Re: FW: campaigns

In a message dated 97-03-29 , Paul Calvi wrote:

> No, I don't think that works very well either for the kind of campaign
Jon
is 
> describing. The reason to limit replacements and, especially,
rebuilding is

> not because of complexity (although that is certainly an issue) but
because

> of time frame. If each campaign turn is a week or even a month are you
going 
> to replace a BB that quickly?

Looks like I left out a vital bit of info;  each turn in "Imperium" is 1
year.  During a turn, a player is likely to see only one or  two major
fleet
actions,  and two or three "feints".   Given what amounts to an area
movement
system (that the DBA campaign system  was pointing towards) and an
extended
time frame,  the players are placed at a higher command level (theater
commander?) and the detail work that a squadron commander faces is
abstracted.  

It may not work for the type campaign Jon is describing (but I haven't
worked
my way through that thread yet ;-) ).  However it does work with a
campaign
where the emphasis is on playing interrelated FT scenarios,  and where
the
players involved don't have the time or the interest to handle the
detailwork.

I guess my objective is a campaign that can be played over 4 or 5 long
Sunday
afternoons (including battles) while not having the non-battle
consderations
abstracted into irrelevance.  Which was why I like the example stemming
DBA
in the firstplace.

Mike Messenger
wenmess@aol.com