Re: [Campaign] Criteria

Scale would generally fall into something like:

Tactical -- A short series of battles.	Too short for any economics
outside of limited unit repairs/replacements.
General -- simple economics.  Time enough to build units during the
game.
Strategic -- Economics as complex as you can stand.  Every factor can be
adjusted, ect.

Other ideas:
Movement of armies/fleets could be made on a simple square grid, with
major features, ect. (the strategic map)
I think the system can be made generic enough to function as a battle
generator for DS or FT with minor modifications for each setting.  (how
to
buy/build new units, terain effects, ect.)

If this can be worked out, maybe St Jon would include it in the next
books  FT/FB/BDS/ect.

Donald Hosford

Laserlight wrote:

> Me:
> > > Thinking about campaigns again.  What are the characteristics of a
> good
> > campaign game?
> > > a. simple (intended to generate battles rather than for its own
> sake)
>
> Karl Heinz said:
> > My preference too, but some gamers like economy and politics
>
> I think you can include economy and politics without getting too
> complicated--but it kind of depends on the scale. If your units are
> companies and your time scale is 4 hour turns, you won't be doing much
> with the economy.  Politics kind of depends on the players--you can