That’s a genuine question by the way. As I embark on the Second Global War where House Baronor fight the Jendari Collective for planetary control, I’m not entirely sure how to fight that war.
What at least has made sense to me so far is to play a risk like game, the pieces being representative of corps. So each nation represents an army within either the Collective of House Baronor and each army is divided into corps. A corps in Deathzap consists of a single fully operational military force – it should contain infantry, armour, artillery, air/space force and a large starship capable of transporting the entire corps – roughly 30,000 personnel in total.
I’ve got a global map which didn’t print out great, but I was planning on adding to it and painting over areas anyway.
If any action feels pivotal I’ll play an actual tabletop game of some version of Deathzap which will influence the outcome.
Any ideas are very welcome! Again I have no idea what I’m doing.
Hobby output has been slower this week because I got a tattoo on my right upper arm:
I was a very good boy and sat very still for four hours. I didn’t really hurt that much though.
Deathzap 
I was thinking of using a Risk game and instead of playing out the meeting of forces on the map doing it on the tabletop.
Another option is to do what I do in my campaign game. Mat and I use hardware screw draw sets with the clear plastic whited out. We take it in turns placing bits of paper, representing our armies with each draw corresponding to a map hex. A given number of hexes can be crossed in a move. Land and ocean moves would be different but air might be more complicated. Anyhow, when we discover an enemy slip of paper battle is commenced or declined (if feasible) and the game set up. it is interesting because each player does not know what he is going to have to dal with some some battles can be very uneven – like in real battles.
I think at that scale you are probably better with a risk type movement system.
But how many levels do you want? One option is to decide that if (looking at your map) somebody throws 3rd Corps onto Vorn, to you then want a map of Vorn and fight things out at a divisional or even brigade level?
It will mean the campaign takes longer, but a global campaign will last for years as well.
Burrowing down a bit more I’ve always found that the two areas I have to go back and retrofit are supply/replacement and command/control. With the latter I tend to have a system where, for example, as high command I order the invasion of Vorn. I roll a dice and discover it will happen a move later than I wanted because of poor staff work or a shortage of shipping.
Brave man with the tattoo!
*
The world map looks (if you frame it) in black like a crackly hologram …
Intricate tattoo – is it purely decorative, or does it have a meaning? There are loads of mechanisms for fighting campaigns, but which ones you consider will surely depend on what your objectives are. What you want to get out of the campaign will determine how complicated the mechanisms you adopt – if the main purpose is to provide context for Deathzap skirmishes, then KISS! BTW if a corps is 30k strong, will Deathzap scale OK to resolve typical battles?
Great minds think alike!
Tattoo wise I wanted the Archangel Michael defeating the devil in a Japanese style, something to reflect my faith that isn’t lame like most recent Christian art lol. Deathzap wise I think it will be a case of having a ratio of numbers represented, so when two corps fight one I’ll play two platoons vs one on the table?
All good ideas! I thinking of keeping it simple for now, but will definitely think about breaking stuff down into that divisional, brigade level for future campaigns!
Simple is often good 🙂
If I’ve learned anything at all, it is to keep campaigns simple unless you have 35 years plus to spare 🙂
Regards and good luck,
Chris.
I know what you mean. I’m tempted to fight the entire thing using risk like rules in an afternoon, and then maybe play out smaller parts of big actions just for fun.