Improving VDP Campaign Rules

[kevan]

Well, we managed a handful of campaign games over the summer. I thank everyone for your patience with my slightly quirky rules. I plan to sit down one of these days and give them a good going-over.

Probably the biggest criticism of the campaign rules was that setup took so long. The second most common criticism was the planes chosen for the campaign. Another problem was unclear or incomplete scenario rules. With that in mind, what do those of you who participated in the campaign think could be done to improve future campaigns?

When we were chatting during last week's game (gotta love Skype, everyone should at least try it), Rex mentioned that perhaps allowing the attackers to select a mission rather that rolling randomly might be a better option. I've thought about that idea and come up with one that I think might solve some problems while keeping the element of chance - how about a campaign where one side is the "attacker" with one or more 2-seaters for the entire campaign? This way, sides could start rolling up their details as soon as they log on.

Any and all suggestions would be appreciated. I'm also interested in any thoughts on future campaign locations or plane match-ups.

[kirkh]

I agree setup was a problem because we always seemed to wait around to see who would show up before rolling something up. Plus, some of us aren't very familiar with two seater missions so there's some hesitance there as well. If the attacker has a choice as to what they'd like to do then that might speed things up a bit. As for the choice of aircraft, I didn't have a problem with it, although in the next campaign I would like to use different aircraft. In fact, I'd go so far as to suggest a late war campaign.

Maybe the scenario generation can be simplified by making it a single dice roll, say a 1d10 where 1-2 is a German two seater mission over Allied territory, 3 is a fighter mission over Allied territory, 4-5 is a fighter mission over the lines, 7 is a fighter mission over German lines, and 8-10 is an Allied two seater mission over German lines. Then if it's a two seater mission another secret roll would determine the type of mission. 1 could be bombing, 2 could be artillery spotting, etc. Just a thought.

[AP]

I like the idea of setting up campaign games here in the Forum. Have pre-set campaign missions with all details already set, so all we need to do when we get a foursome is pick our plane, label it, and roll for turns.

As far as the next campaign, I think it would be fun to fly a 'days' worth of missions, with a Dawn Patrol, morning flight, afternoon flight & dusk flight. 'Squadrons' would have a certain number of aircraft- i.e: A Late War German Squad could have an S.S.W, Fokker DVII 185, Fokker DR1 & Alb DVa, with a two seater Halberstadt CLII & L.V.G. You could replace any fighter that got shot down with another Alb DVa, otherwise since its same day results would carry over from one mission to the next... i.e. damage would take one 'game' to repair etc...would be fun variation that I would love to set up if others are willing to try it out...

[kirkh]

I actually devised a solo DP campaign game (that was the only way I could play prior to VDP) that's similar to that. You're Jasta 5 and the campaign has you flying one days worth of missions. Every hour you roll to see if Flugmendienst has infomed you of Allied activity, and if they have you choose who to send up. A mission lasts two hours and each pilot needs an hours rest so if a pilot flies the 8AM mission he can't go back up till 11AM. If aircraft sustained damage they could have a certain amount repaired per hour, with critical hits and engine hits taking longer. It's actually pretty fun. If you like I can e-mail it to you guys to see if it might be the basis for something we might do.

[kevan]

I did some editing of the rules today (found on the first page of the League Campaign Discussion thread), to add some clarity to the scenario generation and details.

I like the ideas I'm hearing, I think it would be neat to try out some of them. I think both Andy's and Kirk's ideas could be smoothly integrated into the current campaign rules. There would be a bit more recordkeeping, but that would be easier now that summer is over. The Jasta scenario of Kirk's would be a great fit with having a campaign with the Germans defending against mixed 2-seater(s) & escort(s) Allied attackers.

I guess the one thing I really like about the current rules is the random "surprise" factor, that chance that there may be more factors at play in the dogfight than you expect, or trying to guess the atacker's target for their two-seater mission. I'd hate to lose that.

I think one of the problems is that the "surprise" factor in the current game has landed us a disproportionate number of the more complicated scenarios. Maybe assigning a "captain" to each side would help. The captains could then figure out attacker (or have one permanent attacker as I suggested above), and be ready to set up the map and give details to their wingmen when they log in on Thursdays.

[AP]

Kevan I like the idea of captains or wing leaders. We could have them set up & save the game prior to gametime so everything is good to go. I think publicly announcing the basics of the game doesnt ruin the surprise, we could just say 'Allies on a mission' and the flight leaders could take it from there. Even if its known that Allies are on a photo recon, its still not known where & what their target is.
In the interest of building the playing community, I think the more we can streamline it and speed it up, the more interest there will be. I know in the MN group we dont get to play FTF that much, so when presented with the option of playing for 4 hours a week, most of my group prefers to play 4-6 FTF games in that time instead of 1-2 VDP games. Just another point to ponder...

[kevan]

If someone wants to volunteer to captain the Germans for tomorrow night, we could try out this idea. Dan or Rex, as our most frequent campaign Germans, are either of you reading this? If so, any volunteers?

[Orion]

I was just catching up on my forum reading and finally saw this. Unfortunately, I have a parent-teacher "social" at my son's school tomorrow night. I will be making it in time to play, but not early enough to be the wing leader.

As for campaign suggestions, I would like to see the mission results mean more. For example, a balloon mission (starting on the front) that will result in a movement of the front. If the balloon gets shot down - by the next mission the attackers ground forces were able to flank and surprise the enemy and the front has moved due to the victory. The next mission will be over the successful attackers' lines. The reverse is also true - if the balloon survives, then the defenders will benefit from the next mission being over their lines.

We can take the idea much further - perhaps there is a train to destroy or delay - and it is delivering supplies/parts for the new Dr. I etc. Destroying the train delays the german use of the plane in the campaign - successfully defending the train gives them the plane sooner, etc.