Lack of interest, the bug in battletech [1/2]

Larienna,

You might want to take a look at the Necromunda table top wargame. In that game, you have all you need to perform a campaign. Scenarios are generic and reusable, and each of them include a specific setup and a set of objectives. Before each game, a scenario is selected.

One of the elements that makes the game attractive is that you see your characters evolve as the campaign advance. Your party gain new skills and weapons, but also wounds, which make each character unique. Rewards given to players as the campaign goes (powerfull artifacts, unique prototypes of high-tech weapons) is probably another major element that make players want to play the game again.

Unless you are creating a RPG/Wargame hybrid, generic scenarios are probably preferable, as they increase replayability. Another advantage of generic scenarios is that you do not have to test each "path" the whole adventure, as any scenario can be played one after the other.

Another approach could be to start with generic scenarios, and then setup a community website, on which people (including yourself) can contribute by creating story driven campaigns.

Finally, there could be a way of combining these two solutions, where people play a series of generic scenarios, in which they acumulate points, after which they play a story based scenario, in which their roles could be defined by the points they have accumulated so far.

Jeb

Add a human element.

Point-based army building seems pretty standard, if you ask me. However, what if your 100 point army was secret, so when you face your opponent, you do not know what to expect?

Also, many players love 'building' things. Building a deck for Magic was often more enjoyable then playing the game. You should allow your units to work together in interesting combinations. For instance, a scout troup might not be the best combatant, but if they have the ability to spot for a very long range attack from another unit, you're golden. Leave it up to players to solve the 'combos' and you'll have them coming back for more.

Not sure if I like it random, but I would let players choose their powerup at the start of the game, just like building their army. If it is random, ensure that they are distributed fairly (all are roughly equivalent bonuses, as opposed to some bonuses and some penalties).

You could make this bonus cost points, limiting the number remaining for the rest of the army.

Even better: Draw four mission cards, and keep one. It goes face down in front of you. When you accomplish that mission (kill commander, destroy 1/2 of the other player's units, move a unit to the other side of the board, whatever), reveal that card for the win. Victory could happen at any time, and you do not know what your opponent has in store for you. Are they bluffing with the strong attack on your main force? What about that lone unit of by itself?

I agree wholeheartedly with Jebbou about Necromunda. the campaign system in that was superb, transforming a skirmish wargame into something far more intriging and compelling. Even playing the same scenario over and over, as sometimes happened, never felt repetative, since the context of the fight was continually changing. The gangmembers had ever-growing backstory, and tactical decisions began to be fueled as much by this rules-free imagined situation as by the needs of the scenario itself. Gangmembers would choose targets based on past grudges, rather than on best-practice analysis. This was the effect a campaign system should have on a game: to make you care.

Your point about Battletech is well founded. Battletech was a game that was laboring under the assumption that the players would feel a burning compulsion to destroy opposing units simply becasue they were there, when in practice, there was no reason to feel anything of the the sort. The players started fighting because that was what was expected of them. In Necromunda, seeing the arrogant Cawdor gang leader that took out your Heavy two games ago and wrest away control of your gambling dens is enough to make your blood boil. You want to take him down, and if it happens in a gain fight or a raid is secondary. I can't remember getting as frustrated, angry, or elated by the results of a scenario as I did over Necromunda.

Other aspects of the Necromunda system that are worth considering are these:
1.) Archtypical Scenarios: The basic campaign mode had, if I remember correctly, six or eight generic situations, like Gang Fight, Raid, Rescue, and so on. These were mostly formed by combining relevant victory conditions with a special rule or two, and maybe some special rule on the compostition of the forces. Compared to the work in creating the scenarios, they were infinitely re-usable.
2.) Backdrop system: The Necromunda setting and the campaign system held the most work, but was universal for all player forces. It controlled unit advancement and had a very simple resource system. For the amount of effort of creating a single one-shot campaign detailing a specific incident, you could have a campaign system usable after every game. Far more efficient. The campaign system was a uniform process that the players went through after every game, regardless of scenario or results. Again, efficient.
3.) Balance hidden by style: In Necromunda, the forces were almost identical, but never seemed that way due to art and design. As gangs progressed, they would start to diversify based on subtle differences in their progression tendencies, but at first, they were equal. This makes scenario balance that much easier. Also, it worked well because the players would fill in so much of the imagined effects that members of different gangs with the same skills still seemed to perform differently on the field. So keep the advancement of different forces similar, and your campaign system will be most reuseable.