Balanced Campaign Scenarios?

[Dog Soldier]

Campaign games are fun for the experience of playing them. If one looks at a campaign game as a series of smaller engagements across the map, then the tactics used have to vary with the many smaller engagements. This allows players to graduate from the non-campaign scenarios as the options in strategy and a longer time frame allow a player to be more flexible in their approach to the game. Is that an opportunity or a trap? How will I get across that river? Where will I or my opponent make their stand and where is there just a delaying action? When should I commit reserves?

Aspects of the game system that are less important in contained scenarios really become more important in a campaign game. Finding those is part of the fun whether it is East, West, or Southern front and if you are playing Axis or Allied forces.  All have different ways to get the most out of your advantages and a challenge to cover the disadvantages in your forces and the opening moves.

Every HTH campaign game is different after the first day of the game. Some ending in a draw is a really a minor victory to pull off. ie Smolensk 41. Knowing that a campaign game is not balanced to always end in a draw is simply due to the fact that players know something about the history and the mistakes made historically. Thus campaign games rarely follow the historical path in my experience. We can see so much that was not visible to the historical commanders at all levels and have far better control and coordination of forces to expect historical results.

Dog Soldier