I need to cover a couple of items with current/future/planned campaigns.

1. There are no systems in place for handling MULTIPLE awards in a users profile. So don't offer to give special awards out at the end of your campaign if you have no way of doing this. Each campaign finisher can have (1) ribbon (for missions) or medal (for operations). If they do 2 entries they still get (1) award.

2. Campaigns have been losing their appeal by most accounts lately and I have a theory as to why. This is just my humble opinion but here goes... Many of the new or more recent campaigns are just too darn broad. We should have only a few campaigns that are in the General Modeling category, yet there are tons. I know that people want to make their campaigns as inclusive as possible, but don't make them so broad in scope that they really don't have any identity.

Thanks for reading,
Jim

3. Duration. I am seeing a lot of really LONG campaigns lately. Campaigns as a rule should run between 2-6 months depending on the build and complexity. Year long campaigns or anything longer are really frowned upon.

Thanks,
Jim

I have to agree with Jim. No, let me refrase that, ( I don't have to do anything) I wholehartely agree with Jim. I think that some of the campains have become a little bit to.... general perhaps. No offence, but we just finnished the Tank Terror campaign, and then a Tank Destroyer campaign was started. I felt this was rather a continuation ( or duplication) of the subject. A few of the current campaigns cover almost any subject in any scale in any theatre, and seem to be created not to encourage people to try to build something new and/or special, but to get as many people joining as possible.
I think that to many campaigns at a time might take away the occasion, and devalue the campaigns as a whole. Should a campaign be a opportunity to push your boundaries and even learn some new skills, or just a ' there's bound to be a campaign in this list which fit's what I do'.
As for the time scale, that is a good question.. If the timescales of campaign would be shortened to 2 to 6 months, with my building speed I would not stand a change to complete a campaign.. :-) :-)

Anyway, just my opinion, don't loose any sleep over it. :-)

Cheers
Henk

I would also have to say that i agree with Jim. IMHO..i think that a campaign should be something that will be a "fun challenge"..A chance for members to accept a mission to broaden their horizons. Otherwise, the idea of campaigns lose their appeal.
I feel that a campaign should be something that a user can agree to join, that will give them a chance to have fun with a group of other members, but something that will let that member be able to look back on and say.."wow, i never thought i could do that"..
Just my "two cents" worth..
Mary

One of the reasons campaigns aren't being fun anymore,in my opinion,is that there may be too many of them going at once I know I am guilty of signing up for too many of them at once
I just finished Seeing Red,Remember Korea,and Mud,Sweat&Gears I am also part of four more No pressure huh :-)

I may get a lot of bad PM's over this but maybe it's a good idea to put a freeze on campaigns until the end of the year? It's just a thought Please don't hate me for saying it I am not trying to start a war on it

Now as far as the General Modeling category goes for campaigns..... I can see some that need to be For example Remember Korea,the upcoming Vietnam are some good examples

I know I would like to start another Sherman tank campaign but so far I am holding off on the start dates (++) Anyway sorry for the rambling Have fun with the campaigns

I have to agree on the broadness idea.

Two very fun campaigns I was included in were the Window On War campaign and Splash. Each had a very focuses theme. And the WOW campaign had multipe theme points, subject and cost.

This focusing made you really have to get creative and it generated a lot of interaction with the other members and a lot of idea sharing. It made for very fun campains.

Well, you aren't going to get one from me. That is an utterly sensible idea.

On the subject, the reason the campaigns were created, was to encourage some 'fun' builds of vehicles or periods which normally you wouldn't consider - a means of broadening one's modelling horizons....

What has happened is there are simply too many and, for me at least, too many 'General' campaigns. There is also (and waiting for the angry PMs) too little in the way of discipline in (some) campaigns. Take a case in point the recent 'Recce Armored Cars' proposal. Simple concept which got me interested, the proposal was to build one (of the dozens) of WHEELED Armored cars which have seen service in Recce Units the world over. What happened? Suddenly there was a demand for tracked vehicles (both full and H/T) and the original proposer found himself bombarded with demands for their inclusion. A minor, and normally, unimportant point, but perhaps an indication of just how important it is for the campaigns to be 'leashed-in' a little.

I would also support a 'Moratorium' on campaings until the beginning of 2006. I would also propose getting back to basics with some nice, informal Group Builds and see if we can't get this thing back on track a.s.a.p.. I would also suggest a 4 month limit on campaigns. A year-long campaign (IMHO) is totally unrealistic...Jim

I agree on how broad campaigns are. With my Amphibs campaign I try to make it possible for the participants to choose a kit they like but I also try to keep the entries real amphibs.

I'm now also leader of Tank Destroyers. Although I also had my doubts with Tank Destroyers so quickly after Tank Terror, I joined the campaign myself because I wasn't part of Tank Terror and so it still was interesting for me. After Garry's passing I wanted the campaign to continue and I took the role as campaign leader. It is sometimes difficult for me to know what I should allow and what not. For instance the tracked and halftracked Tank Destroyers. Garry seemed to have no trouble when I asked him if I could use a Demag with 5cm PAK for the campaign and so I now allow halftracked TD's. These decisions aren't easy for me as the original idea wasn't in my head.

About the length of the campaigns. I have no problem with 2 - 6 months. If somebody else wants 1 year for a campaign, for instance the upcoming Nam campaign, it's no problem for me. Guess this is different for everyone here.

Martin

I agree with the campains being a little too all-emcompossing and the fact that a campain might start with a specific goal and people push it to be more general.....

also in the past year a lot of them have been proposed and finished. I find them enjoyable and they make you feel like your part of a larger group which is good. I've finished 2 so far and had a great time. I would have liked to done more but I had to moderate myself.

I for one don't mind a series of similar builds such as Tank Destroyers which followed Tank Terror.. it gives others who didn't have a chance to join the first due to other commitiments or time constraints to find a similar build...

maybe an idea would be to have a few campain moderaters to keep things on track and the build within the written rules.

just my 2 cents worth.

I just have to add my feelings, for what it's worth, and I too must agree with the other posters on this matter...I remember when I joined the ranks of Armorama just a couple of years ago and the campaigns at that time were more focused, and much more concise than of late...I logged on to the campaign page last week and I almost couldn't believe what I saw...the list of campaigns absolutely filled the screen(and then some!) where before just a select few were being conducted at a time...I think that we are all mature enough to accept the facts and get back to the original idea of the campaigns, as Jim Rae has posted, which is "to broaden one's modelling horizons, by building something that you normally would not "...In the long run it will only better Armorama as a whole, and also us as modelers individually...
Gunny

I agree here too. A humble suggestion would be to PM all campaign managers to see if they would agree to this. This may have already been stated, but what about a compromise. How about campaign/group builds that have already started be allowed to finish and all accepted but not started campaign/group builds be postponed pending a rereview of the proposal. My reasoning behind this is simple: people have already started on their entries and there is no point in contributing to modellers putting another model onto an already full back-burner.

I also agree to the need of discipline. Everyone is trying to get their say in things, intentional or not. When I took over and finished the Move It campaign, I was not ready for the number of PMs I received asking if this would qualify or this person did this at the last minute and needs an extension. While Armorama is a very open and free site, there needs to be stronger enforcement of the rules and the campaign managers need to know this. When I PM'd people saying that their entry did not fit the guidelines, I was scared I would soon get hate mail. In fact the opposite happened, all were very accomodating. This made me realize that just because they would not be receiving a medal/ribbon for the campaign does not diminish any of the work they did. Their model will still have its rightful place in the display case with all of their other models. So it is not a bad thing to stand one's ground.





Jim, thanks for clearing this up somewhat. I say somewhat only because I have a follow-up.

What is the difference between missions and operations? Am I correct in identifying missions as, say, the upcoming Medic campaign, and operations as the past D-Day campaign? This is only because I have been asked

Jeff

Jeff, the following is copied from the offical Campaign Guildline page. Explains the difference between an Operation and a Mission.

Operations
There are two distinct types of Campaigns. The first are Operations. They are generally larger in scope than a normal group build. They will also have a high-level of educational value to the build process. If you want to dig out the books and do research than this campaign should interest you.

Missions
The second type of campaign is the Mission. Missions can have as many participants as an Operation, but will generally be more about building models and less about things like historical battles or learning to create a water effect for a diorama. Missions will be the far more predominent form of Campaign on Armorama.

Going through the past "Campaigns", the vast majority are actually listed as MISSIONS.

Okay time to insert my foot in my mouth;

Camapigns have been one of the most confusing things personally. I think I finally have a grasp of a majority of its aspects and this is my observation.

Camapigns are out of control in term of the shear numbers (30+ with 7 proposed). Many of them conflict with others for time and frankly are to long in duration which causes more backlog or gridlock. Some do not even have a link to filter them "Air Over the Sea" is a example.

Equally confusing is the multiple rules and reg threads for Camapigns posted at various times over the years ( I keep bouncing back and forth from forum CCC to the Feature CCC trying to keep things straight).

As I understand there is three kinds of Camapigns:

Operations: are already suppose to be limited to 5-6 per year (one per area of the site) and are broad in scope or subject.
Missions: are specific in focus and there is no limit mentioned to their numbers or time.
Apprentice Guild Exercise: for those under 17 Y/O which are to occurr every quarter.

These campaigns are authorized by a comittee ( I do not know who specifically) if meeting all conditions set forth, a miminum of 30 days prior to an actual start date.

Since its not fair to complain without offering a solution here is something for the comittee to kick around:

I think there should be a stop on all campaigns not already approved for this year, let the existing ones filter out.

Under the forum CCC there is 28 blocks if you will for linked/filtered themes.

Reserve 4 of those blocks permanent. Allocate three (3) for Operations Limiting each in time to 6 months January - June and change them for July - December. The fourth one (1) is for the Apprentice builds and the topic changes every three (3) months.
The other twenty four (24) potential spaces can be reserved for Missions and I suggest they be limited in time to three (3) months. That could provide for a potential of 72 different topics over the course of the year which again may be to many choices but at least we could know definite limits or boundaries.

Camapign leaders/organizers whatever you call them. They are suppose to be the cheerleaders if you will for that Campaign keeping the intrest and momentum going and frankly there is some who are lacking in that area and when I say that I mean "Zero communication" with fellow campaign builders. I think if people are going to propose or lead a Campaign they're obligated to those things. If they get in over there head then ask for help there is no shame in that.

I'm going to stop here I feel headache coming on...... Okay I now have my Helmet on, feel free to bash me on the head.

Sincerely,

Brian

We are unfortunately becoming just like the FSM site, especially in Campaigns (Group Builds). As many posts state, there are too many, they are too general, and worst yet, someone proposes a campaign & then gets bombarded by mesages to change it because Tigers won't be allowed. And so on .... FSM even had a one-person group build ....

To me, a Campaign (Group Build, whatever) should contribute something to the hobby -- the net product is that participants teach and learn and the posted results can be referenced by others to learn something. AND they should be fun. I did one campaign where I was constantly working with 1-2 other guys on subject matter & we all dug deep into the research & build process & it was great.

OTOH, we all want to participate & do these things together. If you cut down the numbers, you tend to cut people out. There has to be a balance.

Also, although this is "Armor"ama, we have a nacent aircraft forum, a pretty hefty Figures section, and a growing warship section -- we have to leave a little space for these folks.

There has to be a balance of scope & numbers - if you olnly allow one tank build a year, it can't be just Tigers or Shermans -- there should be a broad-enough theme that allows a range of vehicles & participants. You know, you could probably break it into a half-dozen standard categories & just rerun each year, i.e.:
-- tracked vehicles, WW2, tanks
-- tracked vehicles, ww2, all others
-- wheeled vehicles, ww2, combat
-- wheeled vehicles, ww2, all other
etc ....

Length is subject complexity dependent and also modeler dependent. I'm a slow builder who never builds anything simple, or OOB & I tend to work multiple projects at once. A quickie tank OOB isn't the same as a resin ship, with aftermarket ... or a resin softskin ... or a scratchbuilt .... we have all of those here.

My suggestions:
-- First, whomever is in charge of the "build" must be in charge or be replaced -- this is a site responsibility.
-- Second, whomever on the site is to monitor/control these, must also do so -- again, a site responsibility.
-- Keep Operations & Missions definitions as is, and enforce them. These are specifically requested, approved, and managed builds. Which means also that they get timely admin support in terms of tags & galeries & whatnot.
-- Add a third category, call it "Ad Hoc Builds" which are a bunch of guys wanting to do whatever. They get no support (build tags, galleries, etc) but someone on staff is monitoring what is going on.
-- Give all three types their own separate Forum -- that eliminates confusion about purpose & rules.

And, BTW, I am one of your never-finish offenders, I think I am one of four or five, so this is kinda a save me from myself post. I like Campaigns/Builds, but my own style doesn't really match up well. I do love the interaction, if/when it happens.

John

I am going to go a slightly different path. I agree there are a lot of campaigns. However it is not a requirement that you join them all. Of the dozens that are open right now I am only enlisted in 3 or 4.

I will agree that the subjects are fairly broad. I think a little more detail may be required namely a specific battle or scene from a movie, narrow down the period, etc.

This is my 2 cents, I think that alot of people start these campaigns because they have a diorama or armor tank or somthing in mind and they want to put it into a campaign to make a medal. But thats what Im guessing.

Jim (and all of us here in this thread).

Perhaps it's just me but I actually don't see a problem here. I try to explain myself in this post:

OK, some campaigns are too long and we gonna have to set a maximum.
The medal/ribbon rule is a rule that is to make campaigns handable and are like some other campaign rules just to be followed.
No problemo, I guess.

BUT NOW IT COMES:
A really 'contradictus intermus' is this:

Jim states that:

On the other hand, there ARE 30+ campaigns and ALL OF THESE CAMPAIGNS have members ENJOYING these campaigns!!!

SO HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT???

Let me get this straight:

If a campaign is NOT INTERESTING it WON'T GET THE REQUIRED 10 MEMBERS and fade away.

If it is INTERESTING INDEED for at least 10 people, than it's obvious it is interesting for 10 people!!

How YOU PERSONALLY (and I don't point to Jim personally, but to all who read this, including myself) THINK about any subject, the variaty of models, the discisions and choises made by the campaignleader, the chosen period, 2, 4, 8 wheels or tracks, the country, detail level, required colour green or whatever YOU may DISLIKE is NOT IMPORTANT IN GENERAL!

YOU JUST ONLY ENLIST TO CAMPAIGNS YOU LIKE!!

It's some sort of free market: If there is a campaign you don't like, it's not a problem as long as it's FUN to JOIN for the OTHER MEMBERS!

Campaigns are mentioned to widen yours vision, challange your skills and most important it is said to be FUN.

Broad campaigns may not appeal to some (elite?)members, but on the other hand they give an easy entrance / low treshole for other (starting?) modellers and newby's on the site.
Specific campaigns can indeed give more challange, require more skills and study but HEY WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT!
:-)

If YOU think you have a BETHER CAMPAIGN IDEA, than don't wait and GET IT STARTED!
I would be HAPPY to JOIN!!


And if there ARE 30 CAMPAIGNS, all with a minimum of 10 members each, staff you have to BE HAPPY you have a site that has such INVOLVED and ENTHOUSIAST MEMBERS who ARE giving their TIME and EFFORT to start and manage a campaign.

PAUL

PS:
Actually: Saying someone just starts a campaign to get his model or dio displayed, I found an insult for the one who does his best and started a campaign with best intentions.

A case of 'lost in translation' I feel.
I think I know which post you are refering to, but I don't think the Poster means that people start a campaign just to display their model. I think the Poster feels that some people are just interested in obtaining a medal/ribbon, as quickly/easy as possible. To that end they don't enter an existing campaign, with all the added problems of having to buy a model specificaly, do some research etc., but start a new campaign around a model they have to hand and which they want to build anyway. I don't know if this happens, I don't feel it does, but who knows.
For me, the campaigns have done what they were started for, I have developed an interest in and bought new kits of models that I would not have considered before. A good example is the Mud, Sweat and Gears campaign.. I never build anything without a gun (so to speak) but since joining M,S and G I have bought and started a M88, I have bought a Polish recovery tractor from Mirage and I'm looking for a nice conversion for a Pzr IV...

Cheers
Henk

Henk, thanks for pointing that out. It could be indeed a translation error. In that case OK.
However, I don't think people just get a campaign started for that reason; and if they did... well, they come to a point they wished they just bought a kit for an onther campaign instead of starting their own.
It really takes time, effort and organisation to pull a campaign. I have encounterd that myself, and I don't mind that; actually I like it so much that I helped some others with starting their campaigns and even one mission (Walcheren '44 Campaign).

All I wanted to say is how can anyone state there are too many campaigns if they are all having members enjoying them? And all of these campaigns fit the rules. (It's like saying there are too many soapseries in this world, huh?)

There are (at the moment) 7,136 registered Armorama users from all over the world. (With over 5000 unique visitors daily).
So, I guess, 30 campaigns in wich some of them have more than 50 or 100 members... I think it's a good thing!
Don't forget, their ARE specific campaigns with small ammounts of joining members (like my MP campaign untill now...)

For me, the campaigns boosted up my hobby a lot.
It's one of the reasons I joined Armorama.
The enddate of a campaign gives me the motivation to finnish my work.

Medals/ribbons are for some (I think most, actually) a goal, perhaps some kind of a status symbol.
So, joining many campaigns do seem to give some members a Soviet like chest full with medals.
:-) :-)
But that means they like that, and their is nothing
wrong with that, I guess.
And it's even more fun when you joined and finnished a small campaign, because their ribbons are 'rare'.
Something like 'collect them all'...
Hey, it's not really my beef also, but when a majority likes that... why not?

Don't get me wrong; their could be more missions and specific and strickt campaigns been started.
But if their are people who want that, than it's a good thing to start very strickt and specific campaigns for them. But why don't they start them than?????

For me a campaign has to indeed wider your vision, contact you with other modellers, boost up the hobby.
A ribbon is not the goal itself, but it is a nice 'recognision' off what you build.

And offcourse, a one or two person campaign or group build is a stupid thing. But as that happened on FSM and not on Armorama, I don't think we're doing that bad after all.

The conclusional thing I do want to WARN everybody about is that you have to watch out 'throwing away' the existing campaigns for some 'elite-force' like thingy where only the 'greater modellers' are joining up, looking down on the 'average modellers'.
(Thingy; that;s a word I learned on Armorma!!)
The different levels af campaigns can live next to each other.

The only good reason I can find to change things with campaigns is if the staff gets overwhelmed with campaigns that are hardly in use.
Checking most of the campaigns membercounts, I can't say that is the situation. Or am I wrong?


Paul

Thank you Paul, (007) for putting into words exactly my feelings on the subject. I find our current Campaign system to be just fine, and would hate to see it change. I find "broad" campaign topics give reign to creativity, like when I did a field kitchen for the "softskins" campaign. I know my model building has increased because of campaigns. Restricting the number of them would undoubtedly have the opposite effect. I can only agree with you that the large number of people involved in the many campaigns currently running supports the continuation of the current policy.

Quite honestly, I don't understand what brought this whole subject up. I've always felt the campaigns here on Armorama gave proof to the vitality of the site, and increased the "fun" aspect of modeling tremendously, at least to this member. I'd be sadly disappointed to see current policy changed.

Cheers,
Mike

There HAS to be a change before the weight of the campaigns cause the entire campaign structure to collapse. In a nutshell, more focus more thought, more coherence...Jim

I don't agree, and stand by my statement.

Mike

What bugs me are people who have great campaign ideas, fill out the form and recruit a full campaign but don't know anything about creating medals or how to hand out ribbons, etc.

I think that there should be a better way of instructing potential leaders how to run a campaign and gather up the proper ribbons and banners instead of hearing pleas of help as the campaign closes