View Full Version : Campaigns...How to equitably manage moves?
08-02-2003, 06:53 AM
OK..heres a question...I would appreciate anyones feedback on the question any comments or ideas at all..one of the factors I can see that will limit campaigns where you actually get to move your armies on a map is the duration it actually takes to complete a battle online....even for active players two weeks would not be an unusual timeframe, and it could easily be more.
Now basically I dont see that we can change that greatly....as we all have lives outside of dbaol...but how do we solve the problem of armies not locked in combat and their move ability. If we have a time based move....say every 3 weeks...then you will get in about 17 moves a year....to see things really happen in a campaign you probably want to be double that.
So what happens to armies not locked in combat....do we assume they can still move as normal? How can we provide the balance about allowing enough campaign moves to develop the campaign...but not unbalancing the ability to take strategic sites...or is the tactic of locking an enemy army in combat and scooting around behind them with another army quite a legitimate tactic? Should we give Cities ect the ability to "draft " their own army to fight with if a field army is not available? ( albiet weaker than the field army). Should we just accept that the solution may not be perfect but is necessary so that enough moves happen so that the campaign can develop. And if so ..what do you think the answer is?
Anyway..as I said ...quite keen to get others comments on the matter.
[ August 02, 2003, 03:56: Message edited by: Aspirant ]
08-02-2003, 07:42 AM
What you're foreseeing there is , AFAIK, an unsolved problem until now, and many campaigns have encountered the problem and were never finished. It is the major slower to "hard style campaign" games. Not only it happens what you describe, but while waiting for some player to finish their games, others often lose interest. And 17 rounds a year is optimistic, you forgot slow orders sending in your calculations.
I believe the only option, (I think nobody tried, at least via this forum), are campaigns with ONE day rounds : very few players from the same time zone, agreeing together to play on the same evening - just like if they went to a club - and give the game 4-5 hours every week at a scheduled time. If you forbid river games and keep the number of element low, that should be workable.
BTW, I respectfully suggest that you wait a little to see what happens with the ManyC.L. campaign before starting a new one ;)
And I can't see how a campaign can continue without finishing games. The result are much needed (element losses, strategic situation...)
The battles being the keypoints of a strategic campaign, they have to be played to the end.
[ August 02, 2003, 04:45: Message edited by: Kachoudas ]
08-02-2003, 07:57 AM
:confused: may this is an idea for a campaign : :confused:
Another solution : if you have a strategic game that is really interesting in itself, could it be possible that "small" battles are not played in DBA, but by dice roll.
The campaign game would be a serie of strategic moves, with both players trying to keep their supply lines, gather reinforcement, join armies, not be exhausted and so on while trying to prevent the opponent from doing so.
That would lead to one or two ultimate battles, with the best troups and terrain to the better strategos.
The DBAol battle would be the the ultimate point of this.
After all, Alexander's campaign, Caesar's Galic wars and many others didin't include an dozens of large scale battles ?
Is this an idea that could interest people ?
08-02-2003, 08:10 AM
Thanks for the comments there Kachoudas. I appreciate it..now then ..what about a combination of both..or maybe if a game isnt finished in a fortnight ( 3 weeks?)..it gets decided on a die roll? The current status of the battle can act as a modifier on the die roll eg for each element lost you get a -1 on your die roll. This is assuming both players are active...the rules cover a situation where one person is inactive...they simply lose the battle at the end of the time period.
I agree with your comments about not committing to too many campaigns...I had made a mental commitment to two and will wait to see how they go...before anymore are forthcoming.
Again good thinking...I think the combination of the two ideas may act to speed things up...lets keep thinking on it...and anyone with other ideas it would be great to hear them.
Some time ago (more like a year from now i think) i proposed a campaign format in wich i tried to adress this same problem.
The aproach was twofold.
a) Everyone can attack in the same bound. This preclude the use of moving armies. But as one turn in the campaign covered one full year i tought it wasn't to difficult to get. You get a map where your neighbours where stated. Then you send to the game master wheter you intent to attack and who. This measure was intented to keep everyone involved as everyone can get at least a battle going on. If you won the battle you get some province from the enemy that may provide replacements..
a) The attacker was awarded a few more units... but also has the burden of the attack... i.e if the battle wasn't finished in a fixed amount of bounds nigth fall off and the battle is over in some kind of stalemate. This puts a limit on the amount of time the battle may take.
08-07-2003, 06:30 AM
Cheers for the comments Beto..
And also thank you for all the Tactical tips in our games
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.