Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I am looking at starting a local campaign in the near future, I am planning to do a map based campaign and award victory points from missions, Right now we have about 6 - 8 people involved so far, one of the things we are doing is that to bring allies you need to actually get players to come as allies. The idea is to help get people in our area together and playing.

one of the players wants to implement treachery, his example was coming as an ally then joining the other side during deployment, but if I bring a 1500 point ally in a 3k game then all of a sudden I am 1500 points vs 4500 points which is pretty much a guaranteed loss. His other suggestion was to allow the ally to bail on you either after deployment or during the first turn. I am not opposed to the idea but I am not sure how you could implement it that will keep it fun for everyone. I am just not sure how to implement treachery so that people who want it can have it and people who don't will still have fun. any ideas what I can do?

We have so far agreed to several things:
No Lords of War(real ones not the HQs turned LoW) unless both players agree.
Forgeworld is ok as long as players can agree.
Players will agree to point level each game since some players are new and will not have huge armies.

That sounds like a ton of fun and a good way to expand your player base. I don't know about the treachery thing, I think it'd be hard to do without pissing other players off and essentially making it a loss. The only way I think I would allow it would be if the ally bailed or turned traitor (and became a 3rd opponent), then the larger force would have to cut their size down to the new limit. Saay each player brought 1500 and the opponent brought 3000. Should the ally turn traitor, it would be a 1500 1v1v1 or if he left, it would be a 1500 1v1.

Again, I don't know how you plan to do it, but the treachery idea makes me uncomfortable as it becomes a near auto loss.

That is the same boat I am in, the guy spearheading the want for treachery options said he will run a competing campaign that does allow it. I really don't want to defeat the whole purpose. I do like the idea of the 1v1v1 better than the other idea, still not a huge fan of the treachery idea as a whole.

Simple fix. If treachery happens, the game's objective changes: The betrayed player must escape the battlefield with as many forces as possible via his/her board edge. If they succeed, the betrayer takes a points hit for their next battle as the betrayed act quickly to disrupt their logistics. If the betrayal is successful, then the betrayer gains the initiative and gets to select a sector to attack.

The only way I'd allow trechery is on the map level, not on an individual battlefield level. Players amass their own empires in tiles etc that are shared for a common faction, however a player might then choose to betray his team and join the enemy faction giving his tiles "bonuses" to the enemy and allowing him to declare attacks on his previous allies. Perhaps make a special in game scenario for when this happens specifically set up to reflect fighting traitors in your own midsts with objectives to suit.

Simply setting up a 2 v 2 game and having one player defect midgame is purely going to annoy members of this own faction.

I think I am just going to leave it out, it seems like something that would split the community more than bring it together.