![Very Cool! Make Your Own Star Wars: Legion Imperial Agent & Officer | Review [7 Days Early Access]](https://images.beastsofwar.com/2025/12/Star-Wars-Imperial-Agent-_-Officer-coverimage-V3-225-127.jpg)
Campaigns Coming Soon to BOW
January 15, 2016 by warzan
For some website features, you will need a FREE account and for some others, you will need to join the Cult of Games.
Or if you have already joined the Cult of Games Log in now
What difference will having a FREE account make?
Setting up a Free account with OnTableTop unlocks a load of additional features and content (see below). You can then get involved with our Tabletop Gaming community, we are very helpful and keen to hear what you have to say. So Join Us Now!
Free Account Includes
- Creating your own project blogs.
- Rating and reviewing games using our innovative system.
- Commenting and ability to upvote.
- Posting in the forums.
- Unlocking of Achivments and collectin hobby xp
- Ability to add places like clubs and stores to our gaming database.
- Follow games, recommend games, use wishlist and mark what games you own.
- You will be able to add friends to your account.
What's the Cult of Games?
Once you have made a free account you can support the community by joing the Cult of Games. Joining the Cult allows you to use even more parts of the site and access to extra content. Check out some of the extra features below.
Cult of Games Membership Includes
- Reduced ads, for a better browsing experience (feature can be turned on or off in your profile).
- Access to The Cult of Games XLBS Sunday Show.
- Extra hobby videos about painting, terrain building etc.
- Exclusive interviews with the best game designers etc.
- Behind the scenes studio VLogs.
- Access to our live stream archives.
- Early access to our event tickets.
- Access to the CoG Greenroom.
- Access to the CoG Chamber of Commerce.
- Access the CoG Bazarr Trading Forum.
- Create and Edit Records for Games, Companies and Professionals.
Build up for two months with a month’s worth of action sounds like a sensible amount of time to me. It would be good to do a video at the end which id the ‘final show’ that includes an overview of everything that happened and is of higher quality. If you did this even if I am not playing or not into the system I can get a good sense of what happened watching a single show.
I am not sure about an algorithm that only happens at the end could it not be applied as you go? Do you enjoy General Elections with the swing om-meter thing and just want to go, ‘the forecast were wrong results are now coming in…’ I would say try and keep it simple with two sides and results easily understandable on a map or chart. And a KoW campaign would be good.
Two factions only is not so straight forward for a lot of games (don’t break down into axis and allies)
But for those that do it’s capable of doing that.
My friend and I regularly play 40k purely for the narrative.We have long since passed the point where we actually cared about the win, we just want the story!
This seems like a really good idea, especially if the story caters for every faction from a given system being involved. In 40k especially there are a lot of wildly different factions which can be hard to explain away.
For example, in our games, if one of us has just bought a new force and cant wait to play it, we come up with some narrative reason for them to be there!
Selfishly I’m thinking: If there’s a 40k campaign underway, is it possible for us both to participate with any combination of our factions to mix it up?
Anyway… I’d like to have a few weeks to prepare for the campaign, I’d like to be able to tweak lists and I’d like the campaign to last a few months to give us a chance to arrange a few game days.
The AI historian is a very exciting idea and I think, since this is all for fun, you can’t really go wrong. It could come up with hotspots on the map showing particularly large battles or particularly well-documented ones!
Representations of diverse factions is definitely on our radar and were exploring ‘additional win conditions’ for those factions that have less representation
This is wildly exciting!
Sorry, I got a little excited; to answer your questions:
1) A month’s notice would be enough to get things ready I think (I agree with Warren, that this might be a gateway to games that I don’t play – that might require more time depending on the game… infinity in a few weeks is easy, kings of war is a few months)
2) I don’t think a month is quite long enough to get things together to play; I think a 2 month window would be short enough to keep me interested; but long enough to let me play more than a few times. A year is, I think, far too long unless you find that a particular one is really popular – but know that like with club campaigns it may boil down to a few people who stick with it.
I am so happy to hear you guys are limiting the number of reports to prevent unfair story molding by players – would you consider limiting the number of reports per week as well?
3) Fog of War – I wouldn’t sell it as Fog of War… really it’s a meta-game element; however you call it; I really love it! The idea that an army could be apparently dominant and then end up the loser in a battle is a small price to pay for having solid, fair campaign play. Part of this campaign game is making battle reports, not just submitting numbers and I think that’s great.
Very excited to take part!
This looks like a fantastic idea.
If I were to “buy in” to a campaign of something I don’t play, one of the factors I would have to consider is I am on monthly pay and therefore may need a couple of pay’s to budget in the purchases I want to make.
I think it would get you to buy in to smaller games like Infinity or Eden, or a Dreadball season where a couple of months you could budget, buy and paint the models you need to kick in to it.
As far as how long the campaign runs I think 4 weekends is sufficient for most people to arrange and play at least 1 or 2 games either with friends or at the local club. Personally I think any longer will open the campaign up to the opportunity of more SPAM battles being thrown in to tip the balance.
As far as the fog of war .. those of us who love narative campaigns and arent out to win at all costs should enjoy that aspect I sould imagine. Those who play to win at all costs might see a lot of emails you want to delete, coming your way 🙂
All in all I think it’s an exciting and inovative idea and I am looking forward to seeing it come to life
Cheers
Loving the idea.
Personally I like the idea of maybe a couple of months notice and then a month or so for the campaign. Lets me revitalise my faction/consider a new one for the campaign. etc.
this makes me think of World in Flames for the pc, http://www.matrixgames.com/products/296/details/World.In.Flames
I believe though I may be mistaken every country can be played. So even though it’s not the same as what you guys are thinking of, I hope that it could give you some ideas.
WiF is a great grand strategy war game, (I’ve only played the board game version of it).
The part which I think could be relevant is the fact that you play your countries production, supply and logistics as well as the Army’s Navies and Air-forces which if you wanted to could be allocated to different players on the same side. I:E. Lloydeisalavia has 90 divisions in his army which are placed into 3 corps (all of which could have it’s own general) Lloydeisalavia also has a bomber force and fighter force (again commanded by 2 generals) and 2 fleets in his navy (same principle). You then have a commander who deals with the logistics of supply and production. So there will be a lot of in fighting over who gets what, if the main vision of Lloydeisalavia’s world take over is not clear. That to me take care of factions in the sense that ‘X’ players want to play as ‘Y’ so each of them play one part of the whole.
So I’m not sure I’ll ever participate in a campaign (therefore you may ignore everything I say) but I think you’ll need a minimum of 1 month build up and perhaps as much as 3 months. As for the campaign itself I think you’ll need a minimum of a month but I wouldn’t go longer than 3 months because quite honestly people are going to stop paying attention.
The “fog of war” aspect you are talking about is a good idea and perhaps could be implemented mid-campaign as well. So if you are going to run the campaign for 2 months perhaps in week 4 or 5 you have a mid-campaign show with how the “fog of war” aspects are looking which allows people to either improve their existing reports and/or provides the knowledge that their next reports need to really improve and they can perhaps look at the “winning” factions top ranked reports to see how someone else has put together their report.
Anyway, just my two cents.
I think your campaign platform is a great idea, while I do not do Infinity I would love to see something like this done for 40k 😉
Onto your questions
1. How long before the start of a campaign do we begin the build up?
Based on the idea the campaign would start on the first weekender of the month, one or two months notice I think is fine
2. How long would you like a campaign to last?
I would say 6 weeks, those of us that are lucky to play a game a week, gets 6. Once a month can squeeze in 2 depending on dates, twice a month you can get 4. I think the most important thing is the time to make the report good
Uploading army lists, ye or nay?
Yes, love this idea. I can happily upload Army builder pdfs
Where do you stand on the Fog of War argument?
I think that is a great idea. Like you said with painting and sportsmanship scores in tournaments. What about the battle report rating system as a modifier.
Rate a report out of 5 in 3 categories
For example:
Description
Visual representation
Theatricalisation
I get rated a 4 a 5 and a 2 giving me an overall of 3.6
Another idea is to add secret missions that unlock bonuses. Computer selects mission ‘Capture the Hill’ anyone who plays that game and wins earns additional victory points. To represent a strategic victory
I like this idea and the platform looks very nice.
I’m not sure that it would get me to buy into a game before hand, but I might be more interested in a game as it goes along (not that I’ve got the money these days – kids!)
1 months notice should be fine in most cases, but maybe more for the non-skirmish games like KoW.
6 weeks is a nice time period, there are times in the year where I can only get one game a month (if I’m lucky) and others where I can play weekly or more if I could find an opponent.
As for uploading armies lists – big yes. I can see newbies looking at lists to work out what to do to improve there army and experienced players looking at them to add advice, perhaps features to include?
The Fog of War and AI historian sound fun.
A nice additon would be an opponent finder, perhaps players register with a location and then the system allows people to look up players in their local area.
I like the ideas give me a little time to think over the answers …
Sounds good if you can get the numbers you could do a planet wide Mars invasion? With people representing areas of the world similar to the D-day report?
The fog of war will come in naturally as games will be played around the world at different times changing things through the day as they are reported the AI thing sounds different.
Hi HI
As all games start with the ones who have such figure, and more decide to arrive 1 month should be enough now people know its coming.
I would like the campaign at least to go on for, as long as it took yous to make it.
(if it takes you 3 months to put the campaign together, the game time should last 3 months).
About the length of time it would take to put on a game and write information about a game, adding pictures. One game a day would be a max.
i know we game on Sundays and maybe another game though out the week at some ones house, maybe we could only send in two a week.
Army lists are a must, i think, that will show others what people are using and how them forces got on, (and yes, with luck, as some people like my self might only use the figures that to me would be there) also, pocket permitting.
Fog of War, sounds right to me. as in information getting out to other areas of the campaign might be tricky and only at the end, should the reality finally raise its head.
On the number of reports than can be submitted within one day, maybe the number should depend on the system? Something like Warhammer Fantasy could be capped at one while Mordheim could be capped at three. Or alternatively, if applicable to a system, how about something like having something like a total number of points that can be played within a day and people ‘buying’ reports with those points (eg for 40k have something like 5k points and people could play one 5k game or one 3k and one 2k or five 1k games, etc) and weighting the results depending on size (eg a 5k game has a bigger impact than a 1k game so spammers couldn’t spam 1k games to have the biggest impact).
As for build up and how long, how about three months a piece as a rule of thumb (shortening or lengthening depending on how epic you want it to be – a small Warmahordes scuffle could be cut down to a month while a 30k campaign could be stretched out to six or more). I think three months of build up will give people plenty of chance to get things together and will allow you time to amp up related content gradually (eg three months before you have one or two articles, possibly introductory ones so those who don’t play already can be eased in, two months before have an article a week, the month before have several articles a week). Three months to play should give people chance to get plenty of games in without risking burn out (if you only have it for a month, then some people might only be able to get one game in unless games are only short; can’t speak for everyone, but I only have a chance to play games once a week, and that’s dependent on people at my club not already having a game booked and wanting to play that system when they are free and on my health allowing to get out of the house that week. If a campaign I wanted to play in only lasted for a month then I could be lucky to get a single game in. I’m sure others have similar situations).
The FoW idea sounds interesting, but I’m unsure if it’d work in practice as some people might be annoyed if misinformation lead to them playing games in the wrong theatre.
On weighting the battle reports for quality, what’s the international makeup of your membership? It’d be a shame for some people to have their battle report scores downgraded just because English isn’t their first language. I’d assume most have a good standard of English to be able to watch your vids, but errors, slip ups, etc could occur which might hamper their score unless the algorithms you’re using don’t take nationality into account (*insert cheap shot at Americans here* 😛 ). This could also have an impact on the star rating of vid reports if the vid isn’t filmed in Emglish as it’ll be less likely for people to rate it (hopefully people won’t rate it badly out of spite).
As a measure to try and prevent spam battle reports, would it be worth having it be mandatory that both players must be signed up to the system? I’m thinking something like when one person submits a report, they have to say who they played and then that person gets asked to confirm that the game did indeed take place and that the recorded result is what actually happened.
*…unless the algorithms you’re using take nationality into account…
Love it!
1. regarding time, I don’t see myself picking up new game system just because there is a campaign. I would rather have more systems shorter than one long campaign. So 2 weeks prep, 3-4 weeks gaming with 2-4 times a year (with different systems) Would be ideal.
I think you should keep the option to revisit the same theaters or extent the campaigns later on. Like with the story driven battle reports, I think it is a waste of great idea o create a campaign and then have all the material lost, when the 2nd part of the war could continue a year later.
2. I love the FoW idea. All data should be marked as “RAW battlefield data – verification in progress” and then at the end of the campaign there is “verified data”. Maybe this process does not have to be at a cut off date with the end of the campaign, but could be timed (e.g. after one week there is a “preliminary verification” ( this could be the point when commanders get the message by their high command saying their battlefield data is hard to verify and should be improved.
I think it’s a great idea,
A two month lead up would work best I feel, like Warren says I would be interested in starting a new game through a campaign, think of it like a global bootcamp. I started Infinity because of the bootcamp, and a large community supported event like this would bring in people for systems they don’t necessarily play at present.
4-6 weeks would work for a campaign I would think, two months at the outside. People do tend to drop off over time so you want to keep it short enough to keep people engaged, but still have it long enough that everyone gets to be involved, I have friends who can only game every two weeks, while others will be able to game practically every day.
The fog of war is a good idea, but the biggest issue with the old GW global campaigns was you never really got an idea of how the campaign was progressing and then they ended and it was a draw..every time.
Being able to see the swing more or less real time on the campaign map solves one problem and preventing spam results from counting too highly is a definite must.
Having the meta idea that Pan-O propaganda of multiple successful encounters with no supporting evidence being erased by the history-bot™ seems like a great way to deal with that.
I do agree with Lloyd that three results a day seems high, but maybe that’s me. I’d prefer one or maybe two per day. If people are playing multiple games they can always use the various games to tell a narrative. Pan-O won the first, lost the second and won the third, well then it shows a narrow Pan-O victory in that region. Initial ground taken by the advance troops in an attempt to open a corridor were lost by a strong counter attack by Yu-Ching forces, however the counter attack and flanking manoeuvre eventually won the day, though casualties were high on both sides the Pan-O juggernaut continues to push back the invaders…style of thing. Yes three battles may have been played but only one result needs logged.
I love bat reps especially when I’m getting into a new game.
For me the notice period I’d need is variable, a lot will depend on if I already play the system. If not what size of game are we talking. I think probably 6 weeks on average.
No problem posting army lists. Who doesn’t like talking about their favourite unit combo’s ?
Campaign length ? I believe should vary. Some are going to be more interesting to watch or more popular to participate in. I think one of the organizers should take a judgement call on this as the campaign progresses.
The FoW will hopefully ensure we get lots of good content for everyone to enjoy.
Finally Hats off to the BoW team for providing something else to get excited about in the hobby.
A brilliant idea I would suggest, especially if you are going to come up with a geopolitical narrative to overlay on the various theatres. Perhaps in time you could come up with some possible prescriptive scenarios that can earn bonus points, for example if you fight asymmetrically in terms of army lists because of a scenario based factor (one faction is strong in an area and this is mirrored on the gaming table) you get some bonus which increases if you actually win. Naturally this would need to be mirrored elsewhere on the map so that one faction doesn’t “win” despite losing the majority of games.
In terms of build up, I think a month would give sufficient time for prep if someone is serious about getting involved (unless there’s a holiday period involved) but isn’t too long for interest to wane before it even starts.
As for the actual campaign, this should depend on the game in question. Games which can be played more than once in an average session should be shorter (about a month I would suggest) but those that will last for hours, and so not so many instances to report on, somewhere like two months.
As for the Foggy War bit, good idea! But, and this only applies if you think it may get spammed, there should be some checks and balances along the lines of that put forward by Lordofuzkulak. My thinking is that of someone is reporting a loss they may put in a very punitive effort of a batrep whereas they go to town on a win. Having a verification process of requiring both sides to report is one way, another is to have the AI (which is a very unfortunate way to refer to Justin) give weight to better written or presented batreps even if you are the losing participant, which you may be doing anyway and I’ve just missed that.
Oh and if you get the option to paste your army list or not (without penalty from the AI) then nobody can complain about it.
I like the idea of two months campaign , one month to get the word out and one month to play .
Maybe have a end of week report like match of the day with highlights from the different battles being fought across the week and end it with a bigger show . The AI historian thing seems a good idea so people who write the reports are forced to put as much info as possible to make sure they score high for their factions.
O and the army list I like , I’m not a player of infinity but it might give me a little more understanding of how the factions and army’s work.
Time: give as much notice as possible on what game the next campaign will be, doesn’t have to be specific just enough for people to get ready, just points limit(if any) and game system, EG 200 point ITS legal infinity campaign or 15pt 1 caster warmahoards or 1000pt bolt action etc. That way anyone wants to jump in has a decent chance.
The fog of war I like the idea of, maybe add a way to corroborate battle reports, but then obviously if you get a lot of corroborations in a very small group, say the Santa’s elf, Crampus and Rudolph all vouch for every one of each others entries they’d invalidate the corroboration.
I think a two week notice before a campaign starts would be sufficient. As for length of a campaign, I say 3 months. I personally only get a game in about twice a month maybe three times if I’m lucky. The flog of war is interesting as long as it doesn’t make entering the data tedious. If it feels like work or keeps spitting insufficient data messages at ya, no one is going to submit a report.
I think having some campaign scenarios would increase participation. Maybe release a new scenario during the Weekender every Saturday.
To get into a game this may be the thing that pushes some people over in getting ready and then actually playing a few games. So I would ask for a few weeks to figure out if I would be able to participate.
Depending on how you set up the campaigns I would think the battles should be a couple of weeks and then have them roll for a few weeks to have a longer campaign that you could come and go with out losing too much activity.
I think that army lists should be part of the AAR so that the balance of the games can be improved.
Fog of war would be awesome so that the next battles of the campaign are influenced by the previous battles. The more fog the better as this may keep some players from meta gaming or min maxing certain areas of the battle.
Overall what a really good idea. I hope that I will be able to participate with some of the battles that come forward.
One thing I like about the Army List idea is that people can get creative with their pdf files and add heraldry and artwork on the list to style it towards their army.
I’m also digging the AI Historian idea.
I think the more notice before a new campaign the better. As soon as your certain a campaign will happen you should let folks now. Even something general like Infinity campaign starting Spring 2016, Bolt Action Fall 2016 would give folks a chance to prepare.
Campaign length should be at least a few months I think. Some people can only game weekly or biweekly so even a one month campaign might only give them a change to get in a couple games before it is over.
Army Lists in battle reports are a great idea.
I like the fog of war idea but I think you should do the adjustments incrementally. Maybe at 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and at the end of the campaign. That would prevent it from being an unexpected upset and give folks a chance to improve their battle reporting.
I have some suggestions:
1) Narrative. Narrative. Narrative. Work a story into the campaign and even possibly into the individual sectors/missions. What if the faction winning in an area can pick that areas missions (from a list) for the next part of the campaign? What if the missions for an area change over time (either for story reasons or in reaction to battle results)?
2) Break campaigns up into smaller parts. Kind of like WW2 western front has DDay, Market Garden, Battle of the Bulge, Crossing the Rhine. Maybe have a 6 month campaign and after each month or two move the map and missions down a story/time line.
3) Add some way to help find and meet up with local players. Even if its something as simple as comparing peoples postal zone/zipcode for others in the area doing the same campaign. It should be opt in of course as some people wont want to have their RL locations made public on the innernets. Maybe even a way to schedule games through the campaign site? Not sure if that would be worth it but throwing the idea out anyway.
That’s all I can think of for now.
Firstly fantastic idea and can’t wait to get stuck in.
Now to the questions.
1. For me personally I would only be interest in systems I already support (BA and 40k), so a campaign for another system would not cause me to buy in, but may for a small number and they would need at least 2 months get a force together. However whilst one campaign is getting on, another can be in the build up stage and if done so it a minor system followed by a major system, this will include most of the community, such as if running infinity (not interested, so not following) but BA next, I will be involved in the build up rather sat on the side lines. But like everything in life not going to please everyone at the same time but if can olease most most of the time, then bang on.
2. This would depend on the system, BA and 40K could run for months to simulate historical campaigns and fluff campaigns, whereas other system done and dusted in 4 weeks. So no definitive time frame, system specific.
3. Sharing list would be a fab option.
4. Fog of War is an absolute must and the options are endless and can be so diverse. Such as no air cover due to weather, limited ammo heavy weapons due to resupply, no comms due to atmospherics endless really and can be faction specific, army specific, troop choice specific. However players will need to buy in and not change there list because some of it may be be affective, play the narrative and enjoy the ride.
Can’t wait for 40K and BA campaign.
Excellent idea! I would want to see this for other games, AoS, Dropzone Commander, KoW, X-wing (prior 1), Batman, Norsgard.
Preparation time: 6-8 weeks, will get new players opportunity to start with game.
Campaign time: Variable, tailer the campaign time based on what game. For instance, a combined Dropzone Commander/Dropship Commander campaign could be longer than a focused Wolsung campaign. The DC-campaign would account form the movement of large troop units in multiple theaters of war therefore also longer campaign time. A Batman campaign could focus on the events in Gotham during a long weekend, therefore shorter campaign time.
Army lists: would absolutely like to share.
Fog of War: Yeah!! The best idea, love the narrative side of it!
I would say a couple of months is suitable for giving warning about a campaign. It gives people time to perhaps clear their gaming schedule and/or buy a starter army.
Similarly two months feels right for an average campaign length. I can only get in one game per week (like most gamers who depend on visiting a gaming club I imagine) so being able to contribute eight games feels right.
I see no problem with adding army lists. It adds an extra level of interaction and can help people understand the battle reports.
When you first mentioned the AI historian I had my doubts but once you had explained it I think it is a good idea. The outcome is still in the hands of players so long as they put effort into their battle reports.
Cool ideas.
I like it, would be intereste for a WW2 one.
I’d personally run it doe a year, but then I’m into my WW2 and don’t play much else.
Something of interest for a campaign would be systems used, for example WW2, it doesn’t have to be bolt action or flames but all the systems out there adding into the overall experience, so I can see what others are playing and maybe thing, “hmm, i’d like to try that system.”
This works for 40k too, I don’t play 40k. I do play 40k Epic, so if a 40k campaign was running, as long as what you are playing is in that universe, use the system that you like, be it, 40k, epic, kill team etc. Coud bring a broader specrum of folk into the campaign.
Love these international games though, Warlord did a great WW2 one last year, but suffered from, as you addressed, people not doing good battle reports, and some which you thought “i’m not too sure this is true”. To be fair, it was very limited and most folk played it right.
This sounds awesome. In the campaign build up period it would be nice to see some articles tailored to the campaign game system.
Regarding notice, I think a a month is fine but allowing people to join after the campaign starts will allow those who were not as prepared to join in later as new recruits to relieve the front line.
Campaign length, for smaller campaigns three months minimum, for larger campaigns 6 months plus. I think this gives time for people to react and get sufficient games in and reports written.
In the campaign briefing it would be good to see what might be considered a poor / good / excellent battle report as a guide.
What might be good in longer campaigns is a way of getting inter club events organised between participating club committees.
I think the option for sharing army lists is useful, but maybe not essential. Perhaps it should be that during the campaign you can only view and discuss army lists of your own faction as a way of commanders sharing field intelligence and tactics without giving the rival factions an advantage.
I would like this to start a month or so after human sphere is released, so est mid year ish, as this will give people to time to digest the new skills ect. It also will give people the time to gather friends, have ideas for submiting their reports and selecting and paint their armys in preperation for it.
For me personally I would like it to run from between 1-2 months.
I really like the idea for army lists being shared.
I think the idea for fog of war is good.
The only questions I have is: Is your campain featuring the campain paradiso stuff as well as the spec ops rule? I personally would not want it to have these included. 🙂
Nothing like sleep to answer questions
How long before the start of a campaign do we begin the build up?
As soon as possible, but 3-4 weeks should be fine – even for new players no one say that a new player need to play the maximum amount of points on day 1
How long would you like a campaign to last?
System dependant but again 3-4 weeks to keep the interest high – and a extra week to finish off the AAR that is still in the works
Uploading army lists, ye or nay?
Yes! But no need to limit it to PDF files – even if the army builder for both of the two systems I would be most interested (DzC and Infinity) in make some nice PDFs
Where do you stand on the Fog of War argument?
Yes, I am with @warzan that any thing that help keeping the one liners of “Bob played Rob, Bob won” out of the running sound like a good thing
What do you think of the system so far?
Seems like a good idea, and I look forward to Operation Flamestrike
Too bad there is a elephant in the room when it come to 40k, 30k and the rest of the GW systems – the idea of the campaign system is to work together with the game system developer and GW don’t work with anyone. Unfortunately.
It would be cool if GW did turn around but odds are against it.
This campaign system looks like a great way for us newbies to get started playing games.
It is an ideas generator and a great advertisement for the system used.
Prep time ?
I think it will depend on the length of the campaign.
Ideally you want players enough time to prepare whatever is needed (including campaign specific objectives or features).
Longer campaigns would also allow new players (reinforcements) to jump in.
Length will depend on map size and total amount of players participating.
Army lists ?
Hell yeah. Even if you’re not participating this is campaign system will be a good source of information on how the various factions work and what lists are possible within the system.
Veterans and newbies alike will benifit.
It would be nice if the lists would be of a standard format where possible.
Fog of War ?
Yep, good idea. The fact that results may not be reliable would prevent players from cheating by logging in as an observer.
Improvements ?
I think that (all) players in a battle should verify that they agreed with the report as submitted.
This could be as simple as how forums require confirmation by e-mail that you’ve signed up.
Think of something like sending out an e-mail with a link to the report that asks player X if he agrees with the report.
You can use this to feed into your fog-of-war system.
Limit on battle reports per day ?
The idea is good and the fact that it is a mobile app will definitely help.
However what about players who would have to wait a week before they can submit ?
They might have played N games in an entire week, but would be forced to submit in batches of N/3 as a result.
“History is written by the victors” so the fog of war sounds a very nice touch to me
In terms of run-up and campaign length, I think 6 weeks is a good level in both cases. As you say, it’ll allow newbies to get stuff ordered up and painted (plus a few practice games if you’re lucky), veterans can get new additions if needed or try a new faction. Then once the campaign starts it runs for 6 weeks giving you an overall length of 3 months. I took part in Warlord’s Bolt Action campaign last summer and 6 weeks was long enough e.g. if you play more than one system and only get to play at your local club once a week, any longer would see a decline in interest as you want to move back to playing your other systems.
What a cracking idea and if you even need flags and banners designed, I’m your guy, just ask.
But on the question of build up time, I would say it is a question of how many a year you are planning and what other stuff you will be doing. But I personally think that you should give a two month build up as that gives everyone a check to get involved.
To me the most important part of a campaign is the knock on effects of holding valuable locations. for example, if Army 1 holds an airfield then all representatives of that force fighting for neighboring regions should get a points buff or air support rules. Also global events, If a battle for a power plant goes on too long it goes nuclear and all battles fought in neighboring areas are subject to a radiation special rule.
maybe the more a theater is disputed the less victory points its worth until its rendered a toxic wasteland.
I usually run fantasy campaigns in a smaller but similar way to what your planning and I’m always looking for ways in which the world can feel interconnected. It’s easier with sci-fi cos of the more ‘long range’ness of the technology. I’ve made a list somewhere :p never tested it out tho.
Build up time: Personally, I would prefer at least a month’s warning of a campaign so that I at least have a hope of getting a faction painted up to a basic standard. For larger events, even more time may be preferable. Unfortunately, I can be slow at getting ready for these things >.<
Campaign length: This is an element I think you have a lot of flexibility on. At the lower end, I think you could quite happily get away with week long campaigns if they were tied in to other content. (A week long Infinity campaign alongside an Infinity week for example.) At the upper end, I would have no objections to campaigns lasting several months, or possibly even a year. One thing I would keep in mind for longer campaigns though is that they should be seen as more of a background event – if we take the extreme of a 1 year 40k event, I would expect it to not get in the way of other shorter campaigns being held in parallel. Another thing to keep in mind is that the longer the campaign, the more need it will have of being "spiced up" from time to time by the GMs (you guys), say be the addition of "random" events on a periodic basis.
Army lists: No objections here as long as they're kept optional.
Fog of War: Nice idea, but be careful to ensure that you don't unintentionally just give players a different system to game. (As an example, say that I'm reporting a batte that I lost, with the system as you described it I would have an incentive to make the battle report as low quality as I could get away with.) My only advice for this would be to put your most devious minds into trying to break any system you can come up with. If you go on to beta test the system before putting it live, make sure you have a phase for which the beta testers are encouraged to try and break the system. Once the campaign goes live, you can be as sure as hell that someone's going to be trying to break the system, so it's better that people you trust have tried first 😉
Other thoughts: Multi-system campaigns! Ok, so the specific idea I have in mind might be limited to Star Wars, but if you do a Star Wars campaign, please let players submit results from X-Wing, Armada and/or Imperial Assault. I think this idea could also extend to Dropzone/Dropfleet Commander, but I'm not sure ow many other game universes you could extend this idea to at the moment.
deadzone and warpath, 40k epic and battlefleet gothic, ALLLLL fantasy games ever :p
Firstly, excellent proposal guys. This creates potential for greater immersion for all home and club gamers to feed into something substantial and purposeful. It will inspire detailed battle reports and provide invaluable data relating to the makeup of armies and factions.
“historical lens”
I think it rewarding battle reporting is an excellent idea. I see it not just to stopping spamming but engaging and growing the youtube/blogging community. on the subject of spamming battles I remember that in the GW’s fall of Medusa V campaign each player had an ID number and to log a battle. Also your opponent had to enter each others numbers to corroborate the battles result.
How long before should we hear about them?
would a building add campaign work? starting with a “swish” graphic here and there, in place of normal hub ones, say 8-6 weeks before. Then segment of a weekender 6-4 weeks before and then a full on dedicated weekender 4-2 weeks before. sound good?
How long should they run?
I would say 4-6 weeks. as most people do to a club about once a week, that would allow them to put up 4-12 games I would guess. Definitely want to keep them short to stop burn out! One week end might suck for someone who really wants to play but something come up and they miss out. however an intense weekend of gaming madness with live online updates could be cool!
This really sounds like it could be Eye of Terror 2.0. Hope we see a Dropfleet campaign soon!
P.S
Army list functions sound Ace.
I like it! 🙂
A good campaign engine for wargames is really something the industry is missing. I put together a lot of campaigns over the last 5 years. Having no support other then a shared excelsheet is just not as engaging as multiple battle reports with pictures, army lists etc. sounds like a dream come true.
Regarding your main questions:
1. From my personal experience 6-12 weeks warning time (depending on the system) should be enough. We are currently running 2 escalations leagues in our club (Warmachine/Hordes and Kings of War). Both started with a 8 weeks lead time but we had to add 4 weeks for KoW just to give everyone enough time to finish the first part of thirt armies.
2. In our club 6 weeks proved to be the sweet spot for campaigns/leagues. It is enough time to get enough games in even if someone misses a week or two. On the other hand it is not long enough to get everyone sick of playing a certain system every week. After 6 weeks the guys in the club usually want to either run a different army or try/return to an other system or even get a boardgame session in there.
Our way around this was to use the same approach that Privateer Press uses for it’s official leagues: Run the campaign in multiple parts about 6-10 weeks appart. This period can also be used to increase the army size per player. For example we ran an X-Wing campaign last year with one 100 point phase followed with a short 3 week finisher using 300 points. The 8 week break helped the newcommers to upgrade their fleets to 300 points without scaring them with the investment needed for a 300 point epic battle.
3. Uploading army lists: Ye me likes it 🙂 A clear army lists helps me to better grasp what happend in the battle and I really enjoy talking about them. In addition it might inspire me to add stuff to my collection because I encounter an army concept that I might enjoy or like the look of.
4. Fog of War is an interesting concept. I think it might be fun though I understand both sides of the argument but maybe there is an easy solution about it. The reference to general elections might be a possible answer to this question. Instead of displaying the actual standings of a faction why not show them a forecast instead? This could add a bit of uncertainty too.
for example you could use the AI historian algorithm and add a bit of random magic to display every commander or faction a slightly different graphic for overall/theatre of war. That would add to the feeling of being at war and having to deal with uncertanties. It even might lead to interesting discussions during/after play when commanders of different sides talk about the progress of the campaign.
On a side note: I hope Operation Firestrike does not start before April. I am committed to the KoW leagure until the end of march… 🙂
My comments come from being both a company owner and a gamer.
First, I LOVE the idea. This campaign style is something I’ve been thinking about for a long time, and am so glad you folks are putting it into action.
So onto your questions;
1. How long before the start of a campaign do we begin the build up?
I think this should be more of a case-by-case situation. I do think that a really good campaign has the power to draw new players into game systems, and how long people need to get a starting force varies game to game.
Games with low model counts or simple rules might only need a few weeks, where large scale games could take months.
I think a starting point of 2 months notice, with some flexibility either side depending on the game would be good.
The lead-in time will also depend on how involved the company behind the game system want to become. There’s potential here for companies to use these campaigns to shape their entire games, using the result of the campaign to change the future of their games. In those cases, a longer lead-in time is probably needed.
2. How long would you like a campaign to last?
I think a month is plenty of time. 4 weekends is enough for gamers who can only play during weekends, and 4 weeks gives enough time for clubs that meet once a week to contribute properly.
3. Uploading army lists, ye or nay?
Uploading lists is a great idea. It helps give readers context to the games, but also provides a good subject for comment conversations about list builds, tactics, and specific strategies.
4. Where do you stand on the Fog of War argument?
I actually think this is a great idea. Information in a warzone is never fully reliable during the event, so if you can work in a system that reflects this while also making sure people who are trying to game the system are penalized, and rewarding people uploading quality content, everyone wins.
In regard to prize support if there is any, I think it needs to take the quality of people’s submissions into account to further encourage people to upload reports that people will enjoy.
Something that really excited me is all the possibilities that you have with the system. For example, introducing a 1-day warzone that rewards the victor with new technology or weapons, and then polling the commanders of the winning faction on how they would like to use it. For example; you could have a new weapon be discovered and the commanders that won the 1-day warzone could vote on which warzone to use the weapon in, which would add X number of wins to that region. – This also adds huge scope for narrative set pieces (think of the newpaper headlines after the target warzone was bombed!)
Really excited to see where this goes!
I love this idea, more so because you’re doing Infinity first so you have my attention straight away!
I think 4 weeks notice is perfect for smaller model count games like Infinity, but as others have said already, other games systems that require many models would need more prep time.
I also think 4 to 6 weeks for the campaign itself would be about right. Like @warzan, I’ve a house full of kids so I can only get to club around twice a month. A 6 week campaign would allow me, and others in the same position, to get 2 or 3 good sessions in.
A big YES to army lists. For Infinity, you could also consider linking out to Inifinity Army?
Looking forward to this! Kudos to @warzan, @lloyd and the team for creating an awesome looking system! Can’t wait to play with it!
Another thought, which you’ve no doubt had already, would be using this to involve the community in the bootcamp / campaign weekends.
I’m loving this idea, can’t wait for it to get up and running
In regards to the points your chasing
1. 2 months seems like a decent enough build up before campaigns start.
2. Depending on the size of the campaign area/map/gaming system/number of campaigns currently running I’m thinking 3 months to 1 year would be a good amount of time.
3. I have no issue with uploading army lists
4. I do like the idea of a AI Historian culling the more suspect reports, would be true to life with the varying amounts of misinformation and propaganda machines floating about.
This seems exciting. Let’s see if I can add my opinion on your questions.
Lead time. More lead time is going to be better than less lead time. Lots of gamers have budgets and the current month might be all locked up. Which means next month or the month after to get a new army or to tune up and finish a current army. If you are partnering with publishers, it will be in their interest for you to give time for us to buy new stuff to get in the game or to up our current game. 90 days sound like a target lead time. I know that sounds like a long time, but if your budget is locked up month one, thats only 2 months to buy and paint and prep an army.
Length of campaign. For the guy that plays every week, a month is going to be great. For the guy that only gets in play time once a month, that might be too short. 60 days would give you 8 games for the once a week player, 4 for the every other week player and 2 for the once a month player. now maybe if they are short games they can create more than one battle report per play session, but maybe only one game.
If the reports are going to be rated by other players, no one is going to post them on the fly. If they run the risk of being rated badly for a poor report, no one is going to post live, they are going to go home after the game and put it all together before posting. If you just post the live report and someone gives it a one before you get home to edit and improve it, you just got a one you can’t fix. You will also have to worry about troll voting, people down voting other players reports to make their own look better.
I like the idea and like other have said maybe try to combine gaming systems like Flames of War and Bolt action, Kings of war and maybe age of sigmar (know the lore is different but can be combined) or Star wars x-fighter and Armada. And maybe try to even get some video-games in maybe (like blitzkrieg mod Company of Heroes for a WW2 campaign) It makes it easier for people to get into a campaing and a video game is easier to set up. The main focus should be table-top games ofcourse
I think 1 month is enough to notify and about 6 weeks campaigns (you can always make it longer if there is enough interest)
The AI should be used more times then only on the end. But it should take into account that there are beginner players and new players. It should not make the campaign unaccesible for new players. Ofcourse the armies should be painted and there need to be more terrain then a couple of books but a beginner should be able to join a campaign and people can help them to get their paint job better and improve their terrain.
Just having a Sunday morning catchup with the site. Great idea, especially with having a system that can be used for different games and perhaps even official manufacturer campaigns and things.
I struggle to get game time in these days, so for me a couple of months build up would help, and I think you need to allow a good level of gaming in, I’d go with a 3 month campaign, so you can have a winter one, a summer one and so on. Even those like me who struggle to get lots of games can join in then.
The only comparable thing we have really is the old campaigns GW used to run, and I know people are worried about players losing interest if it goes on too long (which is what took place with the GW stuff), but I think this is different. With content centered around the campaign there will be enough to keep people invested in it for a decent amount of time.
I don’t this a year is practical, could you keep it going with content that long? For me 3 months would be perfect, but I think at least 6 weeks is needed for even a small campaign to allow anyone that wants to to join in.
Oh, forgot the algorithm.
Sensible move as long as people are aware. I see Lloyds point about changing results, but as long as there are no wild swings, and the two would have to be close in the first place for a change to happen it wouldn’t cause too many issues. This is the internet, someone will always be unhappy about something.
Lists I think are important, no one in their right mind would want to copy my fluff based, take what I think looks cool never mind the rules lists, but seeing what people are playing, and with good battle reports, how they play them, can be incredibly useful for less experienced players to learn about their armies. Being able to share lists would be a great learning tool for the game involved.
1-2 MONTHS build up to give new players time to buy in and about the same got the campaign. If you run it for too long and it is swinging to far towards one faction this may put players off.
Also … have you considered running it escalation style? e.g weeks 1-2 500pts, 3-4 750 pts, etc. This would give new players time to start a new force then build it up slowly as time goes on. Jumping straight in to a new rule set can be hard with big forces when you are still learning the rules. This would also simulate a real campaign, beginning with small skirmishes and building later to the big set piece battles.
for me 102 months to prepare army, buy what I am missing, paint it for skirmish games and about mont of campain to not loose interest. In time of big holidays or long weekends quick campain would be nice too.
I think the length of the time the campaign is open should depend more on the narrative and how many zones there are to fight in. If, for example, there are only 5-6 zones and about establishing some type of control zone for a specific reason (for paridiso it could be for some resource or alien tech) a few weeks would be fine but if it had 2-3x the battle zones and more of a grand story running it longer would make more sense.
If short it would be nice if you re-ran them every few months until a new one for that game appeared as I’m sure that I’m not the only one that would really only have one time a month to play probably one game (maybe two).
Also have you given consideration to allowing for subfaction (sectorial in Infinities case) representation instead of just vanilla armies? It might be interesting to allow for that if you re-run a campaign where the first time it’s vanilla only then the second kind allow people to represent vanilla or one of the smaller faction.
If I and my bundy are interested. What are the requirements for this campaign?
One month build up, two month execution.
Seems churlish to not want to share battle reports.
Fog of war definitely.
Great video guys!
To be honnest I think you should give some heads up a good month before hand perhaps two.
For instace as a FOW and 40k player, if you do a campain on one of those two a month or two of warning would be nice.
Let me explain my point a bit more, yes a campain is awesome to use the stuff you allready got.
But it’s also a good dead line in order to produce even more stuff! So having the opportunity to prepare those extra bits for the campain would be a good way to stimulate everyon’s hobby too.
As for the lenght I do agree that people’s interest will wear out. However I would say that the scale of the campain would be a big factor on the time to run it.
A weekend might be a bit too short if you do it to company level or even bigger.
For the first campain I would recommend perhaps not to run it for too long, but that has to do with the content you wish to be able to put out and all too. It is important that the players have fun and are able to do their battles and all, but it’s also important that you have the time to create the content that you are talking about.
You talked about a summer campain, yeah that’d be great, specially that the company with the Toucan’s logo (and not Guiness) has stopped doing them since years.
A yearly campain would be a good thing I think, but I think it’s something that needs a lot of fine tuning before starting it. So I’d say definitly not the first campain to do.
A weekend campain…. well I did a couple of them with my gaming group, one had the GW hex map for 40k, and in the end we ended up playing around 5 games all togheter so the map did not move that much and the end result tasted a bit blend, like the invasion has started but the war is far from over.
The army list? Yeah that’d be awesome! For me and my group of friends we might even try to play a “detachment” along the whole campain so we got the same core list that will suffer losses and that will have to gain reinforcement and Rest and Recuperation in order to keep in good fighting spirit. Yes I know that is hard which is why I don’t talk about including that in the online campain.
For the fog of war, honnestly I would like it. Again I think that the influance of such Historian AI as you call it shall be influenced by the type of periode we play. Obviously it was harder to keep track of things correctly during the Roman periode than it is during the space ship age.
I wonder if too many are seeing this as they would a club campaign, with locked down lists – rather than a set of scenarios, for which we can fill in battle reports and BoW then keeping track of the overall results
Speaking of campaign ideas … what if the campaign allowed different scales/systems to be used like that D-day campaign ?
Bolt action and Flames of War would make for great combo. Historical wargames will already have the advantage of having multiple scales covering the same theatre.
Dropfleet and Dropzone would be another match made in heaven for a campaign where half the game is decided in orbit and the other half on the planet surface.
I bought a load of Infinity miniatures and found that my son wasn’t as keen as I was to play it.
Putting together match reports and contributing towards a campaign online, might be the buy-in trigger I need to get some games played.
I have Ariadna (mostly scots), nomads and pano.
How long before the start of a campaign do we begin the build up?
Would need about a fortnights notice to get some more painting completed and consider terrain.
If I saw a campaign being played that I have no miniatures for I would just concede that I won’t be joining in, but just watch the updates with keen interest.
How long would you like a campaign to last?
I would like the campaign to last at least a month so I can contribute at least every weekend and hopefully something midweek too.
Uploading army lists, ye or nay?
Yes, would like to and would like to see other people’s. I know there is a tournament scene for Infinity, but I’m not sure sharing lists is going to upset even the most competitive of players.
Where do you stand on the Fog of War argument?
I know you have to avoid cheating, but not all war gamers are particularly strong in their technology skills, so uploading photos and videos will be awkward for them. Failure to upload photos may make the contribution be considered poor and not be recorded in the final results. I think only the very worst reports ought to be discounted results wise and consider a lot of flexibility on this.
Will you do some how to play refreshers to help us brush up on rules and encourage more people to play?
Mission packs:
Will you choose some theatres to be faction specific or even sectorial specific? Will you offer some army list ideas where you have specific forces fighting over particular war zones? Will you offer Terrain tips for the different theatres? I know a lot of Infinity players are well aware of the fluff, but I know I could do with more help regarding terrain.
So I love the idea and think you could make these into something really special for the community. So in answer to the questions posed.
1 or 2 months build up depending on the system it gonna take me
Longer to sort out a KoW army than a Batman gang (hint) perhaps just start to tease the campaign 2 months out like in one of the swishes on a weekender. Then announce more a month out.
4 to 8 weeks I think is a good length of time for a campaign. But it depends on the story you are trying to tell. But if you want people to buy in to a 30k force for a campaign then you announce its only 1 weekend long you may kill the next ones.
Army list are a must and to me it helps with the whole spaming of results if at a minimum you have to say what forces you and your opponent took.
I love the fog of war idea where the historians get the final say on the victors.
Have you also thought about giving each faction seperate secret objectives that can only be seen by people aligned to that faction? Stuff like take and hold sector xx for 3 days once they achieve this it can give campaign points and trigger some sort of pre recorded news report or Intel download to that faction with what there next objective is. This would help with the whole fog of war thing as you would never know what the other faction is up to. So you could have faction A fight heavily in sector X so faction B try’s to counter only to find Faction A has abandoned that sector. You could also use this to help smaller factions have key roles
In affecting the out come by giving them smash and grab objectives like gain 10% victories against faction a in sector y.
Hope the above helps. I’d love to get involved with something like this.
Great idea.
We had similar (but way simpler) system for Ultimate Warzone back in 2005, it ran for two seasons and was quite successful.
As for your questions:
1. Prep time: depends on a game, depends on men – for players already involved, a week would probably often be enough (with skirmish systems in particular), with new players – a couple of months might prove insufficient. At the same time too long wait for the campaign may turn previously interested people away.
2. Campaign time: a month to six weeks. That should give two months of content to talk about and guarantee that people not interested in particular game wouldn’t feel bored and unsatisfied (awaiting for a next one). BTW how often you plan on starting new campaigns?
3. Army lists – definetly yes.
4. Fog of war – great idea, but it is execution which shall decide on final assessment.
And a question in the end – have you considered how to deal with multiple languages people might want to use to submit battle reports?
@warzan
All looks amazing with this idea!
In answer:
-How much of a lead in to Campaign Start: Depemds on games, skirmish style, 1 Month, 2 months for bigger battle games.
– How long campaign: same as above, skirmish style 1-2months, bigger war games 2-3 months.
– Armylists, as long as you support .doc or .pdf uploads, typing it all out would be horrific.
– Fog of war, in my mind you made the system so you should call DM rights!
Also, as a note, ‘Commanders Rank’ should be backstage, but non backstage can still enter but don’t get as much facilities!
And finally, Medals, medals, medals, for campaigns, game streaks etc etc, people like collecting stuff, and it’s good for those who don’t win stuff!
Please tell you you plan to do a BA one!
Fog of War sounds excellent, if you’re going to encourage social media banter, may I suggest you set a specific hashtag so people so inclined can go hunting for intel. It might be an idea to allow commendated members to raise in rank, see more of what going on and lead the direction of their factors by trying to encourage players of the same faction to fight in certain regions.
Did I say I love campaigns, used to have a blog about it called Going on Campaign.
Can wait to see how this develops gents!
I believe a months notice should be enough and a month to six weeks to run is easily long enough.
Wonder a little at the fog of war aspect, but do understand it’s requirement when you take into account the human factor of I want my side to win. Wonder about some of the smaller represented groups how they will be measured with regards to their smaller % meaning more than say Pan oceanic, its a little like a mouse in the works, on the whole it is possibly harmless but chew through a wire deep in the system and finding the bloody cable takes a great deal more than simply replacing the works with another replacement works entirely. Just a thought.
It’s a great idea.
A month is ample for notice as not every battle has to be huge points values. Esp infinity, can be played at starter set level very well.
a 2-3 Month length would be my preference for length.
Have you thought about being able to unlock temporary theatres or new theatres based on how well a particular faction performs? IE: Striking an enemy base/landing site/supply dump etc?
Sounds excellent though.
One more thought though. I’m all for sharing lists but would it be possible to limit the sharing only to faction specific? I.e. Only PanO can see PanO lists etc. I know that’s probably a programming pain but would add a nice element to the fog of war. Also I like the idea of the Fog of war. Also rewards people for making decent battle reports.
I would go with a 2 month campaign, with a month announcement. The one thing I really like (at least from the sounds of it) you can take pictures/input information via your phone and edit it later. I think this would help decrease the additional time needed to report the battle.
As for the campaign itself, I think one week before you start the campaign have information of the campaign available for viewing (just no submissions); that way it gives time to prepare for whatever terrain/mission/list building would be needed. Also someone could do their battle then, taking pictures, etc and have it ready to submit day one.
I really like the AI Historian idea, this way it makes doing the entire campaign more interesting instead of just having a list of battles and one side dominating.
I think a fun campaign could take place over a short time. Nine or so days is enough of a window for everyone to get a game or two in that wants to contribute.
During weekdays prior you remind everyone campaign is coming. Maybe even film a couple bat reps to establish the status quo or preview the scenarios. Then open it up on that weeks Friday so its open all weekend. The following week you can do a vlog updating how its going and go over highlights. Then gamers have another weekend to conclude campaign, and following week present the results. It would be great too if there was a boot camp during the campaign with players battling over tables that highlight the types of battles and scenarios folks at home are playing.
1: How long before the start of a campaign do we begin the build up?
I think people need time to earn a paycheck, and then spend it and assemble their models so people can get in to new games or new facions. This means a minimum of 2 months, more for games with larges forces. This also allows time to read and learn rules.
I can see no good reason why you cant set out a 6 month plan so that we can be playing the infinity campaign and know that once month after that finishes we have a Dreadball league and then one month after that a Warmahordes campaign. Focus on whats now, tease whats next and just give token awareness of whats after. Gives us time to plan our shopping, painting and rules reading.
2: How long would you like a campaign to last?
Some people (ie my friends and I) only get to play once a week, and even thats not guarenteed. I’d say a minimum of a month. Much more than 2 and it couild feel like the campaign has taken over all gaming time and people lose interest. You will also want new players to have time to play their demo games, then go away and reread the rules, build new lists and models and return to the table.
3: Uploading army lists, ye or nay?
Yes, but make it optional, and not PDF dependant. If people are afraid to share their lists during the campaign so their opponents can’t build against it then perhaps allow people to have a delayed share option, so that their lists are only visible after the campaign is over, and perhaps always to people of the same faction? I never really understand why some people are protective of their lists (outside of a tournament). We should want to share and learn together so we can all get the most out of this hobby.
4: Where do you stand on the Fog of War argument?
I like the idea, but perhaps the mechanics need tweaking? Perhaps you have it backwards? Perhaps we should see results during play based on the quality of the information, but at the end (or perhaps at key narrative points?) the actual results assert themselves on the world?
Apart from having fun will there be any incesntives to play and win? Will being on a winning faction grant any in campaign bonus’s, either overall or in the theatre your faction is winning in? Will we get an advantages for winning games as individuals? If so, how will this be balanced to stop less successful players/factions falling behind? Will the campaigns have a narrative, ie each week the war progresses based on which sides hold which theatres at a set time? Will there be an overall win condition? Will there be a way we can earn Campaign Points for our side, so that even if we are losing games we are still contributing to the war effort? I like the idea of progression and rewards in campaigns (ie bonus’s, XP, resources to buy new troops and equipment), but I’m always cautious that it can imbalance things quickly.
Heres an idea from World of Warcraft. There used to be PvP areas that players fought for control of. While one side held control they got a bonus wherever they were in the world. You could set up something like that, and every time players used that bonus they had to refresh the web page to make sure it was still live at the time they were rolling their dice. Nice to have the bonus, but you run in depending on it, and raise your weapons only to find out its gone and now you’ve pissed of the dragon and you can’t actually hurt it anymore.
Once you’ve got a few of these under your belt have you considered running some kind of non-system specific campaign? Set up a world map, split the players in to 2-3 camps randomly or something, and then submit their wins from any system? Scenarios for locations could be recycled from previous campaigns and lifted from rule books to limit your workload for this. Not sure how it would feel, but its the seed of an idea.
Is always better if everyone wish it it was a week longer rather than a week or two shorter. For me two months is exactly what we need, because three months would be ideal but many will drop off at the second month.
I hope you do one for Kings of War, Deadzone, Dreadball, Warmahordes or Relic Knights :3
I’m speechless about how absolutely cool this idea is guys! This is EXACTLY the sort of thing that would get me into games that I’m not already into. This is a great idea!
I would say 2 months lead up and 1 month for the campaign itself.
Also, where do I go to upgrade my membership to an annual? I can’t find it on the site.
Also forgot to say – Deadzone please, for the next one! I bought into that game based on your coverage and have yet to really get stuck in. I hear they’ve got v1.5 rules out now and it really fixes the game. I would love to have a Deadzone campaign that could eventually feed into a Warpath campaign. How cool would that be?
I am new to the website but I’ve been loving you YouTube channel. I am excited to start infinity, but I have not started an army yet. However, this is EXACTLY the kind of thing I want to do in this game! You guys are brilliant, and your on the right track. I think a months notice before a campaign is good, maybe a calendar to show dates further out. I think a campaign should go at least a month so you have enough time to play games, and short enough that you get results. I can see the problem of attrition effecting longer campaigns, however you could go so so epic that people can’t ignore it, with a year long campaign, perhaps broken down into seasons or quarters, representing turning points in a larger narrative. Army lists? ABSOLUTELY. AI historian, LOVE IT! Adds value to the campaign content wise, and helps weed out low quality reports.
I like the idea of limits to the reports you can upload. If you do more than one game a day, pick the best, and submit others maybe on a day you don’t play a game. And maybe this is too much to ask, but maybe have the ability to override the one a day limit if you submit a video of the battles, proving they were played.