|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 5, 2004 19:35:02 GMT -5
What the boss says. At the moment those on this thread are attempting to come up with the 'basic' most rules for a campaign rule system that allows the interaction of all the major 40K systems as well the RPG element the project is aiming for. Feel free to add your own suggestion now while we are still laying it all out.
As to my current suggestions no one has got back to them yet. Elther no one like them or everyone is increibly busy at the moment (hope its the latter). However I have also come up with a few more to look over in the mentime.
First to all we need to link the different games. This is the most diffiuclt, but I think we have got somewhere on linking the 40K/Epic systems.
As for BFG I think we need to refocus it to a 'supporting role' both the other major games. Most people who own BFG own atleast one of the others so it can be seen in addtion to them rather then succeding them. The main focus of BFG should be shifted into owning the 'high ground' of the planets orbit. Assuming you control this then your forces can be seen as able to deply whatever ground unit that you would use for the surface campaign. When your attacking/invading whatever the solar system in question you need to win a match first in order to land your troops. Of course as I have stated before I would not want BFG becoming just a method of advancing the campaign. Further to the suggestion that each hex area on the ground gains the resorce point for owning perticuler areas, I think this could be adapted into my thinking for the BFG games to. Holding the high ground of the orbit could also be considered on of these zones which would be a powerful boost to units on the ground.
In a realistic war whoever control the sky alway has the advantage and this would be the 40K version of this.
RPG are the hardest to work into the campaign system but are quite usful for pushing forward the narrative of it. Untill we have the system we are going to use for that I am a bit stuck to what to suggest to intergate it. I see the RPG side of things actully as a starting point for some campaign story arcs.
For instance the discovery of a Genestealer brood in Anargo which if reported brings in the Imperial guard to fight it out with the enermy in small 40K battles (don't think Epic would fit that).
It is still hard to fit it in exacally since in RPGs their are no consistant 'trigger mechanisms' that would make switching between the games easy.
I have also hit on another crasy Idea latly; since CELS in perticuler has been worried about things getting to complicated, I had the bright Idea of Making several different 'levels' of rules. At the moment we are trying to sort out the basics and add some more complex stuff later on, but I can forsee that we are going to get to the point eventully that once these are layed down their will problery more and more people comming along with their own bright ideas to add. It will come very bloated concept then so my suggestion is that different levels of rules will eventully be put together. The intermedate and advanced rules will be based on the same system as the basics but adding more detail, but strip them back and they are all the same. The main advantage of this is that then people can play to the level the feel comfatable with. If you don't want too many rules then just use the basic. Similary if you want to run a campaign that has a bit more in it but don't want to take too much time setting everything up you go for the intermedate.
Please tell me Its stupid if you think so; criticism is always welcome!
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 5, 2004 20:12:11 GMT -5
Well, what we say generally... but in the "big picture" that I'm working with at the moment it would seem best to talk about things specifically in relation to a narrative campaign, but run this in parallel with discussion about more generalised campaigns. (E.g. the former is about application to the ASP, while the latter becomes the 'machine' by which the ASP can be used by people on their own!) Elther no one like them or everyone is increibly busy at the moment (hope its the latter). <grin> Even wargamers seem not to have time for wargames... <Kage ducks> First to all we need to link the different games. This is the most diffiuclt, but I think we have got somewhere on linking the 40K/Epic systems. I point out once again that Minister seemed to be doing rather well in terms of relating everthing to BFG terms. Perhaps this is a good point to start, even if it is in rejection of the assumptions made? As for BFG I think we need to refocus it to a 'supporting role' both the other major games. That would be consistent with the 40k wargame (i.e. which devalues most 'resolutions' other than its own), but I would question the validity here. In application to a narrative campaign I can quite readily see the various game systems taking a part of the 'story'... The main focus of BFG should be shifted into owning the 'high ground' of the planets orbit. Assuming you control this then your forces can be seen as able to deply whatever ground unit that you would use for the surface campaign. Ortillery should also allow significant gains, a feature which is often missed in the 40k size game. It is just assumed, often inappropriately, that the value of the location is greater than that of ortillery obliteration... When your attacking/invading whatever the solar system in question you need to win a match first in order to land your troops. Or, perhaps, we work on the principle that is more than a 'yes/no' situation? That the proportion of results one way or another determine the relative forces landed? This way a 'scale' can be created which determines advantages/disadvantages, etc.? What about the use of 'objectives' ala standard 40k... success at one could mean an advantage at one thing despite the overall result? (E.g. "You may have won the battle, but not the war!") RPG are the hardest to work into the campaign system but are quite usful for pushing forward the narrative of it. In a narrative system I would suggest that it is in fact the easiest to include. The bugger of it is that it takes a horrendous amount of time. This is why I would seen an RPG-focussed campaign as separate... quite simply it would require the time needed to complete it if done in real-life or, god-forbid, online! It will come very bloated concept then so my suggestion is that different levels of rules will eventully be put together. I would say that at it's most basic level the determination of the relative value of a 'point' between the different game resolutions (40, Epic, BFG) is vital. More so if you wish to incorporate some form of 'resource system', in which case looking at the economy threads (Imperium board) would be useful... the point here is integration, not segregation. Please tell me Its stupid if you think so; criticism is always welcome! The ideas are intriguing and valid. I would at this point, however, suggest that there is some difference between setting up a narrative campaign for Anargo and creating a campaign system for Anargo. I would like to see both!
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 6, 2004 19:57:59 GMT -5
At the moment I would suggest that this thread is working out the mechanic of the system; thats what it has been so far! I could start my own campaign when I get the free time and so could most other people. The point at the moment is to formulate the 'core' ideas here, so that everyone might have a say how the Anargo campaigns will work. My orignal idea for the Mechanics was to be a Narrative/ Map hybrid. From all the different methods of runing a camapign I think it is better. Using maps you actully feel as if your fighting for something rather then the more random effect that both ladder and tree methods offer. Not compelety; preliminary bombardment is on offer 40K level. This is usally only used at the attack 'softening the enemry up'. What we could do instead that If the player has ships parked up in orbit they can use them to bombard the enmery at the start of every turn. Of course their is risk to doing this, but it can also be a advantage (what a wiked word!) to who ever owns the orbit. In battlefleet gothic the planetary assault scenario allows for varations of this. Instead of just the simple we land on your planet.. Hah! the forces deployed to the surface is directly preposionate to how long the transports stay near to the surface. Without going back to the 'Registration' method (CELS would proberly kill me if I go over that again I can use my idea of regions to explain it. To recap a region is an area of about 7 Hexs area on the H&E maps. What I had prevously suggested was that each Epic game fights for one of these region, where as 40K for the individual hexs (or using the resorce method winning these influence capture of 7 Hexs). Back to what I was saying...With the regions idea, mixing it with the BFG planet mission will better intergrate this idea. Everytime an assault point is gained by a transport 'landing its troops' they gain a randomly deturmed region of the map. For every further one they can ether plonk their forces in the region next to it or generate an random placement. The implications of this is two fold. It gives a more random method of gaining control of the ground then just saying 'my forces have landed' and then just start the ground battles. It also links in more with the way this BFG scenario already works. Usally if you gain more then ten assault points on the planet it is captured. By using the hex map controlling ten 'regions' sounds about right for a total victory. So the more regions the players capture in the BFG match the better the starting advantage in the ground war. They would have more control of the map theirfore the opponat has alot more work to do in order to regain ground. It again might get too complex that way on both counts. While comming up with a relative point value between all the systems is valid it would mean rewriting all the costs of each model/Unit/Ship, which would be a huge task. Perhaps the simplisty way of showing this might be to have 40K as normal, EPIC as valued in hundred and BFG in millions. However since I don't own Epic I don't know the sort of cost I am talking about so it may not work well that way. The resorce based idea I outlined was more to do with regional strenght. So the control of a hive hex was worth 5 points, and a jungle hex worth 1 and so forth. Since your fighting for indivudal hexs in 40K instead of fighting for every hex for every region all you had to do was gain enogh resorce points in order to capture a complete region. It was surpost to reprsent that your part of a much larger force that is sweeping through the area to gain control. Each of your wins contributes to the rest of your forces gaining ground.
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Oct 6, 2004 22:55:37 GMT -5
I have taken a few of the ideas in this thread, and many of my own and taken a stab at writing a set of rules. They are untried and I have not shied away from new and different ideas. They are not finished.
Setting up the Campaign First of all a list of all personnel in the campaign must be compiled. This list will only consist of the units that a Chapter Master, say, would concern himself with. It must state where they are stationed and any other important information.
All planets must have the following sheet filled out: Name: Type: Green Pulses emitted: Red Pulses emitted: Units stationed here: Once this data is generated that is all the pre campaign book keeping done.
Playing the Campaign The generals on either side must elect two or three leaders. These people are concerned with the grand scheme. They will be the ones that decide what planets are to be taken and by when. They will set the objectives and the forces that may be spared. They then give an objective to each of the interested players to achieve. These players are the real workhorses of the campaign, organising battles etc.
This is how it works in detail: First, three Consul are elected from the ranks of the players on each side. These Consuls act as the High Command, planning the whole war and then delegating objectives to their sub ordinate generals. The High Command must keep a record of which troops serve under whom and in what particular operations. This is to ensure that the fluff of the campaign is consistent with what happened. Every body of troops must be under the command of a general at all times. The sub generals plan offensives on planets and enact them. They also play the games for their body of troops. Here a point must be made. It is possible that as the campaign progress someone ends up in command off an army they do not have the models for, if so the game should be farmed out to others.
Movement Movement is by cube. The type of movement the campaign is interested in is warp travel. Because of this different sized cubes are used, depending on how easy it is to travel that part of the warp. Every Commander rolls a Player Initiative Point dice each turn. This dictates how many units he can move. For every 1 PIP he may move one fleet or garrison. A fleet consists of any ships in the same or adjoining squares, whilst a garrison is the forces stationed in one system. The PIP method represents the fact that the commander may have suffered an incapacitating blow, had an attack of idiocy or that the messages were lost in the Warp. It also causes a Lost in the Warp result simply, without introducing unnecessary rules mechanisms. The movement in-system is simply that fleets ‘jump’ one or two orbits every turn. Armies move the same distances as above on planet, except that they move in hexes, not cubes
Fighting the Battle Battles are fought using the forces meeting, except that a 40K battle may be shrunk to have no armies over 3000 points. If this is done the troop ratios should stay the same and should not be adjusted unless one army is one tenth the size of the other, in which case the smaller army may take two troops choices that shall not exceed ten percent of the other forces total points. Therefore no forces shall meet in battle where one army is less than ten percent the other. The same rule shall apply if an Epic Armageddon army exceeds 6000 points. The results of the battle are then recorded in the troop lists for either side. After this is done any army that lost in a massacre will withdraw from both that region and all that surround it. An army that lost with any other result will retreat from that region. If a draw should occur both armies retreat from that region, unless Baran Siegemasters, Space Marines or Chaos Space Marines.
Logistical Support The raising of troops is outside the time frame of this set of campaign rules, which are designed for campaigns lasting up to a year. Whilst troops would be raised they would add pointless complexity. However, given that a turn lasts a week, food and weaponry will be an issue. These are represented by ‘pulses’. Each pulse travels at a constant rate of one cube per turn. A red pulse is for weaponry, and green for food. One pulse splits into five upon landing on a world, and then moves at five hexes a turn. Pulses are moved by the High Command of each side, based on the needs of their underlings. Troops must get a red pulse and a green pulse every fourth turn. Should a unit miss out on a pulse the following rules shall apply in games of 40K. The first turn after missing a red pulse their BS is halved, and their Ld reduced by a third. The second time their Ld is reduced too third of it’s original size, whilst their Bs is halved again. The third time they are declared weaponless until a pulse arrives, at which they are restored to normal. Weaponless troops will flee any enemy, and will surrender if surrounded. The same occurs with green pulses, except once troops are starved they just die. Instead of Bs, Ws is reduced, and their leadership will not go below three. If the games are Epic, then their FF is reduced by two each turn for red and their CC for green. Each formation starts the game with a number of blast markers equal to a third of the units in the formation. This is repeated every turn after. Hiveworlds will surrender if they do not receive a green pulse for x turns. If an enemy force of any type should move into the same region as a pulse the pulse becomes the property of the enemy. Pulses are produced by different worlds at different rates.
The above is all completely experimental. I make no claim at all for the originality of any of the ideas, I’ve merely created a composite.
I selected the troops listing method because it is impossible to create a universal points system, and also because if the only troops listed are Titans, SHT's and so on it shouldn't be too much work. The other advantage to a register is that the write up of important battles will be consistent with the actual troop dispositions.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 10, 2004 12:09:31 GMT -5
Okay I just about understand all that and even for me it is slightly complex. While I actully agree with you on several points (having supplies+ force listings, most of all) it may be a bit complicated to pull of. Even in the incredibly structured and detailed campaigns I have played in and designed we had to simplify everything in order to prevent everything from being too time consuming. Thats what I had in mind when I started the thread. I know its a bit pointless to argue over this point since most people don't have 3000pt armies, however if someone did a really big campaign battle with twenty or so other people I don't think they would like the restriction. This is the point I really agree with the most. We could sit here all day trying to create that all elusive universal point system but it would perhaps take too much effort. 'A squad of ten space marines' is the same wether it is in Epic or 40K. I agree food and ammunition (and health packs) would be an important issue in warfare. I have used them before; instead of pulses I used 'containers'. A unit could only carry 3 containers maximum and each would last them X ammount of time. If they have enoght of each then they can carry on as normal, if not they can only make shots for half the turns in the game/ could only move half the distance and could not move and assault in same turn. However I get the feeling CELS will complain about it being too 'logistically orintated' (ie. time consuming).
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Oct 10, 2004 22:56:39 GMT -5
Rascal Leader, can you be a bit more specific. If you were to mention the bits you think are too complex, and which you don't like it would be really useful.
I know that there are quite a few complex bits, but I tend to start with the far out ideas and then work back.
Btw, I know some people would like to play games of 3000+ points. That is why I used may.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 11, 2004 18:58:43 GMT -5
Sorry; i'll do my best . If you let me keep talking I tend to go on and on so I make most of my post short and to the point. First Lets deal with the specifics on the bits I thought were too complex. To me the Pulses will make the campaign heavily focused on alot on 'workings out' between each turn which will protract the process. From what you have said the only real way of doing it would be to draw the movement of these pulses on maps each turn . I am guessing that the effects of the pulses are cumlative rather then spread only to the same area each turn. This would mean that you would have to chart down each pulse in waves, making a chart for each new expainsion of it. And I assume each side has its own set of pulses? Can I ask how this would be modified for the side that owns the planet they are fighting over? They would not need the pulses since they would have all the supplies stored ready for use. Now lets deal with the ideas that where ether not quite explained enoght or "Errors" I can see: Why should a turn have to last a week? If you were playing smallish battles you could do at least a turn everyday if you had the time. I can't remember you saying how the pluses are generated. This as you might guess is a very important thing since you need an origin point for the pulses to move from.... I need more detail on this 'cube' movement, that bit went over my head I am afraid. As nearest I can guess its something like an area defining how far ships can move taking into account warp stability. What I am not sure about is how they connect to each other and how PIP reprisents the difficultly moving between them. Why would it half their Ballistic Skill? Its used to deturmin if the person can aim and hit the enermy not if they have the ammo to do it. Just Five hexs? or five hexs outward from where they were before? If it is just five indivdual hexs then it is twice the ammount of work to get the campaign moving from turn to turn, since it is a small area on the planet it would again protract things. However I am not going to be completly negative. It is a unique method of playing a campaign, and nothing is perticullery wrong with it. Personally I would like to have the campaigns featuring some sort of supply system in it since it adds to the overall stratagy of the games. Its not always about having all the best units but outwitting your opponant. I would like to use some sort of 'supply' routes set up for the campaign system we are developing, but ones that a fixed before the start off. That would mean that it would simplfy things so that their is not alot of work needing to be done between the turns. Have fixed movement for it would mean that it is constantly moving; only the effects of having each route 'cut' would have to be delt with. For example if a hiveworld was cut from an agriworld would mean that as each turn passes the supplies that would would 'drain' towards the hive cities where it is needed (the final destination). When the last of it moves down the route towards the city, the IG units would have to move with this (imagine a convoy of trucks or whatever) to protect it and make sure they don't run out of food for themselves. However this might be getting too complex again
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Oct 11, 2004 23:37:34 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant that one turn represents one week, not that one turn lasts one week.
Okay. In most board games, you move in squares. However, this doesn't work for a 3D system. Therefore I used cubes. Then I thought that in some areas the warp is 'faster' than in others. So, instead of using different rates of movement, I used differing sizes of cubes. That is, instead of holding the cube size steady at, say, 5/ly and varying speeds, I've kept the speed steady, but let the cube size vary.
I stole the concept of pip's from the DBx series of ancient wargames. They represent the fact that, for a variety of reasons, orders don't always get made or carried out. The pip concept is something that I don't particularly like, but is better than many of the other ways in which Dangers of the Warp is introduced.
I'd better elaborate on the 'pulse' mechanism. Green pulses would come from Agri-worlds and Civilised worlds. Red from Forge, Hive and Civilised. Pulse probably wasn't the best name. A pulse doesn't act like a wave or anything, and I probably would have been better calling them convoys or something. Each pulse acts like a unit, except undefended pulses don't fight. I don't play 40K, prefering DBM, so I am not quite up to speed on the particular stats. I do think it is simpler to adjust the BS than to do complicated stuff like only shooting half the time.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 15, 2004 6:41:50 GMT -5
Just to say that I'm watching this thread with some interest, although my specific contribution must necessarily be low (e.g. don't play wargames). Should be able to help with some of the 'bigger' questions, e.g. how a generic campaign system might interact with the abstract concepts of 'trade' and economy, as well as the politics of the sector and beyond, but you're going to have to prod me when you get to such things...
Anyway, I shall go back to lurking... Keep it going!
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 22, 2004 19:56:01 GMT -5
Don't worry its me nit picking again...
I really Must be thick, I still can't quite get my head around it. In an attempt to prevent you from trying to expain it to me again I'll try to make a direct interpritation on it and you can tell me if I am getting it wrong.
From what I understand the cubes define area in a three dimetional repirsation of a perticuler sub sector. However instead of being a grid of consistant sized cubes they come in a verity of different sizes.
These ether: 1) Still interlock together. 2) Overlapp each other
And the the movement of the fleets vary as they pass between the cubes since getting into a larger cube allows them to bypass several small ones.
I thought that might be the case but did not want to jump to conclusions. Infact from the method your discribing they are more like 'strings' then pulses. When one side holds an area with the start of this 'thread' it cuts off whatever it is tied to. Of course this is just a metaphor but I hope it explains how I am interpreting it. This would be much easier to set up, requiring a lot less work to do it. However with the current hex map it might be a little difficult (but not impossible!). The main problem is that these supply lines would be set up between all settelments on a planet, but the Hex maps we are going off at the moment only mark major cities and hives and such. So we are really going to have to simplfy the supply lines on planets to make it work (having only 1 to 3). The Only other option is going down a much more difficult path by doing much more detailed maps for showing places inside each hex where thousands of tiny supply routes are put in.
Personally from a wargammers view point doing this might be prefured, but it would add a large ammount of work to the already busy ASP. It could all be automated no doubt so that your not creating thousands of indiviudal peices of highly detailed art work but it would still leave problems. Going back to the wargamming side of things your'll suddenly find yourselve fighting over sections of a hex which could make playing campaigns even longer even for those who want it short.
Of course again their are ways around this but it would be up everyone to come to some sort of agreement on this. Limits could be imposed so that these detailed maps are only created for one or two dencily inhabited hexs on the planet. Then instead of 40K matches for the ownerships of hexs they are counted for capturing objectives inside the hexs such as cities and towns and so on. It would be like a grid within the hex and they capture squares. Since they will only go to these smaller scale battles within these speical hexs it might make the games alot longer you may think but I have already been thinking ways around this for other reasons.
Instead of what I have outlined in prevous posts about capturing regions and all that, I going to put that on the back burner for now and suggest a new system that just might work better. How many hexs that are captured could be detrumined by Victory points, which is far easier then doing anything else. After the battle for every +100VP a player has they can take up to one hex (or one subsection of a smaller map). The advantage of this is that it works well if you have two player or more. With more players the campagin won't be any short since the more battles going on at once means that the terratory is exchanging hands more often.
However I'll need the help of Epic players to point out any fatal flaw in this plan, since I don't know how their VP system works. Help me?
1- as i said before it does not make much sence from the stats point of view 2- It might be as difficult as just adjusting the stats since you will ether have to rubb out all the BS score and half them (not good if its a three) and then remember to put them back later on if they manage to get back to a good supply line. In many ways its easier to remember for one battle that your side can only shoot for so many turns then doing that.
If you could read the bit about how we could addapt the Hex maps and give your suggestions KAGE I would be greatful since your the only one who can really decide if its worth making the more detailed maps. With the work load of the ASP it might be asking too much?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 25, 2004 9:15:26 GMT -5
If you could read the bit about how we could addapt the Hex maps and give your suggestions KAGE I would be greatful since your the only one who can really decide if its worth making the more detailed maps. With the work load of the ASP it might be asking too much? I quickly tried to follow the discussion on 'hex' maps, above, but found it fairly fragmentary. Mainly because my brain tends to shut off when discussing wargame material in abstraction. For that you have my apologies. Perhaps you could summarise not only the 'problem' behind hexs, but possible solutions and, just as importantly, how you see it as relevant (i.e. how it would affect a campaign system). I must admit to looking at it through the 'narrative' eyes of an RP'er and I quite literally don't have the experience required for creating an abstract wargame campaign system. I'll help where I can, but it also means that you'll have to forgive the little glitch...
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 30, 2004 11:13:47 GMT -5
SUMMERY THE PROBLEM At the moment the discussion has move to the concept of some sort of supply system during the campaign. THis includes ammunition and food etc. etc. However as with my suggestion, I have been trying to apply this concept to Hex maps that people have used to show as repirsinations on their worlds. This does not really work well with the concept since each hex is a 100km+ area. All the important distribution of supplies would go on INSIDE one or two of these Hexs at most. So drawing up a map of all the disribution routes would be usless because most of the areas on the planets are like sea or jungle (Snow, sand and so on) and would not need any sent to them because they are relitivly unihabited. However cities and areas around them, which are all inside the one or two more important hexs of the planet would have webs of these distribution lines. THE SOLUTIONS 1) We throw the idea out of the window and look for something else (perhaps the best idea now !) 2) Simplistic maps are made to show what is INSIDE the most important Hexs. These would be fought over in a campaign game, so that for instance if you hit a point on the major supply route you could 'starve' your opponant. While it might be a good idea (?? ), and would be a good reference to both wargammers and RPGers alike it means alot more work to be done to finish a planet. While it might be possible to limit it so it don't end up with an Atlas or road map of each planet, it is perhaps an ambitous idea that might be taken up later in the project when everything else has been finished.
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Oct 30, 2004 22:47:35 GMT -5
I would disagree with the assertation that most supply lines are in cities and the surronding area. I disagree on two grounds. One, historical. During WW2, there was a seige that affected the outcome, Britain 1940-4. In this instance, the supply line was across the Atlantic to the Americas, and was most definitely more than hex sized. The other is based on the fact that in the early stages of an invasion all supplies would have to land at one or two sites. Therfore, any supplies would have to cross the jungles etc to reach troops. The other is the fact that all weapons would arrive at one or two landing points, and this would mean that for any thing to reach troops on the other side of the globe it would have to travel through jungle etc.
|
|
|
Post by RascalLeader on Oct 31, 2004 21:23:14 GMT -5
I read these reason and then realised I had messed up sligtly. I was talking more about "established" supply lines for the owners of the planet rather then the ones created by ether side during war.
Food from the farms on the planet would be transfer to towns it cities. When a war was on these would be futher directed from the cities to where ever the troops were staged.
In this your right; those supply lines would cross dozens of hex; jungles and deserts alike to get to the troops that needed them.
However these supplies have to come from somewhere. As in my first example from the farms to the cites, these would be situated within an single hex. If we attempted to draw the supply lines on any of the maps we have at the moment we would give up because even if we decided where the 'farm', 'factories' or fuel depots where, its unlikly they would move any real distances.
|
|
|
Post by KeirLeslie on Nov 21, 2004 21:45:23 GMT -5
I agree. The question is, how best to represent this. Any ideas? If the campaign only involves 2-3 planets, it shouldn't be that hard to worrk out a way. Any more planets and it'll get difficult.
|
|