GHQ Campaign

[jb]

I'm in the works of doing a GHQ Campaign. What I mean by this is,is I'm going to be putting games on at the local hobby shop. I would like to do this on a monthly or some months twice a month basis for a year. I would also like to do it inclusive as possible with the GHQ line. This would be using the models of course,rules,paints,terrain,and anything else that I can't think of.
I think it would be cool if something like this got rolling. I would really look forward to seeing tournament type games or scenarios and such using our beloved scale.
If anybody here on this forum has ideas for this project,or would like to help,lets hear it!
I couldn't think of a better place to ask for this kind of help.
JB

[chrisswim]

Sounds like it could be fun.

Is it modern campaign? or WW2? Is there a specfic year considered? I prefer modern, 2007.
How about rule set and some value of equipment to utilize?

I think those few issues will start the process. From that other questions will develop.

[jb]

It's a great idea.

Speaking from my experience as a volunteer "Grey Knight" with Games Workshop here in Canada, the national and international campaigns are top-notch events, with every game counting in some way. For example, right now in Canada we have the Battle of the Bosses - three competing Orc Bosses are smashing their way through the Empire - see http://ca.games-workshop.com/BoB/botbhome.htm for what I mean. This is a national campaign. Every summer GW runs a worldwide campaign, it's really huge.

Here's how to take that model and apply it to our great game:

Basically, take a map, say, that of the world during WWII. People either are assigned locations based on where they are (Kansas = Eastern Europe, 1944; Canada = Italy 1943) or sign up for an area they wish to play in.

Players then fight battles, with the result counting as victory for Axis or Allies, in their theatre of operations. Weather, time of year, supplies, can all be variables that are modified during the campaign to make the battles count for real. Even naval battles could affect the land battles, as well as bombing for example.

The map changes and the story is updated weekly or whatever time is decided, with news flashes.

This type of thing isn't hard to do, it just takes dedicated gamers, dedicated organizers, and some people with talent to make a map, a way of communicating, and a way of reporting.

I'm interested if you are!

What did you have in mind, jb?

Grant

What I have in mind initially is just to generate more interest in GHQ in this area. I like the idea of a "total" package if you are going to do this hobby. This is why I would do GHQ products as inclusive as possible. The rules would definitely be a "common denominator",especially going along with your "campaign" idea. Speaking of your idea,I think that is great. For instance certain scenarios could be setup and played out down here in the midwest,and another up there in Canada on the same map,but in different sectors. Using the internet would of course be the way of communicating.
I'm willing to go along with organizing (it seems thats what I always get stuck with around here anyways),I'm always making maps (working on Cyrenaica right now).
Grant,thanks for the ideas. What should we do next?
JB

[fullmetaljacket]

Gee where you going to leave me out of it JB? What can i do to be part of the team?

fullmetaljacket

[voltigeur]

I think the Squad Leader campaign system would be a great vehicle. It has been my experience that traditional campaings fall apart after the 3rd or 4th round anyway. Interest wains work conflicts etc.

Everyone starts as a Lieutenant (Capitan for Soviets). You play each game as this character. In each game you receive elan points or demerits based on whether you accomplished your mission. Succesfully rallied troops. Had your command run away out of control. You will adjust this to your rule system but you get the idea.

Once the player becomes a Battalion comander (Regimental for Soviet) the charater is retired. The object is to have the fewest charaters in the compaign while having the most retired out of the campaign. So every charater that gets killed, courts martialed, or chatracter that doesn't get promoted is counted as an unsuccesful character.

The advantage is the structure of elan points forces the player to activly use his character. If a player drops out it is no big deal and won't derail the entire campaign. Also one game doesn't have to be directly tied to the other. This gives alot of flexability to you.

Any way just some thoughts.

[ferret701]

I've been running a campaign along with several others in Northern Virginia for the last month. It is a moderns campaign, taking place in Denmark during a (obviously fictional) 3rd World War in the summer of 1988. The first battle report and the full campaign briefing are up on my web page, www.microarmormayhem.com. We have a core group of players and have been working to entice others on board, with some success.

Pat Callahan

[jb]

Well, we need to pick a period, and scope of campaign. Narrowing something too much is a problem, but can make everyone feel they are part of the big picture.

Honestly, rules wouldn't matter - the result of the battle is what matters. So if I am big on GHQ's rules, and Mobius wants to use his, and someone else is into Spearhead, as long as we are all using the best damn 6mm minis in the world, that's what matters.

Care to pick a timeframe and scope of map?

Early desert war would be rather cool, and could presage later campaigns. Cyrenaica, eh? Early to mid 1941?

We would need people willing to play Italians, UK, Australians, Indians, and Germans of course.

Or we could say 1941, and play out the following theatres:
January - March: Commonwealth vs. Italians
March - end of year: DAK vs. Commonwealth
April - Germans in Greece
May - Germans in Crete
June - Barbarossa!
September - Leningrad
December - Pearl Harbour
Hong Kong

If we use this as a shell to build ....
Once we have a timeframe picked out, and some parameters for the campaign, we need to set up a website, even a blog would work, and have people sign up.

I am willing to also organize this, and keep track of results.

What next?

Grant

These are good ideas. Like you just mentioned we don't want to narrow it down too far. I like the first off idea you have about 1941. This leaves alot of areas or theaters to be "played".
Take for instance one group or club wants to do N.Africa. Put one individual from each opposing side as caretakers or directors.These people would find out strategically where the conflicts would take place tactically. These 2 "guys"( "guys"generic term for man or woman when they are in a group, here in wisconsin) could even play tactically but not strategically. Maybe more than one club or group would want to do the same area,no problem,just as long as we have the 2 guys orchestrate or coordinate amongst the groups on who is doing what in their part of the theater. After the battles are done the results would be reported to the overall directors(us more than likely),who would then do the strategic map. In this fashion the theater commands would just get their picture after the facts. each overall side would just get a picture of their gains only by the overall directors via website.
I also forsee the naval guys playing a truly integrated part in this. 1941 really conjurs up,at least in my mind, pictures of the Regia Marina,and Royal Navy going at it in the Med. Who knows maybe this time around Rommel will get his stuff!
Logistics will definately play a part in this of course. This should be done strictly by the overall directors, so that the theater commanders and such don't get needlessly bogged down.
Air power in an effort also should not be ignored, I beleive with everyone here mostly historically knowledgeable, we keep the airpower where it truly belongs-more strtegic than tactical. Don't get me wrong airpower may still show up on your tactical table but not at every tactical commanders whim.
As for get togethers of individuals at least once a month would be nice. Even if some can't do that others will probaby be around to play. In this fashion nobody is really committed. If for some reason one theater doesn't battleit out then a random way of figuring out what happens will be used,that way the ones that are always playing will not be left out.
These are just some of my ideas,I look forward to others.

Well Grant what do you think? Shall we try to give it a go? If so lets start recruiting.
JB

[dougeagle]

I would be interested in doing this. Though of coarse the problem that I have is I'm 4 hours away from the nearest wargaming group, so unless of coarse Grant knows if any others in Edmonton would be playing this, then I would play as well. However, I would only be able to do that once a month though.

[jb]

I would be interested in doing this. Though of coarse the problem that I have is I'm 4 hours away from the nearest wargaming group, so unless of coarse Grant knows if any others in Edmonton would be playing this, then I would play as well. However, I would only be able to do that once a month though.

Thats OK. If you just have even 1 opponent where you are at,that would work. Your results would used for the particular theater you are in or part of. You just need to communicate before and after.

This would fit with my original idea-just to use GHQ products at the local shop,maybe once or twice a month. The results of a battle will be worked in, even with totally new people playing the tactical part.

Other rules and/or number scale (i.e. 1to 1,1to 5 etc) may also be used. I have a way of giving each a relative value to the overall picture. So don't feel that you need to play the same ruleset. Play the rules that your group are comfortable and familiar with. The results are the ultimate effect needed.
Sounds like it could be fun.

Is it modern campaign? or WW2? Is there a specfic year considered? I prefer modern, 2007.
How about rule set and some value of equipment to utilize?

I think those few issues will start the process. From that other questions will develop.

I love the idea of doing a "modern". All kinds of things to do with that one too. Africa,Korea,S. and central America.,etc.
Whats your idea?
JB

[jb]

Sounds good jb, give me a couple of days to put some ideas together, and why don't you think of how it would work, and then we'll meet back up online.

Let's give it a go!

I'll PM you
JB

[Luca]

can i give my two cents?

I suggest to appoint 3 commanders for each teatre or battle chosen. An army commander, a Navy commander, and a Air commander.

You have said that will occur along side the army battles, some naval battles and the strategic use of airplanes. I suggest to combine all these 3 elements, and appoint a person to command each arm (obviously the "lion share" in the wargames will be the army, and some time the navy).

doing so will cause attricion and conflict among the players of the same party, because if for example the navy will loose a battle, then the army commander will not play the battle he desired and will be constricted to fight on un even terms and with logisticals flaws. The same will happen if the Air commander will lose the battle for the skyes.

The result will be in competition also among the member of the same party, with discussion on how and where allocate resources and man power to achieve the best strategical result.

Maybe is a little complex, but could be fun, because reproduce the competition among the services (ex: we have to capture every island of the pacific to defeat the japs, so using lots of marines, or we can capture only the most important islands, so relyng more on navy and aviation?)

[dnichols]

My son and I put together an Eastern Front Campagin based on the Columbia Games board game "East Front".

Move the counters on the map and it creates the scenarios that we play out on the table top.

Each Army Counter on the "East Front" represents a Battalion on the table top and each hex is a 3' x 3' area on the table top.

So far the campagin has been flowing nicely with the scenarios all being rather interesting.

---Daryl

[jb]

We are in the preliminaries of a design. Is anybody inetrested in getting in?
Definitely need Naval type personel too.

[Mk 1]

I am interested in getting in.

May be able to draw in a couple from my crowd here in the SF Bay Area.

On my own I can field Italians, Russians, or French (Vichy?) in 1941. Might be able to get some Romanians up if given enough lead-time.

Helpless/hopeless if it comes to a naval battle.

[1ComOpsCtr]

A group of friends in the St. Louis area are working on a campaign based around the DAK-2 game. We are still several months away from the start date... but it could be a "game generator" for any number of table top games for members of this forum at all levels, ...including naval in the Med.

http://www.multimanpublishing.com/theGa ... ocsdak.php

We will include several players from Fort Polk who we work with professionally. I will be there next week and plan to spend an evening with "interested parties" to get some basics out of the way.

Will