Jump to content

Sign in to follow this  
Bingas

Campaign rules

Recommended Posts

Greetings and salutations,

 

I'm interrested in other players opinions on the campaign rules for warlord. (out of the back of the first print?(the one with the generic cards))

My gaming group attempted to use them but we found that keeping track of the paperwork ended up taking more time than some of the games we played.

 

We also noticed that it makes Razig almost impossibe to play.

 

Whats everyones elses thoughts.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I hope i posted this in the right section as its the campaign rules i wanted to discuss.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We played a campaign here about two years ago, and while the paperwork seems overwhealming at first, it does get easier.

 

I do believe that many of the charts could be streamlined so that there is less actual pages to shuffle through, and I believe that (just like in Monopoly) having one person designated as the "banker" helps keep things in order.

 

I hope any updated versions of WL will have more updated campaign rules that match the new stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A streamlined campaign would be perfect for a Krueger's Journal, if you ask me!

 

I've never played the campaign, but I read through the rules quite a bit. I agree that the bookkeeping seemed quite daunting. Also, I had heard that it was fairly easy for one player to win a few battles up front, and then become a juggernaut that was nearly impossible to take down.

 

It's a tricky thing to balance, though. You've got to reward the winner in a meaningful way, yet you've got to give the underdog a fighting chance. And it's a shame that it's so tricky. Reaper did a fantastic job with the balance of Warlord. Most games are fairly close, and it would be nice if a campaign could be fought tooth and nail the whole way through.

 

I wonder about a mechanic that rewards the winner with greater resources, but hampers the winner by increased vulnerability?

Say, you win, hurray, have X many more points to spend on soldiers or gear or whatever you feel like. But when you take certain types of objectives, the next time a battle is fought over that objective, the scenario rules make it difficult for the defender.

 

So the idea is to take and hold, but the guy trying to wrest an objective from the current owner has an easy time of it. But then again, the owner has more resources to defend with.

 

Something like having multiple objective spots that must be protected. Attacker can hit just one very hard, or all three weakly (and probably get chewed to bits in the process).

 

Perhaps that would provide more give and take in a campaign.

 

Of course it's inevitable that one player dominates, at some point, if there's ever to be a conclusion. Otherwise the players would just go back and forth in a few contested regions and never gain very much ground.

 

 

So, how about a map where there's objectives of nominal importance in the middle, and critical importance near your "home base?" That way, if a player is good enough to break through the middle objectives, they can begin to really cripple their opponent by taking over important objectives. Gives the underdog a fighting chance to begin with, but allows for the better player to actually finish the campaign in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing all the players in our campaign agreed upon is that when there are less players involved, it would be better to start the rival factions closer together and on a map with less high-yield objectives.

 

The smart way to play the campaign is to grab land quickly at first, charging straight toward the high-dollar real estate ...but of course when ALL the players do that before engaging each other, you suddenly end up with a serious MOAB between two seriously beefed-up armies..which can be kind of exciting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The land grab is very important, but I did the opposite when we ran the campaign here locally a couple years back. I didn't care how valuable the land was, I just took everything I could. I started in the lower right and pretty much took over that whole corner of the board while the rest of the players, we had 5 total, slaughtered each other trying to get in the middle of the table for the higher yeidl city squares. The big objectives was to capture the most City squares. So I just built a HUGE army over multiple turns and then unleased the hoarde on the final turn. Most of my opponents had 5-6 battles. I think I ended up with about 18.

 

In the final round, we had so many battles, we ended up making most of them dice off, and my dice killed me, but I had more troops available than any two full armies combined, I was paying for troops I couldn't even field in that final battle, so they hung around defending the already conquered territories. My left over money was two times as much as several of my opponents starting money for that final turn because I had control of so many resources by game end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×