Bob Typhoon wrote:Yea that's good then if you are up more often and Ill be down to the club more often now. All we would need to do is figure out and note down how the smaller games would influence the larger games.
Probably only fairly minor changes, otherwise it quickly snowballs, stuff like enemy air action means units go into reserve, to the other side gets to pick who goes first regardless of the mission rules, reserves become delayed reserves, of "mobile" reserves (so vehicles come on last).
The best way to use a campaign is almost to have it as a stand alone game (the first edition of mighty empires was amazing for this), then play out interesting looking battles on the table, and leave ones with an obvious result to the campaign system to play out. Did a ski-fi one years back where each player got to pick one battle a round to fight, the rest were just done on a table, typically a player ended up fighting two/three battles a round, the one they picked and ones picked against them, with a few dozen done on a chart with a dice roll quickly.
That also makes it a lot easier to track companies on a map, so say the Germans only have a few tiger companies, they can be split to add to other forces as support or used as companies, but they can't be everywhere - just track special stuff like that, maybe 'elite' companies - don't bother with what the actual force lists are, that way lies insanity, just "this flag is British Infantry", "this one is German armour" - the FoW battle is only one part of a larger action anyway.
The campaign then becomes a scenario generator, you know who is attacking on the table, because you
know who is attacking, also not too hard to see two similar forces fighting and decide it will be determined by a small skirmish (bolt action or a smaller FoW game) as the critical action.
Such campaigns can be great fun, but need a bit of dedication to run.