|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 8, 2011 10:15:20 GMT -5
Well it's been a little bit since we had a fantasy campaign, and I think the last one turned out pretty good... was wondering if there would be interest in having one again....?
so the questions we need answered are:
1) would you participate?
2) what things do you like about previous campaigns that you'd like to see done again?
3) what things do you not like about previous campaigns that you'd rather not see again?
4) what new ideas do you have to make a fun campaign?
5) what point level would you like to play at? (ie: we could have an escalation style campaign, a roving main army size / base army size, set points for one on one or two on one battles)
|
|
|
Post by usscott on Mar 8, 2011 10:34:33 GMT -5
i was just think we need a campaign . 1200 / 2400 points
|
|
|
Post by calitom on Mar 11, 2011 16:21:28 GMT -5
An escalation style Campaign setup would be lots of fun. Other then that I sadly don't have -too- much to add as I haven't taken part in the WFB campaigns in the past.
|
|
Edg3ofR3ason
Immortal
Champion of the Anvach Arena of Death
Contrary to popular opinion, 'I'm not dead yet!'
Posts: 340
|
Post by Edg3ofR3ason on Mar 28, 2011 16:32:37 GMT -5
I would certainly like to participate in another campaign. I found the first one fun but tough for the following reasons: 1. my choice of army: TK - not a powerhouse by any means: what was I thinking! 2. if you lost territory to someone early in the campaign and they didn't show up again then you lost any chance to regain it and the points. 3. Tommy and his chaos dwarves ;D 4. paring up due to uneven numbers I think is a disadvantage if it occurred more than once over the course of the campaign. I'm not sure what to suggest for the next campaign as I've only played the one. If you want some assistance in organizing it let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 28, 2011 18:50:30 GMT -5
Well there was definitely some good things about the last one but some bad things as well... the biggest problem was that it was difficult to keep a consistent group going... and yeah if someone didn't show up, they were pretty much immune to you getting your territory back...
So what about the ideas of teams? (seemed to work in Frank's campaign)
or even there being three teams - order vs. destruction... and "neutrals" (tomb kings / ogres) weighing in on whatever battles they wish....
That way one half of the map is "evil" armies and one half is "good"... with objectives in each realm... so if you are a good army for example you can send troops in to capture towers, towns, shrines etc. in the evil realm (and they can be re-captured of course) and vice versa....
that way if someone doesn't make it, no big deal... lots more armies where that came from...
we could do a sign up where you basically choose your side... that way if you have multiple armies for example, no problem... so long as you stay on your "side" no matter if you're playing orcs or dark elves week to week....
thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Mar 28, 2011 19:22:03 GMT -5
A campaign sounds like fun and the chaos vs order sounds good too as it might get me to paint some more woodelves ;D
|
|
Edg3ofR3ason
Immortal
Champion of the Anvach Arena of Death
Contrary to popular opinion, 'I'm not dead yet!'
Posts: 340
|
Post by Edg3ofR3ason on Mar 28, 2011 20:17:06 GMT -5
I like the concept.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 28, 2011 21:32:41 GMT -5
okay...now answer the OTHER questions in the first post!
|
|
|
Post by nekekami on Mar 28, 2011 23:48:40 GMT -5
I wholly support the idea of a new campaign!
I mean, I'm not playing until May still, but I do endorse this.
I just like maps. :3
|
|
Edg3ofR3ason
Immortal
Champion of the Anvach Arena of Death
Contrary to popular opinion, 'I'm not dead yet!'
Posts: 340
|
Post by Edg3ofR3ason on Mar 29, 2011 5:18:32 GMT -5
so the questions we need answered are:
1) Yep 2) randomness of opponent and defined objectives 3) my choice of army, pairing up at only half the point value makes the paired army weaker than the single full point value army 4) like the idea of Order vs Destruction; the 'Pinky and the Brain' trying to take over the world on thursday night thing! and possibly random doubles 5) not sure but if doing doubles then start at 1250 and increment up to 3000 per person and use allied rules (which might help me learn them better" or possible include minimum reinforcement rule
Anyway just some thoughts ;D
|
|
|
Post by usscott on Mar 29, 2011 10:20:11 GMT -5
i try 1400 for pairs and 2400 for the sig
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 29, 2011 11:04:05 GMT -5
and for a 2 on 1 situation? should it be straight 1200 each for the team vs. 2400 for the single player?
|
|
|
Post by bryozoan on Mar 29, 2011 11:18:35 GMT -5
what if its 2 1200 vs 1 1200 and the solo can get a bouns liek when i had the castle or some other benift
|
|
|
Post by stonecutter on Mar 29, 2011 15:53:33 GMT -5
and for a 2 on 1 situation? should it be straight 1200 each for the team vs. 2400 for the single player? I think Scott had a good idea with his split which technically favours the double team with 2 x 1400 points vs a single with 2400. There is definitely an advantage in being the single player and even much more so if you actually use the alliance rules in the book (this really pooches teams if they are anything other than trusted allies and even then it isn't great).
|
|
|
Post by Jack Shrapnel on Mar 29, 2011 16:20:07 GMT -5
yep... sounds good Frank... if we find it too unbalanced as we go we can always change it up....
So shall I make up a map?
|
|