Rohan Wilmott wrote:
I am really enjoying your recent posts, as I intend (hopefully in the not too distant future) to indulge in a similar imagi-nation campaign. (My last such escapade was a decade ago with 15mm Napoleonics!) Your battle report on Ottomans vs Swedes on your blog (I don't do Google ID, Facebook, etc for professional reasons so will respond here
) was great. I will follow your blog especially as the Ottomans sound intriguing, and your "after action" ideas are good food for thought. My apologies in advance if I am giving advice about things that you have already done.
No sweat and I appreciate any and all feedback and suggestions. You will notice, on my blog, that there is a link to my 1708 Imagi-nation campaign blog and you can find the current draft of the campaign rules there. I have not edited those and I really need do reorganize the content layout, but you will see, in more detail, what I am working on.
Rohan Wilmott wrote:As a starter, I would refer you to Henry Hyde's excellent "The Wargaming Compendium" in which he has chapters on setting up campaigns. The wars of the Faltenian Succession appear in the first 12 issues of his Battlegames magazine and are well worth a read, though most of it is in the compendium. You may already be aware of this as his ideas on characterising leaders and significant campaign personalities are very similar to the ones you mention.
Yes, I do have most of the Battlegames issues which contained articles on the Faltenian Succession campaign; I highly recommend those as well. I admit I was quite inspired by his articles and they have heavily influenced parts of my campaign rules. In fact, I have asked him to consider publishing his artwork and maps for that campaign, which, in reply, he said he would think on.
At this time, and for the past while, I have been unable to purchase his book, but intend to do so when my job situation improves.
Rohan Wilmott wrote: I would also refer you to the excellent works of Charles Grant & Charles S Grant on this subject - with some tinkering, their ideas (as well as Henry Hyde's) on campaigns in the mid 18th century can be adapted to Barry's rules and the BLB era. "The War Game" & "The War Game Companion" are their basic rules with some campaign advice; CSG's imagi-nation campaign books "The Raid on St Michel", "The Annexation of Chiraz", "The Wolfenbuttel War" and others in same series are truly inspiring and then there is the Wargaming in History series, "Scenarios for Wargamers", etc
I have often envied gentlemen gamers who have quoted from these books and I hope to eventually add them to my own library. Unfortunately, I am forced to be looking forward to do this for a while longer as yet.
Rohan Wilmott wrote:Your idea of specific battle objectives has merit. These could be capturing a vital crossroad, the enemy pay chest, the artillery or supply train, the enemy leader's mistress, etc, etc. A game end point will largely be dictated by the background narrative for the campaign, not the artificial endpoints set in the rules that are necessary for one-off games.
One of the things that often irritates me with one-off games is that players tend to make tactical decisions the merits of which rely on manipulating game mechanics instead of being based on sound military tactics.
Since BLB requires army commanders to write out short battle plans anyways, the idea of battlefield objectives made sense to me. I do intend to flesh this idea out in much greater detail, tying it in with my campaign rules. If you, or anyone else reading this, has suggestions, then I am more than ready to accept them.
Rohan Wilmott wrote:However, consideration must be given to what "flesh & blood will endure". So basic morale rules that necessitate withdrawal after so many casualties in a unit and an army, fatigue, disorganisation, loss of leaders, etc should also apply.
I agree, but I also think BLB does abstractly model some of this with the optional army morale rule. Still, I do wish to tinker with the "army break point" as 50% is just too high, in my view, for a campaign game. Which is partly why I am looking at the capture/defense of objectives as affecting that particular test.
Rohan Wilmott wrote:In the end, friendly discussion between players, and an umpire if available, to determine a relistic endpoint is also a "good thing".
I meet with about half of the slate of campaign participants every week, for our game nights, and I do talk to them about campaign and tactical rules that I am considering or am finalizing. They were a great deal of help with determining pros and cons of the governmental organizations, which are not yet in the current official draft, but will be soon.
I do appreciate you lengthy reply and hope you may share additional thoughts as they strike you.