Native Completed Split North American Campaign [SNAC]

What do you think about the Split North American Campaign?

  • It sounds interesting and fun, and I will participate.

    Votes: 32 54.2%
  • It sounds interesting and fun, but I will not participate.

    Votes: 4 6.8%
  • It has potential but needs work.

    Votes: 11 18.6%
  • It is a poor idea.

    Votes: 9 15.3%
  • Other {post}

    Votes: 3 5.1%

  • Total voters
    59

Users who are viewing this thread

                       
splitnorthamericancampa.png

snacmap.png


  Years later, the United States is at it again, this time with Canadian provinces picking sides as well. Centuries in the medieval past after the first Civil War fought with guns, the belligerents sought to fight with swords and crossbows. The East and the West grouped up together against eachother - some closer, such as New England and Greater Pennsylvania, and some farther. But they all had one goal in mind: Unite the continent under their banner.

  The Split North American Campaign [SNAC] will be an ambitious campaign designed to bring as much of the NA community together as possible. Players will fight on either the West or the East based on their location, not clan. Strategies and plans will be designed by people that have rarely spoken to each other before, and the two teams must adapt to the strengths and weaknesses of their players relatively quickly. It's the best way to do something that's very rarely done - bring the large majority of the NA community under one of two sides. It's a phenomenal way to change things up, breathe some new life into something that feels like it's stalling, and make players play with people they never have played with before.

  There will be two factions trying to gain as many states and provinces as they can. The campaign will be turn-based, with the first moves being determined by a coin toss. Each side's population will be divided into two players pools that two 'armies' can draw from. In total, four armies for each side will be able to attack and claim states that they are either adjacent to or are adjacent to a friendly state that they are adjacent to. When an army attempts to attack an adjacent state, a standard Battle match is fought, using New NASTe rules (see NASTE thread). The invaded side will be the defenders, and the invaders will be the attackers. If the attack is successful, the army will be moved one state in the opposite direction, and the state switches allegiance and all players from that state are removed from the game by default, as their state was lost. Those players may re-join the game, playing for the opposite faction, or wait until the state is recovered.

  Hence, the main resource in this game will not be 'armies' (as you cannot lose those) or 'resources' but rather manpower. Each state or province lost means people removed from your team. Strategy is involved here - despite the Canadian provinces not having as many Warband players as some of the US states, it's the easiest way for each side to get to the population center of the other side (New England and California). Attacks will have to be made not only for the territorial and strategic advantage, but also for the people that can be gained.

  Native module will be used, and a Central server (much preferably a Chicago one). All of the previous events I've organized have been very welcoming towards Europeans, but this is a North American event. Europeans are welcome to join but will have to play on a Central server (oftentimes 130+ ping). Players from other countries may 'Mercenary' under whichever faction they choose.

  Each side will be lead by a Commander, and I've mostly gotten who's going to command both sides. However, I am going to seek a confirmation as well as more support before I fully go into this project. It'll take a lot of time, and I am trying to acquire a sub-board for this, but I do want discussion and support. The rules are difficult and servers are not that easy to acquire. Any input would be very appreciated, as well as any volunteers for administration.

edit: Special thanks to Master Unicorn in particular for help in fleshing out the concept, and thanks to all of the people I have spoken to regarding this event. Your insights were appreciated.
 
Alright, I'm mainly having issues determining the way that turns will occur. At first, I figured that it would be turn-based. If an army attacks an army, then the battle would occur as described in the OP. Then I figured that it would easier to simply stomp across the continent, deliberately avoiding enemy armies and trying to get as many people and territory as fast as possible. So I implemented the "one extra move in friendly territory" rule in order to combat this, but then I realized that the side that starts Turn 1 will be at an immediate advantage - they'll be able to simply select states that don't have armies on them and attack them without an issue.

So I believe that there will be no 'free' territorial gains. If an army attacks a state, then there will be a battle on it, regardless whether or not the enemy has an army on top of it. I can't think of any issues that would occur with this, but I think I'm having a stupid moment.
 
Looks pretty fun, its great seeing these kinds of things started in WB (I'm sad there haven 't been more of them)...


Ps. These things can be bogged down and ruined by over-complication just because it takes too much brain power for people to participate... my advice would be to keep it as simple as possible as you continue to flesh things out -- would really love to see this come to fruition.
 
Vendigr said:
Looks pretty fun, its great seeing these kinds of things started in WB (I'm sad there haven 't been more of them)...


Ps. These things can be bogged down and ruined by over-complication just because it takes too much brain power for people to participate... my advice would be to keep it as simple as possible as you continue to flesh things out -- would really love to see this come to fruition.

I am - I feel that was one of the main faults of previous events. That's why I'm engineering this to be on Native module and use a very commonly used battle setup. Your average player frankly doesn't even have to understand the rules, just when they're expected to play and on what team. The commanders and the four army leaders should know what's going on, but it's much easier convincing 10 people  what they should be doing than 60, for example.

The rules are frustrating me because I am trying to make them simpler than they can be. My most recent idea is the best I can come up with, and that's one of the reasons I started this thread in the first place. I need those suggestions, I need that help. I'm confident in my ability to run this smoothly and without issue, and I've got the dogged determination and work ethic of a horse. There are only certain things that one person can do, though.
 
Just realized since I live in Delaware which will probably be one of the last states taken if East loses, so i'll be playing for a while :grin:
 
I have a strong feeling that the west will be greatly outnumbered by the east.
+ there is something I would like to throw out there... I live in California... and I get better ping in eastern servers than in central servers. (makes absolutely no sense... I know... but it's the truth.)
So... if it is like this for the rest of my western peeps, it would be cool if western euros joined the west, and eastern euros join the east, and we could possibly have the battles in an eastern server.
 
Back
Top Bottom