Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

Fleet Commander: Nimitz» Forums » General

Subject: No true campaign? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
eric magill
United States
russellville
Arkansas
flag msg tools
A little disappointed there is no true campaign where unit/territorial losses and gains carry over from year to year. Maybe I miss read rules? My understanding is u keep score how u do from each year resetting up game at beginning of each year with just those units from that scenario. Seems like might be easy enough to do true campaign though if u just add reinforcements at beginning of each year. Although possible to miss some units that way. I am sure that could be checked too, but would take some time with as many counters as there are in game. Maybe someone more ambitious than me could post an order of battle for a true campaign?? I suppose some unit factors could change from year to year too but that could also be checked. Game still looks promising. 1942 setup and getting ready to play!!
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve C
United States
Princeton
New Jersey
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, I agree. I think a 1942 AND 1943 would be fun combined.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Carey
United States
West Coast
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for pointing this out Eric, and no I don't think you misread the rules.

So we are expected to reset the entire game at the start of every new year, regardless of the prior results?

I'm sorry, that is just ridiculous and I wouldn't even waste the time.




3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Shawn Moore
United States
Riverton
Wyoming
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I saw this arrived at MM and it immediately went to my cart. I was prepared to buy but came here. This thread is all I needed to know. Remove from cart...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan
United States
flag msg tools
1 Player hardcore
badge
Lone Warrior
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I too would like the option to play through the entire war without resetting.

But with the nature of unit availability (many Japanese ships not being available during later years due to historical loss) it seems like it would be hard to implement this with the way the game was designed. I think it would be possible to create a variant enabling such a campaign, but the book keeping and implementation could be onerous. You might have destroyed some Japanese units that are available in later years or not destroyed some that aren't available. With the combat values changing year to year, well, that would be difficult to track over four years of game time.

Just keeping track of what units should be added in when you transition from 1942 to 1943 and where do they go if their deployment site is occupied by US forces would be a pain in the rear.

If all of that makes any sense.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jerry Tresman
United Kingdom
Christchurch
Dorset
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryanmobile wrote:
I too would like the option to play through the entire war without resetting.

But with the nature of unit availability (many Japanese ships not being available during later years due to historical loss) it seems like it would be hard to implement this with the way the game was designed. I think it would be possible to create a variant enabling such a campaign, but the book keeping and implementation could be onerous. You might have destroyed some Japanese units that are available in later years or not destroyed some that aren't available. With the combat values crhanging year to year, well, that would be difficult to track over four years of game time.

Just keeping track of what units should be added in when you transition from 1942 to 1943 and where do they go if their deployment site is occupied by US forces would be a pain in the rear.

If all of that makes any sense.


Happy New Year

The only way to do it would be to simulate Japanese Production vs losses and convert this to ship types and upgrades. Probably need a table to monitor areas that impact production, external factors and losses/gains.
Then a table to factor new ships / infantry etc.

It could be done by applying a weighting against ship type and benchmarking using historical outcomes.

I just wish my copy had arrived before now, hopefully it will be here later this week.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter Kossits
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Has anyone played both 1942 and 1943 and thought about ways of linking them yet? I'm just about to get started looking at 1943 and want to play it as designed 4-5 times before mulling it over and maybe trying a linked campaign.

But just some early thoughts.

It looks like there are two elements at play when shifting to the next scenario.

1) The overall strategy changes. This is reflected in the objectives being different.
2) The equipment/units are different.

In terms of the strategy changes, the big difference between 1942 and 1943 is that the Japanese no longer pursue Midway directly from Japan or Iwo Jima. Wake Island and the Marshalls are now objectives. In a linked campaign, this strategic change should be able to happen earlier or later than Jan 43, and it should be linked to something that happens in game (Japan losing 4 of its 8 1942 era CVs?; US player controlling 6-7 1942 objectives?). What exactly would make Japan abandon thoughts of Midway and trapping the US CVs to annihilate them in one go? For 1942-43 it seems to be entirely in the hands of the Japanese and you as Nimitz should not be able to unilaterally decide that the objectives and overall strategy changes.

In terms of equipment/units, I would probably have these happen right on the year boundary for simplicity. Maybe compare both sides on-board forces to some sort of baseline and adjust from there. If US took more than historical losses, remove units from the OOB and vice versa if they did well. Same for the Japanese too? Players will have to not be married to the specific names of ships and think of them more as generic CVs or generic BBs for it to work, but that shouldn't be a major problem.



1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.