A 2S Campaign?

[crisis_vyper]

The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction. I am happy just being able to participate with my Dark Eldar.

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction.

Kinda and no - Dark Eldar worked somewhat like merceneries for the Tau...but they didn't take cash payment...they took slaves...pain...and the hability of the planet

However that doesn't mean that DE won't rear their head in any campaigns (Whether as a major or minor contributer). In fact, given the caverns of DE players we have on the site - we could expect to see a large amount of votes for a DE campaign, who knows

[crisis_vyper]

The Dark Eldar can be considered as a Mercenary faction.

Kinda and no - Dark Eldar worked somewhat like merceneries for the Tau...but they didn't take cash payment...they took slaves...pain...and the hability of the planet

However that doesn't mean that DE won't rear their head in any campaigns (Whether as a major or minor contributer). In fact, given the caverns of DE players we have on the site - we could expect to see a large amount of votes for a DE campaign, who knows

I mean for some Chaos or Renegade faction.

But nonetheless, us dark overlords of Commorragh would be pleased if we could get our realspace spoils....

[DEF Knight]

My perfect situation would be for each campaign to have a limited focus, with a GM deciding the basic plot (such as an Ork Waaargh invading an Imperial Agri-World or the Imperium attempting to reconquer a renegade Forge World) and assigning particular army books to each side of the conflict, then having players sign up to either side to do battle and so forth, with a conclusion within 2 months so that a new campaign can spring forward, presumably with a different GM.

I don't really think I could contribute much to any campaigns, but in a perfect world I would personally want something like this, but actually taken EVEN FARTHER. Players have the option of picking one of several armies on either side of a conflict, each army having a selection of roles available which would limit their force org, add compulsory units, change what game types they can and cannot play, what objectives they need to maintain

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

My perfect situation would be for each campaign to have a limited focus, with a GM deciding the basic plot (such as an Ork Waaargh invading an Imperial Agri-World or the Imperium attempting to reconquer a renegade Forge World) and assigning particular army books to each side of the conflict, then having players sign up to either side to do battle and so forth, with a conclusion within 2 months so that a new campaign can spring forward, presumably with a different GM.

I don't really think I could contribute much to any campaigns, but in a perfect world I would personally want something like this, but actually taken EVEN FARTHER. Players have the option of picking one of several armies on either side of a conflict, each army having a selection of roles available which would limit their force org, add compulsory units, change what game types they can and cannot play, what objectives they need to maintain

[BigToof]

I think my post got vacuumed up in the void a few days ago, but I still like the idea of two pre-determined sides with a leader that coordinates each side.  You can then join up as you wish.

We should TRY to keep each side as balanced as you can, but as fluffy as possible.

I wouldn't mind continuing the Ork side of the campaign from last time, with mercenaries (Eldar Corsairs, Dark Eldar Pirates, Kroot Mercs, CSM Renegades) under the greenskins' banner.

Everyone else could oppose them as they wish, but it might be a bit unbalanced unless we can somehow get the Tau to pony up on a side

I think our forum's biggest factions are Space Marines and Tau.  Orks and IG were quite popular.

Perhaps we could do a fourth sphere expansion?

Best,
-BT

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

Schev and I were ready to launch a Tyranids, Tau and Necrons Campaign (3 way) However that wouldn't really implement many of the other races.

That said, the purpose of a campaign shouldn't be to feature every single race (Otherwise we get Dawn of War Soulstorm's massive problem with their campaign )

When Schev gets back to me...or a week passes with no reply, a campaign committee may be organised where a few campaign ideas will be developed, before being placed in the public to be voted on for the one most people would be interested in. Seeing as there'll be a new campaign every 2 or 3 months, it'll be safe to say that most participants should be involved in a decent amount of campaigns a year.

Of course I'll keep everyone updated with the situation regarding the Campaign Committee.

As a quick-fire schedule off the top of my head - a week to sort out the plausibility of a Committee, 1 week to get the volunteers to create it, 1-2 weeks to flesh out ideas for campaigns and narrow them down to 3 or 4, then another week for the voting by the general public. First campaign should be ready to kick off in September

Zambia

[Narric]

Making a bump to this thread.

I'll be honest, I don't think I could read through all four pages ^_^;; I have my posts/page set high.

One idea comes to mind is how GW often ran its own campaigns in the days of yester-year. Players have their games, and report back who the victors were. For the forum, it could run very similarly. Players say who they are fighting, what pts level, and so on. They can then Post up a Bat-rep as part of the Campaign.

This would potentially work better than my idea of using Vassal, as it doesn't require both parties knowing Vassal, only that at least one player is part of the forum.

To give the campaign more depth, we could ask our collection of writers to create a proper Narrative based on the Bat-Reps, and the whole thing can move like a large continuously unfolding story.

In terms of attracting new players, it gives them a sense that they are really part of the story, as each game they report back is included into the Growing Narrative, until we hit a pre-determiond point, where a Victor is declared.

As a mark of appreciation, all contributing members can recieve Karma and an Award Seal of sorts, whilst the Members who played the victorious Faction gain a Second seal saying as much.

Make sense?

Hopefully this bump works

[Mabbz]

I believe your idea was tried before. I don't recall how it ended though.

How about this for a points system:

1 point for registering an army
1 point for posting a battle report with a registered army, 3 if you won
1 point for posting a story relating to the campaign (cumulative with battle reports, to encourage writing fluff for batreps)
1 point for any other interesting post relating to the campaign (such as an army showcase, pictures of campaign related models or house rules)

You'll notice that I've not added in points for simply saying "I've played a game, and I won". That approach doesn't really generate any interesting content for the forum and I was getting four points a week last campaign that way, so I think it should be left out. It doesn't take much to write a batrep after all.

As for prizes, I wonder if it'd be possible for Sorck to add some kind of counter (similar to karma) for number of campaigns a member was part of? I like the idea of award seals for the victors, but how about also getting an award seal for getting over 25 points, or getting the most points over all? Something like a "2S campaign MVP" seal, with gold silver and bronze for the top three.

The other questions are:
1) how do we determine teams (we don't want one side to be outnumbered, after all)
2) what can we do for a big finale?

[Narric]

OK, that system sounds better

If the UK Meetup was a bit more popular, and a majority of players with armies representing all "Registered" factions attended, then that could be good for the finale.

Going with a different approach, why not have someone on board to be the overall Narrative writer? We could then go by how many games have been written about, and when we get to a Certain number start calling the final results.

Obviously individual Pts wouldn't go into this, just the number of Bat-reps related to the campaign.