The Lost Division - Initial thread (Details and discussion)

[Father General]

Alright kids.

I have a lot of this figured out. I'll be following some suggestions from the posts of Stefan, Jack, and others that I have gleaned from the threads.

If the interest is there, I would like to run a double-blind, Kriegsspiel-style campaign using Scourge of War, dubbed The Lost Division.

Having played actual KS a few times now, for real, I have a better sense of how such a campaign ought to run. I am also a veteran of running SOW campaigns having run or assisted with several since the simulation was released for multi-player. Those of you who played in the Western Campaign a year-and-a-half ago will remember what a great time we all had.

The Lost Division, brief campaign synopsis

Set in the Eastern Theater during the summer of 1862, a Confederate division under the command of an eccentric general is swallowed by the wilderness of Eastern Maryland. Now thought to be behind Union lines, where he has gone and what he is doing is a mystery. Is he a threat to the Union's delicate lines of communication to the west? Or is he bent on something so bizarre that even his own commanders wish him destroyed...

Alright. Indicate your interest and side preference below. Once the sides are sorted out, I will compose a final roster and segregate both sides into separate, private areas of the forum to preserve the fog of war. I will then ask each side to vote a commander-in-chief and a second-in-command. Beyond those people, players will be permitted to play any command on their side. However, the sides must be locked.

I will strive to set battles that are manageable in size and scaleable in in scope.

I will re-check this thread on TUESDAY, JUNE 10, evening, Pacific daylight time.  If I have a minimum of 10 players signed up, I'll go ahead and start the real work of writing the backgrounds, the briefings, the map creation, and so on.

Please indicate below if you prefer UNION, CONFEDERATE or EITHER. I reserve the right to balance the sides, but my preference is to put players who want to run together on the same side. Indicate if you want to form a "mess" with anyone else on here and I'll make sure you're partnered up.

It's unlikely I'll get to play, but if I can I will play whatever side I'm needed on in a subordinate role, but only if needed.

I need a volunteer to build scenarios and maintain the OOB. I'll strive to keep the scenario creations as simple as possible.

We will probably use blended OOBs, meaning the troops will be a blend of historical and fictional characters and units.

Of course, the Father General will have a cameo, but just a cameo...mostly...

Thanks, and let's have at it.

[WSH Baylor]

I think I saw that movie!  Does this mean Ricky Schroeder may be a CinC?  

Will cast my hat into the Confederate ring....you know, that Beehive I am wearing in my photo/avatar from decades ago....LOL

J

[Uncle Billy]

Gen. M.T. Georgia only wears blue.

[mitra]

I'm think I'm going on the confederate side, but no real preference if it will be necessary balance the sides; I think it will be better for the language problem if the other italian players (Suchet,Berthier and Sinbad when he will solve his connection problems) playing on the same side too.

[kg little mac]

This Texan fights for the side in the right: the Union.

[Leffe7]

I play either side.

[MajorByrd]

General Major "Audacity" Byrd at the service of the just, confederate cause!

[Mr. Digby]

Neal, I'd suggest you only have 1 person per side locked into that side - the C-in-C. If you lock in FOUR players, plus yourself as referee that's five slots. Its actually rare to get more than 6 players at a game these days so if you lock-in 5 I predict the same problem we had before - not enough flexibility.

Folowing on from that, placing players into 2 fixed teams is again only repeating what we've done before and what has failed before, so carrying on the same old problems. I suggest that only 1 player is fixed as CSA and 1 fixed as USA, the two C-in-Cs - everybody else is available to play either side and ought to be flexible on what he gets on the night.

This means that ALL the map-side of the game is done by just 2 players plus you, everyone else is literally just a grunt (or a division commander!).

Alternatively you advertise this game as a PBEM and open it up to the non-SoW players in the community and form 2 teams. The map-side is run between you and them, and us SoW players merely fight the battles.

You can still have an all-player vote for the 2 C-in-Cs Make a list of everyone who has volunteered for the PBEM campaign then set up a poll with everyone awarding 3 votes to their first choice, 2 to their second and 1 to their third.

[kg little mac]

What's the point of playing a campaign if you're not on a side?

[Father General]

Thank you for the powerful ideas, Mr. Digby. I appreciate ideas like these because they provide us a chance to learn from the past and build the best campaigns possible.

I will consider this idea, however I intend to weave a story, not just a campaign or a string of battles. For me, the storytelling and immersion part of a campaign is what I enjoy most.

I believe that if I tell a good enough story, and I am clever enough with the execution of the strategic campaign, attendance will follow because people will want to know what happens next. I remember with the Western Campaign we had people who came to join even in the middle of the story because they heard what was happening and wanted to be a part of it.

I am hoping that I get enough players by tomorrow that I can lock sides. Then players can chat among themselves and really enjoy the fog of war element. Each side will have different briefings and different objectives. This makes it interesting for everybody.

I know attendance is a problem, and maybe we won't have enough players to get it to work. And if so, it's not the end of the world.

One compromise might be to accept some players as "floaters," people who are willing to forgo the immersion and just play in the battles. I would not grant them access to the specific side forums to preserve the FOW for those who want to play a specific side and enjoy the immersion. These floaters would be special players, permitting battles to happen on days when attendance is sparse. Naturally, floaters will need to be quiet fellows, not sharing the clues to the twists and surprises that I intend to weave for those who play particular sides.

As I write this, I think that might work as a compromise. But I do want to offer people the chance to play a side. I know for myself, I'd have a hard time doing Union. My ancestors would certainly haunt me for months!

By the way, any new sign ups? You all have just one more day before I make the final decision to commit my time and energy.

[Father General]

DIGBY: Alternatively you advertise this game as a PBEM and open it up to the non-SoW players in the community and form 2 teams. The map-side is run between you and them, and us SoW players merely fight the battles.

What does everyone think of this idea? I'm quite undecided, having hardly considered it until now. Thoughts, please?

-Neal

[Leffe7]

Neal,
I already posted my ideas in the "floating the prospect" thread.
IMHO the Proposal for the Lost Division looks very similar our previous campaigns, thus the same problems could arise: Each player is a character, he wants to play his forces in a battle, it will be difficult to find matching dates for a battle with all necessary players, across various time zones, etc.

about your idea on floaters:
I wouldn't limit their "immersion" artificially.
You can have active characters on a side, and the floaters could also be attached to a side (as passive characters). Remember that in the Western Campaign no battle could be fought without "side-switchers".
I suggest to limit the number of "active characters" per side to about 3 people. The other players listen to the discussion and can play on both sides.

[Martin]

I think Digby and Stefan make good points, Neal. This would allow those folks who want to be part of a team to do that, but others to float, which would give you more flexibility.

I would be happy to play as a floater btw.

Would it be worth planning to delay the start to say September, so summer would be out of the way, and availability might generally be better?

Martin (J)

[Father General]

Delay until September?

I'm not sure how that would affect my credit score and I have to be careful about that. I could be kicked out of my homeowner's association if my neighbors learn my credit score dropped because of the delay. I don't know about England, but in 'Murica, your credit score is everything.

Question: How much more attendance do we get during the fall as opposed to summer?

Leffe7: You are right about us having to use "side switchers." One thing that will help is not giving people personal commands this time. Instead of commanding your personal brigade, players can command any brigade on a side.

Right now, the numbers look just a little small to launch a campaign. I don't know if we can expect an influx from GCM or anywhere else. If there's a distinct seasonal boost, then it may be worthwhile to delay until September. Also, if we open the strategic game to the greater KS group, which I have no problem doing, then that will facilitate a big part of the campaign. I'm just not sure how you guys feel about taking orders from non-SOW players. I wouldn't have a problem with it, but others might. I don't know, you tell me.

I think I will drop the "two-commanders to a side" requirement. I'll keep just one CiC to a side and impose a time delay on orders when appropriate.

I'll keep monitoring this thread and will post again tonight, Pacific time.

-Neal

[kg_sspoom]

I will play as a "Fill in"

[1ongstreet]

I'd like to possibly play if I can but no guarantee that I'll be able to make it, my work (and gf) schedule often conflicts with me playing with you guys or I would do it more often     I'd be happy to play for either side though If I can make it.  

[kg little mac]

There are plenty of GCM guys interested in playing:

avsjones, Morsey, Wales, ej, calpurnius, Knight

Sharpe (Andy), Weathers (Sam) and 1st Tenn Rogers will surely play.

I'm not going to tell you how to run your campaign, Neal. But I'd like to see you have most players on the confederate side and only a few on the union side. Make it semi-coop.

The GCM gets between 12 and 20 players every day. There's no reason we can't get 8 or 10 players on the rebs and have plenty left over to run the union.

We've been playing a few communication by couriers only games, so the guys shouldn't have any problems other than Hits.

Most all the above players would be available on Saturday and Sunday afternoons.

[kg little mac]

And where the heck is Baldwin?

[Baldwin1]

I would be interested in playing, preferably on the confederate side. If we could keep the games under 2 hours that might help as scheduling a 3 hour or more block of time is more difficult.

[Mr. Digby]

Mark, is Ron still around? Would he play?

[kg little mac]

Yes, Ron still plays almost every day.

I'm sure he'll join in.

[Father General]

Thank you all. Continue to post here as you wish.

I'll press ahead with organizing this.

I still need someone who can manage the OOB and build simple scenarios.

Baldwin, I'm not sure on the battle times. Usually a 2/hr battle runs about 3 or more because of startup issues and inherent lag where each second of game time = 1.5 IRL. It's a big part of the reason why I can't play very often because the Little Father General and the War Department frown on extended periods of leave in the middle of Saturday afternoon. However, with summer here and my wife on summer vacation, I can presently commit a little more time to such pursuits.

I will also need a forum set up with

THE LOST DIVISION under CAMPAIGNS
with UNION and CONFEDERATE subforums.

It looks like we will get a lot of GCM players as they seem to be itching for a structured campaign.

I am happy to oblige.

At this point, I have decided to press ahead, and I have decided on the general outline of the story I wish to tell. I have a map and a time period chosen.

I still haven't decided if we will use non-player KS CiCs or player CiCs; I think we will have enough players to draw from our own ranks when the GCM guys come over.

Note this will be a KS-style campaign with fog of war, HITS and couriers in battle, and delayed transmission of orders and limited knowledge on the campaign map.

I very much welcome additional suggestions as I start piecing this together. I anticipate having a workable draft together by the end of this week and have this set to go sometime next week, by the first day of summer (Saturday).

-Neal

[Father General]

Also, I believe we will have a variety of players in 3 categories:

Floaters (play any side and commander, NO access to subforums)
Sides (play any commander on a side, will have access to subforum)
Unit commanders (Play a specific unit, chosen or designed, full access to subforums, may play other units when not engaged. When absent another commander may "TC" the unit when needed)

-Neal

[Chromey]

sounds fun sign me up for whatever side needs players.

[Grog]

I don't mind what side or role I have. Div command or below please

Mike

[Sponsored content]