A 2S Campaign?

[InsaneTD]

I liked the current split. It follows the Allies matrix nicely. It will always be unbalanced as there will always be more marine players.

[Matt1785]

Hrm,

I am thinking this seems like a really fun idea.  I will have to keep an eye here to see when things would start to get going.  I've never been part of a thing like this in a forum before and it could be cool, something to keep me involved with the community.  Sounds cool.

[Masked Thespian]

Looking at all of this, my only worry is that it's getting too big.  Trying to incorporate all of the armies is what led to GW's global campaigns fizzling and the awfulness (in terms of story) that Dawn of War: Soulstorm was.

The last campaign we did was Orks vs. Imperial Guard and the one before that was Circus's Eldar vs....  uh...  well, I forgot, but I believe it was Eldar vs. one other army.

I was of the understanding that this campaign was going to be short-lived and narrow focussed; by having only a handful of armies in it, but running it for only 2 or 3 months means that we can have a new campaign, with different participants in it, before the end of the year.  It allows for tighter plot control, allows the players involved to get deeper into their roles, and doesn't have the chance of burnout due to the short time frame.

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

Looking at all of this, my only worry is that it's getting too big.  Trying to incorporate all of the armies is what led to GW's global campaigns fizzling and the awfulness (in terms of story) that Dawn of War: Soulstorm was.

The last campaign we did was Orks vs. Imperial Guard and the one before that was Circus's Eldar vs....  uh...  well, I forgot, but I believe it was Eldar vs. one other army.

I was of the understanding that this campaign was going to be short-lived and narrow focussed; by having only a handful of armies in it, but running it for only 2 or 3 months means that we can have a new campaign, with different participants in it, before the end of the year.  It allows for tighter plot control, allows the players involved to get deeper into their roles, and doesn't have the chance of burnout due to the short time frame.

Rather than having one global campaign, all that's being tallied is things that people post on their own anyway. We're planning on having sub-campaigns (or something similarly named) which will be much like the IG vs Orks and Eldar/Dark Eldar campaigns that have been run in the past. Points will go towards the sub-campaign plus the actual one, and perhaps a "winning" amount of bonus points to the winning side.


Of course, there is another option.

Second Sphere could have 2 (or 3 or whatever) clans. Everyone signs up for a particular clan (or house) - with all their races that they play. They earn points for their clan.

This has a few positives
 - Very easy to get an even number of players per clan
 - Having lots of players on a particular race won't give that race the edge specifically (unless they happen to be in the same clan too)
 - Campaigns could include Tau vs Marines, and the winner might not be a certain side (If we go imperium vs others, Imperium would win that campaign anyway. This means we'd either have to deal with it, or limit confrontations or campaigns between Tau and Eldar, etc etc)
 - Players only have to worry about a certain clan even if they have multiple armies
 - Since each person can only be in one clan, it can be added as a profile tag, and hence much easier to work out

There are a few drawbacks
 - May feel funny if Dark Eldar are in a campaign on the same clan as a Slaanesh Chaos Army, for example
 - Sub-Campaigns may or may not be specifically clan vs clan (Though perhaps representatives from each clan step up or something?
 - Doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection - can lead to unrealistic or implausible alliances or campaign situations.
 - More drawbacks probably exist that I haven't realised yet.

Just an idea.

Zambia

[Masked Thespian]

The issue with clan-based campaigns, as far as I'm concerned, is that it doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection.  As you say, having a Dark Eldar army alongside a Slaanesh army doesn't make a lot of sense.  If we were just talking about playing games, such as in a tournament or league, then it's a fine idea, but for something as story-driven as a campaign I don't think it would work.

My main concern, as noted before, is that of burnout and apathy over time.  Short campaigns shouldn't allow that to happen.

The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

The issue with clan-based campaigns, as far as I'm concerned, is that it doesn't have a lot of in-universe connection.  As you say, having a Dark Eldar army alongside a Slaanesh army doesn't make a lot of sense.  If we were just talking about playing games, such as in a tournament or league, then it's a fine idea, but for something as story-driven as a campaign I don't think it would work.

I see this MT, will add it to the drawbacks in my previous post

My main concern, as noted before, is that of burnout and apathy over time.  Short campaigns shouldn't allow that to happen.

Also a good thing. But if Sorck sets it up right it wont take much more effort for organisers and participants to have this constantly happening. We wont have a "Everyone vs everyone constantly giving fluff fluff fluff background background" etc etc. It'll be the sub-campaigns (or short campaigns) that are the focus - chipping in towards the overall goal.

The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."

In the last example however, you have Guard (Imperium) + Wolves (Imperium) vs Eldar (Imperium) + Orks (Evil). Eldar players will have signed on as an Imperium player, and all points they earn will hence go towards the Imperium. If their participation in the campaign instead helps the team they aren't signed up for instead of their efforts being awarded by getting points to their team - there's little point participating since you're becoming a burden on your team. And if the Eldar player's efforts do contribute to the Imperium team it means that if the Guard and Wolves lose the campaign, then technically, it's a draw (50% of the evil side's points going to the Imperium, other 50% to Evil) so it's a lose lose when teams are unbalanced.

Again, I wouldn't be against running a short campaign every 2-3 months with no global forum tally. It would make problems like this fewer.

Zambia

[crisis_vyper]

Personally, I say run two to three campaigns at once. Each campaign will allow certain restrictions and stuff that would make sense, and would not suffer from burnout. In addition it would not alienate everyone who wants to play in one lone campaign as a result of just focusing on one or two races.

If you guys still wan that one-campaign-at-a-time thing, I am thinking more into the Eye of Terror-like campaign would be much nicer;

Battle for System XXX (Main Campaign)
Sub-Campaigns
1) Battle for the Webway routes of System XXX
2) Battle for Core System of System XXX
3) Battle for Outer System of System XXX

Just my 2 cents.

[InsaneTD]

Eye of terror was the reason GW stopped running the Global Campgains.

[crisis_vyper]

Eye of terror was the reason GW stopped running the Global Campgains.

I thought that was the Medusa campaign.

[Masked Thespian]

The other benefit of having separate mini-campaigns that aren't linked by an overall campaign is that there's no need to consider the ramifications of armies and where they belong.  None of this "Forces of Neutrality" business that's been discussed.  No need to decide where Tau are "Allies of" or "Enemies of" the Imperium. You simply have, for example, "Imperial Guard and Eldar versus Chaos Space Marines and Chaos Daemons."  You can even tailor allowed allies per campaign, preventing players from sneaking things in through the back door or giving them a little access to an army that you don't want as a main protagonist in the campaign.  And, the best part is, in the next campaign, some armies that were helping the Imperium might be AGAINST the Imperium.  So, given the above example, in the next campaign, it might be "Imperial Guard and Space Wolves versus Eldar and Orks."

In the last example however, you have Guard (Imperium) + Wolves (Imperium) vs Eldar (Imperium) + Orks (Evil). Eldar players will have signed on as an Imperium player, and all points they earn will hence go towards the Imperium. If their participation in the campaign instead helps the team they aren't signed up for instead of their efforts being awarded by getting points to their team - there's little point participating since you're becoming a burden on your team. And if the Eldar player's efforts do contribute to the Imperium team it means that if the Guard and Wolves lose the campaign, then technically, it's a draw (50% of the evil side's points going to the Imperium, other 50% to Evil) so it's a lose lose when teams are unbalanced.

You are completely misunderstanding my point here.  There are no "Imperium" or "Evil" teams.  Not in the long run.  There is only "Team A" and " Team B".  And the "Team A" in one campaign can be (and probably will be) completely different from "Team A" in the next one, with absolutely no links or holdovers from one campaign to the next.  In my example, the first campaign could, conceivably, be called "Imperials vs. Chaos" and the second one "Imperials vs. Orks and Eldar", but there's no need to do so.

The way I proposed it, there would be no overall plot arc.  Each campaign would be set alone and self-sufficient.  If players wanted to include background to link campaigns (such as having the same armies fighting alongside each other, grudges held over from a previous campaign, or even specific former allies now fighting against each other) then that would be up to them.  There would be no need to categorize each army as "Imperial" or "Evil" since there is no carrying over of anything.  An army could be considered "Imperial" in one campaign and then "Evil" in the next, with no repercussions.

Take, for example, Imperial Guard.  What if I wanted to play with my rebel Imperial Guard?  Would their victories count for the "Imperial" team?  Under the existing system, they would, and there would be no point in playing "rebel" Guard.  But, under my system, then rebel Imperial Guard COULD be played, but potentially only in certain campaigns where, say for example, they were on a team of Imperial Guard and Chaos Space Marines.

Does that make sense?

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

(Text)

Does that make sense?

That makes sense I think, but let me prod a question to ensure that I'm understanding it right

Two example campaigns (Orks vs Guard and the Chaos vs Imperium)

Orks vs Guard Campaign

Team A (The Invaders)
Adam (Orks)
Bob (Orks)
Carl (Orks)

Team B (Imperium's Defense)
Dan (IG)
Elliot (IG)
Fred (SM)

Chaos Vs Imperium Campaign

Team A (Assaulters on a Chaos world)
Adam (Imperial Guard)
Bob (Blood Angels)
Carl (Grey Knights)

Team B (Chaos Defenders + Merceneries)
Dan (Imperial Guard)
Elliot (Chaos SM)
Fred (Orks)

The orks in the Chaos campaign are a large band of free-lance Blood Axe Merceneries. Dan's IG are Rebel Guard, corrupted by the power of Chaos.

But the more important things:
 - Each player is signing up to a particular global team, as mentioned in the OP.
 - Players on a certain team will almost be like a permanent line-up when a campaign starts (Same players vs same players, no swapping teams)
 - Team A and Team B are assigned "Roles" in the campaign, after which participating players nominate their army (and why/how it's in the campaign, eg. the Blood Axes in the Chaos Campaign)
 - Campaign Plays out for 2/3 months
 - Campaign sums up, new campaign starts
 - So in a way, the team's shouldn't be called Imperium vs Evil, or anything. Just 2 team names and people sign up for them. Because you stick with a team, but could be playing for the Imperium one campaign and for Chaos the next.

Did most of that for my own sake so that you can confirm that I am in fact on the right track now

Does that also mean that how we split Eldar/Tau is now irrelevant - we just sign up to a team then sort out the chicken business when the first "campaign event" starts?

Zambia

[Masked Thespian]

Nope that's not it in the slightest.  Try this on for size.

Orks vs Guard Campaign

Team A (The Invaders)
Adam (Orks)
Bob (Orks)
Carl (Orks)

Team B (Imperium's Defense)
Dan (IG)
Elliot (IG)
Fred (SM)

Chaos Vs Imperium Campaign

Team A (Assaulters on a Chaos world)
Dan (Imperial Guard)
Geoff (Blood Angels)
Carl (Grey Knights)

Team B (Chaos Defenders + Merceneries)
Harry (Imperial Guard)
Josh (Chaos SM)
Kevin (Orks)


Some of the players stay on the same team (e.g. Carl), some players change teams (e.g. Dan), some players are brand new (e.g. Geoff), and sometimes even entire teams are changed (Harry, Josh, and Kevin).

The key is that each campaign is separate.  There is no correlation between the OvIG and the CvI campaigns.  There is no 'loyalty' between the two campaigns (so the people you play with in one are not necessarily the people you play with in another).  Team A in one campaign are not necessarily the people in Team A in the next campaign.

But the more important things:
 - Each player is signing up to a particular global team, as mentioned in the OP.

Nope.  No global teams.  Your teammates are your teammates for the duration of this two-month campaign and that's it.

- Players on a certain team will almost be like a permanent line-up when a campaign starts (Same players vs same players, no swapping teams)

Nope.  Your team line up can, and almost certainly will, change between different campaigns.

- Team A and Team B are assigned "Roles" in the campaign, after which participating players nominate their army (and why/how it's in the campaign, eg. the Blood Axes in the Chaos Campaign)

Potentially.  At this point I'm not suggesting which way we do this, either picking campaign roles then assigning armies or picking armies first and those players, or an associated GM, choosing the basic plot to which roles are attached.  I'd prefer the latter, if I'm being honest.

- Campaign Plays out for 2/3 months
 - Campaign sums up, new campaign starts

Yep.

- So in a way, the team's shouldn't be called Imperium vs Evil, or anything. Just 2 team names and people sign up for them. Because you stick with a team, but could be playing for the Imperium one campaign and for Chaos the next.

Nope.  You're still thinking of the whole "sign up for a global team".  That's not what I'm proposing.  Each team in any given campaign may well have their own names.  Let's take the two examples above.  For the first, Orks vs. IG campaign, the Orks could be "BadDakka's Waaargh" and the Guard could be "The Defence of Straggler's Hope".  For the second, the Imperials could be "The Emperor's Fist" and the Chaos side could be "The Forsaken".

Does that also mean that how we split Eldar/Tau is now irrelevant - we just sign up to a team then sort out the chicken business when the first "campaign event" starts?

Essentially, yes.


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.

That is, in essence, what I am proposing.  But I am in no way suggesting that that is how it should be done.  It's only a proposal.

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

Nope that's not it in the slightest.  Try this on for size.

I know why I'm so confused - you were talking about your own idea and I thought you were working with the OP's idea 

So if we go down your track, and use your proposal - we'll probably organise some kind of Campaign Calendar (Much like the Competition Calendar or something similar) in order to at least have an idea where we're going. (TBH, even if we used Sorck's idea we'd still probs use a calendar.

But anyway, what do the other members think about MT's idea?

Perhaps our voting should be changed to the different people's proposals instead of whether Eldar and Tau will be bunking with whom?

[InsaneTD]

I do like MTs idea. Sorcks was a lot of work. Especially in the sites backend. At some point a group of campgains with an overarcing plot might be cool once we've done a couple. They don't have to be threr, one straight into another, but things from one effect what happens in another. For example, The first campgain might be a Tau expansion into a cluster of systems held by the imperials, The second might be a rebellion, and if the tau managed to hold some of the worlds in the region, they help on which everyside they think is most useful to them.  The last one maybe an invasion by Orks or Nids, if the rebellion wasn't squashed, then the Imps, Chaos and Tau are all 'allied' to defeat and drive back the invaders.

[Naser Al-Istikhara Cyrus]

Well from what Schev and I had organised to start work on about a week before The Crash was a Tau vs Necrons vs Tyranids in a 3 way campaign.

Of course, since it's not global, it's quite plausible to have 3 sides instead of just two for some campaigns.

However, we'd have to put in a lot of work and thought into what the commencing campaign will be, what it'll consist of, so on and so forth. As Board Co-ordinator, I'll put in as much time and effort into the organising and collaboration into the project as I can. I'll have to chat with Schev, who without his help the Orks vs Guard campaign probably would've fallen down, and perhaps him and I will enslave some underlings ask for volunteers to join some kind of "Campaign Management Committee" or something.

Also, when it comes to what the next campaign should be - I reckon it'd be best if the Campaign Committee (or some Head of Operations meeting) were to narrow it down to 2 or 3 possibilities, then hold a vote where all site members can have a say in what campaigns are played. If only two people are interested in a Nids vs Space Marines campaign, but 25 people want a Dark Eldar vs Tau campaign then we would probably want to choose the Campaign that has the most interest, and hence, the most activity and potential for success.

Thoughts on that so far?

Zambia