@damon – I would very much like to run the campaign where losses from one battle affected available forces in the next, since it’s the obvious way to run a multilevel command tactical campaign game.

My issue, however, is that this campaign has to coexist with the rest of the Boot Camp without “taking over” the Boot Camp.

In other words, we have seven-eight people playing at the moment, but 24 players at the boot camp.

i.e., not everyone at the boot camp is participating in the campaign.

So your opponent for a given game at the Boot Camp might NOT be in the campaign.  This is especially true if we don’t have equal Commonwealth / DAK players.

So if your opponent hasn’t chosen to participate in the campaign, or if he/she is in the campaign but wants to paint for a while or is in an interview, or is just taking a break or whatever, and you wind up playing someone else …

Long story short, I really don’t want to “impose” conditions in our campaign on other players at the boot camp.  I don’t want to “take over” the event from the BoW studios or Warlord.  So if you’re playing in the campaign and you’ve lost half your force, and the next game you’re playing someone else not in the campaign, I don’t feel comfortable telling that other player – “we have to change your available forces” or victory conditions or what have you, based on previous results of a campaign they may not be participating in.

Now of course, if that other player is agreeable to any scenario conditions, that’s different.  😀  I’m really hoping they might be agreeable to scenario types in particular, e.g., say you lost your previous battle badly and now your next battle we’re specifying you’re on some kind of delaying action defence, etc.  Excuse me, Mr. non-campaign player, is it okay if in your game vs. @damon we specify his force is slightly weakened and on delaying action defence, trading a smaller enemy force for stricter victory conditions, etc. (you have to win by at least 2 game points, etc)?