Re: [Campaign] Criteria

--- Karl Heinz wrote:
> - ----- 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
> 

I feel the "some" is going to be a small majority.  I
personally wargame for the sake of conflict and
battle, economics is important, I agree, but in my
view it's a means to an end (constraints on forces and
tactics/strategy).  Politics doesn't need rules to be
realistic. ;-D

> > b. provision for quickly resolving "uninteresting"
> > battles

I fiddled with this concept for space battles since
I'm more interested in ground pounding.  Seems like a
quick opposing die roll based on the "combat factors"
of each side would be all it would take.

> > c. gives context to battles / provides reason for
> > fighting uneven battles

Should be more than economics, unless capture of a
resource gives a significant ROI.  Religious sights,
monuments, artifacts, any which could give the
controlling play points or advantages, might be good
motivators.

> > 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 :-)
>

Hmm, but they may need extra motivation to continue
playing the campaign game.  If it restricts battles
too much, it ceases to be a useful tool to generate
[FT|DS|SG] Games.

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

Absolute on the record keeping.  But as far as
maintenance costs... it depends on how quick a
campaign you would want.  A shorter, decisive game
might be more desirable to a long, drawn out one.  I
think it's more important that a player be able to
make a winning move once they've reached that point
where they dominate the "board."

For example, the computer game Age of Empires has a
number of these downfalls:
1) Most of the playing time is spent on gathering
resources and researching new technology.  When you
finally do have an army you're willing to venture out
with the battles are quick and bloody... and then it's
back to the gather/research routine again.  That's not
how I want to play a *wargame*.
2) It’s not easy to win.  Once you smashed your
opponents army, you still have to demolish every
single structure and character he/she/it has created. 
Makes for a long an anticlimactic process.

When you switch to pen and paper (or counter and
board), these become even more tedious.  I don't want
to sit around and take a turn where all I do is make
tick marks on my resource sheet while I wait for
enough credits to build a decent army.

Well, to back up my suggestions with content, I've
posted the rough draft of the campaign system I've
been working on for the list's general perusal at
http://home.vol.com/jfriant/sucs/

J.Friant
==--==--==--==--==--==
 home.vol.com/jfriant 
==--==--==--==--==--==

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free