Greetings,
We are considering a Napoleonic Era map-based campaign in our local gaming club. We searched for internet and find many alternatives with lots of details. I am sure there are many players in forum whom had chance to try a few of those campaign rule sets. Any suggestions?
Thank you.. :)
Blucher ;)
Not Blucher :(
One man's meat etc.
The answer will depend a bit on what you're trying to achieve. How many players will be involved? Will it be a simple two-sided affair, or a multipolar campaign with alliances forming and dissolving in the course of it? Is the main purpose simply to get reasonably evenly matched battles on the tabletop but with some campaign context? Or is the campaign at least as important as the battles, hence embracing all the vagaries of weather, logistics, random events?
The risk with a free campaign is that one side or the other will achieve what everyone should be trying to achieve, i.e., concentrate overwhelming force against some fraction of the enemy army. Thus skilful campaign generalship can produce unsatisfactory one-sided tabletop games. Whatever system you choose, I'd warn you to be wary of that, and perhaps just resolve the really one-sided encounters with a swift and painless die roll or two.
I think Steve J's narrative-driven campaign that uses "Scenarios for All Ages" to set up the battles is a great way to do it:
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.fr/2016/09/roamin-in-gloamin-how-45-aar.html
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
Thanks for the recommendation Chris :). We've found that a series of linked/narrative driven scenarios provides enough of a 'campaign' for us. So basically you start out with one scenario that you think kicks things off nicely, then depending upon the result of that, the next scenario tends to suggest itself/logically follow on. Then you simply carry on in this vein until a natural end point is reached. Hope this helps?
Possibly a boardgame to run the campaign and generate tabletop battles.
Quote from: Chris Pringle on 20 October 2016, 08:45:08 AM
The answer will depend a bit on what you're trying to achieve. How many players will be involved? Will it be a simple two-sided affair, or a multipolar campaign with alliances forming and dissolving in the course of it? Is the main purpose simply to get reasonably evenly matched battles on the tabletop but with some campaign context? Or is the campaign at least as important as the battles, hence embracing all the vagaries of weather, logistics, random events?
The risk with a free campaign is that one side or the other will achieve what everyone should be trying to achieve, i.e., concentrate overwhelming force against some fraction of the enemy army. Thus skilful campaign generalship can produce unsatisfactory one-sided tabletop games. Whatever system you choose, I'd warn you to be wary of that, and perhaps just resolve the really one-sided encounters with a swift and painless die roll or two.
I think Steve J's narrative-driven campaign that uses "Scenarios for All Ages" to set up the battles is a great way to do it:
http://wwiiwargaming.blogspot.fr/2016/09/roamin-in-gloamin-how-45-aar.html
Chris
Bloody Big BATTLES!
https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/BBB_wargames/info
Have to agree with this. I am using the above book to set up a narrative campaign for the invasion of Belgium 1914.
I ran a few Warmaster campaigns using a mapless system.
Players were generals not monarchs so the game system determined match-ups - basically random pairings with rules to cope with an odd number.
Each player started with 5 random "Territory" cards. These determined the terrain on the two halves of the table and gave a bonus to the players army. Each terrain type gave a different bonus.
The winner of the battle took both cards.
A player with no cards was dismissed from his monarch's service but was instantly employed elsewhere - i.e. they drew five new cards.
More successful players had more options but could still only had play one card. It kept the playing field reasonably level and kept all players in the game.
Campaign winner was the player with the most territories when agreed number of battles had taken place/ agreed time had elapsed/ everyone took up a new period :)
Hi
Blucher! :)
Try this link to a club (I think in the USA) that used Blucher and the Scharnhorst campaign system to run a 1809 French/Austrian campaign:
http://www.armygroupyork.com/after-action-reports/danube-campaign-turn-6
Cheers Paul
Not rules, but somewhere out there is a set of maps covering all of Europe on a point to point style - roads connecting towns. I have them downloaded but can't remember where from. The style is that of the 17-19 centuries. They also mark up sea ports and sea areas.