Campaign discussion

Yes, sign me up as either division or corps commander. Actually, if someone is thinking they would like division command but don't think their skills are quite up to it, corps command is a good intermediate step up from running a brigade. He gets to concentrate on the big picture and perfect his timing, without having to micro-mange any troops. If he has good division leaders, they can mitigate any number of bone-headed decisions.

Any preference to side Lil' Bill?

I prefer the good guys of course, but if help is needed, I'll fight for the stars and bars. I'll have to have Armistead in my division, though.

Uncle Billy wrote:.......................I'll have to have Armistead in my division, though.

That's a tough one. It's Digby's favorite brigade

Martin

I'll give it a go for the Confederacy, as I have never participated in a game like this, outside of World War One or World War Two, I'd like to sign up for less of a crucial role.

Howdy! (That's what American commanders would say, I guess?)

I would love to play!

I have no experience with SoW and very little with the American Civil War in general, but the campaign sounds great!

I'm entirely happy to play for either side, but I have a preference for the Union. I don't know if you choose tactical roles, and honestly, I'm happy as anything. What are the different positions? overall commander, corps and division? Or do you have brigade commanders too? I probably lean towards a corps commander, acting on Uncle Billy's advice.

So looking forwards to this!

Joshua

If you still need any SOW in-game general, I can join too. Any side or command level is ok.

Uncle Billy wrote:I prefer the good guys of course, but if help is needed, I'll fight for the stars and bars. I'll have to have Armistead in my division, though.

The Rebel battlefield team is about full. I'll put you on the Union side. The OOBs will use fictional commanders, so no well-known names or formations. This is to stop players saying "Ah, X's brigade, that's Y corps, etc, etc."

Also please note the SoW MP players will not be assigned permanent divisions; whatever the battle is the forces are divided up between whoever arrives on the night, its the only logical way to play MP online campaigns. I'm sorry if that is a bit of a disappointment but I don't like allocating a division to a specific player and then that player says he can't be online for a month... (extreme example but you know what I mean).

Joshua - this first campaign is deliberately small and the two sides are based around a single corps structure each (though they are not necessarily comparable in size), so the strategic team's commander will be the corps commander and below him I need several division commanders including a cavalry division commander.

I'd suggest you keep the historic names of the various units. But they do not have to be associated with their historic parent units. Armistead's Georgia regiments could be in Rhodes divison which is in Longstreet's corps, for instance. All these could be changed periodically.

just to say as I don't think I made it clear in my last post for the organiser- I don't have the PC SOW so it would be the map planning stage i would be keen on

cheers

Alex, yes, I understand. I have you pencilled in as a map commander.

... of whom I need more!

Good idea Billy, I can certainly use historical regiments, maybe even historical brigades, but I wanted to avoid their historical commanders since people will begin to guess what is where and with whom. We also have a few American players who know the armies well but many Europeans who know them less well and I wanted to avoid any advantage that knowledge of the ACW might provide. I can use historical regiment numbers but not give them their historical quality. Perhaps I can use historical commanders but place them in command of units other than their real ones? What do people think of that? Hoods Texans might then be Kempers Texans... and the Iron Brigade (if we were to have it) might be led by someone other than Meredith.

Given that this campaign is supposed to represent something of a side-show the Union garrison will probably be a fairly rag-tag force lacking famous units (this would be known by the Rebs conducting their attack so I'm not giving anything away here) but the Rebs may have some well-known units, although I will try and keep things... unusual

Hoods Texans might then be Kempers Texans... and the Iron Brigade (if we were to have it) might be led by someone other than Meredith.

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Joshua - this first campaign is deliberately small and the two sides are based around a single corps structure each (though they are not necessarily comparable in size), so the strategic team's commander will be the corps commander and below him I need several division commanders including a cavalry division commander.

Thanks Mr Digby for explaining that. I don't want to be corps commander! I'll take an infantry command in the union please, if one's available.

Thanks

Joshua

Hi guys,

due to real-life constraints i wasn't able to commit to any SOW games last week but i would love to help out as a map commander if you are still looking for members.

Thanks Thomas.

Well I haven't read most of this thread yet but:

a) I totally agree with you that campaigns are the way to go and I have long wanted to be involved in one.
b) I used to play ACW in my youth - Donald Featherstone era! I might try the Union side this time around.
c) "Realistic" computer games also have some appeal, particularly mutl-player versions. I may well purchase SOW :-)

So I am VERY interested! My only concern at present is how to keep the momentum going (for everyone involved).

I will read these posts in full later and add further comments, if appropriate.

Well done!

Richard

The map command layer is intriguing, but I have a few questions:

1) How often will moves be made on the paper map?

2) How well would such a schedule mesh with frequently being on the road? I usually have an OK internet connection when travelling, but it's far from guaranteed.

All of which boils down to: what's the expected workload?

Background: I'm a tad shy after some similar games in the past have turned out to be all-consuming. (Global Thunder, http://www.tacopshq.com/MBX/Globalthunder/index.html and http://www.tacopshq.com/HQ/text/CPX/cpxaars/rtmbx.txt and http://www.tacopshq.com/HQ/text/CPX/cpxaars/rtmbxp.txt ) was easily the worst offender - yes, Martin, far more so than the trench game Cor and I ran! )

I don't want to commit to taking part if I can't keep up; that isn't fair to everybody else.

Unfortunately its difficult for me to give an idea of how busy the game will be. I would think at first the map turns/map days will run moderately quickly but I can't say how quick. I would hazard a guess at two turns a week, but these things also tend to find thei rown pace due to how freqyently everyone can give the game their attention. So I would say we'd be looking at between 1 and 2 map turns per week initially. Once we get to the battles though this will slow down as we need to fit the battles into our MP groups schedules.

I don't think the game will be too busy therefore but if you find it is too much for you and you'd prefer to drop out that would be okay, I think we can get a replacement player from the "battlefield guys".

Have you a preference as to which side you play?

Mr. Digby wrote:I don't think the game will be too busy therefore but if you find it is too much for you and you'd prefer to drop out that would be okay, I think we can get a replacement player from the "battlefield guys".

Have you a preference as to which side you play?

OK, fair enough.

Union, I suppose!

Hello gentlemen.

I would be very interested in joining a MP campaign, having quite a fair amount of experience with this from before. I was a principal CS player from April through August of 2010 when we--after great effort, managed to organize and run several multiplayer campaigns. I have some sense of what you guys are struggling with!

That said, if the work can be done, then the campaign can be the most fun you will ever have with the game. Also fun is the roleplay and forum banter that can go with it.

Let me know what I need to do.

-The Father General (Neal)

Just tell me which side you prefer to play on!

Martin James; Mark Jarvis; Jeff Humm; Leffe7 would you each please declare your preferred side. If you don't express a preference I will put you into a team. Our CSA battlefield team is pretty much full, so the first person who chooses Confederate our of you lot will force the rest to be Union!

I am looking now for just 2 more people, one each for the two map/command teams. Please step forward gents, then we are good to move forwards to the next stage which will be assigning commands to the two map teams and devising strategy.

I have a good few people signed up for the battlefield command slots now, though more are always wanted so that we have maximum flexibility.

Mr Digby,

I sent a PM to you yesterday but just in case you didn't get that, I'm in!

The Union side will suit me and I will invest in SoW today.


Cheers,

Richard

I'm happy with Union if that helps. Assume I'm in the battlefield pool, rather than among my betters in a senior command role.

Martin

I would like to play as CSA.

The player teams:

UNION MAP COMMAND TEAM

Dan Young (dan1066)
Joshua Letchford (Hannibal) – wants to command a division
Richard Prosser
James Sterrett
Guy Farrish
Barry Taylor

CONFEDERATE MAP COMMAND TEAM

Darr Lehmann (Wittmann)
Alex Moore (mooreal)
Richard Clarke – of Too Fat Lardies
Thomas Morgenroth (whiteflag)
Jan Spoor (winterbadger)

UNION BATTLEFIELD TEAM (SCOURGE OF WAR:GETTYSBURG MP PLAYERS)

USA players:
Kevin Komisarcik (Little Billy) USA BST -7hrs
Lloyd Willis (Ike) USA BST -6hrs
Steve (kg_sspoom) USA BST -?
JJGordon USA BST -6hrs
+ others

UK/Europe players:
Martin James UK BST
Jeff Humm (Blaugrana) UK BST
(Leffe7) Europe BST+1
+ others

CONFEDERATE BATTLEFIELD TEAM (SCOURGE OF WAR:GETTYSBURG MP PLAYERS)

USA players:
John Johnson (4Texas) USA BST -6hrs
Jack Hangar (Kerflummoxed) USA BST -6hrs
Neal (Father General) USA BST -8hrs
+ others

UK/Europe players:
Paul Dyngie (King Rufus) UK BST
Niall Tobin (Hays) UK BST
+ others

====================================

How I envisage the map level working:

1) Teams confer (the Corps commander calls a conference of his division commanders). I will allow some adjusting of corps structure at this point to create any corps reserve or rebalance divisions for certain tasks.
2) Corps commander issues orders to his divisions to move to and/or scout out map nodes. He issues orders to his HQ and any artillery reserve or corps troops to move.
3) Division commanders send me their movement orders and any special instructions.
4) I advise where the division commanders' and any corps troops forces have moved to and in Kriegspiel style, report back to them as though I am their subordinates what has been sighted and learned of the areas moved into.
5) Division commanders send reports up to corps (instantaneous if corps HQ is in the same map node).
6) Division commanders continue to follow their orders repeating the process.
7) Corps command sends out new orders to any divisions needing them.

Note that the cavalry on each side will almost certainly be deployed broken up into smaller units below the brigade level. I'm happy to go down to battalion level (half a regiment) initially but we'll see if this puts too much strain on the system!

When opposing forces meet the game rules announce how this is resolved, again another call on division commanders or even perhaps the corps commander for a decision on whether to fight or avoid battle will be made.