Re: [Campaign] Criteria

----- Original Message -----
From: <laserlight@quixnet.net>

> 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)

My preference too, but some gamers like economy and politics

> b. provision for quickly resolving "uninteresting" battles
> c. gives context to battles / provides reason for fighting uneven
battles
> d. unit histories add color
> e. provides inducement to fight (so both sides don't just sit there
and
build)
> f. minimizes penalty for fighting (eg with cheap/free replacements)

YMMV on this. I tend to prefer believable penalties to fighting. Players
should be careful about wasting units for little gain and husband them
wisely. Though this obviously collides with e.) But wargamers rarely
need
extra motivation to go to battle :-)

> g. limits attempts to build an unstoppable horde (eg high maintenance
costs)
> h. minimal record keeping
>
> Anything else?

A reasonable list, I would say.

In a multi-player campaign, opportunities for intrigue and
back-stabbing.

I also like believable time-scales. Building a battleship should require
a
considerable investment in time, several campaign movement turns.

You should think about the time-scale of the whole thing. Is it a short
single-season campaign where players get few or no replacement units or
a
long war where players control building and reinforcements, too ?

Greetings