit and the campaign was over.

Yes. I even would again, if I had to, in order to get a commitment to tabletop battles. For themselves? Bleh.

Yes, many times, ran several as well.

Yes, I played in a Napoleonics campaign in 1981 at Fort Riley Kansas.
I also played in several Ancients campaign using the Supreme Warlord campaign system. We were playing WRG 5 th or 6th edition.

Yes, and run several!

Yes, several, and have run a couple
as well.

Yes, several. Greg Novak and crew ran several "Wilderness Projects" at the Foreign Languages building on the U of I campus back in the day. Also Bathtub Barbarossa and TSATF/The Sun Never Sets, and a couple ACW campaigns.

yes

Yes, most recently a middle earth campaign. I prefer however, just single games without having to think about what's happening between them

Yes, multiple times

Yes, a few times, mostly set in the Traveller universe.

Several times, different types.

Yes, some were great, some were not.

yes

Yes and many.
The first of which was Tony Bath's Hyborian Campaign.

Yes, FPW, 7YW and Ancients. About to fire up a Vietnam based campaign.

Yes … including Eric Knowles' MADASAHATTA campaign.

Yes, primarily SF and fantasy, including a 97 strategic turn long Star Fleet Battles campaign which ended with the Klingons in control of everything within 100 LY of Sol, and got me my first Game industry job ("You can come to work for us or have your ass sued off." I… sort of copied some of the model designs…)

Played in them, ran them, even finished some.

Yes, quite a few.

Played, run, and completed several.

Have had a few that I played or ran not complete.

A couple of times. Neither survived beyond the first battle.

Many times.

For sure – as a player and as an umpire

Have one running now – very slowly!

No. Want to, but the timing never works out :/

Yes.

Many as player and GM

Yes, several, in several genres.

Yes

A few. It has been a while since the last, though.

Yes.

Yes, several. However, the more complex ones ended the way Bashytubits describes. I did play in two campaigns in Soldier Kings, using Might and Reason to fight the battles. These lasted the full length.

My favorites would have to be the narrative campaigns in Longstreet, and the shorter map campaigns with DBA.

Yes and I have run some. Some thoughts to share in regards to participation…

#1 Have some way to keep the players interested if they have a battle or two that ends in catastrophic defeat. Once they realize they cannot win the campaign they no longer want to play. Issue new orders and have new objectives, allow the losing player to fight a heroic retrograde action. Allow for reinforcements.

#2 Have some mechanism in place to handle players that have attendance issues. (This is the one that matters most when you cannot advance the campaign until one particular guy shows up…)

#3 Do no trust players to perform any preparation for the campaign until they arrive late for game night.

#4 Do no trust the players to bring anything they said they would bring for game night, you supply the terrain, miniatures and rules.

#5 Have solid reasons for the players to want / need to fight or they will sit on their butts in garrison.

#6 If you use maps I recommend area movement over any other type of movement. If two opposing forces occupy the same map area they fight. I have run campaigns where the players blundered around the map and never found each other.

Yes, even finished several!

I've run several, but never got to play in one run by someone else! :(

Yes, several. I'm hoping to move from mainly solo campaigns to having a PBEM in the near future.

Yes many times, including a very enjoyable one used DBA to resolve the battles generated by the campaign.

Dragon Gunner's advice is solid--readers, copy them down!

However, an even profound failing with most campaign/map games is the well meant but fatally flawed idea of allowing the individual players to be "soldier kings" who can conduct diplomacy with the other players.

Virtually without exception the first mass battle with several armies on each side turns into a farce with half of all the units--or more--immediately turning on their "ally" in a pre-battle deal with one or more of the other players. This is not only unrealistic, but usually sours the whole thing for everybody, and the whole great beast just dies right there. A LOT of hard work, map making, and game design goes totally wasted, and the players will always remember a campaign game with derision--no matter how differently the next one might be crafted.

Having been both a Games Master and Player in such debacles, I can speak with some experience!

As I can take no personal credit for its invention--that honor belongs to Dave Waxtel--I am still proud to publish the current incarnation of "The Sun Never Sets," the campaign game devised to generate Colonial miniatures battles for the Immortal Sergeant's (Larry Brom) "The Sword And The Flame."

Here the premise is that each player commands one of several theaters of the British Empire as a Member of Parliament, while at the same time is responsible for an entirely separate Native Power such that he will never be at war with himself. As an MP, victory comes by enlarging and maintaining the Empire, while as the Native Power his objective is retaining its independence. Thus each player has a double stake in the game by working with his fellow MP's and the Prime Minister to develop strategy under a constrictive budget, and when his own Native Power comes under the gun, lead his armies in defense of Independence.

Movement is by area on dedicated theater maps, with terrain implied, so that battle may happen simply by both forces occupying the same general space, though Native Armies can be elusive!

The length of the campaign can be open-ended, or pre-set to be a game year or two, however the player's choose. Indeed, by using the rules for map movement, Native Reinforcement, Supply, and the points system that determines when a given campaign has been decided (the theater either Dominated by the Empire, or winning/retaining its Independence), the system can provide a perfectly viable "mini-campaign" for whatever miniature armies the players have without the need for a full blown Parliamentary game.

While I've never tried this system outside its original purpose, it has been pointed out that it could work as well in an Ancients context with Parliament being replaced by a Senate where the players are Senators supporting Rome's Emperium, and at the same time play contemporary--or not--other ancient world powers.

It has also been suggested that the system could be applied to a US Congress vs any number of Native American tribes.

The key is to provide a setting where the players have every reason to work together for a common victory, while having command of independent powers.

The resulting politicking to get support for one's own military campaign while reducing or preventing the dominating entity from encroaching on one's own is a special kind of joy for all, and the resulting battles have far more weight and consequence than any "pick-up" game to kill an afternoon.

If there is a different model for a campaign game that can be as balanced, I very much would like to hear of it!

TVAG