RE: [FT] Campaign vs Scenario Game Balance

Ok. Warning everyone that I am a campaign-balance/"high-reality"
nutcase...

> As far as I can tell the only real difference between campaign
> play and scenario play is in a campaign you have a pretty good
> idea of what your opponent is going to be bringing to the
> table.

Not really. Scenario development is about (in general) building two sets
of
forces within the context of the scenario who have a somewhat equal
chance
to win (unless is designed to be unequal ala the K.Maru) Campaign
development starts out with the same premise that the sides are somewhat
equal (unless otherwise designed that way FWR) and then lets the players
decide upon the forces they want to bring to each scenario.

Alternately you can set up a campaign that is basically a set of linear
scenarios with various triggered events that occur depending upon what
has
happened in the previous scenarios.

> Sure, she can pay the penalties and bring in a brand
> new class of ship, but it isn't going to be a fleet you aren't
> expecting.

Why would they be able to do that <innocent look>. Heck, IMO, that's
part of
the fun of campaign play (Sean Connery impersonation: "He brought a
knife to
a gunfight...") Most (ok, I'll say it, ALL that I can remember) campaign
rules I've seen forbid that sort of thing, It's contrary to the point of
a
campaign somewhat.

> So, the probing battles determine your opponent is carrier
> heavy.  Refits occur, you lose weapons and add PDS's.  The
> game runs on.

It depends upon how long the campaign has been set up for and what the
scale
is actually. Is it a campaign (ie. Pacific Theatre of WWII), a
mini-campaign
(say... Wake during WWII pardon any mistakes my WWII naval isn't that
great), or a macro-campaign (all of WWII) The LaFayette Incident from FT
is
a pretty good example of a mini-campaign for FT.

Note that there are no refits, no reinforcements, and a gross limit on
the
number of ship classes available to both the attacker and the defender.

Are you *including* refits? Is there strategic movement involved in the
campaign? Are you also tracking economies? Are you building the armed
forces
from the ground up or are you just working with a starting force? Are
there
going to be technological advances available during the campaign (often
what
a refit would probably include)

Refits don't occur via magic, they need a slip, a workforce, and supply
of
components for each ship. Also, when a ship is being refitted it isn't
fighting, and what happens when there is a lightning fast, surprise raid
on
your major shipyard and naval base right as the war starts...

The same goes for reinforcements...

> In a scenario often you have no clue about your opponents
> ships unless	you are playing FB-only ships.

True.

> How would I correct this?  Pretty easy for a ref.  Both
> sides show up with ships.  You hand a copy of all SSDs
> to everyone involved.  Both sides are then allowed to
> make mods totalling no more than, say, 15% on the
> existing ships.

I wouldn't allow that at all before the game started, and would only
allow
it during the course of the campaign if the "timeline" allowed for it.
As a
player I would probably also only allow it if I could target the
shipyard
where the refit was occurring...

Many (most...??) campaigns work best with a ref, especially as they get
more
and more complex. When you start factoring in vessel production,
economic
output/commerce raiding, fleet-level command and control, things get
complicated very quickly.

The key is how much detail you want. The other key is to run the
campaign in
a similar manner to DS or SG. Give each side a couple of the same
objectives
and then give them each a couple that apply only to them from a pool of
four
or five that the opposing player knows about (random draw works well).
Scenarios are about winning the battle, campaigns are about winning the
war
in very loose terms.

David