Recently a new MWANer commented that with simpler faster playing rules, one could use simpler, faster-playing campaign systems. Here's a couple of ideas. Obviously, anyone who wants to build hospitals, recruit peasants and pay espionage agents should go to Tony Bath or Charles S. Grant, both of whom describe such things in considerable detail. But if the purpose of the campaign is to generate and connect battles, and ensure that table-top generals treat their troops as though there is a tomorrow, something simpler will do. SYSTEM ONE: Campaign Trees I stole this one from science fiction gaming. Take a set of pre-generated scenarios, and set them up like a logic tree, Every battle has a finite number of outcomes--hopefully two--and which outcome determines which battle is to be fought next. For instance, the loser of an encounter battle might command a rearguard in the next battle. If he wins, the next battle is a holding action while reinforcements come up. If he loses, the next battle might be a "last stand." Casualties would carry over, modified by the relative sizes of the battles and the bloodthirstiness (or otherwise) of the rules. Obviously rules which eliminate units for severe disorganization require higher percentages of reconstitution than those in which every casualty has a hole in him somewhere. Armed with a book of scenarios written for the rules used, or generic scenarios in the same style, as the C.S. Grant books, a gamer can block out a season's campaigning in an evening. Two warnings: beware of scenarios which only work if one of players has not read the briefing, and decide early on whether any of the possibilities should lead to a return an earlier scenario. This raises the possibility of the campaign doing into an "endless loop." There's nothing inherently evil about a Moebius campaign, but it should be done on purpose, not accidentally. So much for the campaign tree. It's quick easy and doesn't require a neutral umpire so long as there is general agreement on how to translate the scenarios to the table-top. SYSTEM TWO: THE ROADS TO WAR Another method is to put your campaign on the road, Literally. Determine in advance that armies can only have battles in certain specified locations, and draw up maps suitable for tabletops of each of those locations. Now the miniature generals can hold favorable battlefields in their pockets a la the Duke of Wellington. "Deploy" the battlefields on a map. In an alternate move structure, armies will move from one battlefield to the other. For a simultaneous move campaign, you will need some mechanism for determining which battlefield is used if armies clash between them, but this can't be as tricky as a terrain generating system, let alone one that reflects local conditions or the results of previous terrain generation. Add to this armies of points or rosters which can be speedily transferred to the battlefield, and a movement and reconstitution system, and a bare-bones campaign is ready to go. The (slightly) more sophisticated might add a supply system, limited intelligence and such. Wargame magazines sometimes print up map and pins systems readily convertible to this sort of unsophisticated campaign. One favorite is "Cockpit of Europe" set in a roughly Marlburian pseudo-Belgiun.. About three pages and a map, it could be fought out without miniatures at all, but what would be the point of that? A few things of which to beware: make sure you can duplicate your battlefield maps on the tabletop with a degree of accuracy satisfactory - to all concerned. If a certain slope of hill, width of river or shape of town can't be duplicated with the available terrain, fix the maps before someone builds a plan around them. Don't let limited intelligence serve as an excuse: a general should, after all, know the terrain behind his own lines. Next, remember that the campaign is intended to produce battles, and skew the campaign rules to produce them. No one wants to spend a weekend afternoon fighting a battle he stands no chance of winning. Minimum and maximum army sizes, justified by logistical considerations perhaps, can keep things from getting too far out of hand on the tabletop even if the campaign itself is a runaway. Game conditions can help too. An army too heavily outnumbered might simply be given more depth of table and a rearguard mission. Especially in more modern periods, and if the campaign master is not taking a tactical role, two armies operating in ignorance of the other side's forces and mission can produce an interesting game--provided they don't both assume a tactical defensive! Third, don't get too ambitious. Twenty-five maps, spaced out about a days' march, will cover a worthwhile chunk of Flanders or the Po valley. Conquering Iberia will involve a ghastly number of maps, or spacing the battlefields ludicrously thin on the ground. Finally, remember you're generating tabletop battles, not mobilizing for the Drang nach Osten. Dragooning reluctant family members and occasional wargamers into a campaign will not turn them into enthusiastic miniatures players, and will drive the real enthusiasts to distraction. Simple campaign systems are battle generators. They shouldn't require more than two hours a week-most of that spent setting up the board for the next battle. Good luck and good gaming! Back to MWAN #108 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 2000 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com