Campaign update 10/4

WSH Baylor wrote:Listening to all is always a good option, rather than having 2 or 3 select individuals be the deciding factor....at least in my humble consideration.
J

I believe that Neal, Stefan & Kevin (the umpire and corps commanders) have listened to all opinions and have decided to go with the rule as suggested by Stefan.

Can we not all now accept the decision of the umpire and get on with it? That is, after all, one of the points of having an umpire. You accept their decisions.

Yours,

Jeff

Mr. Digby wrote:That having a small number of senior people decide something on behalf of the masses is a good thing.

53 is not that senior ...

Mr. Digby wrote:That having a small number of senior people decide something on behalf of the masses is a good thing.

The reverse view.is a dictatorship which is never very good just look through history , gaddaffi, Hussain, Argentina, to name but a few.

Hello All

I've been following this thread.

The original rule stems from an old concern. Some good arguments have been made in favor of a new revision.

However, the thread, at this point, is in danger of spiraling into the realm of Godwin...

If any concern remains, I would ask you to take up the matter with your corps commander. I cannot unilaterally make or change rules, that would be unwise and unfair.

It seems conceivable to me, a situation could arise where the charge of more than one unit would be eminently useful, however, I would also think such a situation would be so rare as not to warrant as much attention as we have thus far lavished on the issue. Indeed, there has been no battle and no infraction.

Remember, that we are looking to run this campaign in KS spirit, which means we keep things as historic and realistic as possible. We can argue all day about the prevalence of bayonet charges in the Civil War and still come no closer to an accord.

It should be remembered that we have developed some rules to keep the game playable and fun while maintaining a devotion to history. Because SOW is a computer game, it has some very rough corners when it is compared to reality, ergo the house rules.

Finally, remember that all units in the game will have some level of quality, but it will not be particularly high. This is the first battle for your men, coming up. After that battle, some troops will gain in experience and find themselves a bit more capable than now.

I encourage you to continue with historical discussion. That's what makes this community great. Please address any rule concerns to your corps commanders, who may elect to champion your cause or not.

At the end of the day, we're here to have fun. If that's not happening, we'll see what we can do for you, but we cannot also compromise the fundamental spirit in which the game is being played within the community.

Good luck out there, there's a fight coming soon!

-Neal

If my Corps Commander does not know what my concerns are from reading this text then i am greatly misunderstood.

I would like to point out that i know about the problems of this game and the few that persisted in GCM to column charge even when told it was game breaking and it took Garnier to mod the speed of the columns ( it basically broke the game for Garnier at that time he really has not played as much since then)and defending players learning how to defend against such attacks for GCM to settle again.

Also let me remind you i am not for this because its how i play but more so because restricting its use and directing further discussion to our corps commanders is about silencing the few because it is distasteful to see your polite world disrupted by heated debate.

You claim that you want this ks spirit to be played but that spirit is lost the moment you make house rules that restrict a player from doing what might be the best approach at the time for any given situation.

Once again I would like to point out and please ask any of those GCM players if i am a prolific charger i am not.

I would be happy if the rule actually said column charging is prohibited but using line was allowed be that any style of column, I am also aware that the HITS style of play could and will make charging difficult anyway because of the HITS position of control also remember most of the confederate commanders have far more experience at this style of play compared the GCM players that are looking to play in this campaign.

_Mark

I am looking forward to play a couple of battles using the ruleset of this inaugural campaign. If I come to the conclusion one of these rules doesn't allow for proper battles in KS style, I will support a proposal to change it in this or the next campaign.
Regards
Stefan

Jonah is one of if not the most honorable player in the GCM. He does not stack and rarely charges unless it's really necessary. So his concerns with rule 7 are not that it will hamper his playing style.

I do, however, disagree with him in regards to how the rules should be made. As the father General and sspoom can attest, our efforts at the Shenandoah Club in creating a MP campaign by letting everyone vote on the rules turned into a catastrophe.

I will play by whatever rules are given and will not complain about any of them.

That said. . . I think rule 7 has one major problem: autocharge. As I posted earlier, one need not ever hit the charge button. Simply running your regiment into the flag of an enemy regiment and letting autocharge take over is actually more effective than closing and then hitting the charge button.

My opinion is that a player should never close with the enemy (inside 200 yards) in any formation other than line, and said lines should be, within reason, properly spaced (not stacked), and a player should never try to get two or more regiments in melee with a single enemy regiment.

I said I wasn't going to offer my opinions on the rules, so I apologize for doing so and will try to keep my opinions to myself in the future.

Seconded. I'm just gonna adhere to house rules. That's it. Autocharge should certainly be adressed.

Cavalry should be allowed reamed fleeing units or fractional units with a melee attack finishing.

I second Stefan's statement. I too have carefully read all the discussion here. Many good points have been brought forward, the most poignant is the Sunken Road scenario. But if a scenario or OOB is so poorly constructed that large numbers of melees or some non-period tactic is a prerequisite to win then that becomes an issue of poor design, not hamstringing the generals with silly rules.

I hope everyone will at least give this style of play a chance. I realize it will be very different from what many are use to, to which is added to the claustrophobic feeling of being stuck in the saddle. But the play here also makes maneuver much more important than in the stock game or GCM. Two regiments on an enemy flank can easily roll up an entire brigade in less than 10 minutes. Try it, before you vote with your feet. If we find battles can't be won without melees we can address it then.

If what Soldier says is true then I'm plain confused what point you were arguing about then Jonah. That seemed a awaste of everyone's time.

Let's play on and see how it pans out.

We can also play some casual games now to get the hang of things, either on our TS server or on the GCM one using Kevin's mod.

Martin I am surprised that you appear to really not understood why I have been arguing this point so see as you obviously not listened to what's been said. I light of that let me put it in simple bullet points for you.

1. Rule 7 is unrealistic.
2. Rule 7 is unrealistic
3. Rule 7 is unrealistic

Really it would appear you have not seen what I was trying to say because you have blinkered yourself against any charging.

I have tried to put this across wrongly maybe I should have kept my size 10's out of your world and just charged my way through your lines. But I am not like that I would rather we all came to some level of agreement and not have an unrealistic rule foisted on us for the sake of gamesmanship.

As I have pointed out several times I am not the evil one here I donot wear a seal hat or wield the garnier battering ram for my gameplay style.

All Jonah is saying is, there will come a time , a time when the boys are just about out of ammo and the supply wagon is miles away. The enemy is just as tired as we are and all we need to do is right wheel down the hill with everything and run over whatever is below us but instead we have to retreat because the charge will involve more then one regiment.

Beefstu wrote:All Jonah is saying is, there will come a time , a time when the boys are just about out of ammo and the supply wagon is miles away. The enemy is just as tired as we are and all we need to do is right wheel down the hill with everything and run over whatever is below us but instead we have to retreat because the charge will involve more then one regiment.

Yes. And at that stage of a battle I think that is correct. You would retreat.

Also at that stage of a HITS & Couriers fight you won't be able to charge; units are too fragile.

That will all depend on their morale /fatigue status of course a rested and supported regiment would probably.still make the charge.

This is not a discussion. It has been decided. We play this campaign the way all HITS & couriers games are played.

Indeed it was decided without discussion which is what we are having here your carte Blanche attitude that your rules are the right way without discussion with the rest of the incoming community is what is most annoying. I am not just going to roll over and die like a little lap dog when I think something is wrong. I also know its been decided but that does not mean the discussion is over if you think that you are sorely wrong. So I will make my point again.

1.This is a historical group
2.Rule 7 is not historical

Rule 7 is aimed at restricting a certain style of play and I understand why this is so remember I have been there and seen it also I have been on the receiving end too.

This campaign restricts the ability too perform what Rule 7 has been designed to restrict by stopping more than one regiment being used to charge a point in a line.
The campaign is also designed that no commander(player) has control of more than 2000 men under his immediate control at this stage in the campaign as the campaign proceeds the ability to throw a whole brigade at max strength will be far less because of casualties received in earlier battles

The hits style of play from the saddle also makes the whole concept of column charges far more difficult to perform effectively. Because you do not have the so called blimp view.

So I'm not sure who to take orders from now....we have the enemy now telling us when to retreat?
"You Yanks look like you have too many men over there, don't you dare fix bayonets"
"You are also looking pretty fragile"
"So either hold still while we shoot you or run away, its in the rules Yank"
"Ok Johnny Reb will do we wouldn't want to make you feel cheated so we will leave"
"Do we have to leave our shoes too?"
This is just getting stupid now.
Really? Run away when the Rebs tell us to?
I'm getting the feeling the boys from GCM are being set up to be
labeled as gamey and cheaters before we even start.
All because of something that hasn't even happened and that
Mod mechanics may not even allow to happen(fragile comment)

If I'm silly/stubborn enough to try to stand my ground against
multiple regiments and overwhelming odds I certainly wouldn't hide behind a rule and point fingers. I would have been the one who failed to pull my men out in time and failure to do so(and then bitching) is as or more gamey than mass charges.

IMHO the best thing to do would be to change 7 to read
No "massed" charges and then see IF a problem develops.
This gives everyone the opportunity to distinguish themselves on the battlefield without
worrying about being called a cheat.
No one should have a problem giving this a shot and
it may help ease transition from fighting on the forum about hypothetical
Scenarios to fighting out campaign. If a problem of mass charging develops then we could hash it out here.

I have been following this debate along with many others, observing from the sidelines. All the while, I have been asking myself, "What would the Father General do?"

When I reached a conclusion, I realized it would not be healthy for any of the participants for me to do that, so I took another pause to carefully consider the situation. I also discussed the situation with some friends who provided some sage council. They shall remain anonymous for my protection.

Here's the deal.

I see both sides of this debate, I really do.

I don't want gamey behavior, I want historical behavior. I also understand rule 7 isn't very historical. What to do?

Shall we open the floodgates? Punish the offenders followed by a fair trial if they act out?

Ah, but I cannot change the rules, by my own design.

And is this question worth the attention we have lavished upon it?

So...

I do not want to prevent debate, however there comes a point when further discussion only erodes opportunity for success.

At some point we have to compromise and move forward or we will never enjoy what has been built. It's like building a funhouse and then debating if we ought to go in by the front door or the back rather than going inside.

I would like to invite discussion between myself and the two corps commanders to help resolve this. Prior to that discussion, I'd like anyone who has an issue to contact their commander and raise their concerns. I'd also like to invite you to suggest alternative wording to the rule, or guidance as to what would be acceptable and not. How do we draw a line that can be measured?

One of the concerns I have is that there seems to be a division brewing between the GCM folks and the HITS and Couriers group. Now, I have stated before, I can handle only one secession at a time.

There should be no dichotomy here, no distinction between who is and isn't GCM, because we are all HITS and Couriers here.

(How do you like that, I just argued in favor of union!)

Each member of this campaign enjoys equal voice. I want you to express yourselves via your corps commanders, then please allow them to settle it.

Understand a compromise will be drawn and from there it is expected we will move forward. Whatever is decided may, or may not be, what you see as perfect. It may even be downright unpalatable. But is it likely to break the campaign experience for you?

That is unlikely.

Let's process this definitively, then move forward. If after a few battles an issue remains, we can revisit the question.

Can we all agree on this?

The alternative if you do not agree is a visit to the Father General's funhouse, and I cannot promise you will have fun, but you sure will be "saved."

-Neal

I tried. I really did. But Digby's holier than thou, my way or the highway attitude has completely turned me off from having anything to do with anything he is involved in.

Why he hates the GCM folks so much and must attack any suggestion or thought given by anyone who plays in the GCM is beyond me.

The GCM is not Seal. As I remember, Seal is the only person Digby argued with on the GCM Teamspeak channel.

Digby quit in the middle of at least 4 games and ruined them for everyone playing because he didn't like either Seal's or Garnier's tactics.

Most players in the GCM were glad to see him go because of that reason only. We accept all players there and welcome discussion and debate about any and all things SOW. NEVER has anyone in the GCM tried to control what can and can't be debated on the forum.

Since Digby quit playing GCM games, he has had nothing but vehemence for anyone or anything associated with the GCM.

I've really enjoyed the few hits and couriers games I've played with you guys and hope to continue to play in non-campaign (sans Digby) games when I have the chance.

But I'm respectfully withdrawing from this campaign because I simply cannot deal with Digby's attitude.

Regards,

kg little mac

Mark

Father General wrote:There should be no dichotomy here, no distinction between who is and isn't GCM, because we are all HITS and Couriers here.
Let's process this definitively, then move forward. If after a few battles an issue remains, we can revisit the question.

Hear, hear! Thanks Neal, for this proposal to move things forward. I hope that an actual battle, or two, would calm everything down.

Jeff

As always, I advise everybody not to fight out personal issues on a group level. This is supposed to be a campaign focussed on campaign gameplay. The fact that this issue even rose up again is hard to understand for me. Why would one even want to focus on stuff like that. Some people already played in campaign games and know how difficult that can be. Argueing about whether to be allowed to mass charge or not is probably the less important thing in the whole world. Its just an old issue, dragged to the front and being fought over. I'm not commenting on this anymore.

Rules for discussion is bad. Settle it Neal. Its your campaign. Make everybody agree to your! rules or have 'em drop out. I don't care anymore. This discussion is getting on my nerves. I don't care about the personal issues, thats different, I don't know about them. But this bickering about the ruleset I don't get. Especially when everybody has already experienced how bad such a discussion can make it for everybody involved.

Settle it, close this thread and lets get the eff on.

Sadly Jeff I do not thing that as long as the rule remains in any form this will not go away everyone coming here knows you guys like to play historical and we respect you for that and I believe we would have tried our best to fit in but and here comes the crux of the matter if rule 7 had not been there then none of this discussion would have taken place . Now if we had had a couple of battles and there was a problem then we could have had a courts martial and dealt with the problem player in a time honour tradition then I think we would be in a much better position rather than players quitting before its even kicked off.