Ive been think about making a Map Based Campaign for my warhammer group (King Tut included).

I dont know how the fluff will all come together, but the way it will work is that very small points(500 tops) and mostlikely a combination of Border Patrol and Warbands, with posibly some unit restrictions being lifted for lands owned and such.

Each race will have a capital, and then several smaller cities which will confer bonus's in battle (I.E. defender gets to place all the terrain. Then there will be some other land areas that will confer bonuses.

Armies will be able to occupy one land area each, and if two opposing armies are on the same land, they do battle. Armies move d3(maybe 2 would be better) area's a turn. Winning a battle earns you points- which will be explained in a bit. An army that loses must head towards the nearest city to reform (with +1 movement). Once reformed can be moved again. If dfending a city and lose, they have to flee to the capital.

Cities have militia, which act as armies, but cant have characters or special or rare choices, only core.

Points can be used in several ways, buying a new army, making a makeshift city on a land(lets the army reform there, but no bonus for city), and other such tidbits. Ideas for these would be appreciated.

There should be enough lands for 4 sides to battle over, but not too much no mans land. im thinking possibly 16to20.

Any Comments Criticism and Ideas are welcome. If this works well, I might aply it to larger point games.

Burro Boskov

P.S. 250!

It sounds like a good idea. I especially like the idea of militia and think it would be interesting to have an entire campaign in the 500pts region - it would allow for more variety and it wouldn't get boring. Plus the battles would be quicker - always a good thing!

I'd be willing to add to this, but I don't have any ideas right now. Sorry.

That looks cool. One of my friends tried to start a campaign like that (map, territories, etc.), but we abandoned after a while because some of us lost interest. But since there were no clear rules for that kind of campaign, we had to constantly invent new ones for many situations, and that might be one of the reason why we stopped. Maybe another reason was that we didn't play often enough to make it worthwhile.

I wish you the best of lucks. I'd love to participate to that kind of campaign.

It´s good that you guys arent that numerous, that makes things a lot less complicated. I´ve participated in two campaigns, both with major flaws. In the first it was each one on their own and we were 10+ players. That can only mean one thing, total chaos. In the second we tried alliances but that means that people gang up on some poor guy that dont stand a chance in a very unfair fight :lol: .

2 areas none of this d3 nonsense unless the army is broken
I will be taking O and G now for the campaign im not silly enough to take Tomb Kings Under 2000 points yet...
I like this and may i suggest we have special territories in which there are items such as wizards tower etc that allow bonuses ?
I think we should try mini-seige later inthe game 1000 vs 500 points. using terrain of our own design R has started on that i think. Pointer Lizardmen arent too hot in small games either so L might have a problem. Thats all i can say for now but i approve :)

L has the skaven if he feels inclined, they would work fine in smaller games and makes more sense fluffwise.

d3 for fleeing only. I think 2 areas is a bit too fast. you could cover the board in 2-3 turns, which is too easy. 1 area seems best to me

Special areas will be in the center of the board. Examples- Wizard tower- +1 to all attempts to cast.
wood- warmachines 3/4 cost. gold mine- 50 more points in all cities, 25 in more points in standard areas.

Upgrades- barricades- lets owner have terrain bonus on that area. Village- army can regroup there.

Using our own terain wont work well IMO, as people have varying amounts and different types.

will edit later.

Burro Boskov

If you guys can get your hands on a copy of the 5th Edition Battle Book that came with the big boxed set at the time, I vaguely recall that there was a section on campaigns there, and they had a whole bunch of ideas for what different territories could be. It would mean that your army would start out pretty basic though.

Then again, I may be getting confused with a campaign they ran through White Dwarf, set in Lustria, a few years ago. Think it'd be around UK WD no. 215-ish, I'm sure someone can provide a better reference than that though. I'm on the opposite side of the world to all my paper Warhammer resources at the moment, so I'm sorry I can't be more help.

Cheers,
DLJ

thats an idea we could do a lustria based campaign...
I think it should be 1 normal then d3 for "fleeing troops etc people running back to regroup army"

allright, sounds good.

prototype map will be up sometime this weekend.

Burro Boskov

I like the idea but i was wondering. What will ya do when an army attacks a capital? Most capitals have stone walls, so they'll have to seech the city(is that correct spelling?) Is that even possible with 500 pt vs 500 pt?

I believe "siege" is the word you are looking for. I can see your point nonetheless. However, if they do set it in Lustria, it'll be more of a base camp than a capital, so they should be able to get away with it. Hopefully!

Cheers,
DLJ

seige

I think it should be a 1000 point vs 500 point game personally or 1k vs 750

Bone Idols map
Here is a map off Khemri.co.uk and i think it would work well with our campaign i better ask permission from bone idol but i dont think he will mind.

In GW's siege scenario, the besiegers are supposed to outnumber the besieged two to one. But that was in 6th Ed, and I don't know if the rules for siege have changed in 7th.

The trouble with a siege scenario is that some armies are much better than others. Dwarves, for example, are a solid, disciplined, artillery-heavy and tightly-packed army, and they are excellent to defend a fortress. The Empire would be very good as the attacker and as the defender. But a Chaos army, which excels in close combat and works better in an open battlefield, would be pathetic in a siege. And the Bretonnian army would be bad too, because their heavy cavalry is useless in that kind of battle and their infantry is crappy.

well our armies are brettonian/woodelves, lizards, dwarves and TombKings/Orcs and Goblins

sieges will cause to many problems if you ask me.

I think that a capital's milita is not limited to core choices, like the others are, but can use special and rare choices and character if'n they wish to. also, since there isnt much space for terrain in warbands and such, the capitals army may place up to 2 pieces of terrain wherever they wish, and chose their own side. I think should be enough of an advantage for the capital.

also, i have an idea for specialiesd armies. each of the out lying cities will have a special attribute, a proper list will be coming up on the weekend. An army can choose to become an army from that city, giving it its attribute. you start off with two armies, one from the capital, which has no special attribute, but then one from any of the three smaller cities(giving it its attribute). when the player can afford other armies, they can decide to make it from that city, and using its attribute. This will make all the armies different, which could make for a new level of tactical planing.

Burro Boskov

Wow, I really liked that map and will surely nick it for the campaign im planning for my gaming group :).

this then give the option of a combined assualt? Say i move two armies into an area that 1 enemy army is in. Do i get to use both armies in my attack?

Tyrion : Dont thank me thank him

I´ve tried this before and it was not fun. The other guy wont have a chance and it will just end up in games where both players know the outcome. Hardly fun or challenging in any way.

Well, you found it :P .

ah but it adds a new level of strategy into the game
If i can attack one large army with two smaller ones i may just have a chance. I suggest we use the Total war tactic, you can only have X amount of points if your opponent has Y amount of points and can only have Z amount of points over his.
But then again we could have a 1000 point army bashing on a 500 point one. BUT if you dont allow casulties to be revived then thats good. So the 1000 point army will slowly shrink until it is crushed

i understand what you mean, i was thinking of that same problem myself

on a side note, i think we should allows armies to retreat if they feel.

easy way to fix two armies problem is that one army per area. i admit thats a bit unfair.

it could always be that with 2 armies, any area advantage they had is disallowed. that and say 750 vs 500, with modified victory chart, as in any result with the 500 army having more makes the 750 flee. a draw makes the 500 retreat, but still get the point for a winning battle, even though they didnt. a loss for the 500 same thing, and 750 gets point.

also, depending on how badly your army lost the fight changes how long it takes for your army to recover. example(minor loss- 1 turn, significant- 2, major 3, and massacre the army is destoryed!)

in the above 2vs 1 example, a major victory for the 2 team efectivley wipes out the 1 army.

how do these rules sound?

as for the map, im thinking a square would be easier to work with, possibly 9 by 9. it may seem large, and it might be, but with the need for a significant distance between cities of opposing teams, it seems to work best. i will have a prototype up on friday.

Burro Boskov

still waiting for the map

and im still waiting for a free day. Im sorry, i just dont have much time unitll my cross country season ends. May have to wait untill then.

Burro Boskov