# Campaign Idea(needs help!!!)



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

I was thinking of a campain. It takes place in Bretonia and the empire (only small western edge if empire). All players make a 3000pt army list keeping in mind that that is all they have for the first 4-5 battles (they must bring alot of core units). They will have a mix of map based battles and sanario battles that they will have to fight through. As units die the will loose them (1/3 of the untit is dead the unit is dead). As they move around on the map they will get diffrent objects and atack each other. There will be 2 starting teams good and evil. After the first battle they will be free to do whatever they want in terms of aliences. After the 4-5 battles are over they will have a boat battle in wich I will make boats and they will have to pull up along side each other and shoot or fight in close combat (there will be no mount allowed on the boat battles. On the map battles you will be able to concer teritorys and move (dont know how?). If you have any ideas or problumes that you think might happen let me know. If you like this feel free to take it


----------



## Yilmar (Sep 12, 2009)

Problems?
Well yea, but where to start...

- no cavalry on boats? 
what about the bretonnians then?
- 1/3 is a dead unit? 
after 2 or 3 battles no1 has a unit left!
- massacred armies are doomed.
- why do they need a lot of core? 
armies like Elves would suck, cause they rely on their specials.
- what do you mean by after the first battle they can do w/e with alliances?
if u mean they can make or break alliances it would suck cause in no time its 3vs1.

Boat fights also need to be boxed in by a lot of rules.
I mean ask yourself these questions:
- can warmachines be taken on board. if so can they sink ships and how?
- do units on boats count as having soft or hard cover from missile fire?
- how does cc work on boats?
- is there cr?
- how do monsters fit in sea battles?
etc etc etc.

Its a lot of work but it could be very fun.
Though remember its gonna take a lot of time and thought for such an endeavour!


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

*Problem ansers (hopefully)*

First off thanks for the help. No calvalry on boats is ok because I ame the only player that plays Bretonnia and although I personly love knights (obveously) I am willing to make the sacrifice and become the Warriors of Chaos for the campain (I have been wanting to try them out anyway ever since they where redone). I mean 1/3 of the unit is dead the unit is dead by the unit is at full str. until 2/3 of the unit is whiped out I am doing this to keep units alive longer. (You Know that this isnt in the middle of the battle this is after the battle is over. Mabe I should explain my self better. The 3000 point army list is the people you have on you in the campain at the time, the battles will be smaller mabe 1000-1500pt the 3000 pt list is just the people you can choose from for the army list you will be playing with when only 1/3 of the unit is left it doent regenerat all of the people it is just dead this is for simplisity reasons). And yes if you are masicared you are doomed :cray:. But every body is at about the same playing leaval so that almost never happens. They need alot of core because as I mentiond earlier the 3000pt army list is just what what you pull your people from. I think elves have very good to amasing core choses the high elves for example their spair men allways strike first and attack in 2-3 rakes thats at-least 10 atacks. And the dark elves have there corsers (dont think i spelled that wright) dont know much about the wood elves. Yes i mean you can brake alliences but battle are limited to 1v1. I agree about the boat battles though, i thought give all units the skermisher ability. Boats will give you -1 to hit because you are on a boat it is kind of coverer but more so because It it rocking. Also no large targets. Close combat is when the to boats come together they will throw grapiling hooks and pull the boats closer to gether and fight on the side that tuchis (with in 3in.). CC will be worked out as normal but all units will be unbrakable (it would get to messy other wise). There will be a list of war machins usable I think cannons, stone throwers, (mabey upgrade to a tribuchet +2 str.) Bult thrower (upgrade to a repeter mabey?) please tell me what you think! And once again use what you want.:good:


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

I happend to see that alot of people are looking at this thread but only one person has responded - please respond I need help badly


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

For moving on the map should it be in in. or teritorys


----------



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

OK, first off, I'm going to come down hard on yor idea about units at 1/3 strength being removed. It's simply not fair. If someone has an unlucky battle, then their entire army could be eliminated from the campaign. Rather, what you want to achieve is that even if someone has a bad day, they can still participate in the campaign.

To that end, I would suggest the following: At the end of the battle, 1/3 of all casualties are removed from their unit strength as dead. Their points cost is removed from the armies total strength. The rest are deemed _wounded_. _Wounded _models do not participate in the next battle the *army *takes part in, but are restored to the unit for the next one. Exception: if a unit is wiped out or it's banner is captured, then 1/2 of the casualties in that unit are deemed to be dead and the rest _wounded_.

Example: A unit of 20 Elven Spearmen takes 6 casualties over the course of the battle. 2 of those are dead, reducing the unit to 18 strong. In the next battle, should they take part, they will only field 14 because 4 of the 6 casualties from the last battle are _wounded_, but in their next battle (assuming they take no more casualties) they will be back up to their nominal strength of 18. If they had been wiped out during the battle, 10 of them are removed as dead and the other 10 can't take part in the next battle as they are _wounded_.

I'll post in with some more suggestions for your campaign later...


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

Sounds much better, I did the 1/3 thing because i wanted people to put more time in what they field and I also hate the people that lose the first 5 battles and come back win the last 2 and end up steeling the campain becouse they one the most imporant ones and seal it from the guy that overal did the best (has happend to me before). I wanted people to feel like they are a general in a real army and sometimes real generals dont have all the guys they need and have to make due.


----------



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

If you wanted to keep my above suggestion simpler, then do away with the wounded concept and just have 1/3 of all casualties as dead and the rest returned to the unit to fight in the next battle.

On the campaign itself, I would make a map and divide it into a grid (either square or hex....my preference is for hex, but it makes no difference really). Armies should be able to move one square/hex per game round as well as being able to do one Action; Engage, Evade, Fortify or Recruit. A game round happens as follows:

1)Orders - Each player writes down what his/her army will do this round. This will take the format of:

*Movement*: [current hex] to [destination hex]
*Action*: Engage [target]/Evade/Fortify/Recruit

2)Movement - All players' orders are revealed and all armies that are moving are moved simultaneously.

3)Actions - All players Actions are carried out simultaneously.

4)Engagements - Any battles scheduled by the Engage action are played.

5)Resolve - The results of battles fought are tallied and armies moved appropriately.

*Actions*

*Engage*: Only an option if an another army occupies your hex or one adjacent to the one you occupy. If you select this option, you play a battle against your opponent unless they Evade. Points value and specifics of the battle depends on the scenario (see later).

*Evade*: If you share a hex or are in an adjacent hex to another army and specifically do not want to battle that army, you may choose to Evade. An evading army does nothing for that game round except move, but also enjoys certain defensive benefits if Engaged by another army.

*Fortify*: An army can choose to dig in and fortify their position. Whether this means a temporary field camp or hiding out in a local friendly keep, the effect is largely the same. A Fortified army gains certain benefits with regards to Scenarios and Recruiting. If a Fortified army moves or takes the Engage action in a later game round, then it loses its 'Fortified' status until it takes this action again.

*Recruit*: An army using this option adds 100pts to the point value of their army. This represents recruiting more soldiers, training and aquisition of wealth and equipment. A Fortified army has an easier time of doing these things and so instead get to add 150pts to the value of their army.

*Scenarios*

The Scenarios available to armies Engaging depend on the Actions made by both the attacking and defending armies during the Game Round. Specific scenarios should follow the general theme of the following, but are not limited to their specifics. However, the results of the battle should be the same (For example; in an Engage vs. Evade battle, the attacking force could be much smaller than the defending force, but the defenders start the battle "in column" rather than in battle formation. This means that the defenders would have to spend time getting into battle formation to fight, or they could simply try to march through as fast as possible...the specifics of such a scenario would have to be arranged by the players involved)

*Engage vs. Engage* : Usually a pitched battle. Points values equal to the full strength of each army (so if one army is bigger than the other, so be it...). The losing army must retreat one hex away from the victor. The victorious army chooses the direction the loser must retreat. On a draw or inconclusive battle, neither army must retreat.

*Engage vs. a Fortified army* : The fortified (defending) army either has a fortification (castle, keep, tower) which they occupy _or _can choose the arrangement* of all the terrain on the board. The attacking army always gets the first turn. Points value is determined by the _attacking _force. If the attacking army is victorious, the defender must retreat one hex as described above and the attacking force is now counted as Fortified. If the defending force is victorious, the attacking force must retreat one hex of _their _choice (the defender does not get to choose which direction the attacking force retreats).

*Note - The defending force does not choose the terrain, or how much there is of it, just it's placement.

*Engage vs. Evade* : The defending force chooses the points value of the battle. The attacking force always goes first. The defenders must set up on one side of the table. The attackers can set up on the two adjacent sides, but no closer than 24" from any defending model. The defending armies objective is to reach the opposite side of the table. Should they manage to get 50% of their army off the opposite table edge or they eliminate the attacking force, they are declared the victor. If the game turns run their course before they mange this, the attacking force is declared victorious. If the defending force wins, they can move their army one hex of their choice. If the attacking force wins, the neither army moves.


----------



## Yilmar (Sep 12, 2009)

I think the following is even better:

(based on VP's)
Draw => armies stay the same
Minor loss => lose 2 D6 * 10 of points (max loss of 120pts)
Major loss => lose 4 D6 * 10 of points (max loss of 240pts)
Massacre => lose 6 D6 * 10 of points (max loss of 360pts)

Winners don't lose any pts.
Their reputation has grown and the gaps are filled with local recruits joining their cause.

By doing this the armies that have lost can choose for themselves in what way the points are dropped and armies will survive longer. And when armies survive longer the campaign stays interesting and challenging for a longer time.


----------



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

Yilmar said:


> I think the following is even better:
> 
> (based on VP's)
> Draw => armies stay the same
> ...


The problem with this is that winning armies will eventually become unbeatable. Losing armies would get steadily worse whilst winning armies stay good and would thus have an increasing advantage over the losing armies. With having casualties based on the battles, your victory could end up being pyrrhic; winning despite heavy losses. It's more balanced from a campaign PoV to have both sides take casualties and basing it on an arbitrary d6 roll means that the battle themselves may as well not have been fought. Good tactics during the battle to preserve the lives of your troops should be rewarded, whilst suicidal generals that send in troops willy-nilly should get their just rewards.


----------



## Yilmar (Sep 12, 2009)

Jolly Puggles said:


> The problem with this is that winning armies will eventually become unbeatable. Losing armies would get steadily worse whilst winning armies stay good and would thus have an increasing advantage over the losing armies. With having casualties based on the battles, your victory could end up being pyrrhic; winning despite heavy losses. It's more balanced from a campaign PoV to have both sides take casualties and basing it on an arbitrary d6 roll means that the battle themselves may as well not have been fought. Good tactics during the battle to preserve the lives of your troops should be rewarded, whilst suicidal generals that send in troops willy-nilly should get their just rewards.


Winning armies tend to be unbeatable in the end, thats true. But isn't it better that you can play the campaign for say 12 rounds instead of having no army left after 4 or 5 rounds. Also the loss of armypts is quite minimal if u start with a force of 3000pts with about 1500pts battles. In combination with your rule of recruiting losses will be even more minimal depending on your tactics. Sure losing armies would have to fortify more than attacking armies to get the most out of recruitment to replenish their army. IMO totally in tune with real battle situations. 
And good tactics to preserve your units isn't the way to go either. That way nobody would want to take the risk of attacking each other full force. Both armies would sit in the back waiting for the other to make a move or a mistake. IMO the use of good tactics would show in the final VP count, just as every warhammer battle.


----------



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

One of the advantages of doing it my way is that you can play the game not just to win, but for a purpose. Maybe you want to take out the High Elven mage or break the back of the Brettonian Knights...you can play a battle for the purpose of taking them out. You might lose overall and be forced to retreat, but your goal was accomplished. Likewise if you attacked someone else and won, but in the process your Knights were decimated or your general was wounded, then although you held the field at the end of the day, the losses made is a de-facto lose for you.

This can be taken further by adding more "Actions" or designing a particular scenario...an 'Ambush' or 'Raid' scenario where the attacking force is much smaller than the defending force but has a particular goal like stealing supplies or killing a Hero is an option.

It depends on the focus of the campaign. If the campaign is essentially just a re-fluffed tournament with a "winner" at the end that's calculated by the number of victories, then yeah, my system probably isn't as good. If, however, the point of the campaign is to add an element of strategy to the tactical game of Warhammer, then my way is probably more suitable.

Bear in mind that I've not actually sat down and thought anything I've posted here through thouroughly...it's all just off the top of my head, so there's definitely room for maneuver and almost certainly room for improvement!


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

Wow you two are really going at it

I was thinking about when you get in to a combat with another player you should role 2d6 to see what senario happens


----------



## Yilmar (Sep 12, 2009)

Jolly Puggles said:


> One of the advantages of doing it my way is that you can play the game not just to win, but for a purpose. Maybe you want to take out the High Elven mage or break the back of the Brettonian Knights...you can play a battle for the purpose of taking them out. You might lose overall and be forced to retreat, but your goal was accomplished. Likewise if you attacked someone else and won, but in the process your Knights were decimated or your general was wounded, then although you held the field at the end of the day, the losses made is a de-facto lose for you.


The way you describe is bugged in my opinion. If u go after key components in an enemy army the next battle is kinda already fixed, isn't it? Technically if u get massacred its the deathblow for the rest of the campaign. By getting a massacre the next battle ur at half US for every unit. They again get their asses kicked because of this and the battle thereafter their only at 25% of their origignal US. The units simply die to fast for your reasoning to work.
Also in most armies there are one or two character figures that form the backbone of the army. Say hierophants for TK ot the high LD leaders in low LD armies. If those can be put out of action you again fall in this vicious cycle that will be the downfall of your army in the campaign.
Finally theres also the example of smaller elite armies versus horde armies. The elite armies are affected more heavily by your rule than the horde armies. I mean High Elf armies rely on special units with relative small sizes. If those already small sizes get downsized some more they lose their effectiveness as a whole. Those 2 or 3 man Dragon Princes don't look so scary now! Yet again the downsized storm vermin of 15 can still dish out the pain! 

Hop I've convinced you now k:


----------



## Jolly Puggles (Aug 4, 2009)

True enough...like I say, I've not thought extensively about the ideas I've posted. I tend to type and think at the same time, so it's not unusual for me to contradict myself, even, in a lot of my posts on forums!

The point about "elite" armies being more hard done by than "horde" armies is a fair one...I myself play Skaven, so only taking 1/3 casualties as deaths isn't so much of a worry, but I can see how High Elves or Chaos would come off worse in this situation.

I still think that the casualties you take in a battle should influence the outcome regarding the point value of your army...give me until tomorrow to come up with something better and I will (it's late for me now and I'm too tired to do any thinking!). Having said that, adding a strategic element to what is normally a tactical game effects the tactical game. In a bog-standard game of Warhammer, your casualties don't matter, so you can go at it hammer-and-tongs. If casualties do become an issue, the game changes. If not significantly then at least somewhat. You won't throw your troops around like you would normally because you know that if you lose that unit, it's effectiveness in the next battle will be significantly reduced.

Perhaps in the campaign, there should be some option to be able to evade attackers completely, or have _wounded _models recover after one game round has passed rather than by battle...I don't know. Like I say, give me some thinking space and I'll get back to you with something better...*mutter, think, mutter, think, mutter, think...*


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

Should armies have to have a lord for a general in + to the 3000pt list or included in the 3000pts list.


----------



## Yilmar (Sep 12, 2009)

You can only take heroes if you want though it is not advised at 3000pts.
The 100 points you can spend on magic items for a lord really is a must.

As for who is the general in an army, it always is the dude with the highest leadership. (unless the character specific rules state otherwise)
If a hero has the same ld as your lord you can choose which one will lead the army


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

Yes but should there be a general for the whole campain 

Posibly +1 to all stats and can have magic stuff up to 150pts


----------



## Nipolian (Nov 4, 2009)

I was thinking about things that could happen to people and i found this thread = http://www.heresy-online.net/forums/showthread.php?t=30353&page=2
Its got lots of great ideas i also posted one


----------



## Freedirtyneedles (Oct 22, 2009)

mordheim had a really cool system when it came to casualties, pretty much every rank and file trooper that got knocked out of action got a dice roll, if ya rolled a 1 or 2 they were dead, anything else they recovered. it had another table for heroes, that had some nasty injuries, like loss of an eye and what have you. have you thought about giving points to the armies for completing certian objectives? would give em a chance to restock on troops. anyway that's my thoughts.


----------



## forestreverie (Sep 10, 2009)

if you're not a subscriber and havent got it yet, then Decembers white dwarf has an interesting take on campaigns. basically you just make it up as you go along, so no problems come from the rules you've made, as you just alter them if they dont fit... i thought it was pretty good idea, but obviously need to have fair / friendly opponents.
not sure about US White dwafs though..


----------



## stevenhassell (Aug 5, 2009)

there is the generals compedium out there that we use on our map based campaigns we modified it with our own rules of resorce points and stuff and it works out very well and we have a blast with it. usualy takes us about 3 months of playing but we have done it 3 times with out problems.
and we use the mordinhime wounding and recovering system works great


----------



## forestreverie (Sep 10, 2009)

also the Lustria sourcebook has some useful rules and advice on how to set up and run campaigns.


----------

