Skip to content

Vote for possible change to plan for campaign for september

by on June 12, 2012

If 3 or more people vote in favor of doing the Firestorm campaign, we’ll do that instead of tank aces starting in September.  The Firestorm map-based campaign is longer and requires larger armies.  We’d still be okay doing this, but some people may have to proxy a few models if they don’t own the complete army yet (I am sure that’s fine with everyone).


From → Flames of War

  1. So we’ve got 3 votes now for skipping tank aces and doing a firestorm campaign, and 3 votes for that campaign to be a mid war north africa campaign. So… now to start the planning. I am going to do my best to build up an Italian tank company supported by some German allied units prior to us beginning this firestorm campaign. I’ve still got to finish a couple of things for my 82nd (such as purchasing and painting up a chemical mortar platoon), but then I will start focusing on buying (as I get money) and painting up north african Italians for our mid war campaign. I also will be working with Michael (when he’s available) to come up with a map and rules adapted from other Firestorm campaigns for our campaign. As for what you guys play – well as Michael and I were saying in another post on here, just play whatever army you want to play and use a mid-war army list.

  2. derkommissar permalink

    What nations are Axis is mid-war Africa?

  3. Italy and Germany- I honestly wouldn’t mind a late war campaign if people had desire to stick to the lists they have started to build- But I’m good either way.

  4. derkommissar permalink

    I did like the idea of filling out my Soviets more than 900, but I won’t be doing that if I have to switch gears. I wanted to go Axis for the next campaign, but was hoping that the period would offer a decent selection of Axis forces. Since Germany has been well represented in our recent games then I would probably go Italy just for some variety.

  5. If we went late war Eastern Europe there is Germany/Romania/Hungary/Finland. Western Europe has less to choose from- I figured it’d be harder to just stop playing a list you had built to 900 points. The possibility remains to do a Europe map in general, It’d be HUGE scale(probably too big) but it’d make it easier to include all the armies in their areas. The only thing with late war is Romania switched sides at some point, but the other Eastern armies exist.

  6. I actually really like the idea of doing a late-war map based campaign centered around European conflicts. Africa would be cool too but may be getting a little too ahead of ourselves right now. It would be easier for us to get started with a European campaign based on the armies we are currently working on and would be more stimulating to have a mix of infantry and tanks than just doing Tank Aces. I am not saying we need to play the armies we are playing now, but it would be fun to continue with the army I am currently playing (until they are done at least). I know Jeremie would also agree on this. But hey, I just like playing the game so whatever you guys decide I will be cool with.

  7. I’m sure we could dumb it down a bit to make it simpler so it would work, or instead of a campaign just having a month or two of showing up and just playing while people build up thier points doesnt hurt(like 1500-2000 point games)

  8. Okay so if we are going to do a Europe campaign, here are my thoughts: I honestly think we should stick to one of the campaigns that are already pre-made for Europe. The soviet Bagration campaign is a great place to start – its late war. The issue of course is if you want to be historically accurate, then we’re going to have issues with everyone getting to play what they want to play. I’ve been part of a group years ago that played the bagration campaign and we had Americans (played by myself) in the campaign and just counted my army as part of the lend lease program. I think that we should do a campaign that is already written up with a map and its own special rules included in a set (like bagration) so its less work to prepare and we know its balanced and playtested already – plus after we did one of these campaigns, we’d better be able to adapt our own. Also if we did the bagration one specifically, its worth noting that the german players currently are actually running lists out of grey wolf and Jeremy is already running a list out of red bear, and both of those books have historically accurate lists that would fit into bagration – and thats over half our consistent players. Really, only Matt and I as british and americans wouldn’t fit historically, and if we did a bagration campaign, I would most likely start a Romanian army anyway, and I could always throw down my sherman force as a lend lease army for russians in a pinch.

    There is another map based firestorm campaign set out there too – Market Garden. In that one, we’d only have an issue with jeremy’s soviets being there, as the german forces work fine and Matt’s red devils and my 82nd were actually at market garden.

    I know its been mentioned that we could do some sort of massive european map, but I am completely against this if we’re doing a map based campaign – here’s why – you guys haven’t seen a “firestorm” campaign set yet – the fun of running one of those is that you have to consider more things than just attacking territories to take them over – territories have supply lines to consider and the enemy can attempt to cut supply lines. Supply lines allow battles fought in that territory to be supported by special/specific units – so if for example a German force is fighting a battle and there is a token for an 88 gun on the map section, they would get one unit of 88’s free during the battle. That free unit can also be freely moved around the map too…. but if supply is cut off, it goes away. There are lots of extra firestorm units in a campaign and often they are enough to turn the tide, so you have to pay attention to not just attacking the most direct route.

    Now thats just one of several special rules for a firestorm campaign, and they only make sense if the map is “zoomed in” enough. So bagration for example, is part of Russia, not all of russia. Its taking place during the final push out of Russia.

    The point in my opinion, of doing a map based campaign is not to simplify it. It adds tactical decisions to how the armies attack and defend on the map and coordinating as a team or faction together. Simplifying a large scale map will only subtract from this and won’t have the same feel. So if what you guys want is a simple campaign, I recommend sticking with tank aces. If what you want is a map based campaign, then I recommend a firestorm campaign. I could modify rules and a map for mid war in africa. Or if you guys want to do late war, then I seriously recommend giving the market garden or the bagration campaign sets a look. It really won’t be a big deal to have one or two forces that are “out of place” in one of those campaigns (like matt’s british, jeremy’s soviets, or my americans).

    Lastly, my vote if we do a late war campaign, is to use the bagration campaign set.

  9. Oh and as Michael mentioned above, we could just space out the end of this infantry aces campaign from the start of the firestorm campaign – so start the firestorm campaign in October or November, giving people an extra month or two to build up their armies that they are playing even more, or start a new one they want to play in the firestorm game.

  10. derkommissar permalink

    Bagration would be my first choice too. However, if everyone is more excited about doing Market Garden then I will be fine with that too. I will most likely opt to stick with my Soviets, but if I am happy with what I have built up and there are not enough Axis then I may switch sides.

  11. I’m ok with firestorm as well, You could collect your Romanians you love Walter 😀 Then you could play both sides as you wanted. I am not sure if I would stick to Germans or go Russians but I can always look at the distribution of who is playing what then see what I can do as well(maybe finns!)

  12. Yea, if we do the soviet Bagration firestorm campaign, I would definately start collecting Romanians. I would encourage everyone else to continue building up the armies they started, to be honest… so that you all have at least one army that you can do larger battles with. I re-read the bagration campaign rules and it says that people should just play what they want (as long as its late war) and then say that its either a soviet lend lease army, or if they join the germans, a faction who has defected in a “what if” scenario. Michael and I already own more than one army (Michael’s got a army of tigers and his fallshimjager and I have my 82nd airborne and a US tank company), so it makes sense for us to possibly collect a new army… but the rest of you guys are just starting your armies and I strongly suggest you stay with the armies you’ve started and build them up and then play bigger and bigger games in the firestorm campaign – afterall there is no points limit for games played in firestorm – each time you “make a move” and play a battle on the campaign map, you can decide with your opponent how many points that battle will be.

    One other thing – in Firestorm there are a couple of “positions” throughout the campaign. First is the organizer who, well does kind of what I already have been doing with Michael’s help. I figured I would go ahead and just say if we do a firestorm, I will be the organizer. Second, there are team generals. Each team nominates a general – it should be someone who actively shows up and can play often, but also someone who has a relatively strong grasp of tactics as well as what his other team mates capabilities are (how they play tactically and the abilities of their armies). Note that the organizer can not be a general, although he can play on one side or the other – the organizer is also responsible for other “events” occuring during the campaign, so it isnt fair if he is also a general – this will make more sense when we begin the campaign. The generals will be the ones responsible for issuing orders to his commanders – and actually is supposed to do this in a typed and letter sealed format. Each commander then will get a “move” on the campaign map and then will play the battles they need to play – battles can actually be played against anyone on the other team, it doesn’t matter. By the way, there is nothing stopping a commander from disobeying an order and attacking somewhere else than ordered to… but that’s up to the commander. Also we’ll need to decide if we should play 1 turn per game session or have 2 game sessions for 1 turn. There are between 4-6 campaign turns in the bagration campaign, depending on how long we want it to go (we have to decide these things ahead of time because there are alternate set ups on the map). Anyway, this is just a real brief summary of how the campaign is going to work… and although there are a bunch of additional rules, I believe that doing this type of campaign over a simplified campaign would be a lot more fun… and I’d really prefer to do a campaign with an existing map set already out – bagration or market garden specifically. On a personal level, yes I would prefer bagration because as Michael pointed out, I have been trying to come up with an excuse to play Romanians for a while now.

  13. Oh and one more thing – it appears as though the bagration set is no longer in print (for some reason), so we may end up having to buy it through ebay if John cannot get it and we want to play it.

  14. So no one has said anything in a while about this topic… are you guys all on board for doing a Firestorm Bagration campaign? If so, when would you like to start it?

  15. I am definitely on board for a Bagration campaign. If we do, I would like to know what army everyone is thinking of playing. The ratio of allies to axis will determine what army I am going to play. If there are more axis players I will play a (lend-lease) British army, if there are more allies, I would love to start a German panzer grenadier army.

  16. I’d be on board for either side as well. Axis is easier as I can just use what I own without purchasing but if somebody wanted to try them out I wouldn’t say no if we needed more allies. I think September/October would give everyone a few months to build up an army to a decent size right?

  17. And theres a firestorm on ebay for 20$ right now

  18. derkommissar permalink

    I will definitely be playing Soviets in a Firestorm Bagration campaign. MOTHERLAND!!!

  19. I would like to play Romanians on the axis side… which actually IS historically accurate as the Romanians didn’t join the Soviets until Russia actually pushed into Romania itself. Btw, Michael, I and probably the rest of the group would pitch in for that 20 dollar bagration set if you pick it up on ebay. I won’t have any money until the end of the month though… but if we all chip in, thats super cheap. If we rigged some way to hang in on the wall at the store, I bet John would let us hang it up – we could put little pieces of sticky tack on the bottom of the plastic pieces or something. Anyway, I’d like to do a Romanian Axis tank company.

  20. Oh and I think we should shoot for October for beginning the campaign – that gives us time to run the mega battle for infantry aces sometime in september and a week or two to build up whatever armies we’re all going to run (personally since I want to do Romanians, I am going to start building mine up starting in July).

  21. Okay I am making another addendum to what I said above – I changed my mind – I am going to build a Hungarian tank list. I’ve decided that I would like to try to paint an army with cammo schemes, and I really like the look of the Hungarians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: