Multi-Group Campaign

dave · Post by **dave** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:14 pm

SGT-G Wrote: Odd-ball idea here. Let's say you use a simplified version of F&E as the strategic level of a campaign. It doesn't even have to be that level of complexity, just big enough that each empire has dozens and dozens of ships in their fleet. So the campaign players, the "admirals" if you will, decide where each ship / squadron goes for the turn, and the campaign moderator determines there are a bunch of battles zones to be fought. More than any one player can handle in a reasonable amount of time. So letâ€™s farm them out to other players. Have something on the FedCmdr On-Line that lists these battles as scenarios. The admirals can post a short list of instructions, basically telling the players how far they should be willing to risk damage to their own ship before withdrawing from combat and such, what the mission objectives are. Other players, not specifically involved in the campaign, can then play these battles out (either on-line of face-to-face) and report the results back. The admirals will each have a ship (or perhaps three to five ships) that, should those be in battle zones, the admiral must play out the tactical battles himself (herself?) and not farm them out.
_________________
Garth L. Getgen

dave · Post by **dave** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:26 pm

I really like this idea for a large campaign. I have a couple of thoughts on how to broaden it out a bit.

Play the campaign at two (or more) distinct levels. Level One is the High Command level. This is the grand strategic level where players are taking on the role of entire empires or fleets - allocating fleet resources, setting general strategy for the war, etc.

Level Two is the Tactical Level. At this level players are concerned with manuvering individual task forces, squadrons and ships.

Either or both of these levels may be split into smaller subdivisions. A player could be given command of the Third Starfleet or task force Beta for instance. Ideally the players assigned to different roles would be consistant over time. This allows the High Command to get a sense of the personalities and competence of their subcommanders, without always knowing who those individuals are in real life.

This would require considerable organizational effort on the part of the Referee to insure that reports and orders were generated and dispatched quickly enough to keep the game moving along.

Twenty years ago or so I played in Western RPG that had a similar structure. We played members of different factions in fictional county. We had range wars, rival railroads and all the rest. Because nobody knew who all the players were we could never be sure that our schemes would unfurl as we intended.

I am not about to volunteer to run such a grand campaign, but I certainly would be willing to play in one.

Does anybody have thoughts on how such a campaign could be imnplemented in the SFU?

Pinkfluffychicken · Post by **Pinkfluffychicken** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:10 pm

I think the answer is that Moderator burn-out is a problem in most campaigns. I've stayed running ours only because I've been able to shunt most of the turn resolution onto the players with the result that I'm really now just referee and custodian of the rules.

Just reading the VBAM rules at present - they seem to be the sort of complexity you are looking for, and could probably be run in the sort of multi-group way you refer to.

You wouldn't catch me running it, though!

dave · Post by **dave** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:28 pm

That sounds encouraging about VBAM. I won't ask for more details at this time, it's in playtest and subject to change and anyway I wouldn't want to put you in the situation of violating a Non-disclosure Agreement.

Agreed on the "You wouldn't catch me running it..."

Pinkfluffychicken · Post by **Pinkfluffychicken** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 2:38 pm

dave: Yes - and I'm only just starting to get to grips with them so anything I said would probably turn out to be inaccurate anyway!

Thinking of which, I should make it clear that the comment about not catching me running it referred to the sort of massive campaign you refer to, not the VBAM rules!

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Thu Apr 09, 2009 3:16 pm

I'm well in the Federation Admiral rules myself, and I'm looking forward to running a campaign. There's a lot to digest at once - but after a wuick read through, it seems relatively straight-forward and I think it'll tie into the FC system quite nicely.

Wolverin61 · Post by **Wolverin61** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:52 am

Scoutdad wrote:I'm well in the Federation Admiral rules myself, and I'm looking forward to running a campaign. There's a lot to digest at once - but after a quick read through, it seems relatively straight-forward and I think it'll tie into the FC system quite nicely.

Cool! I've been looking forward to FA myself, so I'll be glad to hear how it goes.

Hope you didn't get any damage from the storms.

Scoutdad · Post by **Scoutdad** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:43 pm

Wolverin61 wrote: Hope you didn't get any damage from the storms.

We only have debris... but over a dozen homes were pancaked just up the same street we live on (closest ex-house is 20 doors away).

My wife stood on the back deck and watched the funnel form and touchdown.

dave · Post by **dave** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:45 pm

Glad to read you made it through OK. Sorry to hear about the neighbors.

Wolverin61 · Post by **Wolverin61** » Sat Apr 11, 2009 10:49 pm

Scoutdad wrote:We only have debris... but over a dozen homes were pancaked just up the same street we live on (closest ex-house is 20 doors away).

My wife stood on the back deck and watched the funnel form and touchdown.

Wow. Glad to hear you got missed. It always amazes me how one structure is totally gone and the one next door is untouched.