New Campaign Discussion

So I've been thinking about a major campaign for the group. As some of you know, I've been doing MP since the game was released and I have been involved in all the communities (GCM the least). I have seen the mistakes and the successes and building upon that I had an idea.

I think everyone loves a great story, and that seems to be my strength. I like good stories and I enjoy scribbling.

I want to suggest this:

We do a grand campaign that starts in '61 and goes until we get tired. More or less like a "soap opera" (TV series) here in the states. We can have characters woven into the story like M.T. Georgia and Father General, but nobody actually owns them. They're just characters and you might get to play them, or not. I'll write the storyline.

1. We start with a Bull Run scenario and build from there. I can compose the storyline as we go along, that's my talent.
2. Someone like Baldwin will need to build the scenarios.
3. Hays is a master OOB guy, we could possibly press (read: flog) him into managing the OOBs for Baldwin. We would track the progress of two armies and play various units on various sides throughout the campaign.
4. Someone like Digby or (anyone named) Martin would be trusted to manage the campaign. They would tell us each outcome and what happens next overall, then I would write the story which provides the basis of Baldwin's scenario work. They would also RANDOMLY assign players to sides.
5. Some battles would be co-op, all players on a side, and some versus. In all cases, you don't get to pick your unit or side. No getting attached! the focus is on FUN not winning. (Subtle but appreciable difference there! This means you are enemies one day and allies the next. Some days I wear gray, others, Confederate blue. (Yes, I'll bite the bullet and play blue for the good of the order.) As an added note, CiC's write AARs after battles, lower commanders this is optional.
6. We start this when everyone feels good and ready. I know we have some scenarios in the works and I don't want to prevent those from being played.
7. Individuals with talent may offer their services and be appointed as the campaign management sees fit.

I am willing to do whatever work is required to help make this a success. I will happily devote what personal time is needed. I will play as I can, based on what's appropriate and fair.

What do you think?

Rather than being a concrete proposal, this is more a starting point for discussion.

-Neal

Nice idea. I know there's people who avoid the fiction in our group though as it puts them off. Some kind of factual campaign might be better, or one that avoids previously established fictional characters.

I myself do find that the Father General character rather imposes on a game since the last one we tried, Martin James rejected certain tactical suggestions because "Its not how the FG does it". That put me off somewhat. I'd like a free hand when deciding how to fight a battle.

So yes, lose the established fictional characters and I may be interested.

Remember also that this is a Kriegspiel forum and we are supposed to be playing Kriegspiel games, so you should base any campaign on KS elements of design as well. These generally focus on giving the player(s) problems and decisions a real military commander would face and requiring that he resolve them with limited information. Any campaign we host here should follow those principles and a scripted "story" to me does not.

Yes, I like the idea of having a story behind the battles and Neal surely has a talent for that.
I imagine a continuing storyline told in the forum which tells the players the strategical background (why a battle is being fought and where) and some tactical information as well, but it should leave room for the fog of war.

I don't need fictional characters, but it's ok if others love them. And IMHO the story shouldn't fritter with too much details

I could contribute scenario files and tactical maps (based on the strategic background and provided OOB). Baldwin and I could rotate in doing this.
The list is missing the briefing for the CinC's. I would keep this private before starting the game, so the other side doesn't know the exact objectives. Who would write this?

Mr. Digby wrote: I'd like a free hand when deciding how to fight a battle.

I thought you were into realism?

I agree there should be no reason why commanders can't have a free hand, within the scope of reason. Do what you will, just be prepared to justify the decision to your superiors.

However, some scenarios will be to attack, defend, and achieve the impossible as the campaign managers see fit. Part of the realism then, is that you may be ordered to attack a-la Cold Harbor. Or illogically defend a-la General's McClellan's entire Civil War career.

But no matter what personality you draw, you have to play as you think best within the parameters of your orders. I would disagree that a player should play a character to the point of imprudence. And with carried-over stats, if you destroy a unit, you might end up stuck playing them again in a subsequent game, and that will diminish your fun!

So yes, always play wisely, even if you draw the Father General.

In defense of characters, I find they are essential to decent stories.

kg little mac wrote:

Mr. Digby wrote: I'd like a free hand when deciding how to fight a battle.

I thought you were into realism?

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Father General wrote:However, some scenarios will be to attack, defend, and achieve the impossible as the campaign managers see fit. Part of the realism then, is that you may be ordered to attack a-la Cold Harbor. Or illogically defend a-la General's McClellan's entire Civil War career.

My preference is that the commanders make the decisions where to advance, hold, attack and so on. The game should be designed around 2 teams, maybe representing a corps commander and X number of division commanders and given a map and some broad strategic or operational objectives the team decides where they will move and fight.

For this kind of campaign the umpire plays a more passive role and mostly serves to move the units on the map and report back contacts and pass reports and messages. Players are free to role-play and create their own personalities and play the game using those in-character personalities.

This is the campaign structure I used recently. Right now being busy IRL has forced me to put that campaign on temporary hold. Work is insanely busy right now

A manufactured sequence of battles scripted by someone playing a fully active role in determining who fights who where, how and why isn't my cup of tea at all. Sorry, that's not Kriegspiel and I'd say we are not here to play that kind of game. People have to bear in mind that this is the Kriegspiel Society's forum and any games we play here need to fall under the umbrella of what a Kriegspiel is.

Then it looks like this idea will not work. The last thing I want to do is fly in the face of the stated purpose of the organization. That said, I'm not terribly sure what the key elements of KS campaign are. --I mean I think I know, but that doesn't mean I'm correct. I would like to learn.

As for a campaign, I'd be very excited to see the campaign from May revived and running again. However, if this is not possible, I certainly understand. I will add that I'm willing to put in time doing homework behind the scenes, doing whatever is needed to help develop and move along a campaign of whatever sort the group desires. Therefore, if you need a hand with the May campaign, or a new one, please consider be a willing volunteer for whatever duties you may have. :-)

In the meantime, I'm looking forward to another game soon!

-Neal

"Remember also that this is a Kriegspiel forum and we are supposed to be playing Kriegspiel games, so you should base any campaign on KS elements of design as well. These generally focus on giving the player(s) problems and decisions a real military commander would face and requiring that he resolve them with limited information. Any campaign we host here should follow those principles and a scripted "story" to me does not."

Ah... I must say I agree. (It pays to read what you wrote earlier.)

Father General wrote:Or illogically defend a-la General's McClellan's entire Civil War career.

Do not bait me, FG. My boys love me more than yours fear you. We will stand and fight -- at some point.

kg little mac wrote:

Father General wrote:Or illogically defend a-la General's McClellan's entire Civil War career.

Do not bait me, FG. My boys love me more than yours fear you. We will stand and fight -- at some point.

"Upon this a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with." --Machiavelli

:-)

If you really want to put something together Neal I wouldnt worry about the" Kriegsspiel society" factor.
If someone from KS truly objects there are other forums for us to discuss a semi-scripted campain.
There is always the MP forum at Norbsoft and in a pinch we could problably use the KG site.
I personally dont buy into the " It doesnt fit with the Kriegsspiel society umbrella" so we cant/shouldnt
do something. We dont actually "play any games at Kriegsspiel" we host them on our own machines and through NSDs
multiplayer lobby. I would welcome someone from KS to chime in and let us know if there are any "rules" that we are breaking. I dont see anything we have done or are planning to do causing any rift with the forum. If Im wrong I hope someone will clarify it for me. We should be welcoming new ideas and scenarios not discouraging them.
This forum may turn out to be (if moderators decide such) just for serious grog games but untill someone says we are stepping on their toes I dont see a real problem with having a few other ideas/scenarios (even semi-scripted) bounced around.

Unfortunately, there's an obscure line from the book of 2 Maccabees that would preclude the Father General from advocating such a thing on the KS forums. :-)

So far, campaign or no, I am happy here with this group. I do not plan to resign from this here (I use the term loosely) "gentleman's club."

I would really enjoy a campaign, but I'm willing to wait awhile to see if we can do anything within the context of this group. I enjoyed the campaign we started last May.

Ultimately, if I continue to desire a campaign down the road, I may start building, but I would only advertise it on the NSD forums.

See everyone on the field!

Neal

I didnt mean quit or leave this forum.
Just that if it is really an Issue with the hosts there are other avenues to
pursue for games that may not fit the "KS" format.
And obviously players here would be encouraged to play if they were interested
as there is a real good group of helpful friendly people here.

I can only handle one secession at a time. -Musings of the Father General, 1865.

I understand you're not advocating secession. However, I see it thus: There's but a limited number of souls on Earth who do SOW multiplayer. Any new group on another forum would not be able to help but cannibalize the members of other groups, especially if it was well designed and managed. I do not want to do anything that could diminish the KS group for a variety of reasons.

1. I have a political history with previous groups and I'd rather not get back into that. I spent too much time leading, playing politics, and ultimately not playing the game. At the end of the day, I wasn't having fun, and fun is the point!
2. I like the KS style of play. It's a very "Father General" way to play. If I had any complaint, it's that there's not enough trees and smoke and confusion. My favorite moments are when everything goes absolutely to hell and I work with my teammates to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. I LOVE the hardcore style of play precisely because it is so difficult. It challenges me. I suppose it's like transitioning from cigarettes to crack cocaine -- not that I'd know what that's like!
3. KS is perfectly capable of developing and managing a campaign that I will enjoy. Granted, I may not be able to write as much fan fiction, but I can still write AARs in character and so on. I do want a carryover campaign though. I think the previous one stalled because of a lack of time and resources. I would like to offer my support to reviving that campaign, or if needed developing a new one. I am willing to conform to KS guidelines, although I would prefer NOT to have to give up the Father General. He's too damn fun to play with.

At the end of the day, I guess KS is my home and I don't want to do anything to take away from that, even if it means I must accept a feature or two that I might prefer otherwise. I can't always get my way with things, or so I have been trained by my commanding officer at home...

That being said, I must say you do score a lot of points with me for offering assistance in developing my wishes. That day may come, but methinks not for awhile. :-)

-Neal

Personally Im trying to breach a gap between groups. I tell many of the guys at GCM they would really get into
the Hits style of play its really a blast and way more immersive.
I dont want anyone to quit either group, I would like to see more people playing in both groups.
Nor was I advocating a new group, just sugesting alternate venues for discusion of games that possibly
might not fit snugly into the "Kriegsspiel" model.

I guess this is something that the Kriegsspiel group need to clarify.
I myself have been flying a similar path to the one Sspoom talks here and encouraging all i can to come and try MTG's Mod.
I firstly respect the idea of this group being set aside as a Kriegsspiel group and don't wish to tread on ANY toes at all,but at the same time i think surely the influx of new players can only be a good thing.
My question has to be in this case:
Are new players welcome on the whole as a come and join any time basis or not?
I need to get my own understanding of the group in line before i continue in this frame of mind.

I'll offer my 2c worth.

I started playing HITS & Couriers thanks to Martin James and the Kriegspiel group who kindly allow us to use this sub-section of their forum, and to Ike and his TS server, which he allows us all to use. I like the Kriegspiel idea as far as I understand it and I like the way Martin got this group playing SoW, including such details as the use of real first names in forum posts and on TS. This, IMO, contributes to the very pleasant atmosphere in this group.

I was, when I first started playing, very wary of treading on the toes (or abusing the hospitality) of the Kriegspiel group. Martin James reassured me on a couple of occasions that, as far as he was concerned, things were hunky-dory.

I have also always been very keen to build bridges and did a fair share of inviting people to the Kriegspiel games when I started playing. Again, Martin James was always supportive of attempts to expand the number of players playing HITS & Couriers using Ike's TS server and communicating via the Kriegspiel group's forum.

What is, and what isn't Kriegspiel? What would the Kriegspiel group view as beyond the pale? I don't know. I have not played Kriegspiel face to face games and am here because of SoW. I *think* the only person regularly playing who was in the Kriegspiel group pre-SoW is Martin James. I would say he is the person ideally placed to tell us SoW-players what the Kriegspiel group think re these matters. I look forward to hearing from him when he's back. Perhaps the sticky should include some ideas of the spirit of Kriegspiel as well as the technical requirements.

Having said all that, the debate seems to me to be very positive and friendly, so I hope the exact limits of scenario design will not become a problem. IIRC, the Kriegspiel group recently organised a face to face Kriegspiel zombie 'battle' after all.

Regards to all,

Jeff

Just back from hols and been reading this thread. I'm happy to give a personal view. There is no such thing as a corporate one, for reasons I'll explain. Err......perhaps after a cup of tea

Martin