Please write in this thread what appeals to you in Field of Glory (FoG) campaigns, regarding e.g., historical eras, complexity, map type (areas, hexagons, etc.), length, number of players, team play or all-on-all, vanilla or modded FoG. And whatever else you think is important.
And turn-offs, of course. 😎
This will make it easier for people like @rico and myself to know what’s worthwhile spending time on, writing up rules, creating GFX, and so on.
Plus the number of answers in this thread will also indicate the size of the FoG campaign player community. 🙂
I would participate in pretty much any campaign set up. However, short, simple concept campaigns are indeed more likely to both attract interest and reach the finish line.
I would participate in pretty much any campaign set up. However, short, simple concept campaigns are indeed more likely to both attract interest and reach the finish line.
Thanks: then you're likely to love Danelaw... 😎 😉
No preferred historical eras or conflicts of interest?
@kronenblatt The Byzantine-Bulgarian struggle in the 11th century would be an interesting concept, albeit a less well-known chapter of early medieval history.
The Diadochi wars would also be a nice concept
@kronenblatt The Byzantine-Bulgarian struggle in the 11th century would be an interesting concept, albeit a less well-known chapter of early medieval history.
The Diadochi wars would also be a nice concept
Ah, then you would (maybe) have loved to play in my Dividing the Spoils 4 campaign currently going on in the Slitherine forum! 😀 Massive and tailor-made Diadochi armies, and straightforward rules.
I like a campaign with a bit of strategy. The Miniwars Pyrrhic Wars we played, for example. Also, the Island one we played, with Ottomans, Venetians etc. I can't quite recall the name. We had siege trains, I remember.
Some simpler campaigns such as the Ancient Kingdoms we are finishing right now as well as the Danelaw one are always welcome too.
I'm always willing to try anything and don't mind waiting for turns to come around if there are a few actions to take care of.
"En cualquier dirección que recorras el alma, nunca tropezarás con sus límites." Sócrates
I'm with Chiquichops as far as favoring campaigns with a bit of strategy involved. It's always interesting when tactical battles impact the strategic picture and influence future battles.
Would anyone be interested in a campaign with a hexagon-based map and armies moving on it, or would you deem that too "complicated"? 😎
Then we could maybe take a subset of the wonderful map of Imperium Romanum II and together create a campaign on it, on a tactical level, for e.g. late-imperial era? Roman West or East. @cargol: you were for example interested in the Bulgarian-Byzantine conflict, so could be something centred around Constantinople or the Balkans region, involving different army lists from Field of Glory II:Ancients. Sometime around 600-1000 AD.
Cargol will fight!
Great! Maybe something loosely based on the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 or the war of Asparukh (680–681)? Involving other army lists from the around the main theatre as well.
Which of the cities on this map should then be present on the hexagon map?
Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 913–927 will be a good choice.
Which of the cities on this map should then be present on the hexagon map?
Constantinople, Serres, Thessaloniki, Serdica, Philippopolis, Durrachion (Western edge), Preslav, Vidin, Drastar
Maybe something like this then. And with each city getting a certain value from 1 to 4, prestige and size wise.
South: hexes on and below a straight line between Srem and Ankhialos (e.g., Srem, Ankhialos, Belgrad and Sredec).
North: hexes above a straight line between Srem and Ankhialos (e.g., Vidin and Preslav).
For the Bulgarians, major value objectives certainly would have been Constantinople and Thessaloniki while for the Byzantines Preslav (the Bulgarian capital) as well as cities as Vidin and/or Varna. The Byzantines could use the help of Serbs, and the Bulgarian of Arabs (used either as allies in certain battles or as a wild card decision maybe after certain threshold of prestige gained by one faction).
Maybe that will complicate the rules though.
For the Bulgarians, major value objectives certainly would have been Constantinople and Thessaloniki while for the Byzantines Preslav (the Bulgarian capital) as well as cities as Vidin and/or Varna. The Byzantines could use the help of Serbs, and the Bulgarian of Arabs (used either as allies in certain battles or as a wild card decision maybe after certain threshold of prestige gained by one faction).
Maybe that will complicate the rules though.
Yes, I'm thinking about having some potential border factions included as allies or outright stand-alone armies (activated through successful diplomacy), e.g., from left to right Pechenegs, Magyars, Croats, Serbs (and Bulgars and Byzantines). So then the Arabs (Tulunids, Abbasids, or Fatimids?) would come from the east potentially?
And then apply a (simplified) form of the Return to Magna Graecia operations: MARCH, DIPLOMACY, SIEGE to enable speedy resolution. All played out on a hexagon map. 🙂 Let's see if we can make that work... Also, two factions (Bulgars and Byzantines) and each player to control his own army, and potentially armies of other factions if getting to activate them by diplomacy.
Thoughts, everyone?
The Arabs at that era traditionally came by fleet, targeting either Thessaloniki (empire's 2nd city) or the capital it self.
They could pose an important distraction to Byzantine plans as they will be threatening the 2nd most important city of the empire.
As I am not aware of the return to Magna Graecia rules, if you have a link, please share it with me.
This is all beyond my ken but it is intriguing.