Thinking about NaW/WaW campaigns

Discussion in 'World At War 85 Series' started by Matt Lohse, Jan 1, 2014.

  1. Matt Lohse

    Matt Lohse Editor
    Staff Member

    Aug 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    Crossposted in the NaW folder as well as at BGG/CSW.

    Having taken some time to think about how to set up a campaign to address the faults I perceive in my previous ones as well as some of the possibilities suggested by the items several of you have pointed out, I am starting to narrow down on something like the following.

    Issues and solutions I am considering…
    Problem: Scenarios not being stand alone. Solution: For the campaign/linked force side, have a default OOB for each scenario to use if not playing the full campaign. Likewise, have stand alone victory conditions.

    Problem: How to determine victory for the campaign. Solution: Rather than going by what scenario you get to, have some sort of VP system that scores how good/bad the linked side does in each scenario and then have set levels for the final victory levels.

    Problem: How to handle reinforcements/replacements. Solution: Either go with a fixed reinforcement schedule [i.e. 1 tank platoon and infantry platoon after each scenario] or maybe a limited overall pool of units of which a certain number are chosen after each scenario. Perhaps combine the two. Perhaps link these to how well the campaign side does… better performance results in more units.

    Problem: Given the nature of the linked campaigns, many/most scenarios are going to be balanced heavily in favor of the linked side. This may not make them fun to play as the other side since the theme seems to be inflict as much damage as possible before being wiped out. Solution: Try to develop a crude AI so the scenario/campaign can be played solo if you want. So what the hell would that involve?

    Problem: How do you have a crude AI for the WaW/NaW system? Solution [initial thought]. Have maybe 3-4 possible preplanned setups for the non-linked side. Player sets up his/her side first and then rolls for the other sides setup [works better if the AI is on defence]. Have each preplanned setup coupled with a short [1-3 sentences] guide for how the AI side should be played [targeting priorities, when to fall back, ect]… possibly linked to each of the different setups. Maybe have several different people develop the setup/instructions to get different approaches.

    Problem: How to add a bit of variety in the scenarios and give the player a few more decisions to make. Solution A: Let one or both sides trade VPs for certain reinforcements [for a given scenario] that can be added. There would be some limits to how much could be done at each time. Solution B: Have a defined core OOB and then have one/both sides [more likely the non-linked side] roll a dice to get one of several possible sets of addon units. Perhaps have a VP point adjustment for them. Not sure if this would work well with the AI system. Perhaps have different setups with different possible OOBs.

  2. Eric Burgess

    Eric Burgess Member

    Dec 9, 2014
    Likes Received:
    I think variable OOB would be the most interesting option, to keep the campaign replayable. You would have a core OOB, then roll a D6 and add another formation, air support, air cover, etc. Modify the D6 based on whether you won the last battle or not.

    I like the idea of replacements too. Some sort of point system?

    There are many miniature "campaign systems" that do this type of thing.

Share This Page