Gettysburg game Thursday 28th February

I'm hoping we can get another game this coming Thursday, starting at 19.30 or 20.00 UK time. Game length 2 or 2.5 hours. Depending on numbers we can play as teams or all vs the AI.

Last week Ron was kind enough to put on an impromptu GCM/HITS scenario for us, which worked really well. Personally, I would be very happy to do something similar again, but if we cannot do that for any reason, I can host a game myself and will come-up with OOB & suitable map.

One of the good things last week was that we started relatively promptly, as sides & command positions were all agreed beforehand. This meant that we also finished at a very reasonable time.

If you're interested please register on doodle, together with any preferences........

http://doodle.com/i66d3b9znfzncc2q

Martin (J)

No-one's registered on doodle yet for Thursday. Any takers?

Family commitments mean that weekends are difficulty for me at the moment. Thank heavens for my wife's Thursday yoga! Will anyone take pity on an old soldier?

If we can get a game, I would like to try Garnier's latest changes, including the extra fog-of-war.

Martin (J)

I wont know until Thursday evening what my work commitments will be like. If I can I'll be there. I'll put a post up one way or the other then.

Sounds like lots of fun. Sadly, I've got to make an airport run to Denver during that time. Hate it when RL intrudes into my fantasy world!

Hi Martin - I'd like to join if I can, but I can't commit. I'll have to see at the time what the deal is!

Do you want me to sign up anyway?

Blackstreet wrote:Hi Martin - I'd like to join if I can, but I can't commit. I'll have to see at the time what the deal is!

Do you want me to sign up anyway?

Well it would make me feel less lonely, Ollie

I should be able to make 8pm. My wife is out too, so there's always a chance I could be disturbed by my youngest but unlikely.

Mike

Well done chaps. That looks promising. In Ron's, suggest I try hosting a GCM/HITS game. I'll have a look tomorrow to see how to do that.

We'll be using Garnier's new Yoga variation & toolbar for Type 2 cavalry.

Martin (J)

Martin wrote:Well done chaps. That looks promising. In Ron's, suggest I try hosting a GCM/HITS game. I'll have a look tomorrow to see how to do that.

You and anyone else who wants to arrange a game should definitely have a go at hosting one of these. Here are the steps and settings involved in getting one going using the standard HITS/GCM format. It's really quite easy after you've done it a time or two!

Steps:
-at the GCM website, enter the Battle Queue and create a room. Have all players join
-click "Host" (this generates a battle number with #of players info)
-alt-tab over to the GCM Launcher and click "Launch Battle"
-"Select Battle" drop down (this is always the one just created. All you need to do here is click the "launch" button)
-The "Choose Game Type" drop down appears
-select "Custom"
-A list of options for "Game Settings" are presented. Below are the settings for HITS/GCM:


-After making the selections, click OK. The "Map Area Used" choice allows you to physically define the portion of the map you want to have in play. This works for any map on the list: Large Random Maps; stock; GCM-version maps for Gettysburg and the expansions. Left-click sets the upper left-hand boundary while right-clicking sets the lower-right. Click OK when you're satisfied with the map
-"Distribute Troops" lets you customize the OOB's with infantry, guns, etc. for individual divisions. The simplist way to begin is to click "Balance Inf," and work from there, dragging sliders, setting artillery with right-clicks, and selecting which division will have the commander placed with it. The instructions are in the top-left area of the screen. Click "OK."
-The program then creates the battle and you're ready to go. The rest of the process is the same as with any other SoW game launch (create a room in the lobby, go to staging, select officers, and so on).
-To use the new "Fog of War" option (reduced enemy casualty and point info displayed in game), all players must boot SoW from the Launcher using the "Start Scoure of War with Fog of War" button.

Periodically, hit the "k" key during the battle to store a data snapshot in memory of the game at that time. When the battle is finished, click "End Game", then "save replay" and dump the data file. Back in the GCM Launcher, click "Game" and "Record MP Battle." This loads all the battle data, results, starting map locations, and battle replay to the website, which is then viewable by everyone under the "Battles" tab on the GCM site. Nothing to it!

Hope that helps. Good luck with your game. Sorry I'll miss it on Thursday!

-Ron

That's terrific Ron. Many thanks.

Sorry you won't be with us for this one.

Martin (J)

Thanks Ron, that is very useful. Perhaps a sticky of this would be handy, Martin?

Shame you can't make the game, Ron.

Martin-PM sent

Mike

There's a picture guide for hosting as well that fills in more details:

http://forums.sowmp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1911#p1911

Garnier wrote:There's a picture guide for hosting as well that fills in more details:

http://forums.sowmp.com/viewtopic.php?p=1911#p1911

Many thanks Garnier. And also for your wider contribution to the game.

Martin (J)

Ok just run some tests and have managed to set-up some battles using GCM. Very neat.

Not sure how many we'll get this evening, so we may need to play the AI. Is it possible to do that using GCM? In my test battles the number of divisions produced by the OOB is always equal to the number of players. But the OOB assumes the players are split evenly between the sides. So with 2 players, you get just one division for each side etc.

Probably me missing something..........which has been known to happen

I see on the custom page there is an option to use a historical OOB. Is it something to do with that?

Martin (J)

Hmm, I've never tried playing GCM using the AI, so I'm not sure how -- or if-- it performs in a reasonable way against human players. Maybe Garnier would know.

It is possible to add extra divisions. In the Battle Queue's "Select Player to Add" menu choose "player 1" "player 2", etc. These are division placeholders that are available. With the BQ created, click on "Random" which will toggle to "Fixed". Your name will show in blue (Union). Click on your name to toggle it to Red (Confederate). This can be done for each player in the queue (including the placeholders). Using this method, it is possible to choose sides and to have more Reb players than Yanks, or vice versa.

I believe selecting "historical OOB's" relates only to the units themselves. I'd be surprised if it had any impact on the AI.

-Ron

I think there may be a problem playing against the AI with the GCM mod.

In a couple of HITs/GCM games I have had Brigade commanders with a “Style” of Frozen. This I not a real problem when they are commanded by a human being. Just a little more work to keep them moving. It’s almost like having them constantly TCd. But I think the AI would have a problem with them not doing anything independently.

Thanks guys. Sounds like I should run this game in the old way then, using sandbox and a custom OOB.

I'll still use the GCM Launcher though, as we can then use Garnier's recent fog-of-war improvements.

Martin (J)

I'd have no problem changing what style values GCM brigadiers have in the scenario if it would help the AI. The Style attribute isn't used in game for anything other than AI as far as I know.

What would be the best range of values for it?

Garnier wrote:I'd have no problem changing what style values GCM brigadiers have in the scenario if it would help the AI. The Style attribute isn't used in game for anything other than AI as far as I know.

What would be the best range of values for it?

I think "Frozen" is the most problematic per Hays' experience. If there are no other considerations, for HITS/ GCM purposes I would recommend these possibilities: Defensive, Balanced, Bold, Daring & Audacious. Our format asks a lot from our AI brigadiers by restricting players' ability to TC, so it seems appropriate that we at least don't saddle them with "Frozen" or perhaps even "Cautious." Just my opinion. No doubt the AI can start getting themselves into trouble at "Audacious" but I suspect players' are more willing to deal with over-aggression in an AI leader by using stance orders than the inability to act at all. At least, I haven't heard a lot of complaints about that aspect yet.

Done that.

That was quick! I hadn't even finished refining my note.

Now that's what I call service! Thanks a lot Garnier.

Back to Plan A for today's game then

Martin (J)

If possible, I would also suggest 'Untrained' be removed from the experience possibilities. Their deployment of troops is extremely poor.

Done as well.

Do any of the other leader attributes have ones that are bad for the AI?

Martin,
I'll be very interested to hear how this plays out and how the AI performs. This is the first experiment of this sort that I'm aware of. Good luck!

If possible, I would also suggest 'Untrained' be removed from the experience possibilities. Their deployment of troops is extremely poor.

Makes sense for the same reasons. These guys are just wild-cards when it comes to carrying out orders.

-Ron

PS Martin, don't take this the wrong way, but I'm sort of cheering for the AI in this one.