(24-03-2016, 03:28 PM)LukeR Wrote: [ -> ]Also I thought that the idea was no one would get knocked out completely Rob, and that Chris might GM extra nodes or bonuses in.
Fair enough. I might of missed this in the general chatter! I'm happy either way.
My only experience, as I have said before, for map-based campaigns is boardgames. Of which I have played many across many different time periods and genres.
In short, you have an income based on the territory you own, you can then spend that income to buy extra troops. Chris already has this set up, but in a different way, and I am all for trying new things out, so happy as is.
However, as you expand your empire, you usually leave garrisons as you go. You start off by building your armies until you think they are big enough, then off you go. Main generals lead the main armies, unnamed captains get dropped off with a small garrisons at vulnerable nodes. When it comes to the build round you can build anywhere in your 'connected' territory. So rebuild your main army, strengthen a garrison, etc.
Chris rightly said this could cause a lot of minor battles that we would not have time to play. A point I agree with. In fact it has been the case in a game played previously, and the GM came up with some rules to simplify the mini battles. So play the big battles, but just roll some dice for the mini battles. E.g 100 point garrison v 500 point army. Total on table 600 points, or if you like a d6 roll. On a 1 the garrison holds off the army, on a 2-6, the garrison loses. Then roll per the rules for any losses. If garrison wins maybe roll 2d6 and on a 12 an army leader is injured...
I think you need to be able to grow a threatening force.
I also think after a battle you do take losses and replacements need to be payed for. War is a costly business, especially when you go on the offensive.
If you attack and take some losses the force waiting to the side may think it now can take its chance.
Personally I like the nodes being hard to defend it should keep the campaign dynamic, however if you wanted to allow more ability to defend you could just remove the restrictions on unengaged armies defending adjacent nodes and allow an army that's unengaged to defend any friendly node. Maybe with some restrictions if the node is far away or not connected in anyway to the army. Just spitballing ideas though, and trying to think of system so that a team doesn't have several games piled up while others have none, which could be the problem with garrisons :/
