PBEM ACW game - help needed?

Figured I'd throw this out:

The PBEM game I'm moderating right now is strategic/operational,
centered in Virginia [events in the Western Theater are
announced in the turn updates, but the player(s) have no
control over them; they're just for infotainment purposes].
There are two players, one US and one CS. The object is to
accrue as many points as possible between the beginning
(just after Bull Run) and mid-summer 1863. These can be
done by winning battles and/or capturing strategic points.

Anyway, we're now at mid-summer 1862. The CS player
has briefly invaded Maryland and then returned to Old Virginny.
There have been a few small-scale battles, nothing major.
But shortly, things could heat up.

The two present players have been all that I could ask for:
getting in orders on time, behaving realistically as commanders,
etc. The one thing missing is tactical resolutions.

Previously the battles were small enough for me to resolve on
my own. But the prospect of large-scale engagements has me
concerned, for you see, neither of the players have shown much
interest in conducting tactical operations. This may be due to a
lack of time or simply a lack of interest in handling these smaller-
scale matters, but it concerns me. I'd like to have the battles
directed with a human hand, rather than simply figuring everything
out by calculation.

So...I was wondering if anyone would be willing to step in as
players at the tactical level (one for each side)?

Two things I would note:

1. These would not be micro-tactical battles. With the two
armies already organized at the corps (US) and wing (CS) level,
the players would be giving orders at these levels (i.e.,
relatively broad, with a focus more on nuance and suggestion
rather than direction of individual batteries/regiments/etc.)
So the player(s) would need to give his orders in that style, and
be willing to accept the results (good, bad, but mostly indifferent,
since this particular system works off the idea that indiviudal
battles are not necessarily decisive, but CUMULATIVELY they
could lead to ultimate victory or defeat).

2. The players would need to play "within roles". The
ANV/AOTP commanders, McClellan and Johnston, are classified as
fairly conservative (this was not a conscious decision, but
rather a random classification before play began) and have
behaved as such at the strategic level, so obviously their
tactical behaviors would need to match this. The possibility
that the US or CS players might eventually sack these guys
and replace them with more aggressive commanders should allay
any concerns that the tactical-level player would need to
show restraint for the entire game.

Also, because I intend to keep the main strategic players,
they would continue to be responsible for the strategic
operations. Thus, the tactical players might have to
"make do" with reduced troops/rejigged OOBs thrust upon
them suddenly.

Hi

I would be prepared to help out as a tactical commander if you still require players.
I have no preference for side and will fit in where required.

I can be reached off site at Baztanz at G.mail. com

Regards
Barry

guitarmandanga wrote:Figured I'd throw this out:

The PBEM game I'm moderating right now is strategic/operational,
centered in Virginia [events in the Western Theater are
announced in the turn updates, but the player(s) have no
control over them; they're just for infotainment purposes].
There are two players, one US and one CS. The object is to
accrue as many points as possible between the beginning
(just after Bull Run) and mid-summer 1863. These can be
done by winning battles and/or capturing strategic points.

Anyway, we're now at mid-summer 1862. The CS player
has briefly invaded Maryland and then returned to Old Virginny.
There have been a few small-scale battles, nothing major.
But shortly, things could heat up.

The two present players have been all that I could ask for:
getting in orders on time, behaving realistically as commanders,
etc. The one thing missing is tactical resolutions.

Previously the battles were small enough for me to resolve on
my own. But the prospect of large-scale engagements has me
concerned, for you see, neither of the players have shown much
interest in conducting tactical operations. This may be due to a
lack of time or simply a lack of interest in handling these smaller-
scale matters, but it concerns me. I'd like to have the battles
directed with a human hand, rather than simply figuring everything
out by calculation.

So...I was wondering if anyone would be willing to step in as
players at the tactical level (one for each side)?

Two things I would note:

1. These would not be micro-tactical battles. With the two
armies already organized at the corps (US) and wing (CS) level,
the players would be giving orders at these levels (i.e.,
relatively broad, with a focus more on nuance and suggestion
rather than direction of individual batteries/regiments/etc.)
So the player(s) would need to give his orders in that style, and
be willing to accept the results (good, bad, but mostly indifferent,
since this particular system works off the idea that indiviudal
battles are not necessarily decisive, but CUMULATIVELY they
could lead to ultimate victory or defeat).

2. The players would need to play "within roles". The
ANV/AOTP commanders, McClellan and Johnston, are classified as
fairly conservative (this was not a conscious decision, but
rather a random classification before play began) and have
behaved as such at the strategic level, so obviously their
tactical behaviors would need to match this. The possibility
that the US or CS players might eventually sack these guys
and replace them with more aggressive commanders should allay
any concerns that the tactical-level player would need to
show restraint for the entire game.

Also, because I intend to keep the main strategic players,
they would continue to be responsible for the strategic
operations. Thus, the tactical players might have to
"make do" with reduced troops/rejigged OOBs thrust upon
them suddenly.

Well, now it seems I'm in need of an overall Confederate player. Anyone interested, please let me know.