What do you think the best way to run a large scale campaign would be? We are going to do North West Europe (US and German) and maybe division scale forces. Only part would be in any given battle. I'm just not sure the best way to have the forces setup. We will have campaign movement on a map and then battle it out on a regular board. There will be one person running it, and then just two of us playing (one to each side).
Any thoughts?
Campaigns - GHQ Microarmour
Moderators: dnichols, GHQ, Mk 1
-
WargameHub
- E5
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: Amherst, NH
- Contact:
Campaigns - GHQ Microarmour
NH Wargamer Alliance
-
fullmetaljacket
- E5
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:18 am
- Location: Warsaw, Indiana
Wargamehub
I have a few campaigns under my belt and here is what we our group here in northern indiana have learned along the way. So, here is my two cents worth for anyone interested.
1.) The map system we use is several boards linked together thru what would be road networks. Ie.. Map 1 may be linked to Map 2 & 4 but not Map 3. Each army has one map that is their HQ or home base.
2.) The most important rule i can think of is that each side needs to have objectives, and haveing an GM or non playing judge really helps. The non playing judge can keep track of all army movements without either side knowing the others moves. Objectives ie.. bridge heads fuel dumps etc... are something needed in a campaign or it becomes a stalemate. Each side sits in its home map where all its equipment is and never leaves or challenges the other army. We had this happen years ago with a north african campaign there was no objectives so each side just sat in there home map and did nothing.
3.) Artillery limits make your artillery limited to one or two maps depending on the size of the artillery. Artillery can make or break an offensive or defensive move of an army.
4.) When setting up your maps and how they are linked among one another make choke points or dead end maps ie.. where only one way onto or off the map.
I hope this helps have fun play test ideas and expermient. Its funny you mentioned this thread we are presently working on a 1915 world war one naval campaign, using Seekrieg 5 naval rules. Anothe rmember is working on a 1940 world war two land warfare campaign in eastern europe using micro for large battles and 1/72 scale for infantry and smaller battles. Any questions feel free to email me.
Fullmetaljacket
I have a few campaigns under my belt and here is what we our group here in northern indiana have learned along the way. So, here is my two cents worth for anyone interested.
1.) The map system we use is several boards linked together thru what would be road networks. Ie.. Map 1 may be linked to Map 2 & 4 but not Map 3. Each army has one map that is their HQ or home base.
2.) The most important rule i can think of is that each side needs to have objectives, and haveing an GM or non playing judge really helps. The non playing judge can keep track of all army movements without either side knowing the others moves. Objectives ie.. bridge heads fuel dumps etc... are something needed in a campaign or it becomes a stalemate. Each side sits in its home map where all its equipment is and never leaves or challenges the other army. We had this happen years ago with a north african campaign there was no objectives so each side just sat in there home map and did nothing.
3.) Artillery limits make your artillery limited to one or two maps depending on the size of the artillery. Artillery can make or break an offensive or defensive move of an army.
4.) When setting up your maps and how they are linked among one another make choke points or dead end maps ie.. where only one way onto or off the map.
I hope this helps have fun play test ideas and expermient. Its funny you mentioned this thread we are presently working on a 1915 world war one naval campaign, using Seekrieg 5 naval rules. Anothe rmember is working on a 1940 world war two land warfare campaign in eastern europe using micro for large battles and 1/72 scale for infantry and smaller battles. Any questions feel free to email me.
Fullmetaljacket
-
WargameHub
- E5
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: Amherst, NH
- Contact:
Thanks fullmetaljacket. In a Battletech campaign onece I used modern MGRS (military) maps of Germany, only problem is there is too much on it for WWII.
How much artillery do you think for say a regiment size element?
Have you figured out the torpedos? I really like Seekrieg (nothing like hitting them in the galley) but we've had some trouble with that part of it.
How much artillery do you think for say a regiment size element?
Have you figured out the torpedos? I really like Seekrieg (nothing like hitting them in the galley) but we've had some trouble with that part of it.
NH Wargamer Alliance
-
fullmetaljacket
- E5
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:18 am
- Location: Warsaw, Indiana
Thank you Wargamehub. As for Battletech funny you mention that we are in the middle of a Battletech campaign also LOL.
As for Artilery limits oh gee whiz all kinds of ways you could go with this one. You could go historical dont know the numbers off the top of my head. Also depends on rules set you are using, some rules artillery is way to powerful others not so much. Another method you could test out is say each side gets a starting points to purchase units for your army. Ie.. platoon of shermans is 200, platoon of M36 are 400 etc.. Or i would go with historical data of the time period roughly what was in the area of europe you are wanting to play. One huge advantage you should think about espeically for the USA is airpower, other wise straight up even forces especially in tanks the Germans hold the adavantage, once again depending on rules one is using.
As for Seekrieg 5 yes me and my group all understand the rules Torpedoes included very well, still have the occasional what question? Over all though Seekrieg is the best naval set of rules i have ever played with or used, yes very detailed and some record keeping, but i feel that it is the most realistic set out there. That is only my opinion though. Well I hope this helps again talk to you later if you have any more questions.
fullmetaljacket
As for Artilery limits oh gee whiz all kinds of ways you could go with this one. You could go historical dont know the numbers off the top of my head. Also depends on rules set you are using, some rules artillery is way to powerful others not so much. Another method you could test out is say each side gets a starting points to purchase units for your army. Ie.. platoon of shermans is 200, platoon of M36 are 400 etc.. Or i would go with historical data of the time period roughly what was in the area of europe you are wanting to play. One huge advantage you should think about espeically for the USA is airpower, other wise straight up even forces especially in tanks the Germans hold the adavantage, once again depending on rules one is using.
As for Seekrieg 5 yes me and my group all understand the rules Torpedoes included very well, still have the occasional what question? Over all though Seekrieg is the best naval set of rules i have ever played with or used, yes very detailed and some record keeping, but i feel that it is the most realistic set out there. That is only my opinion though. Well I hope this helps again talk to you later if you have any more questions.
fullmetaljacket
-
WargameHub
- E5
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: Amherst, NH
- Contact:
We are actually going to use the GHQ rules, I've found they leave out a lot of the arguments that other rules have (like "I see you, no you don't, no, you are 3/4 in the open, no I'm concealed) so we could use points. We have a lot of historical data to work with so I will probably stick with TOEs.
Are you a club or a group of friends? We are both, www.bostontrainedbands.com.
Are you a club or a group of friends? We are both, www.bostontrainedbands.com.
NH Wargamer Alliance
-
fullmetaljacket
- E5
- Posts: 407
- Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:18 am
- Location: Warsaw, Indiana
I totally understand of course that brings up the one rule that causes all wargaming to really slow down. That is the dreaded i see whats going on all over the battlefield or like we call it the GOD syndrome! Of course there is ways of trying to use hidden movement, but that takes a non player which isnt that much fun as most of you out there that have GM a game before.
fullmetaljacket
fullmetaljacket
-
ltcconard
- Posts: 34
- Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:51 am
- Location: Seoul, ROK
GHQ Campaign
I'm in the middle umpiring a large 1:1 campaign 1970 mythical East-West client states. I have set up some rules for it, and they are based on the Warplan 5x5 system (no longer available).
Bruce
Bruce
Conard
-
Johannes
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:31 am
- Location: Hamburg, Germany
We are playing a test-campaign at our wargames-club in Hamburg, Germany.
The goal is to fight a large scale North-African campaign, but we test our campaign rules with a "small" campaign Kiev 1943.
We are using the excellent hex-maps from GMT's Boardgame-range "Barbarossa". They have all you need on the map: roads, terrain features, train-connections, etc..
The russian player got twice as much points as the german player. It is up to the player to build units as long as they have some kind of historic background. The player can also choose the size of the units, but they shouldn't be larger than company size. If they are platoon size or smaller you have to keep the command rules (we are playing "Mein Panzer" rules) in mind.
To avoid the umpire but to have some kind of Fog of War anyway, we decided to put dummy markers on the map - twice the number of actual units. That makes recon a big factor in play.
Unfortunately our rules are written in german - but mostly they are nothing new - just a combination of everything which was of use for us.
If you have any question, feel free to ask.
Johannes
The goal is to fight a large scale North-African campaign, but we test our campaign rules with a "small" campaign Kiev 1943.
We are using the excellent hex-maps from GMT's Boardgame-range "Barbarossa". They have all you need on the map: roads, terrain features, train-connections, etc..
The russian player got twice as much points as the german player. It is up to the player to build units as long as they have some kind of historic background. The player can also choose the size of the units, but they shouldn't be larger than company size. If they are platoon size or smaller you have to keep the command rules (we are playing "Mein Panzer" rules) in mind.
To avoid the umpire but to have some kind of Fog of War anyway, we decided to put dummy markers on the map - twice the number of actual units. That makes recon a big factor in play.
Unfortunately our rules are written in german - but mostly they are nothing new - just a combination of everything which was of use for us.
If you have any question, feel free to ask.
Johannes
-
WargameHub
- E5
- Posts: 164
- Joined: Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:25 pm
- Location: Amherst, NH
- Contact:
-
hauptgrate
- Posts: 69
- Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 2:39 am
Thoughts on campaigns:
1. Have large scale move just done in pencil on sets of maps which are then given to the judge who uses those to determine specific battles. Not all contacts need to be played out -- for example, if a recon probe from one side runs into a large tank/infantry of the other, the judge could just let the players know that contact has been made and that the recon probe then fell back.
2. With the above in mind, choose to actually game out those points of contact which:
A) are important
B) give both sides a good chance of winning -- gaining their objective
C) cannot be quickly "judged" by the judge and map adjustments made
3. The reason I included letter "C" above is a long-ago attempt at a campaign where we tried to actually play out literally single point of contact between multi-divisional sized forces operating over a campaign map area of more than 200 square miles. Needless to say, it took us months to play out just part of one campaign turn and we gave up. Looking back at that, there were many tabletop battles we fought which, while fun in the miniature gaming sense, had no important bearing on the campaign, and we should have just let the judge "decide" who "won", declare some casualties, and adjust the campaing maps accordingly.
4. All said, the important thing to do is to determine the true purpose of a campaign. Is your campaign manuvering and purpose the thing you really want to focus on, and the tabletop games are just a fun way to illustrate some of the action?? Or, is your campaign just an interesting way to come up with what you really want -- interesting tabletop scenarios??
5. My club has chosen the latter (since the days of the debacle desribed above). We play a loose campaign with "player characters" who gain and lose points through the course of tabletop battles. Rather than a true campaign, we have linkages between battles in the points earned in previous battles, along with a mechanism to help generate cool tabletop scenarios.
1. Have large scale move just done in pencil on sets of maps which are then given to the judge who uses those to determine specific battles. Not all contacts need to be played out -- for example, if a recon probe from one side runs into a large tank/infantry of the other, the judge could just let the players know that contact has been made and that the recon probe then fell back.
2. With the above in mind, choose to actually game out those points of contact which:
A) are important
B) give both sides a good chance of winning -- gaining their objective
C) cannot be quickly "judged" by the judge and map adjustments made
3. The reason I included letter "C" above is a long-ago attempt at a campaign where we tried to actually play out literally single point of contact between multi-divisional sized forces operating over a campaign map area of more than 200 square miles. Needless to say, it took us months to play out just part of one campaign turn and we gave up. Looking back at that, there were many tabletop battles we fought which, while fun in the miniature gaming sense, had no important bearing on the campaign, and we should have just let the judge "decide" who "won", declare some casualties, and adjust the campaing maps accordingly.
4. All said, the important thing to do is to determine the true purpose of a campaign. Is your campaign manuvering and purpose the thing you really want to focus on, and the tabletop games are just a fun way to illustrate some of the action?? Or, is your campaign just an interesting way to come up with what you really want -- interesting tabletop scenarios??
5. My club has chosen the latter (since the days of the debacle desribed above). We play a loose campaign with "player characters" who gain and lose points through the course of tabletop battles. Rather than a true campaign, we have linkages between battles in the points earned in previous battles, along with a mechanism to help generate cool tabletop scenarios.