|
Post by RascalLeader on Sept 24, 2004 20:46:58 GMT -5
When I came across the Anargo Sector project only three weeks ago and was impressed by the depth that was going to create it. I also saw the potential for vast campaigns set within the region of space that even the EoT or Armageddon have not fully realised. When I noticed that you have been trying to set up such a system, I decided that since I was also already trying to build my own I might as well hand over my ideas. Althougt I am not sure if I will be usfull designing planets (I am more of an ideas person ) I would like to help set up the campaign system. High CommandFirst things first, people need to be elected to be the ‘High command’ of each side. They represent the high lords of Terra, the Chaos gods and so forth. It would be better if they were not wargammers themselves but perhaps those who prefer Inquisitor players. Underneath them they would create their own Force commanders who act as the bosses of the armed forces in the ASP, the leaders of ether the ground and space units. They would take the orders that the high command will give them and turn them into missions to be fought over. While they have the option to fight in any of the campaigns their main concern is recruiting other player to fight in missions. The registry of unitsTo keep things simple so that they work across the different gaming systems (40K,BFG, EPIC) Instead of using point values for creation of units I propose a slightly more daunting method but one that works better in the long run. Each side for every planet/fleet/side put together a total record of their armed forces and their structure within the Anargo sector. This might take some time but it will be worth it in the long run. Once set, this describes the starting level at which each side starts out. Although they can recruit new units it will take a set amount of time to train them. It also might seem unfair since imperials outnumber the Elder but in reality that would be the way it was. When the campaign is set to start out of these huge armies ‘campaign forces’ are put together which decide how much the High Command are willing to ‘risk’ during the campaign. For each of the mission in the campaign the members of the ASP are then recruited to play out the battles in 40K, BFG or Epic. Each player ‘reserve’ units out of the campaign force that they will use during their battles, which allows each player to take into account the models they own. On the registry the corresponding units are locked until the battle is over; the players are borrowing them from the total force available and so they cannot be used by anyone else until the battle has been played. The battles then play out as normal but at the end as well as totalling up the victory points to see who won, those who where killed are marked down. These are then sent back to the force commanders who will then put the results of the battle. Then most importantly, with the ‘reserved/borrowed’ units they attempt to reintegrate them back into the main force taking into account the casualties that have been inflicted. What I mean by this is that if that if a unit was half killed in the battle they would be lacking some members. They have half the usual size of before and in their next engagement they would have a considerable disadvantage. The only way to rectify this is by taking two damage units of the same type and using them to make one complete unit. The left overs, with the individuals/ship who are not used are put aside until they can be used to rebuild another unit. This will allow a much more resource based game, the players can no longer allow their units to be killed off casually because it will effect how things turn out later in the campaign. No matter how many battles they win if one side keeps wasting all their units then they will soon find themselves outnumbered. Planet mapsSince the current planet maps are made up of Hexs each, which would represent individual warzones. When the attacker (i.e. not the side who own the planet) first lands on the planet the force commander marks the spot where they start off (perhaps determined by dice rolls to be fair) with their team colour. When players are recruited for each of the battles they fight for hexs. When the attacker wins they gain one of the hexs next to an area they already occupy. When they lose one is taken away (decided by the other side). The battles go on until one side controls the entire map; and they are declared the winners. The Attackers then own that planet. How it all work out1 The high command is chosen This individuals are elected or whatever as the big boss for each race in the game. 2 The Force commanders are selected Not in a very democratic style the Force commanders are chosen by the high command to control the Army and Fleets respectively. They must be trusted individuals that are will to give a long-term commitment to the campaign. 3 The campaigns Story is decided All the high commands get together ask each other if they want to participate in a campaign they are creating. They then talk over the storyline and orders they will give to their force commanders. They are basically their to trash out the plot of the piece, deciding what their own side wants out of the game and what their objectives shall be. They then decide to set up a game that will involve one planet or several as the warzones (When first trying this only do one) and then they give their force commanders their orders. These detail their objectives; what planet they are going after, whether they want to raid or invade the place etc. 4 And so it begins They then request BFG players to play out these battles. Depending on which side wins they then move on to a planetary engagements. For example: If a Dark Elder is attacking an Imperial world and they manage to brake through the Navies lines and get close enough to a planet to land they can then start a ground based fight. If the dark elder fail in this and the player pulls back then the planet is not attacked. If the attacking side fails to land any troops in the initial attack they may try again until they do. If they run out of ships then the campaign is aborted and the other side is victorious. Ground battles are then played out using 40K or Epic. While this is going on the game of BFG continues within that system since if they attackers want to escape the planet if things go badly they will need ships to let them escape. They may decide just to wait and hide until the Army need them, which stalls things until they need to fight. If the high command sees that the campaign is not going well for them they might allow the Force commanders to add more units into the registry as reinforcements. However this means more BFG fights to get their new forces onto the ground. Its bigger implication is that the more they risk the more they have to lose, so serverly weakening their side for later on in the campaign. BFGIn an effort to prevent BFG games from becoming simply a landing operations for troops in the campaigns, one of missions or Battlefleet only campaigns came be played at any time. The same rules apply, the player who uses the fleets of the Anargo sector must borrow them for a fight with permission of the Force Commanders in an effort to weaken the other races. By doing this the effect will be played out in the campaigns since the enemy will have less ships to fight with. A canny Force commander might even sent out small fleets of ships attempting to weaken their opponents as a pre-emptive to a ground campaign by performing hit and run offensives on the enemy. AftermathAfter the campaign has finished everything is tallied up. Anyone who has written a battle report will sent it off to the High Command where they will write up the history of the conflict. It does not need to be length but will contain all the important battles and events. These then can be added to the history of the system/Planet involved to add detail to the sector. The Register of units is not simply restored to its original state, instead unit/ships are built or trained to increase the military strength of that side. There are many ways of doing this, but here is what I suggest; the cost of a new unit could be linked to VP from the campaign they fought and any new unit on order could take a month in real time to produce. Different worlds produce different units. Space marines would obviously come from a space marine planet and Orks from an Ork owned planet. The longer each side goes without fighting a campaign the stronger they will get; it might be possible that they double the sizes of their forces over time. However is that not another excuse for starting a camping in the first place? A dynamic universeWith the registry in place it allows multiple campaigns to go on at once, so even if some side are not involved in some conflicts they might be involved in another on the other side of the sector. Nor do they have to be one-off campaigns, they can just keep going. The High command might decide that in order to strike deeply at their enemy they have to attack several solar systems at once so that they can weaken them enough to go for the real objective. Of course their would have to be some limits, since for instance the imperials could not be kicked out of the sector altogether. Nor do most people want the planets they have spent a lot of time into creating suddenly overrun by enemy fractions. This is why there is some co-operation between each high command in order to make sure things are not completely messed up.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Sept 25, 2004 6:51:28 GMT -5
First off, welcome... Second off, you're going to have to accept my apologies at not being able to reply to what at first skim appears to be extremely useful. I had my PhD thesis in on Thursday and, after that, I should have the time to get back into the swing of things on the ASP.
Hopefully, though, some other members are going to jump in on this and keep things rolling. Until that time, however, keep slugging away!
|
|
|
Post by Insidious Threat on Sept 25, 2004 6:55:31 GMT -5
I personally think that this is an excellent idea (I do love Inquisitor too ) - but I have only one problem. How do we incorporate the minor races that add depth to this sector? Although i know that the major races are all that really matters in GW fluff and game play to the average gamer, i have great care for all of the effort that many people have put into the various races here... Still, I love you idea, and hopefully I will be able to help in any way you wish!
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Sept 25, 2004 7:23:35 GMT -5
Welcome to the ASP, Rascal. Good to see some fresh ideas here. While I applaud you for trying to design a detailed system that fully integrates BFG, 40k and Epic, I don't quite agree with how it's done. It seems to me that the system as you describe it would require fantastic amounts of work, and that they would require both BFG and Epic/40k players. Also, the Imperium has so fantastic amounts of military resources, that it would be pretty pointless listing the total army and fleet of the Imperial sector, except when it comes to BFG, and Titans and Space Marines in 40k and Epic. "Oh no, I lost an entire IG platoon in a game of 40k. That means I only have 9,999,970 Guardsmen left in my Battlegroup" If we're going to design a detailed system that really uses the potential of the ASP project, I propose that we figure out a way that gaming groups of all sizes can use the game (from 2 to 50 players) and that we figure out a way this can be integrated with a future web-based campaign. For example, if a gaming group does not play any BFG or Epic (relatively common, I suppose) the major space battles and epic land engagements would be represented rather abrstractly, using simple resource points. Sooo... if a victory in a game of 40k meant that the Chaos players had destroyed the ammunition storage facility on Archaios, this could give them +10 resource points in Epic. With their increased resource points, this would let them buy 500 pts extra units in a game of Epic, or just give them better odds in an abstract resolution of an Epic conflict. Now, in the Epic scale, the Chaos players could attack the Archaios space port. If they captured the space port, this would give them bonus resource points both in the Epic scale of Archaios (since the planet can now receive reinforcements and supplies from space) and in the BFG scale (because star ships can now be repaired and resupplied). Instead of playing a game of Epic to see if the Chaos players could capture an important Hex on the world map of Archaios, they could choose to use our abstract system, which could be similar to Risk. (Each resource point could be like a batallion in Risk) Of course, I don't really have a finished suggestion of what such a detailed and abstract system would be like, but I think you understand what I mean. Now, do you all agree that it would be very useful to have the freedom to resolve battles with such an abstract system?
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Sept 25, 2004 19:49:09 GMT -5
The reason I started this topic was to try and come up with some sort of system that would work with all the different games.
I decided on the registry way of working on it because dispite its initall set up problem it prevent people having to go about trying to come up with a universal point system to buy each unit.
However I understand how daunting my idea was so perhaps I could make an ammendment; that:
1) We lower the ammount of forces that we have to create for the registory. Instead of creating it for every sector or planet we only have to only come up with the ones that will be invoved in the ground based campaign. You don't have to indivudally work out the wargear for each model but just name them as "Imperial Guard, Unit X, 50 Men Strong" sort of thing.
2) We get the players of the campagin to register the forces they create beforehand along with their opponants force. Their results will be unique to the group of people playing rather then centrally done. This is a much better idea that I wished I had come up with before I had writen anything else ;D. This also has some good side effects that they can fight the same person over again with thier inital strenght reduced by the numbers of models killed in the orginal fight and so on untill one side had wiped the other out or they can't be bothered to play anymore games.
As for fightng over stratigic locations it would mean that we have to flesh out the maps already Avaible so that cites/hives/Whatever had mutiple zones to fight over and control. This is actully what I have been doing in my own campaigns since year dot. I have objectives like capturing supply depots as so forth; however my rules were much more complexly driven (i.e. I counted the ammo my units had so that they might run out over a long term campaign if they ether did not have ship in space to drop it or control of factories). I did not suggest such things for an on-line version of a ASP campaign becasue it would make things so complex. And while I don't mind that for myself its a bit much when you are trying to create a way of playing that works on the internet. I took a look at the EoT system and tried to reverse engineer it for the use here. However I also wanted to come up with something a bit more special then that fixxed disapontment of a campagin.
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Sept 26, 2004 16:46:03 GMT -5
Hmm, ok, let's leave the web-based campaigns out of this for now, and focus on a campaign system that allows integration of BFG, Epic and 40k.
When writing unit registers for this campaign system, one must first look at the size of the campaign. For example, if the campaign is about a small Rogue Trader flotilla in Eldar space, then forces involved are probably few enough for it to make sense to include every single vehicle and squad (in other words, down to 40k scale).
If the campaign is about a huge Waaagh! with millions of orks and Guardsmen clashing in the Castellan subsector and beyond, then I suggest that the players only write registers for the BFG units and the super-rare units in Epic and 40k (Titans, Space Marines, Sisters of Battle)
The campaign system should work on the three scales of BFG, Epic and 40k, and it should be possible to limit the games to one or two of these scales. For example, you might want to run a campaign for the battle over a single hive (perfect for 40k and Epic, but not BFG), over a continent or world (perfect for Epic, and possibly 40k or BFG) or a subsector (perfect for BFG, and possibly Epic and 40k).
In the 40k scale, one has a hex map of a single region, city, space station or whatever. Armies would have a certain amount of movement, and certain hexes would have certain bonuses (ammo depots, factories and repair stations, etc). Like in the BFG campaign system, having vital locations gives you extra resources to buy new units and repair or refit old ones.
In the Epic scale, one uses a hex map of a single region, continent or world. As above, armies would have a certain amount of movement (Eldar armies move fast, ork armies and human armies move relatively slow) and again certain hexes have certain bonuses (industrial complexes, ammo depots, space ports, etc)
If you want to combine the Epic scale with the 40k scale, you can use the 40k scale to fight over a single hex. For example, you can use 40k to determine the ownership over important hexes such as space ports and hives, and use Epic to determine the ownership of the rest of the map.
In the BFG scale, the BFG campaign system by GW is used, with some modifications. For example, one can use Epic and 40k to determine the ownership of worlds. Instead of letting the winner of a battle or raid gain control of the system, the winner is only given reinforcements and bonuses.
If one does not want to combine BFG with the other systems/scales, one can just use the official system, of course.
So, this is the idea I have for our planned campaign system. Now I just need to hear what you think about it, and we can start to think about how it's actually going to be done.
The main point of this system is that battles on every scale can be resolved abstractly. For example, instead of actually playing a game of 40k, you determine the results of a conflict by calculating resource points and determining the result in a Risk-like manner. (Attacker has 42 resource points, defender has 35. Attacker rolls up to 3 dice, defender rolls up to 2 dice. Defender wins on an equal or higher dice roll.)
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Sept 28, 2004 19:52:46 GMT -5
Those suggestions seem to work CELS. Having Epic/40K fighting over a different sized area makes much better sence. When I looked at some of the Example maps posted I realised that to 'capture' all the Hexs would be an difficult task you would have to play in the Region of 70+ games to win!
However I would downgrade Epic from taking a Whole continent since then depending on the way the planet was layed out that could take 1-5 Matchs and that seems a little small for such things. Instead I suggest each Epic win takes 7 Hexs (in a hexigon shaped region).
40K could be for taking important building inside a Hex, such as the aformentioned Supply depots. Such things would have a much more dramatic effect then most of the big Epic based fights since these are stratigic locations. Holding these areas usally determin the winners of many battles in the surrounding areas. Perhaps they will have a positive effect to any other fight in other regions.
For example an airfield will allow your troops to deep strike (or whatever the Equivlent is in Epic - Ill have to find out) in a following fight.
Another use of the reasorce points would be to produce fortififed areas (Like city fight) so that one side can dig in against an attack.
While it may not be possible in an on-line version of the proposed Campaign system, it might be possible to limit the movement of each side. Each 'Turn' they can capture on Hex ajastent to one they own unless it is owned/claimed by an enermy. Fights would result in the 'front-line' where the two sides meet.
[i I personally think that this is an excellent idea (I do love Inquisitor too ) - but I have only one problem. How do we incorporate the minor races that add depth to this sector? Although i know that the major races are all that really matters in GW fluff and game play to the average gamer, i have great care for all of the effort that many people have put into the various races here...[/i]
Going back to the on-line campaign idea for a second, these smaller Races could be inclueded but those who owned them would have to create their own campaigns so that they could be posted on the future website. It would work in the same way as normal campaigns but would problery take longer to resove (unless their is a sudden surge of people ownining these new armies).
Also I have some questions that need to be thoght about when trying to put together this whole thing:
* We need to create the ideas 'Statigic zones' to capture/Destroy, however how would they utiminately effect the Attacker/Defender? Does it dictate the size of the forces we can use, or prevent us from using vehicles in perticuler matches? Any body who has ideas about how the mechanics of this will work please give me a hint because it might be increibly complex
* How detailed do we want to go? I have already created my own campaign system and it invoves things like ammunitions, Medical packs/Teams, fuel and the like. Would that be way too detailed for this; and how would we fit that into an On-line campaign?
* How would we want it to effect the Anargo sector as a whole? While it might be okay to evade or even destroy a planet in our own games the same could not be said for the web based campagin. People have spent days comming up with their worlds and new speices and would unlikly want them altered in any major way. We might limit such things to say someone who has captured a world was only doing it as a raid to get their holds filled with slaves but this excuse would wear thin. So do we have speical campaign worlds that can be detroyed or whatever?
If it was alowed that planets were able to be gained/lost control of how would we intergate the varaying importance of a world in the sectors structure? If a Hive world heavy relys on shipments of food from an agri planet that could be taken over, then their is going to be serious blowback because of it The people living on the hive will suddenly hit by a famine and lots will die. How would this then effect an attack against that Hive world if they were already under a crisis? (I see the reasorce meter comming into play again)
* How would peoples individual campagins 'not registered' be intergated into the workings/history of the ASP? Will 'off-line' campagins ever be intergated into the project? Somebody who has spent alot of time and effort to set them up would be disgruntled that after it all if they were told the battle report or whatever was rejected because it was no 'offical'. Does that mean we would have to report to a higher up member every time we wanted to use somebody elses planet in our games?
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Sept 29, 2004 8:02:54 GMT -5
Those suggestions seem to work CELS. Having Epic/40K fighting over a different sized area makes much better sence. When I looked at some of the Example maps posted I realised that to 'capture' all the Hexs would be an difficult task you would have to play in the Region of 70+ games to win! Yep And if you're playing a campaign on a subsector level, you really don't want to wait ten weeks between each game of BFG That's certainly a good way to combine Epic with 40k, especially if you have a lot of 40k players and very few Epic players, and don't want to let the few Epic players dominate the entire campaign. As for letting a few games of Epic determine the fate of a world, that's not so bad, really. First of all, you don't need to eradicate every enemy on the planet to gain control of it. All you really need to do is to take control of the space port, and the important cities and industrial complexes that will be of aid in the war. I agree, but I feel that you either control a hex, or you don't. You don't control anything inside an enemy hex. So, you have one hex that is the supply depots. Hmm, possibly. But then, you need the right airplanes to carry the troops. And Titans and super-heavies, of course, are rather difficult to fly. There are rules for fortifications in 40k, I believe. Bunkers, razorwire and minefields. Hmm, I'm not sure how it is best to do the movement of armies. Perhaps it is best to do like in the BFG campaign system, where the fleets have unlimited movement. Otherwise, you're going to have a hell of a time keeping track of which units are where. All I know is that letting one side use a much bigger force than the other (2000 pts vs 1000 pts) makes for a very dull game. Giving various small advantages is much more fun. Take the BFG campaign system (again); The two players always engage with the same amount of points (except in special scenarios, like convoy attack), but a good player will accumulate a lot of small bonuses, like shield-upgrades for certain ships, higher leadership, etc. As little detail as possible, otherwise you spend too much time with administration and planning, which is the dull part. In BFG, the system is very easy, but you can still spend an hour working out new upgrades and repairs, and that's just boring. So again, as little as possible. I prefer hexes that allow small upgrades and advantages, and veteran skills, rather than working out ammunition and stuff. Medicine... well, it's very rare to capture medicine in war, I think. Especially in a fight between Orks and Chaos, for example. And as for 'repairing' squads, that only becomes useful in campaigns with very small forces involved. At the moment, we should just focus on designing a system that can be used by anyone, even those who want to run a campaign on Armaggeddon or Mars or whatever. Figuring out how to integrate this system with our web-campaigns comes later, I guess. And just because we offer people maps of the Anargo sector to work on, doesn't mean that it will affect the Anargo sector. When a Chaos player uses Abbadon in a game and he dies, GW doesn't change the fluff. When someone plays Lord of the Rings, the siege of Gondor, they don't really change the story if the evil forces win. The Anargo sector is just a possible setting for the campaign. A very detailed one too. Just to clarify; The discussion in this thread will not deal with integration of web-based campaigns and how the results of campaigns may affect the Anargo sector at this point. That is for another time.Hmmm... to me, consequences such as these are unimportant to a campaign like this one. 1) If you're going to think like that, it gets incredibly complex. 2) The campaign system is supposed to resolve quick invasions and battles, not wars that last for years and years. In my opinion I've answered this already, but just to make it crystal-clear..... NO. (We may change this for special circumstances, but that's the way it should be for now) If we make it very clear on our website that the battle reports and campaigns of people who are not members will not have an impact upon the project what-so-ever, there is no need for them to be disappointed. Nope. But leave it to the members and leaders of the project to actually change the setting of the project. Again, it's like using special characters in 40k. You can use Abaddon in a game without GW's permission, and even get him killed. But you do need GW's permission to actually change the official fluff and say that he is dead.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Sept 29, 2004 8:30:03 GMT -5
You might also want to check out the information that Minister posted on Portent with regards to "Mighty Empires" and BFG translations of Epic units... might be kind of useful for what you seem to be attempting here. One thing that has probably been discussed but I find of general interest is of hierarchal battles at the different resolutions... That is to say a specific objective must be taken at Inquisitor resolution, which affects a 40k game, which then affects an Epic/BFG resolution... But that might be getting a tad on the complex side!
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Sept 30, 2004 19:50:01 GMT -5
The discussion in this thread will not deal with integration of web-based campaigns and how the results of campaigns may affect the Anargo sector at this point. That is for another time.Sorry; unfortunaty I am one of those people who are always looking ahead while they should be dealing with the present. However I think it is important to remember what we come up with here will Ultimatly impact what we will do when we get to that stage. As for letting a few games of Epic determine the fate of a world, that's not so bad, really. First of all, you don't need to eradicate every enemy on the planet to gain control of it. All you really need to do is to take control of the space port, and the important cities and industrial complexes that will be of aid in the war. What I was trying to convey was the fact that some planets could have 1 Continant, which would make for a very short campaign. I agree, but I feel that you either control a hex, or you don't. You don't control anything inside an enemy hex. So, you have one hex that is the supply depots. But thats how you gain terrtory; by getting a foothold and exploting that advantage. Hmm, I'm not sure how it is best to do the movement of armies. Perhaps it is best to do like in the BFG campaign system, where the fleets have unlimited movement. Otherwise, you're going to have a hell of a time keeping track of which units are where.
Actully it is very easy to do, the only reason I did not go into details was the fact I had that hang up about web-based campaigns which It would never work in. In my campagins I have run both me and my opponats sides are set from the begining. The biggest force we had was about 6ooopt in 40K. You don't neccery have to have all the models to fight in one big battle but we need models to reprsent them in battle. We split these into detactments of varying sides (which is quite fun tactically) and then postion them on varying sides of the maps we made. From their we have campaign turns, each moving one after the other into the Square (insert:hex). These area we move though we claim and have various stratigic buildings we can occupy. Then when two opposing detactments meet up we fight with the forces that have been put into it. Depending how we spread our units this can make a very interesting match (read this as Smaller side against larger side - which I think can be more interesting then straght on equil strenght, it adds a variation to the game). Whoever wins then claims the enermies square. This makes for quite interesting if long campaigns since if your smart and put enoght troops into it you can incircle the area with two detactments and overwhelm smaller enermy groups. Medicine... well, it's very rare to capture medicine in war, Not if you bring it with you ... what I was outlinging was that when ever one of models is killed or destroyed it is not automatically dead. Like Necromunda I use a system that allows the chance that some of my men are not killed and have the possibity to heal their wounds. So gaining control of a Hospital in the middle of a city becomes an important point in any caapagin. Hmmm... to me, consequences such as these are unimportant to a campaign like this one. 1) If you're going to think like that, it gets incredibly complex. 2) The campaign system is supposed to resolve quick invasions and battles, not wars that last for years and years. In my opinion 1) I have never minded Incredibly complex things; you just have to simplfy them enoght so they don't detract from actully playing the game but inhance the experence. 2) Quick invasions and battles are fine; but sometimes you want something a bit more meater to dig your teeth into. Some Campaigns I have set up last for months but it is an increbily rewarding effort. Unlike the quick games longer campaigns don't always turn out like you'd expect. Even the vastly inferor armies such as the Orks or Tyranids will play better in campaign due to their numerical advantage. When a Chaos player uses Abbadon in a game and he dies, GW doesn't change the fluff. No but he miraculously survives, the wound inflicted and rises again! Anyone who use those speical charaters in campaigns take their 'death' in battle as a mistake. If we make it very clear on our website that the battle reports and campaigns of people who are not members will not have an impact upon the project what-so-ever, there is no need for them to be disappointed. But what about members? Perhaps I have missed all the threads with this in but I am not clear if any games we play will be refected in the fluff we are creating. If they are to be do we need to get permission first before we even start them campagin? You might also want to check out the information that Minister posted on Portent with regards to "Mighty Empires" and BFG translations of Epic units... might be kind of useful for what you seem to be attempting here. Already looked at it, well I tried to. I took some of it as insperation for my orginal post. We do need to link them all in someway, but it does not neccerily mean in the order they are played. I think each could all be ongoing at the same time, however certain things would trigger events which would have to be tackled in the other gaming systems. Ill have to think about how this can work....
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 1, 2004 8:28:33 GMT -5
You might also want to check out the information that Minister posted on Portent with regards to "Mighty Empires" and BFG translations of Epic units... might be kind of useful for what you seem to be attempting here. I seem to remember that it was a very long thread, which I unfortunately don't have the time for... Inquisitor is not a 'hard' wargame, so more often than not, one side will be stronger than the other (unlike 40k, Epic and BFG games) Because Inquisitor doesn't rely on a concrete points system, I think it is best to leave it up to the individual player and GM how to integrate it with the campaign. I'll mention the integration of Inquisitor when I do write the rules, but I don't really believe that it would be prudent to make concrete rules to use it in a campaign system. The game is too fluid and complex. Sorry; unfortunaty I am one of those people who are always looking ahead while they should be dealing with the present. You're not the only one on this forum Well, sometimes you have to leap before you look. Besides, I think it is unlikely that our web-campaign system will ever be so complicated that it allows individual armies to fight over the hexes of a continent. If we do want it to be so complicated, I'm sure we'll find a solution. And if you disagree, please do not continue this discussion here Another time, another place. It really depends. You could easily let the fate of a world be determined by 5-10 key battles, and simply assume that these important victories/defeats lay the course for the rest of the war. Erm, I know. But that still doesn't change my opinion that for simplicity's sake, you either control a hex or you do not. Same as in chess (squares), Risk and Axis and Allies (countries) or Master of Orion (star systems). Right now, I think it is best to discuss an off-line campaign system that can be used by anyone, and save the discussion of an online campaign system for later. This is good if there are only limited forces involved in the war. But if you play Epic and want to fight a campaign over an entire world, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers are involved, that's not an option. I can imagine. But in wars where larger forces are involved, it is necessary to seek an abstract solution. Victory does not always come to the biggest army. The Lord of the Rings is a perfect example of this. While you might make a LotR based campaign where you keep track of all the millions of soldiers, all you really need to do is focus on the important battles. It hardly counts as 'capturing' then, does it? And while this is important for Necromunda, where you have a handful of gangers over a small period of time, it's less important in Epic, where hundreds of thousands of soldiers go to war, usually with a dedicated sanitation force. Depends on the size of the conflict, I'd say. Then I propose that we start out simple, and then you can add special rules for medicine, ammunition, psychology and whatever else details people might want. My impression is that campaign systems often fail because they require too much work between battles. So it seems like a good idea to develop a basic system, and then let the players decide how much details they want to include. Like special rules for ammunition types in 40k. Another thing that depends Erm... I don't Well, to use another example then, there's the Lord of the Rings wargames. Eventhough it is perfectly possible to let the forces of Sauron win battles that the good guys won in the books, that doesn't mean that the story changes. Yeah, it seems you've missed all the threads with this in No changes will be made upon the setting of the Anargo Sector Project, except when we decide to change the date of the setting and/or when we run an official Anargo Sector Project. I hope that's clear enough PS: RascalLeader, please learn to use the quote codes. It makes it much easier to read your posts
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 1, 2004 19:49:43 GMT -5
The 'story' of the ASP will advance within the following conditions:
[/li][li]Wargame. Yes, the wargame is going to obviously change things. Changes generated by a wargame will be created within a narrative structure (e.g. plot arc) that is otherwise structured in a manner deemed appropriated by members on the board. Just who is involved in the campaign will depend on how widely spread we can 'advertise' or, indeed, on the nature of the campaign in question. We are obviously currently working with some historical/narrative questions (i.e. absence of the Tau, etc.) that cannot at present be ignored.
[/li][li]Roleplaying Games. These are going to have an effect. They'll be a lot subtler than the wargame, more than likely revolving around the political structure of the Anargo sector, but they are going to be involved... Just how these are organised is another question, more so since online roleplaying takes a horrendous amount of time unless done in 'real time' (i.e. via chat mechanisms). Even then a developed campaign takes a while to run.
[/li][li]"Storytelling". Sometimes we'll just want to advance the plot by reader submission. A plot arc will be given and the 'most interesting' story will give the plot arc more direction...
...There is a whole gamut of ways that I plan for the Anargo sector to advance, including future development in other areas. But enough for that now. I just wanted to remind everyone that the 'story' of the Anargo sector is just that: a story. It is not merely a setting, but one in which members and interested parties can have a definite impact.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 2, 2004 21:06:02 GMT -5
"Think Simple" Okay I think I have got it. To make my muddled mess of the English langugae clear about moving about capturing squares/ Hexs, I meant that you and your oppoant would go about claimining them one after the other before the first game had started untill the battle lines had been drawn. A occupiying force would always have biggest area of control with the attackers only gaining so much teratory in the begining which they expain from. With that out the way; I aggree fully. If we are simiplfying it like that then your force should be seen as part of a bigger effort put together by your side. It fits in nicely with the earlyer sugession that each location generates some sort of stratigic Resource value based on whatever it has in it. If you can manage to capture these areas it will presipertate your side winning the war. While Victory points would be for calculating the winner of the battle I see campaign points influincing the war. As the old saying goes you might have lost this battle but you would win the war. As long as you held these locations over the length of the campaign you would win. It also still add an element of stratagy, since while one player might be hung up with holding all the locations with big point values , the other would go after all the smaller places that could total up in excess of the more attractive areas. The only problem I can see is fixing a lenght of a campaign. While I never usally bother about such things, I can see it would be usful for people who do not have much time to do this. If people had both Epic and 40K it would be easy but if they only played 40K then the battle for indivdual hexs could be quite boring. The only suggestion I can come up with uses the Resource system again, say if your forces resorces are more then double the ammount of your enemry within that region (The 7 Hex thing) in the points where the two armies overlapp, their forces will be pushed back outside this area. I am getting worried that this is getting too complicated again. Then one player owns the Hex/s but does not mean that they can not be recaptured (unless the player wants really small campaigns)
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Oct 4, 2004 23:11:31 GMT -5
I think that there is an important question to be asked here before we go any further on. That is: Is the campaign system there to create games of Epic, BFG, and 40K OR is the campaign the goal?
By that I mean that I feel a campaign system should allow for players to array massive forces against very small forces. Whilst this may not give very good games of 40K it does reward strategical thinking at the campaign sytem level.
However, you may feel that a campaign should focus on the games of 40K and ensure that every game is basically fair. This has the disadvantage of not rewarding skillful campaign players, but it does mean that games are far more interesting for both players.
This question is at the heart of creating a good campaign system. If the individual games are the important part then a case for removing supply and other such logistical issues can be made, but if the goal is to create a system that encourages careful use of resource, mantaining garrisons and so on to remove logistics would be inexcusable.
Personally I feel that there is no point going to the trouble of determining trade routes and so on if they are dismissed as too complicated when a campaign is played, but others may disagree.
Before you all start thinking I'm just advocating making work for somebody else I will be glad to help in the administration of any campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 5, 2004 7:23:05 GMT -5
Is the campaign system there to create games of Epic, BFG, and 40K OR is the campaign the goal? That's actually a great, and very appropriate, question. My ultimate preference would be to have a campaign system created as a part of the project, but in terms of direct application of wargame (or whatever) campaigns as changing the 'setting' of the ASP, that would be directed. As such any inbalances, etc., that would otherwise make a rather sensible part of play would be considered within the broad 'story' of the campaign. Whilst this may not give very good games of 40K it does reward strategical thinking at the campaign sytem level. Ah yes, but they're fun... especially when you have one person who is great at tactics, and another who is great at strategy! However, you may feel that a campaign should focus on the games of 40K and ensure that every game is basically fair. No, not really... Again, though, I would ultimately like a 'campaign system' associated with the ASP but in terms of the campaigns that take a part of the game, i.e. the aforementioned "ork" campaign in Castellan. Personally I feel that there is no point going to the trouble of determining trade routes and so on if they are dismissed as too complicated when a campaign is played, but others may disagree. Such considerations will be integrated in the campaign narrative. Again, however, I point out my desire to have a campaign system created for the ASP so that, separately to the actual project itself, the Anargo sector can be used as a dynamic setting for wargamers and roleplayers... Before you all start thinking I'm just advocating making work for somebody else I will be glad to help in the administration of any campaign. LOL... perish the thought. And excellent!
|
|