Session Report - Ulm Campaign

Finished the Campaing with Mark and it was really a defeat for Austrians.
Sadly i had my chances in first 2 games, but there my dice was the hell and didnt show the results, what i needed,
so it was harder in last game(s), to change any.
Although last game started with a surprise double kill for Austrians, but after that the dice was again bad.

I have two concerns with the campaign rules;
1. The Victory Event rolls penalise the loser more than the winner, which tilts balance further to the winner. Particularly when the forces in the next scenario are unrelated to the former scenario, this seems unfortunate.

2. The Objective VP coupled with the scoring of Victory Banners from objectives means that objectives score twice in the campaign. For example, the last scenario the French scored 2 banners for objectives to win the scenario, and a further 2 VP for having 4 objectives. In effect, the objectives scored 4VP (of 9).

In the past I've played a simplified style of campaign, where we played the scenarios in chronological order, and kept a running tally of banners scored.

The only balance provision we used was where there was a difference in the Command Cards each player had, then the player with the least Command Cards got bonus banners equivalent to the difference.

For a long example of the entire Peninsular campaign, see
www.boardgamegeek.com/blog/2535/peninsular-campaign

Using those rules the scores were

301 Wertingen (8 October 1805) French: 5 Austrian: 3
302 Günzburg (9 October 1805) French: 7 Austrian: 3
303 Haslach-Jungingen (11 October 1805) French: 6 Austrian: 6
304 Elchingen (14 October 1805) French: 7 Austrian: 4

TOTAL French: 25 Austrian: 16