Battle Games Poll?

[richvalle]

"battles that are more... linked"

The campaigns like Brave but Futile or Steadfast and Loyal had those provisions.  On the other hand the mechanism to create the scenarios was not historical but rather meant to be evocative of the types of battles that would have been fought.  Plus the paperwork was daunting.

Something like Spearhead would be perfect for some kind of amalgam of the Battle Game concept and some aspects of attrition, however, that would create a cascading effect in the "game" part of PG where a player who lost (potentially badly) in an early scenario is now incapable of recovering, rendering the play of the subsequent scenarios a forgone conclusion.  We are trying to not only reflect the history but to give players a game that is playable and enjoyable for both sides.  I designing the campaign game for the Inchon landings I tried to point out the effect of any North Korean "win" in the Perimeter battles, with an NKPA win requiring a much more significant victory by MacArthur's gamble.  In reality, of course, an NKPA victory of the type required in the Battle Game would most likely have caused a postponement in the invasion if not an outright cancellation.

The coming campaigns in Fire in the Steppe will have some of that "wearing" effect included.  In designing the Battle Games for the scenarios that will ultimately end up in Armata Romana, for example, units that appear in multiple sequential Battle Games may have adjustments to morale as well as unit losses.

In most Battle Games the actual units involved are not the same from scenario to scenario and the scenario designers have spent considerable time determining the OOB to be 

Yeah, I'm playing some Spearhead right now and was thinking it could work well for a mini-campaign. 

I hear you on the issue of losing one battle badly and it throwing later games. Though I suspect people willing to play such campaigns would be able to take it in stride and either surrender or push on knowing it was a forlorn hope. 

If there was some sort of point system to rebuild units or if later battles had more units show up then what could happen is if someone loses battle one badly they just 'retreat' from battle 2 and... no that's not going to work. If it's a linked battle, say, around capturing a town running from battle 2 gives the town to the other side negating the rest of the battles. 

I guess the rule in such a thing is "don't lose badly".   

In a way that's kind of what I want though. Where preserving the troops is as important as winning so you have them around for later battles. It could help stop last turn banzai rushes to take a town hex no matter the cost so you get the extra 3 VP's. 

The Fire in the Steppes thing sounds great. I look forward to hearing about it/playing it. 

Thanks.