Proposed campaign areas
The current Linz PBEM campaign is still going strong, and probably has a few more battles in it. On the other hand it could end unexpectedly. In either case it is time to start work on the next campaign.
I am still uncertain whether to run another phase of the current 1813 campaign, or to start a new campaign completely different from the current one.
First I started work on another phase of the current one. It will be based in Northern Germany and will be based on Hamburg. It will probably be a four player game, rather than the current six players. This is because I want more space for each player, and less need to restrict their choice of movement.
Then I started thinking about a whole new campaign concept. This would start with a blank page, and is a much more exciting prospect. I have already got a good idea of what I would like to do.
When I started my current 1813 campaign it was a solo campaign. I wanted to use all of my model soldiers, so I had five campaign areas. Each would have a French army and one of my five allied armies. Each army would be four corps. As a solo campaign I could manipulate the campaign to produce battles/wargames as and when I wanted them.
The change to PBEM required a lot of changes, in particular smaller armies for each player. Instead of being a campaign based on two armies of four corps each, it became a campaign of four corps commanders with one corps each. It worked ok, but it resulted in much smaller battles/wargames than I had planned for.
If I change I will run the whole five campaign areas at the same time. There will be ten command vacancies. Each will be a commander in chief with four corps. Each area will have just two players, one French and one allied. They will have an area similar to the current tactical map. But with only one player per side they will have much more freedom of choice.
There will be an objective (a town) in each campaign area. When the objective is taken that will be the end of that particular phase of the campaign. The other four areas will carry on, but the two players in that area will have finished their command role. They could then either carry on with the next objective, or I could find a replacement player. So the commitment will be about three or four months, the same as it is now.
The great advantage of the proposed campaign is that I will not have to keep a team of six players going for three or four months. Instead it will be five teams of two players each. It will mean that I will need to find constant replacement players, but the loss of one will only affect their particular phase. And if necessary I can take over that role until I find a replacement.
As always it seems great in theory. But I have found that the actual practice is always a lot different. I hesitate to abandon a campaign concept which has run for three years and has worked well. On the other hand I would enjoy the challenge of a new campaign concept.
I will ask for comments on the campaign forum and see if there is any preference one way or the other.