DBA Campaigns

[Susan Laflin-Barker]

I have been working on a new DBA campaign system.

It's taken a back place now that I am collecting feedback on possible rule changes, but the files are still on my website www.wrg.me.uk

I'd be interested to know what you think of them. I hope eventually to produce anothe rbook with the campaign rules and a number of specimen campaigns. I've started with the first one in the list in DBA.

Sue.

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Sue, Andy Hooper for the Pacific Northwest group has created a very interesting campaign system using cards as "objectives." Each round, the combatants bid a certain point value in cards to fight one of the other enemy nations. The rules require some limits on how much can be bid initially and in turn #2, but the end result is that the high bids get their opponents and so on down the line....every battle is between standard twelve element armies. I think this system is well worth a look...

There are a couple threads on this system:

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=9231

http://www.fanaticus.org/discussion/showthread.php?t=9232

[John Meunier]

Sue,

The .pdf of the campaign rules I download were hard to read. Do you have a cleaner version?

[Hannibal Ad Portas]

Sue, in your system...I am not sure exactly how the cards are used....but, is it like this:

In a 6 player game, you have six cards....one for each nation. Prior to the start of the turn, shuffle the cards and turn them over one by one....the order that the cards come up is the order that the players will move in the coming turn. Now, pick up and reshuffle the deck. Put a card face down by each opponent. The player who is first that turn will turn his card over to reveal who he is to fight/invade....repeat that procedure on down the line for the other players and fight battles/move accordingly. If a player is invaded that turn by an opponent not represented by the card, or is already fighting a foe on his territory from prior turns (not in your rules(?)...but makes sense...) he can choose to ignore the card he turns up and move against the invader instead.

Is that correct?

[APHooper]

Hi Sue, I'm Andy Hooper -- as Robert/Hannibal mentioned above, I have been working with an alternative card-based DBA campaign system for the past three years. I was very interested to read the draft of the new camapign rules you have posted on your site. They address some of the many problems that players have with the existing campaign system -- the need for players to complete their entire turn before another can be initiated, and the likelihood that one or more players will be forced to fight with fragmentary armies after the first season of battle.

I'm not as enthusastic about the use of random cards to create matches between the belligerents, but it does away with the tendency of several opponents to gang up on a weaker one. In our most current campaign, we established a framework of just one turn per year, in which each player could fight up to two battles -- they can face up to two sequential invasions, or make a single invasion of their own, or fight one battle on the attack and one on the defense. Players ignored by the others and unable to make an invasion of their own face a Barbarian incursion, with possible bonus points for victory.

I was excited by your introduction of a revolutionary new game mechanic: unit replacement. You suggest some elements lost to attrition are replaced by horde elements. When I ask people if they would like to play in a DBA campaign, they point to the practice of fighting with fragmentary armies as being sufficient reason to avoid the campaign game altogether. If lost units were replaced by hordes, (or perhaps psiloi?) at least part of that complaint would be addressed. One would think that whatever troops arrived at the field would be deployed as 12 elements of some kind, rather than concentrating into an army with fewer total stands.

The campaign groupings are familiar, of course; but I wonder if you might consider leaving behind the standard that all campaigns must include six player nations. Getting six oeople to show up for a series of campaign turns is profoundly challenging at times; and I've sometimes had more than six potential participants, but much fewer than 12. If we were able to create a system that could accomodate any number of players -- even an odd number -- we would be able to address the many, many conflicts that had less (or more) than six equal participants. I can easily imagine campaigns with only two or three belligerents, or even a few set up to be played solitaire.

I think the campaign rules as printed have been detrimental to DBA's development as a full game franchise. It is a paradox that although DBA is a simple, fast-play rules set, the ease of playing multiple games in rapid succession makes it a natural platform for a campaign game. And a satisfying campaign will inevitably want more simulation detail than DBA is designed to provide. The referral to Tony Bath's work for more detailed campaign directions is useful, but I would also think that a book of detailed DBA campaigns, particularly with pre-printed maps, would be a big seller.

I would be happy to give this system a test. Would one player's invasion be resolved before another made theirs, as in the existing campaign rules. or would everyone commit to their invasions, then resolve the battles simultaneously?

I've spent a great deal of time working on this subject in the past three years. Some of my work is posted on Fanaticus already, but I'd be happy to share anything anyone wanted to see.

Best Regards,
Andy Hooper
Bacteria Valley

[Adamantius]

I have been working on a new DBA campaign system.

It's taken a back place now that I am collecting feedback on possible rule changes, but the files are still on my website www.wrg.me.uk

I'd be interested to know what you think of them. I hope eventually to produce anothe rbook with the campaign rules and a number of specimen campaigns. I've started with the first one in the list in DBA.

Sue.

I ran a campaign with 8 guys over the past 4 months with the original rules as written in 2.2, so it is still fresh in my mind. I think there are some definite improvements in your new rules:

a) I like the fact that you have increased the number of reinforcements per city. I lost a number of units in the first battle and spent the next two game years trying to get up to full strength, so that needed to be fixed.

b) The card system seems to encourage more action. We found, in our campaign, that some evenings would pass and some players would not even get a chance to battle. Two or three seasons can result in 2-3 battles and there goes the evening. It was quite boring for those standing around waiting to roll a die to see if they took a city. If they did not, then they watched while others enjoyed battling with their armies.

I have been toying with a simple mechanic for campaigns that fixes this problem. The concept is that, at the beginning of each year, each person rolls for priority and a sequence of order is established.

For example:

Player 1 - declares who s/he will attack
Player 2 - if not attacked, does the same
Player 3 - if not attacked, does the same
Player 4 - etc.

If someone is attacked, then they do not get to attack someone. They will be defending.

If a player ends up in the position where they cannot attack someone (because everyone around them is at war), or they have not been attacked, then they MUST send a contingent somewhere. It can be anywhere on the map, but the contingent will not return until next Winter.

This way, everyone gets a chance to battle, every season, and no one is left standing around doing nothing for most of the evening.

[Rich Gause]

I very much do not like the idea of random opponents in a campaign game. That takes away any element of strategy which to me would be the whole point of playing a campaign. If you can't pick who you are going to invade then what is the point?

[Bob. (and his dog)]

Take the campaign rules out of the Basic Game Rules with army lists book and put them in your campaign book. The extra space would be useful for more rules explanations. Don't make everyone buy campaign rules, but offer them a nice separate book on campaigns, those who like that sort of thing can just buy a new book.

[Tony Aguilar]

Take the campaign rules out of the Basic Game Rules with army lists book and put them in your campaign book. The extra space would be useful for more rules explanations.

I second that idea.

[timurilank]

It was the all-in-one feature that attracted our group to DBA, back way when. Rules, army lists with allies and enemies, an optional campaign and big battle play.

I would love to see it remain.

Cheers,

[Rich Gause]

The problem with nailing down a single set of campaign rules is that there are different types of campaigns. I have played in Convention campaign games where the entire thing is done in 5-6 hours, play by email campaigns where it goes slower but much longer, and gaming group campaigns where there is some limited activity outside the group meetings but the campaign can be played for months and might be very complex and detailed.

[Crocus]

I think the current campaign rules mirror the rules themselves: brief to quintessence, practical and no frills. I've wiled away many a happy hour with them for sure. As mechanics to line up battles they are fantastic.

I am forever tinkering with campaign rules that simulate the historical and are still playable and not too much of a brain melter, yet give the players more options with regard to spending reinforcement points. Like the alchemists, when I've found the true elixir I'll let everyone know!

I am intrigued by Sue's upgrade and can't wait to see the end result. The idea of having a 3 element contingent from different provinces building into the army will bring alot of characterisation and add fun, as the Essex levy crumble at the start, again, or the Oslo warband triumph against the odds. However, where are we going to find maybe 6 Hd elements for a game well into the campaign, or after a brutal battle? Substituting Ps will help as I'm sure we all have some missile troops left over, but the thought of painting hordes of Hd's for each of my armies leaves me a bit cold.

There's the historical element too: could all armies gather these Hd? Would a Viking army? A Dark age army consisting of a warrior elite and little history of conscription?

If players want to use a full army everytime perhaps they could pay with PP for replacements above and beyond their recruitment supplied by their provinces. Hey, that sounds neat!

First post on the best wargame website ever!