Two-player campaigns?

[old mucker]

Hi Fanatici,

For my maiden post I would like to ask if anyone has ever tried a campaign with two players?

I am not affiliated with a club and largely play against a single opponent. We have played (for about a year now) historical match-ups on a weekly basis which is great - loads of fun - if anything our enthusiasm is growing. However, thinking to the medium term I'm interested in any new options we could explore.

So, has anyone tried a two-player campaign? I'd be keen to hear of your experiences, or, failing that, why you think it would not work.

Further, for those of you who have played a single opponent regularly - what do you do to avoid things getting stale?

Look forward to hearing your replies.

Cheers :up

Alan
Melbourne, Australia.

[Kontos]

Welcome to Fanatcus! An interesting campaign to try is one my friend and I have tried. It is called a "piston" campaign. Essentially you have a linear bar divided into boxes representing various territories. Players start their armies in the middle and conduct a series of battles attempting to push each other off the bar. Losses are not automatically replaced after each battle but you do roll a die modified by how close you are to your home base. The result is the number of elements from your "reserves" you can bring back into your army. We usually play with a double sized army but standard 12 element armies work as well. There is a pre-designed campaign we use and I can post it when I find it. It is simple and fun to play.

Frank

[Tony Aguilar]

Welcome to Fanatcus! An interesting campaign to try is one my friend and I have tried. It is called a "piston" campaign. Essentially you have a linear bar divided into boxes representing various territories. Players start their armies in the middle and conduct a series of battles attempting to push each other off the bar. Losses are not automatically replaced after each battle but you do roll a die modified by how close you are to your home base. The result is the number of elements from your "reserves" you can bring back into your army. We usually play with a double sized army but standard 12 element armies work as well. There is a pre-designed campaign we use and I can post it when I find it. It is simple and fun to play.

Frank

I have seen one of these based on Alexander the Great, but I don't remember in which publication it was in.

[Mike Porter]

I have seen one of these based on Alexander the Great, but I don't remember in which publication it was in.

I thought it was here (http://fanaticus.org/DBA/campaigns/index.html), but the link is broken.

[Mike Porter]

Here (http://fanaticus.org/DBA/campaigns/campaigngreece.html)is one.

[Walleye]

Here's one from the Fanaticus Campaigns page:

http://www.armory.com/~fathom/dba/Seleucid-Ptolemaic-piston.pdf

[Kontos]

Here's one from the Fanaticus Campaigns page:

http://www.armory.com/~fathom/dba/Seleucid-Ptolemaic-piston.pdf
This is the one we tried. It played well!

Frank

[Bill Sumruld]

Browse at http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/campaigns/index.html I know the Athens v. Sparta is a simple alternative 2-player/2 army campaign that you could use for inspiration and my own "King of Numidia" is another one. Mine is a sort of battle for the throne. There may be several others

[ZenBoy]

Browse at http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/campaigns/index.html I know the Athens v. Sparta is a simple alternative 2-player/2 army campaign that you could use for inspiration and my own "King of Numidia" is another one. Mine is a sort of battle for the throne. There may be several others

Bill, I have never seen that King of Numidia campaign before, puts a cool spin on things!

[old mucker]

Just what I was looking for - thanks guys :2up

The piston/linear campaign looks just the thing for us - particularly with the increasing levels of complexity offered by the various examples you have directed me to. I'll post some reports when we get one going.

Appreciate your suggestions,

Cheers

Alan

[Dale Hurtt]

Yes, I have to say thanks too, as, although I have read about a Piston Campaign (I think it was in an old Slingshot), I never tried it.

One of the problems we have here is that, although we have more players, we can't get them all together consistently. Reading the Athens and Sparta Piston Campaign got me to thinking that we could have a team of players play each side, so whatever two players happened to be available could play and the results would contribute to the game. Sort of a good way to involve 4 or 6 players that cannot make the meets consistently.

Thanks for the pointers guys!

Dale

[winterbadger]

This is the one we tried. It played well!

Frank

Erm, no it didn't. It sucked. The Ptolemaic player is effectively two positions in the hole, and if he loses the first battle it's almost impossible for him to recover.

The basic idea behind the "piston" (that as the winner advances, it becomes harder for him to recover elements and easier for the loser to do so) is an interesting one, but it's very badly executed in that design. The -3 to replacements for the loser more or less ensures that the loser will get few replacements if any, and if the loser also rolls average or worse, he'll get no reinforcements either, unless he's down to his last space. And using BBDBA armies makes the battles take longer without making the armies (proportionally) any more resilient.

I think Frank may have positive memories of that campaign because he was playing the Seleucids (with his beautifully painted Seleucid army). As I recall, he won the first battle rather handily, and the Ptolemies got zero replacements or reinforcements for the remainder of the game. I recall I ended up fighting the last battle with half a dozen elements. It may have been fun, but only for one player.

I would never willingly play that campaign again, and I think that version of piston campaigns is severely broken. It needs a great deal less randomization in the army recovery to be workable.

[Kontos]

Well, Jan, I was speaking more from the campaign rules concept. Yes, our venture started off with a one-sided victory that went downhill for you from there. But with a bit of tweaking, that FORMAT could be the medium for a great many periods and 2 player campaigns. I think we already agreed IF we played that again, the -3 for the loser's replacements should be removed.

Frank

[winterbadger]

Well, Jan, I was speaking more from the campaign rules concept.

Then why say

This is the one we tried. It played well!

It didn't play well--it was awful, and most aspects of it need to be changed to make it enjoyable. Not what I would call "playing well".

[hammurabi70]

Sort of a good way to involve 4 or 6 players that cannot make the meets consistently.


I have seen campaigns where one player is the prime politician and the other is the principal general. Then if either does not turn up there is still one commander for each faction available to keep the campaign moving.

[Macbeth]

An option we have tried in Canberra a couple of times with 3 players (but which might work for 2) is to give each player 2 countries - preferably as far apart as possible on the campaign map - the player chooses one army as their Primary - for which they make all the decisions, and the other is thier secondary which they control but moderated through the Programmed Leaders rules from the Fanaticus Resources Page http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/variants/varprogrammedleaders.html

I always make it a rule that the character of a programmed leader is diced for each year AND it is not done until that leader has to interact (ie their turn or they are invaded) so that there is not a slough of war declarations on the feeble leader.

Cheers

[TWR]

Alan, I've included a link here to a neat little campaign we ran here. We had three players but the same could have been easily achieved with two players. We have an expanded campaign which we will get to when some additional armies are painted.

http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mcnelly/ancient/Greece1.htm

I do hope you find it of interest and useful.

[old mucker]

Thanks for sharing your 'War in the Peloponnese' campaign and making me aware of the programmed nations / leaders resources. :up

In a matter of days I've gone from not thinking campaigns were an option to now needing to put serious time to working out what we'll try first!

Thanks guys - will get back to you with any questions when I've done my homework.

Cheers,

Alan

[Bill Sumruld]

Bill, I have never seen that King of Numidia campaign before, puts a cool spin on things!


Sometimes, simple concepts can generate a lot of fun. This is especially true with fast armies like the Numidians.

[old mucker]

Browse at http://www.fanaticus.org/DBA/campaigns/index.html I know the Athens v. Sparta is a simple alternative 2-player/2 army campaign that you could use for inspiration and my own "King of Numidia" is another one. Mine is a sort of battle for the throne. There may be several others

We have finally started our first piston campaign (New Kingdom Egyptian vs. Syro-Canaanites) based largely on John McLennan's Athens v. Sparta campaign. It certainly has been a very easy model to translate into the campaigns Thutmosis III in the Levant - culminating in the battle of Megiddo (IMHO).

Anyway, a simple question has arisen that I would value some advice on.

Each player has pre-arranged the terrain for each of their 5 boards (we went with the suggestion of reducing it from a total of 12 boards to speed things up a bit) and we have played over two of them to date. One board turned out to have a difficult river across it (I was attacking, unfortunately). My question is: Should we play that river as difficult every time we use that board or should we dice for it again each time it is used.

My inclination is the nature of the river should not change - therefore it will be a difficult river for the entire campaign. But, in Palestine I can imagine the rivers might be seasonal - so a river that is difficult in the wet seasons may not be so in the dry seasons.

Any thoughts welcomed.

Cheers

Alan

[David Kuijt]

One board turned out to have a difficult river across it (I was attacking, unfortunately). My question is: Should we play that river as difficult every time we use that board or should we dice for it again each time it is used.

My inclination is the nature of the river should not change - therefore it will be a difficult river for the entire campaign. But, in Palestine I can imagine the rivers might be seasonal - so a river that is difficult in the wet seasons may not be so in the dry seasons.


Rivers are seasonal in most places. Even the Amazon rainforest goes dry enough that some animals gorge on piranha in one season as they lie flopping. Admittedly, that is in tributaries rather than the main Amazon river, but the Amazon is a Waterway not a river. In the Rocky Mountains snowmelt changes knee deep "paltry" creeks into raging torrents in spring.

[michael guth]

One problem with DBA campaigns is that armies with fewer elements are at a significant disadvantage. Yes, I have seen an army of 8 elements defeat an army of 12 elements, but I wouldn't count on it happening 2 games out of 4.

So, my army lost the first campaign battle and is now 2 elements down. How can I cover the front, or is the campaign simply over?

I would propose allowing a commander with the to split his remaining elements up to a maximum of 12. A 2/2 psiloi could become two 1/1 psiloi. A 4-4 spear could become two 3-3 spear elements. (Why not 2-2, well, if you prefer. But, a loss of one combat factor is enough to double the odds of a bad combat result across a wide range of factors and values, so I think the 4/4 to 3-3 penalty would be sufficient). Similarly a 5/3 blade could become either two 4/2 blades or two 3/2 blades.

I'm fairly certain that I can find a source which supports the notion that ancient commanders often thinned out their ranks in preference to being outflanked.

Seasons Greetings,

Mike

[winterbadger]

One problem with DBA campaigns is that armies with fewer elements are at a significant disadvantage.

I suggest you look at the accounts of our Punic campaign battles. :)

[Bill Sumruld]

We have finally started our first piston campaign (New Kingdom Egyptian vs. Syro-Canaanites) based largely on John McLennan's Athens v. Sparta campaign. It certainly has been a very easy model to translate into the campaigns Thutmosis III in the Levant - culminating in the battle of Megiddo (IMHO).

Anyway, a simple question has arisen that I would value some advice on.

Each player has pre-arranged the terrain for each of their 5 boards (we went with the suggestion of reducing it from a total of 12 boards to speed things up a bit) and we have played over two of them to date. One board turned out to have a difficult river across it (I was attacking, unfortunately). My question is: Should we play that river as difficult every time we use that board or should we dice for it again each time it is used.

My inclination is the nature of the river should not change - therefore it will be a difficult river for the entire campaign. But, in Palestine I can imagine the rivers might be seasonal - so a river that is difficult in the wet seasons may not be so in the dry seasons.

Any thoughts welcomed.

Cheers

Alan

Alan, if it is in Palestine and it is not the Jordan River, it is most likely a Wadi. This means that for big parts of the year it is a trickle or dry while at others it is a flood. I would dice every time.

[Timurilank]

We did a two player campaign of Anglo-Saxon England and Vikings. Each player had three kingdoms each, with Vikings using three identical lists, while the Saxons had some variation with a Northern British list. Great fun.

Cheers,

[old mucker]

We did a two player campaign of Anglo-Saxon England and Vikings. Each player had three kingdoms each, with Vikings using three identical lists, while the Saxons had some variation with a Northern British list. Great fun.

Thanks Robert,
Would be keen to hear more about it (PM, posts, whatever) - I've always been very keen on Anglo-Saxon / Viking history of England. Its just a shame it lacks subtlety in DBA battles. We have pretty much all the armies we need to replicate what you did so would like to hear more about what worked well for you.

Cheers

Alan

[Timurilank]

Hello Alan,

Email has been sent.

Cheers,

[Alan Lauder]

Rivers are seasonal in most places. ...

Alan, if it is in Palestine and it is not the Jordan River, it is most likely a Wadi. This means that for big parts of the year it is a trickle or dry while at others it is a flood. I would dice every time.

Our first piston campaign (New Kingdom Egyptians I/22 vs. Syro-Canaanites I/20) is in its third week and has raged over the first two boards of the S-C player. I faced the board with the river crossing the front of the S-C deployment zone again last night - we re-rolled as you suggested and it came as paltry (how's that for seasonal!).

So, as I advanced the S-C player jumped the river (rolling a 2) and grabbed the bad going that was on my side of it - which had provided a good refuge while I established a bridgehead in the previous encounter on this board (was difficult river then). I was defeated 1-4. Interesting that the river still had quite an impact even though is was paltry this time - more of a psychological impact, in this case.

Thanks for your advice.

Cheers

Alan
(was Old Mucker)