Movement will need a neutral third party since it makes more sense to NOT know who is moving where. If we are more or less blind to what we are going to face, we might move more intelligently. It adds a great strategic factor. Here is how it would work:
When the game starts, we know only our starting location. Everything else is a mystery to us. We know where there are supply centers, etc....we have a basic map, in other words. But we do not know who starts where, nor would we know where they are moving or how much they are moving there.
When we make our moves, we e-mail the GM with War Banner contents and where it is moving to. He then records it on his private map and when we meet for a gaming session, reveals who has encountered who and will therefore be fighting them. Since when no "live" opponent is encountered, we have provisions for facing someone there will be no lack of games. (Perhaps he could even play all the random armies we had discussed?) This creates a "fog of war" that can add a fun factor.
If we wanted to take it deeper, we could have some sort of "give up x number of points in order to scout" which would give us x% chance of learning who/what is in any given territory.
But who would rather sit out and game-master than play? Hopefully nobody.
I then combined that with the knowledge that Liam has a very small force available currently, Pete will have but a small force available, and Space Monkey will have just a small force available that is painted. Additionally, Fixed Dice will have little of the Tomb Kings painted, Kev will have a small Skaven force, Fullur has a small Empire force, etc.
So...what if we ran TWO similar campaigns concurrently? On one map supply centers could be worth 500 and non-supply centers worth 250. On the other we could go with th 2500/1000 point centers. Then we could have one person play ONLY in the small campaign, and one person play ONLY in the Big point campaign. They could GM the game they are NOT playing in which would allow us to e-mail our War Banner moves to them and they could reveal who is fighting who on the day of the game. That might add some excitement if we did not know who we were facing.
A Sample:
500/250 point Map
Liam, Brettonians
Pete, Goblins
Kev, Skaven
Fullur, Empire
Fixed Dice, Tomb Kings
Space Monkey, High Elves
Cris, Vampire Counts
GM: Darth Weasel
2500/1000 point Map
Darth Weasel, Warriors of Chaos
Fixed Dice, Dark Elfs
Chad, Wood Elfs
Space Monkey, Dwarfs
Kev, Ogres
Fullur, Lizardmen
Josh, Dwarfs
GM: Cris
(These are for example only)
Additionally, as armies grow, if one campaign is not working for someone, they could transfer over: for example, Space Monkey gets more High Elves painted and wants to move up to the 2500 point game. His troops in the small game just defend and he can enter the 2500 point map at any coast location with a single 2500 point war banner.
Meanwhile, Chad wants to try out a Nautican army. He enters the small map at any coastal location with a single 500 point War Banner.
This would allow new players to get into the game, though admittedly at a disadvantage. With good negotiating skills, though, they should be able to make some progress.
Thoughts?
4 comments:
I kind of like that idea, since it keeps you from knowing who exactly you are going to be fighting. Much more interesting that way.
One thing I had seen for another game that used a map with hex squares was to assign each edge of the hex to a number and then roll a D6 to determine which way to advance, re-rolling if it would put you back into a hex you had already been in.
I only mention that because it would potentially make it easier for everyone to remain in the campaign if they wanted to, but it would make it much harder to progress towards something like a supply center though.
I like the blind movement idea cause you could't specifically make your army to fighting one specific army. It would require you to be alot quicker on your feet.
At the bottom of the page I left a link that I found for a campaign system, skim through it and see if theres anything worthwhile in there.
http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=499&Itemid=26
Kev, part of the reason I might not be in favor of that is by choosing our movement, it makes it more tactical whereas with die rolls it is more random and thus more luck is involved.
Liam, that is an interesting campaign concept and we may reference some of their weather type stuff.
Everyone, will try to get Draft 3.0 up in the next day or two.
I agree. I would prefer strategy in movement to luck. However, maybe if the GM wanted to participate in the game, his troops could use the random movement. That would also be a perfect system for him if he was playing the Orcs and Goblins. :P
Post a Comment