The ASP Campaign System v1 (CELS)

This is why I think that a system based around 'needs no maintenance unless it's broken' works best - that is, the bookkeeping comes only when your forces start to crack. If you don't want bookkeeping, keep things running smoothly and you won't have any.

Combat[/u]
When a detachment moves into contact with an enemy detachment, this obviously leads to combat.Combat can normally be resolved in a rather simplistic manner. Each player rolls a number of dice (D6) identical to the number of detachments involved. For example, if the attacker has four detachments and the defender has two detachments, the attacker rolls 4 dice and the defender rolls 2 dice. On a roll of 4+, an enemy detachment is destroyed. In some scenarios, certain territories might have bonuses which modify this. For example, a fortified city might allow the defender to destroy an attacking detachment on 3+ instead of the usual 4+. Similarly, an especially dangerous location might let both sides destroy the enemy on a 3+, to represent lack of cover or whatever.

In each campaign turn, the player can choose to resolve one conflict with a wargame system instead of the simple method explained above. The reason that this only one conflict may be resolved in this manner is 1) To let the campaign progress faster and 2) To simulate that even the greatest commanders can only be one place at a time. Of course, players can agree to resolve more conflicts with wargames if they so desire.

To resolve a conflict with a wargame, the players can use any system with any number of points on each side, as long as it is identical. It doesn't matter if you play a small Warhammer 40,000 game of 1,000 points to represent an assault with a thousand soldiers, because the game is supposed to represent the most critical event in the battle. If the players have a different number of detachments involved, then they agree on how many detachments will be used in the representative game. The success of the remaining detachments are resolved as normal.

Example: Player A attacks Player B's territory. Player A has three detachments whilst Player B has two detachments. The players agree to play a game of Warhammer 40,000 to resolve the combat for two detachments on both sides, and to resolve combat for Player A's third detachment as normal. In the game of Warhammer 40,000, Player A suffers a major defeat, causing him to lose both his detachments, but when resolving combat for his third detachment, he rolls a 5 and manages to destroy of Player B's detachments.

If the wargame allows the result of a battle to be categorised as either Major Defeat, Minor Defeat, Draw, Minor Victory or Major Victory (as most scenarios in Warhammer 40,000 and Epic 40,000 do) it is possible to transfer this to the combat result for detachments. A Major Defeat would cause the attacker to lose 100% of the detachments involved. A Minor Defeat would cause the attacker to lose 50% of the forces involved. A Draw would not cause any detachments to be lost. A Minor Victory would cause the defender to lose 50% of the forces involved. A Major Victory would cause the defender to lose 100% of his involved detachments. In the case of uneven numbers, round up.

Example: If Player A suffers a minor victory, the two detachments used in the Warhammer 40,000 battle would destroy one detachment (50%) of Player B's two detachments, while losing none himself.

Example 2: If Player A and Player B engage in a game of Epic 40,000 to resolve a battle with nine detachments on either side, and Player A wins a minor victory, Player B would lose five (50% and rounding up) of his nine detachments.

Campaign size and setting[/u]
Campaigns will have maps of different sizes, with different numbers of detachments and different objectives, depending on the scenario. Each campaign scenario will include a map, an ideal number of detachments, victory conditions, and possibly special rules for special territories, special events, etc. Because of this, the same system can be used for a very simple campaign or a very complex campaign, depending on the scenario and the special rule modules introduced.

Thanks, Glyphstone! I've always liked Risk too, but I didn't want it to be too similar, for various reasons.

---

Veterans
There are two ways to represent veterans in this campaign system. The first way, for those who can't or won't play wargames, is to re-roll one dice under automatic combat between detachments per turn (in a campaign with Player A and Player B, Player A can re-roll a single dice both in his own turn and in Player B's turn). The second way, for those who play a wargame with rules for campaign experience (such as Warhammer 40,000) is to keep track of each unit used in a wargame battle and keep track of its experience as explained in the respective rules.

---

Example: Player A owns 5 Space Marine Tactical Squads, 1 Dreadnought, 1 Space Marine Commander with Command Squad, 2 Predators and 1 Land Raider, in real life. When resolving combat with a game of Warhammer 40,000, he can use whatever units he wants to produce an armylist. For example, he can use 3 Tactical Squads, a Commander and a Command Squad, and a Land Raider in a game of 1000 points. In his next battle, he can choose to use the experienced units he used in his last battle, or to use inexperienced units that he didn't use (such as the Dreadnought and Predators). In time, Player A will have a pool of veteran units he can use in his games. Of course, some units will lose their experience and veteran skills as they are killed in combat, according to the rules.

---

Obviously, this means that each player can use his veterans anywhere he wants on the campaign map each turn. This represents the fact that veterans are likely to appear in many different attachments, and not just the 'personal fighting force' of the player.


[Note: The only problem with this, I think, is that it takes some time for units to get enough experience to 'buy' veteran skills in Warhammer 40,000. Letting players use the veteran re-roll special rule for automatic combat indicates that there has been some fighting before the campaign, so that veterans have already formed. One possible solution to this problem could be to figure out an estimate of many battles a Warhammer 40,000 unit has to participate in, at average, to get veteran skills. If your average unit in 40k gets a veteran skill after four battles, on average, then you would allow players to use the veteran re-roll ability after two campaign turns, for example]

I agree, and I thought I explained this part above. I guess I forgot. Anyway, the idea is that on a 4+ the detachment is 'disabled'. Same as in a game of 40k, when a model is reduced to 0 wounds, that can represent either death or just falling unconscious.

If a detachment is 'disabled' and removed from play, then that can represent total annihilation, or the fact that the detachment has suffered great casualties and is disbanded in order to reinforce other detachments.

Simplicity is the word of the day here. I will be writing a more complicated alternative later.


I'll consider changing it to a 5+.


A fine idea. In my mind, however, the complexity of the campaign depends a lot on the scenario and the scenario map. Some scenarios will allow for great detail and complexity, with drawn supply routes, food sources, etc, whilst other scenarios are just created for an all out clash.


That might be useful, sure.


My point is that if you play 40k in a campaign, it takes a random number of campaign turns before they become veterans. Maybe two battles, maybe five.

For people who don't play 40k or Epic in campaigns, but use the 'Auto-battle' option- how do you figure out when they get veterans, and what kind of bonus would they have for having veterans? Since they don't actually play with individual squads and tanks, but just the detachments themselves.

It does make sense to penalise players who don't actually play games and get veteran units. Not necessarily because this is a 'wargame system', but because this represents a commander who has not led his forces from the front, and does not know their strengths and weaknesses. I'll leave it as it is, for now.

BFG campaigns[/u]

Since BFG has a pretty good campaign system already, but the problem for non-wargamers is that it revolves around wargaming. In order to win a BFG campaign, you must win the games. It is very much about tactics, and not so much about strategy.

Umph... after much brain-storming, I'm unable to come up with any good suggestions for how to use auto-battles in the existing BFG campaign system. The requirements for such a suggestion would be
1) The system should allow auto-battles to be played without having to use the rules and the fleetlists to compose battlefleets. (I.e. buying a Dominator class cruiser for 190 points, etc)
2) The system should accomodate advantages and disadvantages such as damaged ships, leadership, crew skills, ship upgrades, different sized battlefleets, etc.

I'll have to think more about this later.

---

Integrating BFG campaigns and the campaign system above

Obviously, a campaign can easily get extremely complex. BFG campaigns always take place in a group of star systems, such as subsectors, which means you could end up with global surface battles on a dozen or more worlds. Add to that the calculation of supplies to individual regiments, calculating food and water reserves, etc, and you may actually have to quit your dayjob.

For a campaign with 2-4 players that actually don't want to spend thousands of hours on a single campaign, a more realistic integrated campaign would take place in a single star system, usually with only a single inhabited world. The setting of the campaign would then be a contested world, with both/all sides constantly sending reinforcements from other star systems. To win this type of campaign, you would need to establish such a strong presence that you're winning the surface battles whilst your battlefleet is holding a blockade that is preventing enemy reinforcements. Of course, you could also add special missions that trigger a victory, such as capturing a specific artefact, capturing a specific location, etc.

I'll divide the types of 'meta-campaigns' (campaigns that take place both on the ground and in space, using any of the three wargaming systems by GW) into a few categories depending on size and complexity.

Global - Revolving around a single planetary war, this campaign uses a global surface map for the ground forces, and no map for the space fleets. The space fleets in the campaign are by definition considered to be in close proximity to the world. Note that two rival fleets can be in close proximity to the world without engaging in battle. It is perfectly possible to hide on the far side of the planet, behind a moon, or behind a nearby asteroid field. Whilst the obvious thing to do with your fleet is to engage the enemy fleet, there might be times where it is better to form a blockade, attacking any ships trying to get in or out, and there might be times when it might be best to focus on orbital bombardement, rather than trying to vanquish the enemy fleet. The most likely outcome, however, is that the two initial fleets clash at the start of the campaign, and then the loser must constantly try to overcome the superiority of his rival by using his reinforcements to make surprise attacks on enemy ships in orbit. The weaker player might even choose to keep his reinforcements out of range, waiting for the orbital defences to weaken the enemy fleet.

In a campaign of this scale, the space fleets only have a small set of options. A) Orbital bombardement. Staying in close orbit to support ground forces with orbital bombardement, at the risk of taking damage from planetary defences. B) Deploying reinforcements. Inserting ground forces sent from distant star systems via drop ships, drop pods, etc. Again, at the risk of taking damage from planetary defences. C) Blockade. Stopping enemy ships from getting in or out of orbit. The good news is that you are out of range from planetary defences and that the enemy is unable to reinforce his ground forces without attacking your fleet. The bad news is that you are unable to do any orbital bombardement or deploy reinforcements yourself.

Stellar - Same as above, except that you use a map of the star system for the space fleets. The space fleets may now move between planets and moons, and may also move to the outer rim of the star system to intercept enemy reinforcements.

Interstellar - Same as above, except that you now have several star systems. Super-hyper complicated stuff, that I won't even get into right now. It may actually never be needed, since such a campaign system would either be extremely complex or too simplistic, IMO.

---

To be continued...