Map Style Campaign Questions

[Tawnis]

So, I love big campaigns, however every one I've been a part of has been a kind of RISK / Dark Crusade points on a map kind of thing, and while that's fine and all, I'd love to run something with a little more tactical depth to it. 

 

Something where the movement of large forces and where you engage your enemy shapes the battles you play one the tabletop. Where supply lines matter and forces can be cut off and surrounded, that kind of thing. 

 

I've played around with a few ideas I've come up with, but none have worked quite the way I'd like. Particularly in that anything large scale would require so many games to play, but I also can't think of a way to reasonably approximate auto resolutions of battles that we don't want to actually put on the table so that we can move along the overall campaign. 

 

In that regard, I wanted to know if anyone has ever played a campaign like this. Did you enjoy it and how was it run? 

[dalmer]

(Please note that my last gaming was THIRD edition, so I acknowledge that the landscape may now be way different)

 

Our local gaming group did a sector campaign, wherein we drew up a sector map that had all the worlds/routes/resources/why it's important/etc. on it.  Due to the composition of players' factions, we as a group came up with some backstory for the sector and pre-populated some worlds.  Think a large scale - attacker, defender, wild card situation.  For this particular campaign, the Imperial forces were coming to bring the Emperor's light to a sector that had seemingly fallen to the Dark Gods.  A couple of players had xenos armies, so they came up with great stories as to why they were there.  With the multitudes of armies available now, I bet this would be easier.

 

Worlds that were going to be obvious conflict sites were fleshed out further, with world maps and key locations/etc.  The sector map was tacked on a wall, and players got small cards to spread their forces out in the sector if they wanted (some folks had large armies to draw from, some didn't).  We hung a grid up and listings for each player and army.  Folks tossed out challenges/"here's why we're battling" etc. and moved their cards on the sector map, and games were played.

 

Some folks could play often, some couldn't.  As folks played, the group narrative continued on and more avenues to game presented themselves.

 

On a side note, it was cool in many ways because way back then we had a group that loved Battlefleet Gothic.  That group played with our backdrop and we started to "reward" their games by changing what could happen in that portion of the sector, etc.  And whenever six folks were on the same world and decided to have an Apocalypse game, we did it.

 

We liked it because some worlds became battlegrounds, some worlds didn't.  And if it didn't, we just focused on what did.  And there never seemed to be any player that got left alone... one fella tried to just camp a lonely portion of the sector and the two xenos players decided to go after him, it was cool.

[Brother Tyler]

One of my perpetual projects (20+ years) has been something very similar to what you describe.

 

You mentioned Risk/Dark Crusade, and I have to admit that my work leaned heavily into similar games. In fact, the folder in which I still have my work was titled "Risk WH40K" back in 2000. I decided that medium strategy wargames represented a level of complexity that incorporated many of the things that I wanted, many of which it appears that you're trying to incorporate, too. In this, I recommend looking at games like Fortress America (that's the version I have, though FFG released a newer version in 2012) and several of the games in the Axis & Allies series, especially Guadalcanal and Battle of the Bulge (both include supply concerns). There are many other medium strategy wargames that also involve these concepts, but I'm not personally familiar with them.

 

Another style of wargame that I explored was block wargames. In that style of game, forces on the table are represented by colored blocks, with only the controlling players being able to see what each block actually represents (usually via a sticker that appears on their side of the block). Two such games that I have are Crusader Rex and Hammer of the Scots. The two main concepts I was trying to incorporate from these types of games was uncertainty (i.e., while you might have an idea that enemy forces are in certain areas, you don't know exactly what those forces are until you make contact) and degradation of combat power. In such games, blocks are typically turned as they suffer damage, so they might start at full power, but as they take damage, you turn them. So a unit at full strength might start with 4 pips, then degrade down to 3 pips, then 2 pips, then 1 pip until it is finally destroyed. As the number of pips are reduced, the unit's effectiveness is reduced. I think the term used is "posture" in some of these games. I didn't intend to actually use blocks in my WH40K campaign, but I was trying to build the concepts in.

 

While I wouldn't consider it a "medium strategy wargame," I was also trying to build in some of the concepts found in the original Kriegsspiel from von Reisswitz.

 

Something I was concerned about was unmatched forces engaging in combat. A 2,000-point WH40K army engaging with a 1,000-point WH40K army would be a very one-sided affair. I decided that the inferior force would either have to be able to withdraw at some trigger point (possibly determined by the scenario) or avoid the engagement altogether (i.e., they withdraw when they realize they are outgunned and outmanned). An alternative would be to require more structure for forces, perhaps requiring each force to be (or start) at a pre-determined value). They might suffer attrition as the campaign progresses, but there would be mechanisms for reinforcements and restoration/consolidation of forces. Some of this might be baked into the overall campaign rules. I was focused on a small action with a single Space Marine company operating aboard a space hulk, so my basic operating unit was a squad (this was before Kill Team was a thing, but that is how I would do this now). Overall, I was trying to streamline force size so that (a) neither side could amass too much combat power in one location, keeping battles relatively close in terms of the comparative power of the antagonists, and (b) keep the number of games/battles down to something manageable. Something similar might be implemented via campaign rules, especially in cases where you want more than two players and/or each player is taking a larger force.

 

My concept involved asymmetrical forces. The Space Marines were boarding a space hulk, especially targeting a specific component ship of the hulk. They had the plans of that class of ship, but they didn't know how it might have been changed in the intervening millennia. Meanwhile, the antagonists (I was going with Chaos Cultists, including some Chaos Space Marines) would know exactly how the space hulk was laid out, including where the floorplan of the original ship had been modified (some of those changes being artificial and some being destruction of areas over the years). The Chaos Cultists would be slightly inferior in terms of overall combat power, but their advantage in intelligence would even things out (I never got around to actually working out how that would happen - it was just a concept at the time). Each side would have their own objectives and trying to work out exactly what the other side's current objectives were was intended to be part of the challenge. The intent was to incorporate lines of communication (what you called "supply lines"), high value target areas (environmental), force isolation, infiltration, etc.

 

I was also going to allow for reinforcements. The Space Marines were initially going to be a boarding party whose goal was to establish a lodgment on the space hulk. Once they succeeded, they would slowly be reinforced, limited by the transport capacity of their fleet (it was going to be a strike cruiser and a few attendant vessels). Meanwhile, the Chaos Cultists would have vast numbers, but they would be spread across the space hulk and only those the immediate vicinity of the lodgment would be available at first. Slowly, however, other denizens of the space hulk would make their way to the area in which the Space Marines had boarded. You might have an entirely different idea about how you want to tackle things.

 

Like you, I considered random determination of some battles to streamline things. I was going to focus on either the symmetrical matchups or the most strategic matchups (or both) for the actual games, with the others using something along the lines of a random combat resolution system (complete with attrition results).

 

It might be easier to start small and test the concepts out, then slowly expand the size of the forces involved as you refine things, especially fixing those things that don't work and leveraging those that do.

 

Note that all of the links take you to the Board Game Geek website. Most of the games have digital versions of their rulebooks available either at that site or at their official sites (which are linked at their BGG pages). And many of those games have a variety of videos/topics so that you can get a feel for the games without ever having to spend money on them.

 

I'm definitely interested in seeing how your efforts progress; and if you ever run this as a campaign, I would love to see battle reports.

[Tawnis]

27 minutes ago, Brother Tyler said:

My concept involved asymmetrical forces. The Space Marines were boarding a space hulk, especially targeting a specific component ship of the hulk. They had the plans of that class of ship, but they didn't know how it might have been changed in the intervening millennia. Meanwhile, the antagonists (I was going with Chaos Cultists, including some Chaos Space Marines) would know exactly how the space hulk was laid out, including where the floorplan of the original ship had been modified (some of those changes being artificial and some being destruction of areas over the years). The Chaos Cultists would be slightly inferior in terms of overall combat power, but their advantage in intelligence would even things out (I never got around to actually working out how that would happen - it was just a concept at the time). Each side would have their own objectives and trying to work out exactly what the other side's current objectives were was intended to be part of the challenge. The intent was to incorporate lines of communication (what you called "supply lines"), high value target areas (environmental), force isolation, infiltration, etc.

This is actually pretty similar to a "proof of concept" campaign I was looking to run with a friend of mine primarily using Kill Team rules where a Tau Manta crashes behind enemy lines and they have to guerilla style fight their way back to their own forces, scavenging weapons and supplies along the way as theirs run out. 

[Cpt_Reaper]

The old Planetary Empires has a few mechanics that could be used with a few updates seeing as it was written for 4th or 5th edition. For anyone unfamiliar, it was a box set of plastic hex tiles and included tokens for features such as forts, power generators, star pots and hive cities if you mail ordered one. Games played in a Planetary Empires campaign are played at either 1000 or 2000 points, but you 

• The player who controls less territory gets a bonus 50 points for their army per 1 additional tile the enemy controls. So if you had 7 and your opponent had 9, you'd get an extra 100 points in the game to represent better logistics due to a smaller territory
• The map contains a number of Manufactorum locations. The value of which is dependant on your chosen faction. Before playing a game you compare how many points your total controlled manufactorums are worth compared to your opponent. The player with higher points gets a bonus 50 points to spend on their army, 100 if they double and 150 if they triple.
• Winning a battle doesn't guarantee you take an enemy tile. You roll 2d6 if you win a battle. It's only a 3+ to take a tile adjacent to one you control, but a 7+ if it isn't. You then add modifiers depending on if you had a pyric victory, the tile is has fortifications or contains certain terrain like ruins.

[Grotsmasha]

Way back in 2020, I ran a map based campaign alongside the 12 Months of Hobby Challenge, the map itself had several special locations, each with associated buffs for controlling them, with better buffs for controlling all 3 of each location.

 

In the context of the 12MoH Challenge, the more models participants painted, the more "Command Points" they earned which could be used for a variety of actions, including moving, surveying, attacking, building defenses. At the start of the campaign, the  factions were shown only their covered version of the map, which was revised each month accounting for their movements, attacks etc. Ultimate end-goal was control of a crashed space ship in the centre of the board.

 

[ChapterMasterGodfrey]

12 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

The old Planetary Empires has a few mechanics that could be used with a few updates seeing as it was written for 4th or 5th edition. For anyone unfamiliar, it was a box set of plastic hex tiles and included tokens for features such as forts, power generators, star pots and hive cities if you mail ordered one. Games played in a Planetary Empires campaign are played at either 1000 or 2000 points, but you 

• The player who controls less territory gets a bonus 50 points for their army per 1 additional tile the enemy controls. So if you had 7 and your opponent had 9, you'd get an extra 100 points in the game to represent better logistics due to a smaller territory
• The map contains a number of Manufactorum locations. The value of which is dependant on your chosen faction. Before playing a game you compare how many points your total controlled manufactorums are worth compared to your opponent. The player with higher points gets a bonus 50 points to spend on their army, 100 if they double and 150 if they triple.
• Winning a battle doesn't guarantee you take an enemy tile. You roll 2d6 if you win a battle. It's only a 3+ to take a tile adjacent to one you control, but a 7+ if it isn't. You then add modifiers depending on if you had a pyric victory, the tile is has fortifications or contains certain terrain like ruins.

I always wanted to play Planetary Empires, they should really bring it back.

[apologist]

16 hours ago, Tawnis said:

So, I love big campaigns, however every one I've been a part of has been a kind of RISK / Dark Crusade points on a map kind of thing, and while that's fine and all, I'd love to run something with a little more tactical depth to it. 

 

Something where the movement of large forces and where you engage your enemy shapes the battles you play one the tabletop. Where supply lines matter and forces can be cut off and surrounded, that kind of thing. 

 

I've played around with a few ideas I've come up with, but none have worked quite the way I'd like. Particularly in that anything large scale would require so many games to play, but I also can't think of a way to reasonably approximate auto resolutions of battles that we don't want to actually put on the table so that we can move along the overall campaign. 

 

In that regard, I wanted to know if anyone has ever played a campaign like this. Did you enjoy it and how was it run? 

 

You might look to the old Wargames series that GW used to publish – Battle for Armageddon, Doom of the Eldar and Horus Heresy. These are a sweet spot for complexity and visuals.

 

The games themselves are quick and fun, and they could be easily adapted. The mechanics of Armageddon in particular include rules that you could apply to any map and any forces, with simple but effective rules for terrain, supply lines and constructing new units based on territory you claim. It's also quite scale-agnostic. The tokens in the original represented entire armies, but you could easily have them representing platoon- or company-sized forces, making them more directly comparable to your group's miniature collections.

 

The games also have simple 'auto-resolve' mechanics for battles that you don't want to/can't play (perhaps simply for the sake of time, or there's a complete mismatch of strength), so you don't have to commit to playing every single conflict – very useful, as I've always found that to be the death of any map-based campaign. It also means that if a player drops out, their forces can remain on the table and be auto-resolved, rather than disappearing and creating a problem for the remaining players.

 

Being card-token based, it'd be pretty easy to make something that fit on a notice board, and could thus be quickly and easily put away at the end of a gaming session.

[Brother Tyler]

Planetary Empires brings back some great memories. I'd love to see GW resurrect that little gem, too, though it seems unlikely (fingers crossed). In the meantime, while you're not likely to find a legal copy of the rules anywhere, alternatives to the physical components are easy to come by/emulate:

• 3D printing (I would not be surprised to find .stls of the Planetary Empires components, or files that are remarkably similar, currently available. If not, it would be easy for skilled 3D modelers to create their own.)
• Crafts (You can find various types of hexes at different brick and mortar/online retailers, and lots of things can be used/created to represent the map pieces, such as cardboard tokens, game pieces, etc.)
• Digital (I used a program called Aide De Camp 2 in my initial efforts. Modern applications such as Tabletop Simulator and other mapping apps are also available.)

I second the recommendations to consult games like Battle for Armageddon, Doom of the Eldar, and Horus Heresy (better yet, check out the FFG version). In fact, chit 'n' hex style wargames such as those published by The Avalon Hill Game Company, Victory Games, and SPI (and there are probably a lot of modern publishers of such games, but I'm looking back at when I played these games ) probably have possible solutions for some of the issues @Tawnis described. I recommend operational level (vice tactical or strategic) wargames for the campaign portion. Games such as Fortress Europa, Frederick the Great: The Campaigns of the Soldier King 1756-1759, Lee vs. Grant: The Wilderness Campaign of 1864, and Winter War: The Russo-Finnish Conflict might provide what you're looking for (note that I'm not deeply familiar with most of these as I focused more on tactical level wargames at that time).

[Firedrake Cordova]

I don't know if it's of interest - Frontline Gaming has an article on their modified Planetary Empires campaign.

 

It's not quite what you're looking for, but Goonhammer has a general campaign advice article, as well as a series on narrative campaigns which includes map-based ones - I don't know if they help with ideas?

[LameBeard]

Ever since the original Mighty Empires came out in about 1990 I’ve been thinking of a 40k adaptation - I was eventually overtaken by Planetary Empires although I never played it.

 

My learning from fantasy campaigns is that every battle should be close to 50:50 - that doesn’t mean it has to be equal forces, but equal chance of winning.  I had a system where the tiles you controlled created a kind of economy and this gave you an edge in choices in the force organisation chart rather than additional points. But I never played it enough to get it working.

 

My conclusion was you should actually run it as a role-playing game with a GM. This is how it would work:

 

session 0, players and GM collaboratively build the world (star systems whatever), and the map and the reason for fighting.  Then in 1:1s GM and players create a little private information about disposition of forces and resources.

 
play (say) 6 rounds where each round has a player play 1 - 3 games.

 

pre-round: players tell GM where they want to attack, where they prioritise defence, and any sneaky plans -eg how they hope to cut off communications, disrupt supply, win a propaganda victory etc.

 

GM tells them what scenario to play and any constraints.  Players report back results and any highlights (eg Fuegan kills a Carnifex, some lowly grunts turn out to be MVPs, cavalry charge wipes the artillery…). GM tells players the gains/losses but purely in story terms: the rewards are for a combination of winning games and inventiveness.

 

All games are assumed to be the critical turning points of a much wider confrontation, hence why they are always close to 50:50 games, even if the wider conflict isn’t. That also explains why special characters can turn up a fair bit.

 

It requires people to ‘be on the same page’ but I think could work. If anyone wants to try this I would be prepared to volunteer as GM.