I am planning on organising a one day campaign for my gaming friends here in Hamburg. My initial idea is to use the Third Servile War as a basis (prompted by the recent discussion on Spartacus' army composition), but expand to include a few of the other powers at play in the area at the time. There will be a limit of 8 players, as this is about as many as I can accommodate easily at the house. My hope is to have a map/zone based campaign, with simple campaign rules (i.e. 1 page max), and maximize the number of games while giving an overall theme to the day.
I know some members have experience in running one day campaigns at conventions and such like. I would be indebted if you can please pass on your Do's and Don'ts. If there are any rules out there that I might borrow from I would be very grateful.
A campaign is a continuous series of battles. Map moves are just an excuse for generating a battle. And if you want to fight multiple campaigns in a single day, then you need to keep the strategic map moves as simple and quick as possible in order to have more time for the lengthy tactical battles. (And having all battles ending at nightfall creates a realistic built-in time limit...)
Last Edit: Mar 10, 2022 11:16:37 GMT by stevie: ...just a thought...
I’ve been doing some deep thinking about multi-player campaigns, and here are some of the issues that will need to be addressed.
Let’s for the sake of argument call each strategic map move ‘a year’. What happens when the Red player invades the Blue player, but the Green player invades the Red player? Here are some of the possible outcomes:-
* the Red player’s ‘main army’ invades the Blue lands and fights the Blue ‘main army’, while a Red poor quality ‘reserve army’ defends the Red land from the Green ‘main army’ attack. And this Red poor quality ‘reserve army’s’ composition is decided by the Green player, as if if had been routed previously, thus representing hastily raised half trained militia. (The problem with this approach is the the Red player must fight two battles in the time it takes other players to fight one battle, slowing down the whole event as other players must await the outcomes)
* But what happens if both the Blue and Green players invade the Red player simultaneously? If they are not formally allied, then Blue and Green will fight each other in the Red land? If they are allied, then perhaps both Blue and Green chose say 7 out of their 12 elements, while their other unengaged elements are assumed to be protecting their lines of supply. This way the Red player will only need to fight one battle in that campaign year, and will be slightly outnumbered, with 12 elements facing 14. (Since the allied army will have two commands, and two PIP dice rolls, it might be better if each allied PIP roll suffers a -1 to lessen this great advantage, representing disunity, and each allied command is individually routed when it loses 2 element equivalents)
I think the camapign system from DBA 2.2 is a very good starting point.
IMO the most important tips are: - The campaign is for the battles between the players, no game in itself. So do not use parts in the campaign, that are games on their own. (Our Punic Campaign had a simple sea battle system, so you culd loose elements on sea - that is ok. A complicated economy system on the other hand wouldnt be good. - The support system from DBA 2.2 is a blast. Players that dont have a own battle, can support other battles. You get diplomacy about support. You are involved even if you dont have a battle. And usually 3 more elements coming late, will not automatically decide the battle. - You have to balance campaign and battle strength. On the one hand the winner, the player with more provinces, should have an edge in the battle. On the other hand, a weak army must always have the possibility to win. 1st limit the armies to twelve elements. So rich armies cant be to strong. 2nd give a weak army (who gets no support from others) the opportunity to avoid battle. Nothing is more un-fun than having to fight battles you will surely loose.