I'm currently following two ECW campaigns on other blogs, and thought I'd share them here.
The first is being run by Jolly Broom Man at '
1642 And All'. It uses a set of rules based on 'Command and Colors', with the forces being generated via a neat card-draw system, partially influenced by which commander is in charge of a particular side. JBM creates the scenario based on the current campaign narrative. Indeed if you want to see how a set of simple campaign rules can translate into a detailed narrative or events, I can heartily recommend this blog.
Lifted from JBM's blog is the campaign map, a sample battle set-up and a picture from a game.
Meanwhile Peter at '
Grid-Based Wargaming - But Not Always' is running a campaign using a variant of the OHW rules. His has less background narrative, but does have beautiful hand-drawn graphics. His main map is divided into areas, and initially the campaign has been a series of battles to determine which side controls each area. He has now entered the second stage, where the armies of both sides will try and take territories from the other.
Again, here is the campaign map, a battle-map and a picture of figures in action.
Both campaigns abstract, to some degree, the relationship between what is happening on the campaign map and the actual battles themselves. In JBM's case a battle is fought each turn. He gives it a location and a place in his narrative, but this is purely for colour. Whichever side wins the battle gets to perform a certain number of actions on the campaign map. The loser gets to perform fewer actions. Basically the battle serves a PIP roll for a larger map game. Peter's is less abstract. In the first phase each side alternated in picking an area they wished to fight over, then a battle was fought. The control of adjacent areas influenced what troops each side got, and all battles were essentially set up as head-to-head field battles with randomised terrain. The winner controlled the area. In the next phase the sides will attempt to take control of opposition areas, with a random number of battles being fought each year until the campaign ends in 1646 and the overall control of the map is assessed. So in Peter's campaign the battles directly determine who controls which bit of the map, whilst in JBM's campaign the location of the battle has no effect on the map game, with its result being the only link to the campaign map.
I'm loving both campaigns - JBM really knows his Civil War and feeds his knowledge into the campaign in a very entertaining way, whilst I love Peter's approach to game mechanisms and his artistic abilities. I'm very tempted to run a campaign using Peter's method; it looks simple to set up and run, and the only work I'd have to do it change how the battles are generated so I can use my Portable Wargame rules.
I commend
both blogs to the House.