The group I wargame with has been thinking for some time about how to conduct a campaign where each victory or defeat along the way has a definite outcome and effect on subsequent battles. Whereas most miniature wargames campaign systems are rather abstract in their effects and victory seems usually to influence nothing more than the ability to raise an army, we wanted something more modern, something that shows better the ebb and flow of mecanised warfare.
To this end, I developed a campaign scenario for the D-Day landing on Utah Beach which we’ll play soon using the Flames of War rules. I’m posting it here (Utah Beach [PDF]) to prompt the gamers who read me to comement on it. What I’d like to know is:
- Does it make sense?
- Is it too one-sided?
- Does it reflect the realities (at least in a general way) of the Utah Beach landings?
- Is it a useful model for future and larger campaign games.
- Are there any battles you can think of that would fit particularly well into this model?
- Are there any battles you can think of that would not fit this model?
- Would you play it?
The basis of the campaign, and hopefully a more fully developed campaign gaming system, is the idea that modern battles are about securing or denying access to tactical rather than necessarily strategic resources. While the war may concentrate on strategic aims, any cluster of individual battles or actions are more concerned with ensuring one’s own access to tactical resources such as fuel, avenues for future attacks, supply lines, etc and denying the enemy access to the same.