Re: [Campaign] Criteria

--- "laserlight@quixnet.net" <laserlight@quixnet.net>
wrote:
> 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)
> 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)
> g. limits attempts to build an unstoppable horde (eg
> high maintenance costs)
> h. minimal record keeping
> 
> Anything else?

Strategic Campaigns bore me silly.

Maybe I'm a totally unique freak of nature, but I want
a campaign system that doesn't feel like Command and
Conquer.  I want "Here's what you have Admiral (or
General), use it wisely."  Maybe some reinforcements,
but pretty much only frigates--you loose your only
Dreadnought, you're screwed.  

You see, when you get into the whole gather
resources/build cycle, you're essentially running as
the President/Legislature but with no political
restraints.  Oh, and micromanaging your military down
to a tedious level.

And if you do have political restraints, you spend
more time worrying (as do RL politicians) about
keeping your people happy rather than fighting, which
is what I care about. 

John

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