Creating perfect campaign system

[Polythemus]

For a long time I’ve loved the idea of campaigns, but often they are difficult to do. I’ve done narrative map matrix and a combo of all three. The planetary empires style has only been semi successful. So I wanted to star a thread regarding a new idea, using the system from Forbidden Stars.

There are a couple concerns I’ve tried to address especially forces with unequal point /power level.

 

Example system

World areas with objective(bracket), and Material value(green), asset(Red), and unit capacityskulls

Void areas below where ships go

 

Uses forbidden star system with couple tweaks

 

1. Several of largest planets have multiple tiles on the planet, if only one faction on planet may dominate as normal, if contested no domination may occur but attack may occur without requiring an advance order in system, but at the time an advance order is performed by any controlling faction.

If a contested system has multiple resources, units placed on individual tiles may claim its asso. system resource

 

2. Each purchase of unit is associated with a detachment that has been predetermined from 500 point list, these are stacked on stackable army holders. The first two tiers must consist of patrol detachment. The 3rd tier outrider or flyer detachment. The fourth tier vandguard, lord of war, or spearhead detachment

 

3. Battle system the lists to be used consist of the detachments stacked in each force group. Incase of uneven points total the lesser force may add 2veng and 1bastion. Play out battle. Consider using planet strike or stronghold assault mission types in addition to other mission types. Consider victor and losses. If an entire detachment is @ 30% or less it is destroyed, not counting command units.

 

4. Reinforcement tokens may be played to move detachments from one location to another provided there is contiguous path.

 

5. Fuel for the armies:the total number of detachments in play on the planets controlled must not exceed the number of total skulls controlled. If in violation lose one tie 3-4 unit til compliant.

 

6. Material can also be used to purchase strategies. Everyone would start with the book strat plus three others.

 

Criticism welcome.

Edited March 2, 2021 by Polythemus

[Brother Tyler]

Forbidden Stars rulebook (for those that are interested)

 

I think you'll find that there is no "perfect" campaign system. Any system of rules is going to be driven by a number of factors, and what works with one set of factors won't necessarily work for another set of factors. For example, Forbidden Stars is set at what might be called the operational level in a campaign featuring multiple star systems. A set of rules for such a campaign needs to incorporate considerations for movement between stellar systems. A campaign set on a single world, meanwhile, might look very different; and depending upon the environmental and technological factors, rules for one world might look completely different from rules for another world. Another factor to consider is timespan. Progression in a campaign that is set over the space of a year [in game time, not real time] might look completely different from a campaign that takes place over a decade. Also, the interplay between different factions will be an issue. A campaign featuring the Imperium defending against Drukhari raids into realspace will look very different from one featuring the Imperium fighting against a rising Ork Waaaagh!!!

 

The consequences of being defeated/wiped out will really depend upon the faction. Necrons and Chaos Daemons might simply disappear, only to reappear elsewhere. Adeptus/Heretic Astartes might suffer casualties, but their transhuman physiology might allow them to heal. The Astr Militarum, meanwhile, might be wiped out and gone. To this end, the operational level rules for each faction might become a factor in rules. The more broad the campaign (i.e., the more factions involved), the more complex the rules might become.

 

A few years back (okay, over a decade ago), Brother Argos and I worked on some campaign rules. They looked very different from what you have, but they were based around being able to play a worldwide campaign out over the B&C.

 

Similarly, prior to that, in the mid-2000s, I proposed an idea for a campaign among the mod team, that project called "Risk 40K" because we were discussing incorporating some light wargame boardgame concepts into a campaign system. Risk is one of the more well known games of this genre, but we were looking at a broad range of games that included Shogun (later renamed Samurai Swords and now known as Ikusa), Fortress America (the original, which I have, not the remake), Risk 2210 A.D., and whatever variety of Axis & Allies games there were at the time. We were operating under a few limitations at that time, among which was our limitation of power armoured forces only (this was when we only covered loyalist and traitor Space Marines and the Adepta Sororitas). Here's the transcript of the first post in that discussion (I don't have any of the replies anymore):

 

Hidden Content

While I don’t plan on using a hex- or square-based map at present, two software packages that might facilitate such an idea are [link=http://www.hpssims.com/Pages/products/adc2/ADC2-Main.html]Aide de Camp 2[/link] by HPS Sims and [link=http://cyberboard.brainiac.com/]Cyberboard[/link]. For those of you who are interested in these programs (whether for this project or some other project/s), follow the links.

 

I’ve been doing some more development of the wargame concept. While my original concept was for the Crusade for Antioc, allowing each side to have significantly different forces, abilities, and goals, I’ve since had some revelations. The more distinct we make each side, the more playtesting will be involved. The time involved to perform this playtesting would prohibit quick implementation of the game. Now there’s no certainty that we’ll even be able to conduct the game in the near future, but I’d like to be able to run this relatively soon. Limiting the amount of required playtesting requires limiting the differences between sides. Also, the closer each side is to the other, the less whining we’ll get from the players. Finally, allowing for Imperial Guard and Adeptus Mechanicus forces, even for a wargame, just wouldn’t be consistent with the Bolter & Chainsword’s normal focus on power-armoured armies.

 

So I’m now leaning heavily towards a Space Marine versus Space Marine setting. We have two basic options – create a setting from scratch and imposing our game from an actual recorded event. Personally, I’m leaning towards the latter. I’d like to pull an event from history and try to represent it in a wargame. This limits our options and brings the complication of deciding how true to “history” we want to be. The more well-known the event that we choose to use is, the more important this becomes. For Space Marine versus Space Marine actions, we have only a few really well known events – the Horus Heresy, the Fourth Quadrant Rebellion, and the Badab War.

 

I’m leaning towards the Fourth Quadrant Rebellion is the least well-known of these incidents, happening in M41. The earliest fluff we have on this is a mention in the original Badab War Index Astartes article, with the only real information therein being that this rebellion was a large-scale Space Marine rebellion. If memory serves correctly, later fluff (2nd edition) later portrayed this event as being the same as the Badab War. I’ll have to do a little more research in order to be certain. Aside from the possibility of this being changed to a new name for the Badab War, there is no real information on the rebellion – no idea of who the participants were on either side, where it took place, how long it lasted, or what the results were. As long as the Fourth Quadrant Rebellion didn’t become the Badab War, we pretty much have free rein. If this event later became the Badab War, we can create some other event on a smaller scale. I’ll perform some research into possible participants in case we want to specify some of the “real” history.

 

As far as the game mechanics go, I’m combining elements of three “mainstream” simple/medium complexity wargames with some more traditional concepts. I’m also looking into trying to incorporate elements from Epic Armageddon and Battlefleet Gothic, although this game will not bear a resemblance to either game. It will, however, be clearly set in the Warhammer 40,000 universe. The three mainstream games I’m using are:

 

+ [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/221]Shogun[/link] (later re-published as "Samurai Swords") A good review of this game can be found at the BGG [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/91057]here[/link].

 

+ [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/99]Fortress America[/link] A good review of this game can be found at the BGG [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/78]here[/link].

 

+ [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/1829]Risk 2210 A.D.[/link] A pdf of the rules are available from Hasbro/Avalon Hill [link=http://www.wizards.com/avalonhill/rules/risk.pdf]here[/link] and a good review of this game can be found at the BGG [link=http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/22295]here[/link].

 

I’m going with an area-based map similar to the games above as opposed to a hex- or square-based map such as in some more traditional wargames (ahem…”conflict simulations”, as any good grognard would call them). This will, of course, require some work in developing and refining the map in order to match objectives and confer the proper advantages/disadvantages during play, as well as promoting strategy and tactics on the part of the players.

 

I’d like to promote two other concepts through game mechanics: Logistics and Fog of War.

 

“[Logistics] … the crux of generalship – superior – superior even to tactical skill.”

 

 

 

 

-Field Marshal Viscount Wavell of Cyrenaica (1883-1950)

I’m looking at logistics from two different standpoints. The first is in reinforcements. I want players to have limited reinforcements, unlike the method used in Risk (and its variants). Basically, aside from forces held in reserve, players will be limited in the number of reinforcements available to them. These will be controlled by the casualties they sustain in combat and the availability of Apothecaries – casualties may be evacuated, and may become available later once an Apothecary can tend to the wounded. Some casualties will be deaths, imposing a gradual permanent attrition rate. Forces that don’t have a lot of Apothecaries or that can’t get casualties treated by Apothecaries will have lower survivability. The defenders will have a larger advantage in this in that they will have a fortress monastery.

 

The second logistical side I’m looking at is how forces will be able to reconfigure. For example, an Assault Squad might be reconfigured as a Bike Squadron if it can get to the bikes (available by Thunderhawk delivery of the assets, transporting to a ship/fortress monastery, etc.).

 

Something Fortress America does which I don’t quite think I’ll implement is destroying forces of Invaders if they are cut off from their Invasion Zones. I like the concept of what being cut off does, but don’t think that this methodology should be used with Space Marines. If I use something like this, I’ll have to determine the value of it in/to the game and the mechanics it will use.

 

“ALL ACTIONS in war take place in an atmosphere of uncertainty – the fog of war. Uncertainty pervades battle in the form of unknowns about the enemy, about the environment, and even about the friendly situation. While we try to reduce these unknowns by gathering information, we must realize we cannot eliminate them. The very nature of war makes absolute certainty impossible; all actions in war will be based on incomplete, inaccurate, and even contradictory information.”

-General Alfred M. Gray and Major John Schmitt,

Warfighting, United States Marine Corps, 1989

In most wargames, players have a god’s eye view – being able to see the disposition of all forces upon the board. This isn’t how real war is conducted, however, and I’d like to try to implement a method in which we are able to represent this fog of war. As I said in the previous post, we’ll basically have four different maps. The first will be a master map showing the disposition of all forces. This map will be kept secret, seen only by the game referees (me and anyone else who volunteers to help). The second map will be the public map, displaying anything to both sides. This will be the map that is shown at the B&C for all to see. Any battles will be displayed on this map, as will key terrain, etc. The third and fourth maps will show the information known or suspected by each side. Basically, the location and movement of all friendly forces as well as intelligence on the enemy forces (gained from battles, reconnaissance, etc.). Note that enemy force information will not necessarily be absolutely correct – forces will only be aware of those forces that are detected. Some enemy forces might remain undetected. These maps will only be shown to the participants on the respective sides.

 

I’m looking at giving forces three or four ratings, making this more complex than standard Risk. Forces will have Shooting Attack, Assault Attack, and Defense/Survivability ratings. The possible fourth rating is Movement, although this might instead be represented by special rules (I haven’t quite worked this out yet). Shooting is straight up shooting, while Assault represents both close range shooting and melee. I’m debating different ways to possibly represent forces being more effective against armour or personnel. Basic combat resolution will be similar to Risk – roll dice and compare scores. Forces that “lose” roll against their Defense/Survivability rating. Something I’m strongly considering is force attrition – basically, a full-sized squad might be reduced to a Combat Squad as the first step in attrition, then will be “destroyed” (survivability and Apothecaries notwithstanding).

 

Essentially, each player will control a Company, reinforced. While all Attacker companies will be Codex Battle Companies, the Defender will control a Codex Chapter, and some Companies might be Veteran, Reserve, or Scout. More on that later.

 

Players will also have three “Leaders”, as well as a few characters. The “Leaders” will consist of 1 Captain, 1 Chaplain, and 1 Librarian. Each of these will be considered to have a Command Squad (included in the basic profile), and each will have a special ability representative of his role.

 

I’ve only tackled the Battle Companies so far, so here’s what they’ll look like as it stands right now:

 

1x Captain

1x Chaplain

1x Librarian

1x Apothecary

1x Standard Bearer (must be with one of the Leaders)

6x Tactical Squads (any Tactical Squad can be exchanged at any time for 2x Tactical Combat Squads)

2x Assault Squads (any Assault Squad can be exchanged for either 1 Land Speeder Squadron or 2x Bike Squadrons*)

2x Devastator Squads (any Devastator Squad can be exchanged at any time for 2x Devastator Combat Squads)

2x Dreadnoughts

10x Rhino (1 per Tactical Squad, 1 per Leader, 1 per Devastator Squad, 1 per Apothecary)

 

Any two of the following:

Predator

Vindicator

Whirlwind

Land Raider (counts as 2 choices)

 

Any two of the following:

Terminator Squad (counts as 2 choices)

Terminator Assault Squad (counts as 2 choices)

Veteran Squad

Scout Squad (any Scout Squad can be exchanged for 1 Scout Bike Squadron*)

Techmarine w/ Thralls and Rhino

 

* Tied into Logistics

 

In addition, each Codex Company will have a Strike Cruiser with a full complement of Thunderhawks, Thunderhawk Landing Craft, and Drop Pods. In several instances, Battle Barges will be available.

 

Now the defenders have some slight revisions to this. Each of the non-Battle Companies will have a different composition, and the additional forces allowed through the fortress monastery will be significant. However, the “reinforced” units available to the Battle Companies will come from the other Companies. So each Terminator Squad taken in a Battle Company will be one less in the Veteran Company; likewise for the other squads. This will mean that the defender team might consist of fewer than ten players, while the attacker team will (hopefully) consist of ten players.

 

For the sake of simplicity, each side will represent a Codex Chapter without traits or special rules. This might be modified somewhat for the Defenders, but will result in compensating disadvantages. This will all be dependent on the nature of the rebellion/heresy. The intent of the Codex versus Codex concept is to promote balance. For the most part, I hope to promote differences through mechanics other than special abilities and what-not.

 

The battle in space will also be important. The defenders will have both orbital- and ground-based defenses, as well as a small fleet of craft. The attackers will have a larger fleet, but losses of ships will result in lost forces. This could prove completely devastating to the attackers, so lost ships will probably be able to deploy all troops (not vehicles) via drop pods and teleportation. This will confer an advantage on the defender in that the attacking force will lose flexibility and some degree of reinforcements, while the attackers won’t completely lose forces (keeping players in the game). The attackers will have to work carefully in order to avoid/destroy defenses.

 

For the attackers, securing landing sites will be important to their overall strategy. These will allow them to land follow-on forces without fear of ground-based defenses. It will, of course, require that all ground-based defenses be destroyed first, but that’s part of the overall strategy.

 

One thing I’m considering is an Exterminatus option for the loyalist side. This would realistically result in a draw, although either side could view it as a victory. For the traitors, this would deprive the Imperium of resources and a truly tactical victory. For the Imperium, it would mean the total destruction of the traitors and their memory. If this is implemented, the game result would be hidden from either side. The Imperium players wouldn’t use the option if they realize that it would mean they don’t actually “win”. I’m considering different mechanics for the implementation of Exterminatus. All would require that the Imperium be unable to force a tactical victory on the ground, most likely suffering heavy losses to the traitors.

 

I’m debating implementing a mechanic to duplicate the use of cards. I’d like some random game effects, although I’d like to minimize their impact. I don’t want any cards to be completely unbalancing, although they should have some significance in the game. Ideally, they’ll maintain the intended “realism” I’m striving for.

 

Intelligence on enemy units will be gained through contact (i.e., opposing units moving into contact), reconnaissance (Scouts and Veterans infiltrating and observing enemy units), observation (enemy units in adjacent territories might be observed), aerial/space reconnaissance (Thunderhawk and space craft have a chance of detecting units in the areas they move over). This will increase the importance of the space battle for the attackers. The defenders might have other means of observation – they’ve had centuries (at least) to create defenses upon and above their planet. Also, players will constantly be guessing where their opponents might be moving or digging in. The strategic thought I hope to motivate should prove interesting.

 

Ground-based defenses can attack the spacecraft of the attackers, as well as the Thunderhawks. Orbital defenses can attack spacecraft as well as ground forces. The attackers can take orbital defenses over, though, and could then turn the defenses on the defending forces. The inspiration for the defenses comes from Fortress America.

 

All forces must be attached to one of the Leaders. This isn’t a game of territory control (like Risk). Each side has certain objectives, and the Space Marines aren’t about territory control. I’m promoting a game of maneuver. The ability of both sides to attack through drop pod, landing craft, and maneuver will preclude any force stacking such as is traditional in Risk. Each leader and his attached forces are considered “formations” (like in Epic Armageddon). Each formation may perform one action per turn. The actual sequence will vary each turn. I’m trying to figure out some way to invoke resources, and am considering the energy from Risk 2210 A.D. and the koku from Shogun/Samurai Swords. Whatever resource unit I come up with, players will use this resource for a variety of things, including the possibility of influencing when they act each turn. One option I’m considering is a territorial control system similar to Go/Wei Qui (even though this isn’t a game about territory control). I’m still stuck on this.

 

All dice rolling will be based on charts I come up with. For example, I’ll have a master list of D6 rolls, and each roll in sequence will be taken from that list. Likewise for any other dice that might be used. A similar methodology will be used if we decide to implement a “card” system. This will require some method of determining how rolls will be applied (e.g., each attacker D6 roll is taken from the list, then the defender D6 rolls).

 

As I said before, each side will have its own objectives. The attackers are trying to destroy the defenders, with possible lesser objectives being the destruction of the fortress monastery, the death of the Chapter Master (will be represented as the Captain of the First Company), etc. The defenders, meanwhile, are trying to destroy the attacker forces while keeping key personnel alive. I’m considering the possibility of the defenders being able to get some of their personnel away, like the Astral Claws escaped with 200 or so of their battle-brothers into the Maelstrom.

 

One thing I’d like to avoid is the use of any of the First Founding Chapters, and probably also Second Founding. I want this to focus on other Chapters. This isn’t final, and certainly not an absolute requirement. I just think it’s silly that every significant event involves one of the First/Second Founding Chapters.

 

While submitting images of painted minis will be a requirement, I’ll probably allow a variety of submissions to suffice. Also, I probably won’t require that minis be painted appropriately for the Chapters involved (although this will be a plus if competition for participation is stiff). Different options I’m considering are (all minis are standard WH40K unless otherwise specified):

 

+ one Captain, one Chaplain, and one Librarian

+ one strike cruiser (Battlefleet Gothic) and one Standard Bearer

+ one Inquisitor scale Captain

+ one Terminator/Terminator Assault squad

+ ten Marines from any Tactical, Assault, Devastator, Veteran, or Scout squad (may be five from each)

+ one battle barge

+ an appropriate size Epic Armageddon Space Marine force (not a full company – perhaps one Commander and at least three squads)

 

I haven’t finalized this list yet, but the intent is to give players a wide variety of choices to accommodate them.

 

This game will be run in a manner similar to a play by e-mail (PBEM) game. Two things that have to be considered are how long we’ll give players to submit information (so that the game doesn’t stagnate) and how long the game will last (although this might be less important, as long as the game progresses and keeps interest up). Private Message and the forums will be our primary means of communicating with participants. Teams will be able to communicate using any means at their disposal (hopefully they’re not dumb enough to use the forums as their real communication method – although they can use them for disinformation).

 

I know the above is pretty lengthy and disjointed, but I wanted to keep y’all informed. If you have any input, please feel free to reply. This looks to be a massive undertaking, although I’m hoping the effort will pay off.

(I'm not trying to hijack your idea - I'm just showing that there's a lot to consider and different factors will yield different results.)

 

All of the above is a really lengthy way of saying two things:

• First, I would love to see what you come up with. I think that campaigns are great.
• Second, I think you need to reverse your process. You should come up with your basic campaign setting and methodology first, then figure out what rules are needed to support it.

A big consideration is how you envision running this campaign. Will it be among a group that plays in person? Will it be among a small online community (perhaps a small group within a larger community)? Will it be among a large online community? Will fog of war be represented, or will players have omniscient views? Will you incorporate board game methods, perhaps using a board game as a sort of map-based campaign? Will you use a simple story tree? Will the factions be fixed or open? If fixed, what factions will be represented? How long will the campaign run (in terms of the number of games that will be played)? While an open-ended campaign sounds nice, there's a tendency for such things to start strong and then to taper off, so having a finite number of games over a finite period of time is much more achievable than an open-ended campaign.

 

If all of the above sounds like naysaying, it's not. I think that this is a great idea and I'd really like to see what comes out of it.

[Polythemus]

So first thanks for reading and commenting. I think from your post you are trying to say you also like campaign style 40k and there are lots of different ways to do it and the persuit of a perfect system is an asymptote that can never be achieved, and here are my examples.

 

To that I say: challenge accepted.

 

An ideal/perfect campaign system has several components, battles that affect each other, strategic play that can be employed on a map and within the game itself, opportunities for long term planning that rewards players, timely combat play.

 

The thing about the forbidden stars system is that it already has many great elements to it that permit a lot of these types of interactions, economic planning, unit movement, upgrade to strategic asset, and balance that assures equal opportunity to all factions. There is also a cool feel with territorial changes that can occur eg warp storms that can alter the playing field. There are also some cool synergies with combining fleet type actions in a simple way that is motherless very deep. However it is based on a couple of things that need to be tweaked slightly to make it work with tabletop 40k.

 

1. Unbalanced battles. In 40k the idea is that pretty much always the forces are always balanced so what does it mean when they aren’t. If you set up terrain and put out armies there needs to be something in it for both players if one has a 500pt advantage over the other.

In risk while not a perfect game by any stretch the defender wins ties and can sometimes bleed an attacking force such that a Pyrrhic victory becomes to costly to permit. So this will need to be play tested. Reinforce ment tokens may also be able to play a roll here, though I think that may need to have two functions movement of units /detachments, and possibly an in game effect.

 

2. The second is how to make it so the economy is balanced, there are basically two parts to the economy one is permissive the other reductive. The permissive part is what can u buy; units, static upgrades, combat cards. To make it work for 40k we can still have 4unit tiers, which in this case are 500 point detachments you can buy and 2space unit tiers, and static upgrades, cities/manufacture/bastion but we need to replace how cards work. The easiest swap would be for players to buy strategies. This would work well as it keeps equality of all factions and gives something thing use that materiel for, the easiest way to price the strategies would be to make their cost equal to their command point cost, perhaps adding a command restriction of having the 2 and 3Cp strats to need an equivalent number of cities. additionally you could cap the number of total strategies at 10 or only be able to bring a certain number to a battle. The reductive part of the economy in the original game is the unit capacity per planet which helps to eliminate large buildups of forces on worlds which really acts as a catch-up mechanism for the losing player. This could be employed in the same way or the total number of detachments that could be built might be equal to the total number of owned unit markers. The first is probably the better way to go.

 

The consideration then becomes do we add more tiles to conquer per world to create more of planetary conquest aspect to the game? I would argue this adds a bit more strategic sense to the intra system battles. It also provides the benefit of giving a more strategic contest when fighting for planetary resources. The space component of this is kinda perfect for me as is. The tweaks above use a really great system and try to make all the foward planning and strategic movement and marry them to table top that could be fused with crusade style 40k to make them work together.