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 primarily a campaign player, preferring narrative games (competitive but the armies reflect the narrative and aren't the min/max OP builds) and one thing that we do is an annual campaign. One of the constants I have heard for years and years and years from a lot of people is that they avoid campaign games and prefer to stick primarily to tournament games or pick up games.

So my question posed here is what's your take on campaigns and why/why not would you / not participate in one?

I'd love to get one going! I sort of have a one-side campaign planned in that how my army ends up doing on the tabletop will get reflected in the fluff I'm compiling for them, so in that regard every battle is contributing to their narrative. However, if I can get my regular opponents to go for something more structured then great! It's something that's probably on the cards when we've built up our armies some more, we tend to play in quite a close group so it should work.

One off games for me (and those I play with regularly) are often just the playtest stage before a campaign. We work out whether we will like the game and get an idea of strengths and weaknesses of units etc. Then we think if we can or cannot see a campaign with the game, no campaign = drop game and play something else.

I should stress our campaigns may well be home grown, whilst an inbuilt campaign is nice we are quite happy to come up with our own.

Starting a Blucher campaign later this week, played it a few games and got an idea of what it is like, then come up with an 1808-1814 peninsula war campaign for 3 players (French, Spanish, Brits). Looking forward to that.

We are not so worried about 'narrative' aspects as such, but more the sort where you take a force and watch it evolve, where losses from battle to battle affect later ones etc. Also the idea that a battle is not always a balanced affair, but often reflects the reality that some battles are just not a 50/50 fight. It is more the idea of having some over arching reason for each battle, and reasons to not simply fight to the death. There are, however, often 'those moments' mid game that become their own narrative for the rest of a campaign.

Best campaigns in the past have been some Federation Commander ones, the battles we had in those games played massively different to the one off games - just like historical admirals you don't lose your fleet for no purpose like you often do in one off games.

Far prefer a campaign to pickup games. A campaign with a bunch of friends on fully painted tables with nice terrain is the ultimate hobby time to me.

The sentiment comes up in many threads but I don't view tabletop gaming as some test of skill or competitive event. I like the Jervis view of two directors making a movie play out.

I like campaigns. I think some of the issues with campaigns may be fighting uneven battles ... i.e. lopsided battles where one army is significantly more powerful than the other to the point where you know ahead of time who is going to win the battle.

Thats true but I think a lot of non campaign games can be the same way where one list is obviously more powerful than the other before the first die is cast.

We love campaigns - fluff for each battle and how the armies progress, a few small bonuses from winning key battles and then ending in one giant clash where said bonuses comes into play.

Or mapping out territories on a ...map... and then trying to claim as much as possible from your opponents before the campaign ends. Lots of backstabbing and deals going on in those campaigns

endur wrote:
I like campaigns. I think some of the issues with campaigns may be fighting uneven battles ... i.e. lopsided battles where one army is significantly more powerful than the other to the point where you know ahead of time who is going to win the battle.

We tend to avoid stuff that might result in silly mega one sided battles. A map campaign will just allow the smaller side to retreat for example. Other campaigns we try and set up to prevent the overly one sided games. Having non-even battles, however, can be a big part of the fun of a campaign.

Also in some campaigns the one who is massively out pointed can still 'win' as winning may be a highly subjective and involve factors beyond the battle. So in Federation Commander I've fought from a huge points disadvantage on the basis that I could 'win' the battle on a strategic level even if I lost a lot more within the game - crippling/destroying some key enemy capital ships would be worth the large loss due to long term impact etc.

The blucher campaign (napoleonic game) we are about to start is set up the advantage the French early on, but increasingly swing to the Allies. The Allies will be on the backfoot early on, but 'Victory' for them in those initial uneven battles is simply to avoid multiple catastrophic defeats and then make up the VP in later years. The French need to do well early on ready for when the pendulum swings against them.

Campaigns with fully painted armies and terrain is the end goal of the hobby in my eyes...


...and I've only reached it once. With Necromunda.

I've been into Warhammer again for over 2 years and I am only just getting to a fully painted army - with a gaming table being next on the agenda.

In 8th Edition WHFB I loved all the campaign sections in the back of the rulebook. That campaign of the Chaos incursion and the massive battle against the Empire (including all of the famous regiments) was the coolest thing in the book. I would love to do something similar and do have Campaigns planned out for my forces.

It's just getting there requires a lot of work!

On the other hand I have kinda become obsessed by points since AoS. I do enjoy playing competitively - especially when I am playing with an army not fully painted and playing against an army not fully painted. The tactics and game appeal more to me than basking in the spectacle (which isn't all that great when everything is grey lol).

On some other level I also think it is like a hierarchy of needs, and I just can't function without points or some force composition mechanic. For that reason I am really looking forward to narrative play and hope it will be a departure from AoS "open play" and the campaign books. I find AoS open play isn't actually encouraging of campaign play to me. Something like a points system immediately leads the way into escalation campaigns or narrative campaigns where the winner/loser gets some tangible points bonus to their next game. Fully released campaign systems that grow and dictate forces would be even better.

My current hobby goals are to get my Order army painted (95% of 20 Clash Pools are already done). Followed by building my Death army. Followed by building my terrain and board...

And then I can think about campaigns.