Author Topic: [Discussion] North American Grand Campaign  (Read 2851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline DaMonkey

  • King of FSE
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
    • View Profile
  • Nick: King DaMonkey I
  • Side: Confederacy
[Discussion] North American Grand Campaign
« on: February 20, 2013, 07:58:35 pm »
 I have been thinking to myself for quite some time "where have all the grand campaigns gone?" and realized that most don't even take off the ground. In addition, I am not aware of any that are NA based. The following text by me is a draft up of ideas on how I think a cool grand campaign could work. I welcome any and all discussion on things that you think could make it work, and if interest ensues therein perhaps even start hosting one. I didn't put this in 'events' because I would like to have a discussion on the subject first, open to the community.



 The purpose of this event is to provide an actual Grand Campaign for the North American community. As most grand campaigns have two factions, this campaign will include the entirety of the European continent (the most of it, at least) as well as all five factions. The five factions will have their historical borders (of 1806), and the other nations that aren't in-game will have their borders 'neutral' and up for grabs. All five factions start at a neutral stance with on another.

 Regiments wishing to attend will sign up with their name, max. attendance, and their unit. A unit that applied with, say, the 33rd Regiment of Foot, will only be able to play the 33rd regiment of foot. Each regiment acts independantly. Each regiment leader will choose their regimental depot, which must be a town or fort of some sorts. This is where they will start in the campaign. If their depot is captured they are rendered ineffective, and will be forced to sit out for the remainder of the turn, which they will have to choose a new depot.

 When all regiments are signed up, each faction will elect its leader. This leader manages the nation's resources and diplomacy. The leader can enter battle with a regiment, but the faction leader is not an authoritarian military commander. The regiment leaders choose their moves and act independantly. This rule is pushed aside when a faction leader puts together an Army to lead an offensive of sorts. The faction leader will be able to call up an army, in which regiment leaders will be able to decide themselves to rally into it or not. Once they do, the regiment commanders must listen to the faction leader's orders. The regiment may continue as normal when the army is disbanded, or the army's purpose has served its course.

 Regiments are permitted ten moves per turn (a turn is one week real-time, and one month in terms of the campaign). Moving to a province takes up one move, capturing a province takes up four moves, a battle takes up seven, a river crossing (without bridge) takes up nine, and an amphibious battle (as attacker) takes up all moves. For a regiment to move, they will send a PM to an event administrator, who will update the map. If moving multiple provinces, the regiment leader must specify the rout, to determine the number of moves used up. When a regiment attacks another, the defender has the options of fighting, or falling back. If the regiment falls back, it takes up all of their moves, and they are pushed back five tiles.

 All these battles that are decided to be fought will be fought on the event battle day (Saturday). Each battle is five rounds. The winner of the battle occupies the province of the defending regiment, and has four move points taken from them (unless it was an amphibious invasion, in which case all moves are used). In terms of the loser:
5-0: Total Victory/Defeat. The losing regiment is considered routed and ineffective. Loses all move points and is forced to its regimental depot.
4-1: Decisive Victory/Defeat. The losing regiment is considered routed. Loses eight move points and is forced to its regimental depot.
3-2: Costly Victory/Defeat. The losing regiment loses seven points from the battle, and is forced back five tiles (costing an extra 2 move points). The winning regiment loses seven move points from the battle, and an extra point from losses.
2-2: Stalemate. No ground is taken or lost. Both sides lose seven move points from the battle, and an extra from losses.

 If a battle is planned to be engaged, and another regiment moves to that tile to support afterwards, here are the following rules:
Each day is considered one battle round. If the support regiment arrived the same day of the battle planned, the regiment may enter at round 2. If the support regiment arrived a day later, it may arrive at round 3. Two days later and they may arrive at round 4, and so on.

 Regiments are permitted to sign up as Line Infantry, Skirmishers, Cavalry, or Artillery. Each factions is only permitted two units of skirmishers (a full unit is considered 15 men, including officer and etc)- this is to prevent marauding units everywhere on the map.

 Artillery Regiments are only permitted to go artillery. Meaning everyone is either Artillery Officer, Train, or ranker. For every four rankers, one cannon is allowed, with a maximum of four cannons. Artillery regiments have six move points, non-bridged river crossings are not possible (they can partake in the attack, and bombard from their side of the river), and will always be routed to their depot upon any defeat (taking two extra move points on top of the four taken from battle).

 Cavalry regiments are permitted a maximum of 15 men, including officers and etc. A cavalry regiment is permitted twelve move points.

 Line infantry are at least eight men. A regiment above 30 men only has eight movement points (to replicate logistics). Regiments of fifteen or more must have a flag. Regiments are not allowed to go Foor Guard unless their regiment is actually a footguard regiment (i.e 2nd Coldstream, 2. Garde, etc). There should be no 'regular' line regiment which has a legetimate reason to go footguard, other than blunting their presence when there actually is a guard present.


This is Where Regiments attending would go. For now this is just for show, and may include regiments supporting or interested in the idea

United Kingdom
Faction Leader:
  • 3rd Test Regiment of Foot
France
Faction Leader: Napoleon Born-To-Party (lol)
  • 9th Regiment d'Test
Koenigreich Preussen
Faction Leader:
  • II. Bataillon, 2. Garde-Regiment zu Fuß
Austria
Faction Leader:
  • Grenadier Battalion Test
Russia
Faction Leader:
  • Test Gvardii Polk



QED



« Last Edit: August 11, 2015, 04:58:45 am by DaMonkey »
Did you know that if you use 100% of your brain, you get godlike powers? true story.
Did you know that if you use 10% of received donations, you can release BCoF by now. true story

Offline Joker11

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Everything you can imagine is real
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1stWFI_Gefr_Joker
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2013, 08:54:39 pm »
Sounds quite fun

Offline Odysseus

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2062
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 08:59:09 pm »
Quote
•9th Regiment d'Test
This is grammatically incorrect, it would be De Le Test, you only add the apostrophe when the word starts with a vowal.  :P

Joking aside, I'll talk to Audiate about the RM attending.

Offline Menelaos

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 4000
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2013, 09:09:08 pm »
Oh we did do one, but interest was lost too fast after a few battles.

Offline McEwan

  • Brigadier General
  • *
  • Posts: 3530
  • "McEwok" "McScrubwin" "ManJewban" "McWeewan"
    • View Profile
    • Marins de la Garde Impériale on Enjin!
  • Nick: IXe[Marins]_McEwan
  • Side: Union
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 09:12:23 pm »
Sorry to burst your bubble Odysseus, but "de le test" is also grammatically incorrect. It would be "du test." ;)

Sounds like it would be hell to organize without substantial help, DaMonkey. But, it's very possible, and is something I would happily endorse if it has substantial support and coordination. :)


Kielbasa!

Offline Odysseus

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2062
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 09:14:27 pm »
Sorry to burst your bubble Odysseus, but "de le test" is also grammatically incorrect. It would be "du test." ;)
Wait, I believe we are both incorrect, its de la test isn't it?  :P

French.  :P

Offline Stunned Lime

  • Major
  • *
  • Posts: 4492
  • Hella O's
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 10:03:54 pm »
Okay ecoutez moi , vous etes tous des imbeciles qui ne savent pas le francais. Aller a la maison petits enfants!

Offline Joker11

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 531
  • Everything you can imagine is real
    • View Profile
  • Nick: 1stWFI_Gefr_Joker
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 10:08:17 pm »
 
Okay ecoutez moi , vous etes tous des imbeciles qui ne savent pas le francais. Aller a la maison petits enfants!
Limetten sind sauer  ;)

Offline Deofuta

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 938
  • 1stEPI_Fw_Deofuta
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 10:28:04 pm »
Do you have a rule set in mind?

Offline DaMonkey

  • King of FSE
  • *
  • Posts: 1677
    • View Profile
  • Nick: King DaMonkey I
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 10:29:48 pm »
Mein Gott, this isn't a grammar thread!  ;D

Anyways. I didn't mean to put forth a notion of "this is happening," rather "what would you like in one?"

Do you have a rule set in mind?

Not really. I was just putting this forward for discussion, although the battle etiquette itself would be pretty normal, similar to 5arge's linebattle or mine.
Did you know that if you use 100% of your brain, you get godlike powers? true story.
Did you know that if you use 10% of received donations, you can release BCoF by now. true story

Offline Odysseus

  • Donator
  • *
  • Posts: 2062
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #10 on: February 21, 2013, 12:09:41 am »
Okay ecoutez moi , vous etes tous des imbeciles qui ne savent pas le francais. Aller a la maison petits enfants!
Non, tu ne pas mon mere, tu a un stupide chien!

French.  :P

Offline 5arge

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 616
    • View Profile
  • Side: Neutral
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #11 on: February 21, 2013, 12:47:24 am »
The problem with this kind of a thing is working out the various battles that have to take place each day/week/month to keep the game going. Logistics is what kills a campaign like this, because all it takes is one regiment involved to start missing their matches and then the whole campaign is bogged down waiting for last week's moves to be completed so the game can continue. When you do come up with a ruleset for the campaign itself, there should be strict rules about when/where/how the battles take place to keep things moving. There should be clear rules about forfeiting your battle if you cannot make the match in a timely manner.
it seems that the person on the wrong end of 5arge always seems to get the punishment.

Offline PrideofNi

  • Major General
  • **
  • Posts: 6087
  • This is just a game, respect other people!
    • View Profile
    • K-KA HQ
  • Nick: PrideofNi
  • Side: Confederacy
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #12 on: February 21, 2013, 01:42:18 am »
For a campaign to work I really think that the idea of there being an actual site set up which would keep things organised (a map with pieces like risk for example) would improve the likely hood of it being successful. Also being more strict on who to accept.


A euro nub's opinion.

Offline Thundersnow

  • Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 2343
  • Overlord of the 00th Regiment, Time and Space.
    • View Profile
    • www.PlanetThundersnow.com
  • Side: Neutral
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #13 on: February 21, 2013, 02:23:57 am »
I think you should make it clear from the start that bribery of the Event Coordinator is not only accepted, but widely viewed as 'expected.'

I've instilled this sort of behavior in all my events and things have gone swimmingly.

Offline Jocam

  • Second Lieutenant
  • *
  • Posts: 615
    • View Profile
  • Side: Union
Re: [Discussion] North American Grand Campign
« Reply #14 on: February 21, 2013, 02:31:21 pm »
How about mixed regiments, the AGI has american and EU alike