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.

Context:
We have a dad-hammer group that regularly meets for game days where everyone plays one game, usually 1v1, 2v1 or 2v2. There is great interest in playing a campaign where two sides (probably chaos and order) fight for territories represented by a hex board.

So the big issue I'm unable to resolve is that the number of players available vary wildly - on some days we have just four players, on others we can have up to 16. We have multiple players who could switch between sides at will, either because they have multiple armies, or because their army has mercenary/unaligned/flexible morals/means to an end style (orks, necrons, fallen, harlequins, etc).
So my goals are:
1) I don't want to punish players for not being able to participate, because we all have families, jobs and other responsibilities which are more important that stopping the invasion of orks in sector 12 of a fictional world.
2) People should still feel aligned with their side. Someone constantly switching back an forth will eventually not feel like "winning" a campaign.
3) Fluff should matter, none of my pals are big friends of having ultramarines and world eaters fighting side by side.
4) The campaign should somehow automatically assign opponents - right now we often have people playing the same opponents over and over for various reasons.

So, does anyone have any experience they want to share? Maybe complete rulesets we could re-use? I did some research, but sadly most campaign system assume that participation remains constant across campaign rounds.

The biggest issue I encounter in campaigns is they are usually setup with a strong get stronger and the weak get weaker design. That naturally causes players to just stop playing after a couple of games as they had some rough loses and realize the campaign rules are just going to make it tougher. I actually think most campaigns would benefit far more from a rubberbanding effect where as players fall further behind they are given more resources to make competitive (not competitive in the usual sense on Dakka but competitive in that they can compete) games. Wins still matter in that is how you win the overall campaign but it is very unlikely a player is going to go undefeated if they are facing forces at 1.5 to double the amount of points. Depending on the game and length of the campaign, I think giving an extra 10% in points for every game back from the leader is a good place to start. The handicap % is also reduces as that players starts to close in on the leader and can even become 0% if they are the new leader.

Another idea I have toyed with for campaign play is escalating campaign victory points. In that week after week wins are worth more points. Right now I am have been thinking multiples of 3 (week 1: 3pts, week 2: 6pts, week 3: 9pts, and so on). This allows sort of a catch up mechanic but also makes it much easier for players that have been playing the whole time to win the campaign. It also makes it a little more accessible for new players to join the campaign and feel like they now have no chance and quickly leave again. I have some concerns that this might lead to only the last few games actually mattering though.

Another thought I have considered is making it so that endurance is more/just as important than winning. Say a player wins a game for the week and earns 3 points. Great they gained the maximum points for playing that week for that win and don't have to play again if they don't want to. However, another player plays 3 games that week losing their games they also gain 3 points (1 point for every lost game). They are still able to win the campaign simply by continuing to play. This puts the focus on the thing you are having issues with and not just wining games. This idea is very likely to to end with a few players having the same amount of points at the end which would be easy enough to have playoffs or an end of game tournaments.

I haven't worked out all the bugs of these ideas and they certainly have issues I won't know about until I get the chance to actually try them.

What we did recently was a campaign with a "free agents" system.

We incorporated Kill Team and 40k, where games of Kill Team were worth a maximum of 4 points and 40k games a maximum of 10. Players would then either use the points they've earned for themself in their next game, or the points would go into a communal pool that was mostly for hiring free agents, or players not actively involved in the campaign.

Bonuses to free agent players were cheaper than bonuses you'd buy for yourself, and after playing a game the free agent player could either join the team that hired them and use their earned points in their next game, or divide their earned points in half rounding up and add them back into the team pool.

The free agent bonuses were also kind of "mercenary themed" and tended to be more direct combat bonuses than the selfish bonuses which tended to affect army composition and mission objectives more. E.g. a free agent bonus might grant you a preliminary bombardment, while a selfish bonus would allow you to add a false objective to an objective mission that only you knew about.

That way, players were fighting an uphill battle against free agents when it came to the 'killing models' portion of the game, but tended to be able to play for points more effectively. This reduced the usual hesitance of non campaign players worrying about playing into somebody who had tons of OP bonuses and they had nothing.

 Saturmorn Carvilli wrote:
The biggest issue I encounter in campaigns is they are usually setup with a strong get stronger and the weak get weaker design. That naturally causes players to just stop playing after a couple of games as they had some rough loses and realize the campaign rules are just going to make it tougher. I actually think most campaigns would benefit far more from a rubberbanding effect where as players fall further behind they are given more resources to make competitive (not competitive in the usual sense on Dakka but competitive in that they can compete) games.

How about the idea that if an army loses, the next game they get some kind of narrative-based advantage? Either they're being driven back into their own territory and so have better defences in place or have units already deployed in the field, or maybe they're being driven to avenge their fallen brothers, so get to go first, make some early moves or have a bonus to hit/charge/whatever?

As to the OP's conundrum of "neutral" players or switching factions, it does sound quite difficult, and could be a lot of work, but I think there are ways it could work. If there's a solid core of players who are definitely going to stay on one side of the conflict, those who are not so fixed could simply count for whichever side they're facing that week? You'd have to try and make sure the neutral vs neutral stuff is kept to a minimum though. Or maybe the loyalty of the neutral factions could be a prize up for grabs dependant on different conditions over the campaign? Maybe an Eldar player will give points to whoever is defending the area with their sacred shrine in it, or Necrons appear subservient to whomever holds the entrance to their tomb, biding their time until the main conflict is done and they can strike?

"Fluff should matter, none of my pals are big friends of having Ultramarines and World Eters fighting side by side". Kids these days, having kids and forgetting the foundations of the game and setting.

The setting has always had situations that ended up being "I really hate you, but I'm more concerned with getting this done so that the person I hate even more today doesn't win" or "I'm sorry, I'm busy trying to kill someone else right now, I'm going to kill you tomorrow" situations. All of the times where the forces of Chaos (or Orks, or Dark Eldar, or even Eldar for that matter) come through an area, saving it from some impending doom, and going on their way without destroying it, because they had more important things to do and a schedule to keep.

That's not even getting started on all of the Space Marines vs. other factions of the Imperium feuds. Or the fact that Orks and Chaos fight amongst themselves for fun and profit all the time.

And I think it'd be really worth pointing out that in the foundational background material, any alliances between Eldar and Imperial forces have been alliances of circumstances or convenience at best.
--
To that end, I'd give you a counter proposal for the "Order vs. Chaos" campaign system:

0. People have to play who ever manages to show up. Edit: And the lowest ranking players get first choice of opponents. Both as a balancing point, and because the influences of Chaos are subtle and lead the proud astray.
1. At the end of every battle, the winner gets a victory prize and the loser gets a consolation prize.
2. For each prize, choose whether the benefit will be personal or go towards the "Order vs. Chaos" results. In either case, it's basically a choice between:
- big personal benefit and minor global impact
- minor personal benefit and big global impact

If you're fighting against your own side, the global impact benefits the other side. Orks beating up Orks benefits "Order", Space Marines settling grudges against Imperial Guard benefits the "Chaos".

That's how "Order vs. Chaos" actually plays out in the setting. And it has the side effect that if you have unbalanced sides, being forced to settle grudges and pick internal fights gives the side with fewer players a positive handicap.

And with sufficient meta-game bribery, that even lets the players who fancy themselves as mercenaries be persuaded to help out the other team.
Edit #2: Note that you'll want to track the personal boons for the players who either choose to, or have to, fight against their own side, to ensure that everyone still has a motivation to show up. It's just that the overpopulation on each side is getting distracted fighting to prove their own personal glory rather than fight for their side to win. Whether it ends up being fame or infamy, each side needs to know who wins the glory hound prizes.

We’ve decided to run a map-based campaign but not have lasting effects. Just use it as a framework to tell stories. We update the map after each week’s games, with players deciding if a hex was at stake/would require several games to tell the story, and chasing ownership or marking if it remains contested. it’s working REALLY well. We’ve even started using the ZM 8th update from https://www.goonhammer.com/eight-edition-zone-mortalis-rules/ - VERY fun.

The map doesn’t define who can play who. Everyone has aircraft / teleporter / dropships / Warp shenanigans to get around if need be. What we fluff out is that if it’s deep in enemy territory you have to pick a certain force instead of WAAC force, or mission selection falls to opponent etc. If you’re attacking from your territory you have supply lines on your side and a draw may still become a victory. Whatever tells the best story. Focussing on a narrative that unfolds together and allows any type of game is working really well, and people are actively fighting campaign games not just random games. Some games will have lasting effects, but a reverse buff - e.g. your opponent maybe adds +100pts per game the deeper you force them back into their territory.

Ultimately, playing games is the goal, not compounding losses. Our framework is driving a story, and that’s driving the games. It’s really fun.

I can send you the map template if you liked? I knocked it up in Inkscape (free vector software).

Thank you all for your ideas and advice, I will try to incorporate some of that in my planning.

@solkan
Some of those kids very likely to be older than you and at least two have been playing just as long as you have
In general, our group enjoys these "good vs bad" narratives, and we had games were forced allies (those mentioned WE and UM) insisted on shooting and killing each other despite their tyranid opponent crushing them, which turned into a hilarious slaugher. That's great fun and all, but kind of hard to incorporate into a campaign system

I like the suggestion of the weakest player picking their opponents first and the split between faction and personal benefits suggested by both you and the_scotsman. Can you give some examples for benefits?

@JohnnyHell:
Thanks for the offer, but we actually have two sets of the Battle of the Realms tiles available, we plan to use those

Did this for about 5 years, pretty much the same setup. Did a lot of experiments to encourage participation.

A few things that were helpful for my group.

1) Time frame - we set each campaign for 6 - 8 weeks. People knew what they were committing to. We kept a shared calendar people could use to let everyone know if they can't be there.

2) Scheduled time off - each campaign, players had to pick a week when they would not play. This made things more 'fair' to people who can't be there every week.

3) Points - we did points for each game. It was an incentive to show up and created some drama around who was winning in the campaign. 3 for a win, 2 for a loss, 1 for not playing, and +1 for tabling an opponent.

4) No Automatic Victories - You could not claim a tile from someone who is not there. Weather conditions did not favor a battle.

5) Incentives - Each victory would net you a persistent bonus for your army. This took a lot of forms - artefacts, veteran status for units, special abilities for specific units. Each time you netted a bonus, your army got more lethal. We did bonuses for losing for a while, these were more limited - single use items, ability to land with a Flying Monstrous Creature and charge, etc. Most of them were tailored to specific things that happened in game and 'fixed' a problem.

6) Attacker / Defender - For a while, we allowed attackers to take more points of units, and we allowed defenders to take terrain pieces for free. This added some flavor that made games more interesting.

7) Beer - Making it a drinking night helped.

8) Flexibility - if 2 people wanted to play each other away from the group, that's fine, just tell us who won.

Some things that did not work:

1) 2x2 games - Team games allowed us to get more people playing, but it became a pain when someone had to cancel. We would do them, stop doing them, go back to doing them, etc.

2) Controlling movement across tiles - Our campaigns were based on controlling spots on a hexagonal board. We allowed armies to attack any tile on the board, and that's where their army would be if they won. Originally, players were only allowed to attack adjacent tiles, this lead to situations where players had no tile to attack.

3) Tile Bonuses - Originally, we did things like Manufactorums, Space Ports, etc, and provided bonuses for holding them. This did not work out very well, the strongest army (Eldar) would squat on these tiles and be made stronger.

4) Fixed Armies - Participating in the campaign meant you could bring any army you want. You were not required to keep a set army list. During campaigns, people learned about their armies and wanted to change them to suit the campaign.

5) Fixed Location - we played in a 2 car garage with 6 tables for the first couple years, then people got tired of being in the same house each night. We would move from place to place to change things up.

6) Politics - We had a rule about talking politics while playing - don't do it. 2 people playing could agree on something and people at other tables might want in. This is pre-Trump, we would have situations where no one is playing because they are arguing about Afghanistan or something.

My campaign may be about to get moving soon. Our design is very territory/ story based.

Territories can be occupied, which allows controlling players to take a specific action during the campaign phase of the game. Territories can also be attacked in attempt to assume control. But two of our factions are Cults, and they can choose to lurk- meaning they can stay below the radar and try to recruit new members from the occupying force.

Our map is huge- 245 territories in total. There are 8 settlements with 25 territories each and a metropolis with 45. Not all factions are represented in every settlement, but some are.

Cults grow by recruiting individuals while lurking or taking prisoners in battle. Other factions receive detachments as reinforcements in response to story triggers that occur in game.

This campaign is so story based, it feels more like a role playing game or the old 54mm Inquisitor game.

 Jidmah wrote:
Thank you all for your ideas and advice, I will try to incorporate some of that in my planning.

@solkan
Some of those kids very likely to be older than you and at least two have been playing just as long as you have
In general, our group enjoys these "good vs bad" narratives, and we had games were forced allies (those mentioned WE and UM) insisted on shooting and killing each other despite their tyranid opponent crushing them, which turned into a hilarious slaugher. That's great fun and all, but kind of hard to incorporate into a campaign system

I like the suggestion of the weakest player picking their opponents first and the split between faction and personal benefits suggested by both you and the_scotsman. Can you give some examples for benefits?

@JohnnyHell:
Thanks for the offer, but we actually have two sets of the Battle of the Realms tiles available, we plan to use those

Examples of Personal Benefits:

-In any mission that uses objectives, add an extra objective and secretly write down the number of 1 objective which will be false. The first time any unit secures that objective, you must reveal that it is false and remove it from the board. (This benefit could be purchased multiple times in a game)

-Rather than rolling randomly to determine the mission you play in your chosen province, you get to choose the mission. If both players opt to spend the points for this benefit, roll off and the winner chooses the mission, but the loser chooses whether they will have Deployment or Initiative advantage

-Up to 500 points of your army in your next game can be a detachment of a faction that could not ordinarily ally with the remainder of your army. This detachment represents slaves/mercenaries/mind-controlled subjects, and if these units share all faction keywords with your opponent this week, enemy units suffer -1LD while within 6" of any of these units.

-If your previous game was a game of Kill Team, you may take the models that you used as your Kill Team in your previous game in your normal 40k list. The kill team is fielded as a single unit, and pays the normal 40k points value for all models and wargear that they were equipped with in the Kill Team game. Additionally, they gain the following rule: "Covert Operatives. Rather than deploying normally, the Kill Team may be set up in reserve. At the end of any of your movement phases, set up this unit wholly within 6" of any board edge and over 9" away from any enemy models."

Any points the players did not use for Personal Benefits would go into a collective pool for Free Agent benefits. Free Agent benefits included:

-Notorious Commander: Generate 2 Custom Character benefits for any one non-UNIQUE CHARACTER model in your army with 9 or fewer wounds. (Note that this was only 1 point because all normal players of the campaign got to choose 1 of their characters to get 2 traits and be their legendary hero for the campaign)

-Air Superiority: Once per game at the beginning of your turn, you may place 3 signal smoke markers on the board. At the end of your opponent's next turn, any units within 6" of a marker take D6 S7 AP-1 D1 hits. Note that a unit in range of 2 markers takes 2d6 hits, etc.

-Booty: Your army may include 1 additional Relic at no cost