Editor in Chief Bill | 18 Feb 2019 5:05 p.m. PST |
Have you ever participated in a wargaming campaign that came to a proper conclusion, rather than disbanding or being abandoned? |
aegiscg47 | 18 Feb 2019 5:22 p.m. PST |
Nope. The gaming groups I've belonged to over the years have done more than a dozen campaigns, but they always collapse, usually do to new and shinier things coming out. |
irishserb | 18 Feb 2019 5:32 p.m. PST |
|
Wackmole9 | 18 Feb 2019 5:34 p.m. PST |
|
KevinV | 18 Feb 2019 5:43 p.m. PST |
We've done about a dozen or so. All finished. |
Bashytubits | 18 Feb 2019 5:43 p.m. PST |
No, the moment one side thinks they are losing they quit. |
Big Red | 18 Feb 2019 5:46 p.m. PST |
Yes but it helps to limit the scope and duration. |
etotheipi | 18 Feb 2019 5:50 p.m. PST |
The only ones I've ever abandoned are the ones that don't have a natural conclusion … f'r'ex gang wars in a fictitious setting where it could go back and forth without end. Other than that, we finish them. A typical campaign runs 4-8 games. |
Pictors Studio | 18 Feb 2019 6:14 p.m. PST |
Finished 4 in the last year. |
HMS Exeter | 18 Feb 2019 6:16 p.m. PST |
Yes. Several. One memorable Middle Earth campaign ended when Sauron's Forces captured the hobbits in Mordor, only to find they didn't have the Ring. They were a ruse. The next turn Elrond threw the Ring into Mount Doom. With Sauron's Orcs gone and the armies of Middle Earth depleted, the Lord of the Harads was declared the winner as only he had a potent force left. |
LaserGrenadier | 18 Feb 2019 6:26 p.m. PST |
Yes, three sci-fi campaigns so far. |
Oppiedog | 18 Feb 2019 6:29 p.m. PST |
No … they tend to peter out once one side starts losing. |
FusilierDan | 18 Feb 2019 7:06 p.m. PST |
No, it was too difficult to coordinate schedules. It was fun while playing though. |
DisasterWargamer | 18 Feb 2019 7:35 p.m. PST |
A combo of both yes and no – but generally they all came to a natural end |
Saber6 | 18 Feb 2019 7:38 p.m. PST |
A bit of both. Usually 'Life' works its way in and things stutter to a halt |
Winston Smith | 18 Feb 2019 8:37 p.m. PST |
|
rmaker | 18 Feb 2019 9:49 p.m. PST |
Yes, a few. Not most, though. |
Doctor X | 18 Feb 2019 10:58 p.m. PST |
I believe every campaign that I started has been played through to completion. I think the key is in the set-up and expectations. I have seen my fair share that I was not involved in die off quickly due to the following: 1) First Battle Climax Syndrome – II've seen too many campaigns boil down to a huge first battle where one side is effectively crippled leaving that side unwilling to play again. This is the #1 campaign killer. 2) Required player count – Limit the players to a core of 2-4 reliable people with anyone else who wants to play as fill ins when they show up. That way you avoid the majority of scheduling issues. The more mandatory players, the more headaches. Death by attendance is the #2 campaign killer. 3) Overly complex logistics – this is wargaming, not accounting. While an umpire can do a lot of the heavy lifting, logistics need to be straightforward for the players. 4) Duration – About 4-8 games as etotheipi mentioned is right depending on results. 5) Uninteresting battles/scenarios – You can't play every battle to the death. Body count can't be the only objective. If one side has bad luck then the next battle could be a rearguard, cavalry raid, etc. Another straight battle of "all you have vs. all I have" usually isn't that interesting. There are other reasons but those are my personal Top 5. |
TimeCast | 19 Feb 2019 2:33 a.m. PST |
Finished the following over the past 20 years – each campaign either won outright by one side or drawn if ended by political events: Franco-Prussian 1870 (Prussian win) Fictitious 19th century Campaign French & Austrian V Prussian & Bavarian (Draw) 1814 Campaign in France (Allied win) 1984 Nato v Warsaw Pact (played two of these – one win each for NATO and WPACT) 1859 Campaign in Italy (Austrian win) Spring 1943 Battle of Karkhov (Soviet Win) 1866 Seven weeks war (Austrian win) English Civil War (Royalist win) Battle of Chinese Farm 1973 (Israeli win – just!) Ongoing or recently started: Battle of Britain (using Wings of Glory WW2) Salamanca Campaign 1813 3rd century Crisis in the Roman Empire (using the Aurelian rules by Sam Mustafa) Planned: AWI Vietnam – Hue City or Ashau Valley Star Wars X-Wing 1800 Campaign in Germany (French v Austrian) American Civil War – probably Wilderness Campaign |
warwell | 19 Feb 2019 3:21 a.m. PST |
Yes, by keeping things simple. |
advocate | 19 Feb 2019 4:20 a.m. PST |
Yes, by having defined objectives. |
Ed Mohrmann | 19 Feb 2019 5:23 a.m. PST |
Yes and as Warwell said, simplicity is the key |
Aethelflaeda was framed | 19 Feb 2019 5:38 a.m. PST |
|
Decebalus | 19 Feb 2019 6:29 a.m. PST |
We usually play weekend campaigns (grand strategy with DBA). So the campaigns ends on sunday afternoon. That is ~12 players, nine rounds, every round about 4 games. |
etotheipi | 19 Feb 2019 6:46 a.m. PST |
I think a lot of the crippling of campaigns can be fixed by considering that when you design the campaign arc that supports the individual engagements. As Doctor X says ..
Body count can't be the only objective. I like to design in "political fallout" as part of the campaign structure. If you just jump in and kill a lot of people, you may win the battles, but lose the war as the people reject you. This has happened many times in history. Sometimes you win in a way that makes you the hero of the people, and other times you win in a way that makes you an oppressive overlord. I also like to make the early battles "shapers" rather than the main conflict. An easy, short example is each side gets one engagement raiding the enemy logistics train. The outcome of these battles shapes the status of forces for the third, big engagement. This can easily be followed up by a guerilla strike from the losing side against the winner to erode/gain credibility with the populace. Very few people turn down the opportunity to "get back" at the opponent who beat them. If the "big win" was close, this can be as intense as the main battle. If it was a slapdown, you get to be the underdog, struggling against impossible odds! |
khanscom | 19 Feb 2019 8:15 a.m. PST |
|
marmont1814 | 19 Feb 2019 9:50 a.m. PST |
over many years and many umpires inc myself as umpire I think of the from what I remember Ive played or umpired in around 25 plus campaigns and I think all, but around 2-3, where completed our club likes campaigns, planning this year a seven years war one using the Frederick the great board game |
rampantlion | 19 Feb 2019 11:14 a.m. PST |
Yes, 2 of them. We finished an ECW campaign around Marston Moor and a Great Italian Wars campaign. The only 2 we have finished that I can recall in my 30+ years of wargaming…other than some DBA campaigns that we did in a single day. |
miniMo | 19 Feb 2019 11:47 a.m. PST |
A number of 1-day campaigns, several DBA and a Snappy Nappy. For longer ongoing campaigns, finished 2-3 out of 4 if I remember right. Ironclads & Ether Flyers Spanish-American War was going along great and a very nice campaign system; we might have lost quorum with players moving before we wrapped up officially? Command Decision Bastogne campaign was the one the bogged down under its own weight. Ever-increasing numbers of German forces really dragged down the planning time and slowed game progress until we lost the American commander going away to college. |
DinOfBattle2 | 19 Feb 2019 11:47 a.m. PST |
I have finished the following campaigns which are on my blog: Plains Wars (US Cavalry vs Sioux) Boxer Rebellion (International forces vs Chinese\Boxers) Both were great successes. On the failure side: 1 x SYW ahistorical (only got one battle done) 2 x AWI campaigns (fun, but too much work for me) Eric dinofbattle.blogspot.com |
JimSelzer | 19 Feb 2019 8:29 p.m. PST |
|
Whirlwind | 19 Feb 2019 10:14 p.m. PST |
Yes. A couple of long ones (10+ battles), half-a-dozen smaller ones. |
boggler | 20 Feb 2019 3:33 a.m. PST |
Yes. Three that I can recall. |
mghFond | 20 Feb 2019 1:14 p.m. PST |
Over the years our local group has played many campaigns in many eras. I can recall only 2 that finished, sadly. But hell, I keep trying. I am about to start one now where in 1941 Russia where the two strategic players are not even in our group but live elsewhere. They are handling their side and know their orders of battle, copies of the maps. They plot their strategic moves. Then I will match up their clever (or not) plans and our local group will play out the battles. The campaign is meant to be fairly short – map movement is box to box with each box a tabletop. Germans have 12 turns or attacks to take 8 boxes. That's just the basics. We will see how it goes. |
Syrinx0 | 20 Feb 2019 8:17 p.m. PST |
A few. Too many of the free form fantasy or quasi historical games have a quiet build phase followed by a splurge of war and then die off. Some rather spectacularly. A short well planned set of battles always seems to work out the best. |
Major Mike | 21 Feb 2019 8:19 a.m. PST |
Yes, I have run and completed: A 1066 Campaign A Battle of Britain Campaign A ACW Campaign (Western Theater Murfreesboro to Chattanooga) A ACW Campaign (Chattanooga to Atlanta) A Falklands Island Campaign |
Howler | 23 Feb 2019 8:41 p.m. PST |
|