Author Topic: Proposed Campaign Game Army Size Changes Depending on Scenario Selected  (Read 1260 times)

Captain Darling

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 168
    • View Profile
    • Captain Darlings Miniatures Emporium
Hey All,

I have played a lot of games within campaigns now using the Rule Book scenario selections with 'armies' built up to the minimum force sizes. I find this works well in say a the meeting engagement scenario but in say the walled farm or railway embankment scenarios the force sizes being relatively matched give the attacker little chance of success even with their ability to concentrate attacks (and the held back reserves).

I will be suggesting before I start my next campaign that the defender in games using scenarios like the walled farm or the railway embankment that defender can say use only 66% of their available forces the rest sit this scenario out. This will give the attackers a semblance of a chance of victory.

Any thoughts on this suggestion?  :)

Cheers!
"There's nothing cushy about life in the Women's Auxiliary Balloon Corps!"
Quote from Blackadder Series IV Episode 4
http://captaindarlingsminiaturesemporium.blogspot.com.au
http://toysoldiersforoldgits.blogspot.com.au/

Hardlec

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 58
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Campaign Game Army Size Changes Depending on Scenario Selected
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2016, 12:51:38 PM »
In reality, a commander very seldom attacks without an advantage sufficient to believe he might win.  When attacking a prepared position, a 3-1 advantage is usually required by the attacker.  Of course there is always the odd chance that 300 Spartans will stop 100,000 Persians, or 200 Texicans hill hold out for days in an old mission.

Meeting engagements are relatively rare.  it is much more common for two forces to meet in battle with different objectives, hence the reason why may there are historical battles where both sides correctly claim victory.

I'm very much a fan of "unbalanced" scenarios.  Would Leonides be a hero in a 1-1 meeting engagement?


Zouaves

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 72
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Campaign Game Army Size Changes Depending on Scenario Selected
« Reply #2 on: December 02, 2016, 06:16:51 PM »
I agree with you that at times when a player has to take on the role of attacker and dislodge a defender. Sometimes it seems off, but some do not allow the defender to have all of their forces at the start - one unit comes on later or someting. However, the walled farm or railway embankment scenarios give the attacker more opportunities to earn epic points over the defender.

When I play the full campaign, I always think that my campaign game is only a little section of a greater battle, and the scenario we are to play is the situation we are faced within the bigger picture.. Sometimes in bigger battles, a sub-commander is tasked to carry out their order even if the odds are not in their favor.


SteveBurt

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 415
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Campaign Game Army Size Changes Depending on Scenario Selected
« Reply #3 on: December 21, 2016, 02:44:33 AM »
It's worth bearing in mind that you win the campaign by earning epic points, not by winning battles!

General Hans von Zieten

  • Play Testers
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 229
    • View Profile
Re: Proposed Campaign Game Army Size Changes Depending on Scenario Selected
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2016, 08:44:43 AM »
It's worth bearing in mind that you win the campaign by earning epic points, not by winning battles!

true , but that does sometimes lead to some very unusual tactics . like charging with enough units to get an Epic point with some of the charges having no chance of success . and usually made by a unit that is so small it never would have likely made the charge if ordered to do so ! (so the unit can be removed and then replaced in the between game campaign section .