Re: The Lost Division - Initial thread (Details and discussion)

[Leffe7]

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

Can you give some thought on what the outlines would be?

The scenario generator could already handle:
- change of OOB structure brigade level and above
- basic carryover features
- unit placement to sectors
- detailed objective placement
- naming of objectives

Manual steps would still be:
- detailed unit placemenent
- manual edit of OOB stats (experience, weapons)
- change of OOB structure on regiment level
- transferring captured guns

[Father General]

Leffe7, I'm not sure what you mean by your question. The editor you described seems like it would serve us very well. It should be fine.

Do you generate a master OOB for the campaign? After the master was generated, small groups of brigades would be broken into divisions to play as they spread across the map. As soon as I know how many players to expect, I will know how big or small the master OOB will need to be.

If we need to discuss this, maybe we can talk on TS over the weekend?

-Neal

[Leffe7]

yes, lets discuss this weekend. I will mail you.

[MICHKA]

Yes,

i like to play for the Union (US Army)   

[MajorByrd]

As it comes to picking maps, keep in mind that a lot of players, especially those from the GCM do not own the additional stock map packs and might not be able or willing to spend that much money on it. I suggest we use the basic Gettysburg maps everyone should have and in addition to that, make use of the huge amount of random maps Garnier has made. If there is urban fighting involved, the Gettysburg maps should cover that, if not I do not see anything that speaks against the random maps. Just a thought.

[Mr. Digby]

Not wanting to open an argument but the NSD add-on packs have provided some of the best maps the game has, I find them superior to Garnier's work because they are inherently unbalanced and based on real terrain. They also have buildings which is key to atmospeher in my view. The Chancellorsville, Pipe Creek and Antietam maps are great. There are free add-ons as well like Trevallion, Red River, Big Whiskey and so on, all of these are good.

The add-ons are also extremely cheap and by buying them you are supporting NSD, which has to be a good thing, right? Garniers 100s of random maps, while allowing a lot of cool variation for MP play could also be said to be a cause of lost add-on pack sales for Norb.

[MICHKA]

only by the way...

Player´s should buy the additional add-on´s and Map Packs from Norb (Slitherine, Matrix) .
Because all like this game very much and all want that Norb have the ressource to develop the next generation of SOW.
From my opinion - The Prize of Norbs add-on´s a realy moderate!

And sorry.. without money - comes nothing...

[kg little mac]

Everyone should support NSD. No question there. But this is about the campaign and not that. We've played scenarios on the stock maps -- Neal's Antietam game comes to mind. Incredibly slow. One of the least fun MP games I've ever played.

My opinion is that Garnier's maps run very smoothly. We consistently play games now with 12-18 people and very little lag. When we play on the stock maps, it seems to me the games run much slower.

As you would expect, Digby and I have opposite views. I'll gladly give up aesthetics in return for less lag.

[MajorByrd]

I would not want to flat out exclude those unable or unwilling to put their money where their corporate enthusiasm is. Pipe Creek and Brandy Station are quite cheap indeed. Antietam and Chancellorsville, adding some buggy unpolished pieces of map, are 16-24 Euros. Peanuts to some, to others not so much.

Since it is a Kriegspiel campaign it's you guys who decide it amongst yourselves I guess. You either wanna open it to the broad masses or you don't.

While buildings might add something somewhere in terms of athmosphere, I'm able to have an equally athmospheric battle without a couple of houses on a map. Again, it boils down to personal preference, but then I'd always trade one map with a town against an unlimited number of varying maps without a town.

But you're of course welcome to just buy 'em for anyone who doesn't have the cash. Highly social of you Digby!  

[kg_sspoom]

If we want participants the way to go is stock maps plus
a certain group of Garniers maps, I'm sure they are bundled somewhere.
That will make games way easier to get started.
And no-one should feel compelled to spend money they may
not be able to currently afford just to play in the campaign.

The more people we can get to play the more come back for more
and when they come back more will likely come back with new map packs so
they can play in ad- hoc and scenario games.


 Just my .02$

as far as buildings go for us they are mostly just for looks.
Having walked several different civil war battlefields, it would seem buildings
really had very limited impact on many/most battles.
If we want city battles we should just use the stock Gettysburg map.

Lets make this as user friendly as possible, It will help bring more players to
the HITS style of playing.

[Father General]

What I find curiously missing from all the maps are all those monuments I see on the battlefields. I mean, how did the soldiers fight with all those monuments in the way and why did they always pick national parks for their battles? A bit odd don't you think?


I think we should all do our best to support NSD. It might mean buying a new add-on now and then, as one's budget allows. I've been in situations where I've been short on money and delayed a purchase though, and this campaign is not only for those with extra spending cash. Who am I to judge someone's financial situation?

That said...

-Are GCM maps compatible with a KS custom OOB and such?
-Seeing as how a large number of players are GCM folks, I'd like to support their participation in the KS community. If that means allowing a few GCM maps into the mix, then so be it.
-I should, and will poll players, to see what add-ons they have. Is it true that most GCM folks have only the stock version?
-There might be a few occasions where GCM folks can go out and buy an expansion, and there may be a few who require a charitable contribution. I'm willing to donate to a charitable fund to get one or two GCM players into the KS mix with official maps and expansions. Would anyone else be willing to join me or pitch in a $10 or $20? We might not fill all of the demand, but we can meet folks halfway.

Pipe Creek is $10, Antietam is $20. I personally don't own Brandy Station yet, but I haven't had a cause to go buy it. I can easily do so. I'll pledge $30 right now. That will outfit one guy with Pipe and Anteitam, or buy three Pipe Creeks.

Before the campaign starts, I do need to assign terrain to each sector where a battle may occur. I'll favor Gettysburg stock maps, but I'm willing to incorporate GCM maps as well as other official maps depending on what our GCM friends have already and what we can deliver to them.

The point of the campaign is to have a great time and to show GCM players that we can add a whole new dimension to their experience. Let's deliver. If we pull this off, we could infuse the KS community with new life and generate some sales for NSD.

Let's discuss.

[MajorByrd]

I'll chime in too. A couple of Pipe Creek's for a good cause might be the Karma thing to do for me.

[kg little mac]

Garnier's random maps are compatible with ks mods and oobs.

I have all the maps sans Brandy Station.

[Martin]

A few thoughts re maps:

1. I like the idea of using Garnier's maps.  I agree they would be better with buildings, but I think having the variety is even more important.  And playing on many different maps is a good leveller.  As one of those who do not play as often as they would like, I'm frequently facing more skilful players.  If they also know every terrain feature on the stock maps, that's quite a challenge.

2. There is one aspect though that no-one has yet mentioned.  All Garnier's maps (I think) and most of the free ones are 2.5 mile maps.  That's fine for many battles, but not if the situation calls for manoeuvre.  In that event, I just don't think there is the space for say defeating a widely separated force in detail - everything is just too close together.  Particularly as units march much faster than they did in reality.  For those situations, it would be good to use some of the add-ons.  

3. Can I suggest you do not limit yourself to one battlefield map per campaign node, Neal.  If say, the nodes are 20 miles apart, then a battle within 10 miles of the town involved could take place anywhere within c200 square miles.  Given that our largest standard maps are just 25 square miles, that seems wrong.  Why not leave yourself the freedom to select any map where the terrain is appropriate?  Also, most commanders would not have a detailed knowledge of all likely battlefields near say Port Republic, so why should players?

Hope that all helps rather than hinders   

Martin (J)

[Father General]

Good point, Martin, one I have considered, but only briefly. For me, it has always been a question of fair play and preventing intervention of the deux ex machina in the decisions of players. Specifically, the the moderator chooses the map just before the battle, it can be seen as giving an advantage to one side or another.

Although, if that map is randomly generated, then it addresses that concern.

How in the heck do we integrate a randomly generated map into our campaign? Is this an easy thing? I have never experimented with it. Smarter folks than I will have to direct me here.

The lack of room for maneuver is troubling for me. For me, the maneuver is 70 percent of the game. Goodness knows, once I sight the enemy and attack him from the front, my game is over anyway... No wonder I'm not playing GCM! :-)

[Mr. Digby]

Lots of Garniers maps are 5x5 miles. In fact maybe only Randommaps2 are 2.5x2.5.

Certainly randoms6 are 5x5 as we use these for Nappy games. randoms7 are as well as I've used them in SP. I assume his mega-pack of 100 maps were 5x5 as well judging from the screenshots of them.

[Martin]

Thanks Diggers. That's good news.

Martin (J)

[Uncle Billy]

Frankly, Garnier's maps all look the same to me. That's the problem with computer generated maps. The percentage of tree cover varies, but it is still always randomly placed, so there really is no variety. I don't mind playing on them once and a while, but there's really no question of which maps provide better quality.

[Sponsored content]