Empire Campaign

[Keith McNelly]

Over the last couple of months several locals have been involved in an Ancient & Medieval Campaign that started in 320BC. I have used the "Empire" campaign system that was developed by Phil Sabin which has been modified to a little to allow greater granularity of the Macedonian Successors. I selected Empire due to its simple nature. I hoped that the simple mechanics would allow us to focus on the battles generated without becoming lost in campaign detail. After a couple of turns I feel I have captured the balance I was after.

The battles generated are being fought with DBA 3.0. Again, I feel I've achieved reasonably good balance between the game and placing it in context. Each game uses 12 element armies so captures the feeling of the dramatic open battle of an offensive, rather than many smaller encounters.

If you are interested the outline of the campaign can be found here:
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/07/21/empirecampaign/

The first campaign turn, covering 320 to 311 BC is described here:
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/08/15/empire-campaign-320-bc-311-bc/

The second campaign turn, covering 310 to 301 BC is described here:
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2016/09/25/empire-310-bc-to-301-bc/

If you are interested in watching developments you are encouraged to keep an eye on my Ancient & Medieval blog.

[Paul Innes]

Great stuff, Keith, thanks for posting. I hope you don't mind acquiring another follower - I've also mentioned your site on my blog too, the more the merrier. Incidentally, I'm hoping to publish an article that includes quite a lot of material on using Empire as a campaign engine for tabletop battles in Slingshot soon.

Cheers!

[Keith McNelly]

Hi Paul,

I hope you find my occasional posts of interest. I look forward to reading your thoughts on Empire. I must admit I didn't really consider Empire when it was first published, but after finally playing the fancy version in the Lost Battles Deluxe Edition I could see its potential.

What is your blog address?

[Paul Innes]

Hi Keith, I'm at :

http://caliban-somewhen.blogspot.co.uk

Paul

[Keith McNelly]

After a long delay, due to life getting in the way, I finally posted a summary of turn 3 of our Empire Campaign, covering the period 300 BC to 291 BC.

https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2017/05/12/empire-300-bc-291-bc/

[Imperial Dave]

superb write up and musings Keith. Thoroughly enjoyed the article and the trials and tribulations of getting a campaign to 'work'. I really enjoy your writing style immensely and as always the miniatures look fabulous

[Keith McNelly]

We have now completed the turn covering 290 BC to 281 BC.

It has been one of dramatic events. In the west Rome faced a Gallic invasion while Punic expansion continues with mixed results. In the east, Alexander's Successors focus on the area between Greece and Syria, each aiming to expand their control. Pyrrhus seizes the throne of Macedonia and invades Greece but is challenged by Demetrius. Seleucus meanwhile clashes with Ptolemy II.

A summary can be found here.
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2017/06/04/empire-290-bc-281-bc/

[Imperial Dave]

Another great write up of the turn's events and its a pleasure to follow this campaign as it is very entertaining and absorbing in detail and of course the figures are superb as ever 

[Chris]

Second Dave's assessment. Very well done Mr. McNelly!

I need to stage a campaign. While historical and one-off battles have their attractions and benefits, me thinks that there is more to be said for campaigns.

Chris

[Keith McNelly]

Thank you both for your kind words. It is pleasing to read that the campaign has some interest.

I enjoy campaigns, but experience has taught me that they don't always result in good tabletop battles. This is why the Empire system appealed initially. In particular it had mechanics and balanced armies deployed on the table.

However, even the current campaign had some issues, including overly defensive terrain being placed.

A few tweaks to how we translate a battle to the table seems to have improved this. They include:

* Each province has a generic terrain type which is used in the battle.
* Players select their armies before the battle.
* Aggression values are changed so that the the invader has a value of 1 the defender a 0. This means the invader may place terrain and the province owner deploying second.

The last in particular is designed to model the province owner needing to secure a victory, driving the invader from his province by action rather than risk economic decline.

[Paul Innes]

Sensible tweaks, methinks. Thanks for posting, and keep up the good work!

Paul

[Keith McNelly]

We have just completed the next turn of the campaign, in particular the 280 BC to 271 BC turn. This decade featured a number of dramatic battles stretching from Bactria to Italia. Some battles rebellious provinces while others found kings fighting for the very survival of states.

A description and a selection of photos can be found here:
https://ancientwargaming.wordpress.com/2017/09/09/empire-280-bc-to-271-bc/

[Patrick Waterson]

Again very well done, Keith (although I did wonder about the Roman military reform which confined spears to the 'tararii') and I hope you have fun doing many more such turns.

[Imperial Dave]

excellent write up as ever Keith and just love the pictures

[Chris]

My compliments as well.   

Has me thinking or wondering if there might be a campaign of some sort in my future . . .

Something of a challenge for a solo player, but not impossible, if one uses d6, d10, or d12 to generate options  of the various other contingents or "players".

DBA does seem to lend  itself very well to quick battles, and therefore, quick campaign turns.

Keep up the good and admirable work!

Cheers,
Chris