For instance, at one point we decided to leave Middenland be and go after the Talebecs, but there was a diehard contingent determined to fight Middenland. In spite of all our planning, we looked reckless and maybe a tad arrogant.
That was the good thing about our faction - we discussed our ideas, and set things up so we had a thread that told members what the current strategy was and it did change on a daily basis, and most importantly
our generals generally stuck to it - I think we probably had 2/3 cases where battles went where we didn't want them.
I was one of those Stirland generals who quit fighting toward the end, and the biggest factor was my frustration. It seemed like no matter how hard we fought, we would always be ganged up on and defeated. That, and the fact that my few battles (which were rarely the coveted massacres) didn't seem to make much of a difference (compared to those who posted huge wins day after day) made me lose interest.
Following on from my first comment above the Stirland guys certainly initially had the most points available ................
... how you chose to use them decided what happened - to be really cheesy - no 'I' in T-E-A-M.
We probably had the most participants in terms of numbers who posted A
battle - and we considered every battle report, even a no bonus 200pt draw a plus point.
However we encouraged each other to enhance the games with the optional campaign bonuses - a minor of 400 points could easily go to 600 or 700 and make quite a difference.
Someone on our team also made a point of emailing our member list a few times during the campaign, chasing up some interest. That worked quite well too - a few general's appeared with a few odd battles that proved very useful too.The 'massacre' factor was both annoying and amusing.
I suppose with my gaming ethos, AND the general attitude of this site, I found it hard to imagine someone achieving massacre after massacre.
I would not enjoy playing/winning #x of straight massacres, our group would never put up with someone achieving that, and as an opponent if I didn't LEARN from it and improve - I would expect someone to quit.
Indeed on this site, most members would only be interested in a run of massacres - like 6
would be useful - at a tournament.
However amusingly one of our
members bravely came onto our forum and admitted he had been the victim of a run of said massacres - I think our advice was for him to retire
However he did in fact make a major
contribution later on, when he managed to help
the 'freakin idiot' forget to post his 5 massacres before the end of a round ......................
The time of year our campaign took place, ie summer holidays, had a profound effect on the number of games I believe.
That's a good point. It would mean a long wait until the next campaign though!
I wasn't suggesting waiting till next summer - as a 'working adult' I was a bit upset that I couldn't play day-in day-out during 'summer holidays'.
A student on hols who can play 2/3 games every
day, against poor old me who is lucky to average one a week.........
However that is a debate?
Educational Holiday Times will add to the number of results v. a more balanced participation from everybody.
The next campaign will likely work on a whole different forum system, partly because of the engine. So Midaski (and other regular mods), you’ll have no more access than any other non-team members.
Good as then there can be no inferences of advantage........
However I reserve judgement as it would appear that my comments about the tactical discussions have found agreement.
Any new campaign should bear this in mind.I do feel that if the 'faction generals' can get together and make and implement strategies they should be able to have a substantial bearing.
Towishimp's point about the Stirland camp's possible indiscipline I think makes my case.
As an aside I rather thought I'd try and help on the 'organising side' next time - it did seem that the volunteers' numbers dropped off, and it came down to a core few.
I saw all the 'names' go up early, and purposely took a backward step - I do believe in a 'spread the load' concept and so the more non-mods/admin that came forward the better. If ordinary members feel that they can contribute, in whatever way, it has to be good for the site.Following on from that I also think we have identified some very useful responsible members who can be encouraged to greater enterprise.
you should definitely go into our Talabecland forum since you were definitely a topic of conversation. That was some brilliant disinformation.
Well that was hopefully the plan - Towishimp mentioned 'low point' battles. At some stage we discussed posting those in a round as 'distractions', to try and convince you we were going to do 'X'.
We also decided we would not survive if it was us getting attacked on two fronts, so we did all we could to keep Udo's at the forefront, and let Kaltenbach fade into obscurity ...................
There was never an alliance - but despite our furious denials, we were quite happy to let the Stirlanders think there was. We felt they were the biggest threat, and set out to disrupt them in any way we could.
For this to work however the players must not know what exactly how the scoring works because smart players will be able to draw parallels between how their reports look and the subsequent results and thus make estimates of the other factions postings.
However as Midaski said this kind of thing did sweeten the deal.
Is a campaign just about playing games - to a theme - and just enjoying those games, ...............
or is it about playing enjoyable games as part of an overall grand bigger "game".
GW are always producing 'new' ways of having a 'different' hopefully enjoyable game; ie Lustria, Knightly Order 'traits'.
The problem with an online campaign is you cannot control everything - most notably the results of battles.
A faction could probably work out its likely average points score per round, but look at the round variations in our small campaign
The off table tactics are as much a part of the campaign as the actual games, and being able to 'measure' what is happening is the only real way you can then develop strategies.
Knowing how points are scored and awarded was an important factor in The Ostermark -
- just look at the number of discussions we had about who had what battles and potential points left to post in a round, and what scores we should allocate where .................
The most effective part of Rorrak's Standings threads was the list of opposition forum players and what they posted.
We watched individually the enemy 'big hitters' and the number of battles reported against the number of days in the round, so that we would know on the last day that player 'X' potentially had 2 more battles to post at 'Y' number of points.It sounds like we were by far the biggest anoraks in our faction.