Rules

Friday, 7 March 2025

Planning a French and Indian War tree campaign with a map

I have recently been playing a few French and Indian War games and made a scratch-built a ship with landing boats so I can incorporate some amphibious operations into my games. While I enjoyed playing the one-off games, I wanted to play a few games that were linked as part of a campaign. 

The question is what campaign approach to use? Any approach should:

  • Keep the game count manageable, about 3 games sounds just fine.
  • Provide a supporting narrative to keep the games engaging and with an objective.
  • Have a map, as I like maps and the making of them.

This short campaign is designed to allow for one or two amphibious landings.

Step 1 - Find a suitable campaign approach.

I found an example of a simple tree campaign consisting of 3 battles in an old Warhammer set of rules I have.  

A simple tree campaign found in a Warhammer rule book.

Step 2 - Select suitable OHW scenarios.

For my tree campaign, I selected One-Hour Wargaming (OHW) scenarios for each battle, while attempting to create a cohesive narrative between the scenarios. This process took longer than expected because each scenario had to fit logically with potential outcomes, wins and losses from previous battles. I found myself looping through various options until I found the ones which fitted the narrative I had in my head.

Some of the initial planning for the campaign with OHW scenarios identified.

Step 3 - Making the map

Next, I needed to incorporate the scenarios into a map to add more context to the campaign. The map helps establish a connection between each battle, their terrain, and the broader campaign.

I sketched out each selected OHW scenarios on its own 2-inch by 2-inch pieces of paper which was cut out. With a rough idea of how I wanted the map to look, I arranged the cut out pieces of paper on a larger sheet to establish the flow between scenarios based on which side wins or losses. In some cases, I had to flip a scenario map to create a mirror image. Once satisfied with their placement, I began sketching the map to incorporating the scenario maps.

Not the best photo of the cut out scenarios as they were position on a blank A3 sized page.

Having sketched out the map it was a simple process of colouring in the map.

Final map showing each of the scenarios.

Step 4 - Double checking the flow with the tree campaign.

A final step was double checking the flow of the tree campaign with the scenarios.

The scenario maps in a tree structure

Campaign narrative using the map as a guide.

With reinforcements and support from the Royal Navy, the British plan to advance up the coast and capture Fort Orleans, leveraging their naval support to undertake amphibious landings. However, Fort Robert has onshore guns that prevent any naval operations. Capturing Fort Orleans would be considered a major British victory, requiring three tabletop wins within the campaign.

The map showing the planned attack approach of the British.

Minor victory is achieved by crossing the river further downstream to set up a bridgehead for future operations or the capture of Fort Robert. These can be achieved with 2 tabletop wins and 1 loss.

The circled areas would be considered a minor campaign victory if held.

Looking at the narrative for the first tabletop game.

An initial victory is crucial for the British forces at the start of their campaign. A loss would give the French time to reinforce Fort Robert’s defences, forcing the British to move inland towards Henry’s fram in search of a river crossing upstream of Fort Orleans. This inland route would expose them to counterattacks from the French and their Native Indian allies. While, a victory would allow the British to advance swiftly along the coastal road, isolating Fort Robert and cutting off any French reinforcements.

The British launch their first attack across the river from King’s Town and also land forces further down the coat. 

The scene is set for the first game.

The tabletop is setup for the first game, OHW scenario 19 - Blow from the rear. The British will be using their Naval support to land troops behind the French left flank. A slight modification to the scenario.

The tabletop is setup and the campaign begins!


30 comments:

  1. Really nice ideas here Peter, and beautiful production - the trusty OHW scenarios prove their versatility again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The OHW scenarios are very useful and reusable in many situations.

      Delete
  2. Lots of great ideas, as always Peter, and your table looks superb for the first game!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I will be posting on the game soon.

      Delete
  3. Always enjoy seeing how you create campaigns. Your battlefield is as eye catching as always. Looking forward to the battle reports.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I always enjoy putting together the campaigns, even when they are short campaigns of 3 games.

      Delete
  4. Very impressive work there Peter! I'm certainly looking forward to seeing how this all plays out. I find simple narrative campaigns work for me and, if time permits, I do like to provide some maps for the action to unfold on, but rarely does this happen. Maybe I should try harder!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Creating maps can be time consuming. I am retired now and have more time to enjoy making them.

      Delete
  5. That’s a well thought out campaign map. Very nice indeed (let’s be right - what gamer doesn’t like creating their own maps?).
    I smiled when I spotted the “Gulf of Agony” on your map. Let’s hope no politician decides to unilaterally rename it 😂🤣
    Cheers,
    Geoff

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. Many of the names on the map were reused from Donald Featherstone’s FIW campaign in his book Wargame Campaigns which I often refer to.

      Delete
  6. I love the campaign tree/map combination. I had tried connecting the maps after the fact previously for the sake of narrative but never thought to do them in advance for a tree/map campaign combo. Great idea!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I did consider building a map with few terrain features, then filling in the terrain as the campaign progressed.

      Delete
  7. You’re my go to guy for campaign inspiration. I really like what you’ve done here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, the tree campaign approach is really useful for a limited number of games.

      Delete
    2. Very impressed by how you have created the campaign structure and map. I am inspired to do something similar for Benedict Arnold's raid on New London, Conn., in 1781. Your methodology will be a great help! Thanks for publishing so many great ideas on your blog! The Jolly Broom Man speaks for me, too.

      Delete
    3. Many thanks, I hope the approach works well with you planned raid campaign.

      Delete
  8. I'm not familiar with the different 'scenarios', but this is a great system for making larger or smaller campaigns. Looks like you have some interesting games ahead!
    Thanks for sharing!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scenarios are all from the book One-Hour Wargames by Neil Thomas.

      Delete
  9. I love seeing a campaign unfold in a series of posts, great insight into your thought process, really a very interesting read. Table looks great, looking forward to seeing the first game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks. I find writing long posts a bit of an effort. So I generally break them down into bite sized pieces.

      Delete
  10. Peter, this is a brilliant effort in planning, design, and development of a FIW campaign. Love your maps, as always! As JBM says, you are my go to campaign idea developer too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was pleased how the map came together. I suspect if the tree campaign ran to 5 games, then lining up the map would have been a bit more tricky to do.

      Delete
  11. Wow. I'm going to save this as a go to article for campaign design. Just brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you. The approach works ok with 3 battles. Increasing the number of battles may make the use of a map less viable.

      Delete
  12. Peter, I agree with everything said in the comments above. Fantastic work and like Richard I am saving this as it is full of great ideas.
    Thank you for taking the time to post your thought processes and results. A real gold mine for your fellow wargamers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find documenting the steps taken allows me to clarify the ideas and refer back to it later on.

      Delete
  13. I am envious of your maps, they are redolent of the DIY nature of Old-School wargaming. They remind of a simple ladder campaign set of maps in an old AWI set of rules, whose name escapes me, that were just a small booklet - I think (I hope) I've still got them.
    I shall of course be cheering for the Brits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Creating the maps is one part of campaigns I enjoy and being hand drawn gets me away from my computer, which is always a good thing.

      Delete
  14. This is really going the extra mile for a limited campaign but I’m sure adds to the enjoyment. 😀

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it does add to the enjoyment and getting more invested in the campaign.

      Delete