Road March Harmful To Your Health

I go with Uncle Billy's idea. Its what we did when Stefan's first scenario had been played through once and we wanted to maintain the tension and replay it.

I do think the Rebs need to either start closer or not be tired at the beginning because the time limitation problem will hamper them again in the same way.

Mr. Digby wrote:I go with Uncle Billy's idea. Its what we did when Stefan's first scenario had been played through once and we wanted to maintain the tension and replay it.

I do think the Rebs need to either start closer or not be tired at the beginning because the time limitation problem will hamper them again in the same way.

Digby, I concur, although I'd like to hear what Martin has to say.

As for fatigue, we do need to give the Confederates an extra ration of coffee, that's for certain, but we can't pump them up to 100 percent -- that'd just be cruel to the yanks.

So, case closed?

-N-

Note: Closer won't do. I deliberately set them in the boondocks to allow the Federals time to make decisions and maneuver. If Third Division starts too close, the Federals will have less time to evaluate and act, and won't have a fair shot at victory.

I'm not convinced the tired, experienced reb vs rested, inexperienced yanks is a big advantage for the north. Neither side will be shooting very well. Starting the south closer or extending the time are both good ideas to think about. Otherwise the southern side really need all the stars perfectly aligned in order to win.

Actually, the first reb brigade showed up just as the first union brigade settled into its defensive position. So on second thought, starting closer may not be a good idea. Lengthening the time limit is still viable.

Father General wrote:Digby, I concur, although I'd like to hear what Martin has to say.

As for fatigue, we do need to give the Confederates an extra ration of coffee, that's for certain, but we can't pump them up to 100 percent -- that'd just be cruel to the yanks.

So, case closed?

-N-

New C in C’s is an excellent idea. I’m sure the rest of us will maintain a dignified silence.

I agree that starting closer tends to close off options.....for both sides actually. So other ways are better.

For the rest, I see it as a balancing act, as Uncle Billy’s corrections to road penalties (which I support) will already favour the Confederates, and both the other changes discussed also benefit them.

(a) I do think reducing fatigue is necessary however, or the Reb brigadiers just don't have much they can actually do. But it should only reduced to a degree.

(b) I see extending the time limit as attractive but discretionary. Too much time and the Rebs can simply take the extra time to refresh the troops before even starting. It also gives them more time to reconnoitre, which might detract from the excitement.

Martin

We need to distill all this excellent input into a decision so Baldwin can adjust the file as needed.

So the proposal is:

1. Designate new CiCs.
2. Modify US and CS startlocs within specified parameters. CiCs will do this on a blank map they will forward to Baldwin. Baldwin must draw a line behind which both sides must post.
3. Improve CS fatigue to a level that permits activity, but not to 100 percent.
3. Set the time limit at 2 hours.

Amendments, discussion, vote?

-N-

Aye

Yup

Father General wrote:We need to distill all this excellent input into a decision so Baldwin can adjust the file as needed.

So the proposal is:

1. Designate new CiCs.
2. Modify US and CS startlocs within specified parameters. CiCs will do this on a blank map they will forward to Baldwin. Baldwin must draw a line behind which both sides must post.
3. Improve CS fatigue to a level that permits activity, but not to 100 percent.
3. Set the time limit at 2 hours.

Amendments, discussion, vote?

-N-

I don't see the need for #2, if we have #1.

#3 should be 2.5 hours as the battle was 2 hours before and that wasn't long enough.

I believe according to the original story battle plans we need to move the troops to different places so it will make logistic sense as well as have continuity with the story. We're also probably picking a different map so that even if placement changes, the Union can't see the confederates coming a mile away.

I never saw the confederates until they were well down the road moving towards town. I don't think there are many places where one gets a long panorama view. So there is no need to change maps for that reason. The Pipe Creek maps give the long views. I was surprised that the enemy was coming from the west. If they came from the east, that would really shake things up.

Well if you're giong to do all that, then we should not change the commander players, for the same reasons you want to move the troops, maintain the story, etc.

If you can get a game together, I'm clear to play either Saturday or Sunday (Brits should note though that Andy Murray may be in the mens' US Open final on Sunday).

Happy to take any role.

Martin

Don't forget to mark your availability in the poll everyone.

Doodle Link

Unless the OOBs has changed, the maximum number of players would be greater than 9. With enough players, the CinC could really be just that.

According to the poll, it's shaping up to be a good battle! Nice turnout.

-N-

We'll need our biggest bandwidth host. Anyone seen John recently?

Im wondering if any that might like to take part, are actually missing out because of spots available.Maybe if anyone who is interested but the above applies...still put up a name on doodle.id be happy to take a small battery command to free up a brigade spot, or even to not take a command in order to allow another to try the mod.Just a thought whilst looking at the page.

Cleburne wrote:Im wondering if any that might like to take part, are actually missing out because of spots available.Maybe if anyone who is interested but the above applies...still put up a name on doodle.id be happy to take a small battery command to free up a brigade spot, or even to not take a command in order to allow another to try the mod.Just a thought whilst looking at the page.

Well said Cleburne. I'd be happy to do that too, if that gives us a chance to open it up for some new players.

Martin

Pretty sure if I can host 8 I can host 9. The map will be the same, cav was taken out (Kevin stated it was useless without player, so it's optional if a tenth player shows up) but the objectives and startlocs will change. I think since it is an essential replay, so we keep the same CinCs.

Here is your starting lineup:

Confederate Division Commander (Martin)
1st Inf Bde (Neal)
2nd Inf Bde (Digby)
3rd Inf Bde (Cleburne)
4th Inf Bde (Baldwin)
Artillery


Union Division Commander (Marching Through Georgia)
1st Inf Bde (Hays)
2nd Inf Bde (Jeff/Blaugrana)
3rd Inf Bde (Leffe)
4th Inf Bde (Flashman)
Cav Bde (optional for additional players)
Artillery




Briefings will arrive in the mail soon.

I think the 11th player should have the cavalry. The 10th should get the 4th brigade.

Martin wrote:

Cleburne wrote:Im wondering if any that might like to take part, are actually missing out because of spots available.Maybe if anyone who is interested but the above applies...still put up a name on doodle.id be happy to take a small battery command to free up a brigade spot, or even to not take a command in order to allow another to try the mod.Just a thought whilst looking at the page.

Well said Cleburne. I'd be happy to do that too, if that gives us a chance to open it up for some new players.

Martin

Some of the GCM players may like to come see this too. We should put up a post on NSD. Father General is familiar to those guys too!

Great minds ...

I was wondering the other day if we could include observer roles in OOBs to allow people to watch battles. I know Stefan did this to allow him to take part as a referee in one of his scenarios.

I realise it could have consequences for bandwidth, extra organisation etc etc, but it could be a nice feature. Personally, I would be happy to sacrifice some graphic quality for greater robustness, less lag and greater number of players (assuming this is a trade-off). YMMV...

Jeff

Blaugrana wrote:Great minds ...

I was wondering the other day if we could include observer roles in OOBs to allow people to watch battles. I know Stefan did this to allow him to take part as a referee in one of his scenarios.

I realise it could have consequences for bandwidth, extra organisation etc etc, but it could be a nice feature. Personally, I would be happy to sacrifice some graphic quality for greater robustness, less lag and greater number of players (assuming this is a trade-off). YMMV...

Jeff

It's easy to build observer roles into the scenario OOB. Have done one for myself in my (shortly to be announced) Trans Mississippi scenario.

I suspect if there is an issue, it's the one you raise concerning bandwidth. In the past, we have struggled to maintain stability with more than 10 players. I'm not sufficently tech savvy to know whether we can compensate with graphic's trade-offs, but I bet some here do.

Also, would pure observers actually add much in the way of demand? Again I just don't know.

Martin