Doodle link for Battle of New Market

i can remove this weeks doodles from mine leaving next weekends up.

Mr. Digby wrote:Ugh. Baldwin has changed his 'maybe' on Sunday to a 'no', meaning only 3 CS players are available which is too few, I think. 4 is the minimum which is what Cleburne, Stefan and I discussed a couple of nights ago.

Agreed. If your side has a comparable number of brigades on the field as we do, then 4 would be a minimum needed, i.e. 4 division commanders with 3 brigades each.

I might be misreading the direction of the discussion, but it seems to be moving toward requiring human control of multiple brigades. I'm sure that's fine and well within the bandwidth of experienced HITS players, but speaking for myself and perhaps others new to the KS style of SoW play, that would be a huge stretch.
-Ron

WJPalmer wrote:I might be misreading the direction of the discussion, but it seems to be moving toward requiring human control of multiple brigades. I'm sure that's fine and well within the bandwidth of experienced HITS players, but speaking for myself and perhaps others new to the KS style of SoW play, that would be a huge stretch.

Huge stretch for me too, Ron. I can just about manage a brigade.
Jeff

Practice gentlemen, practice!

Have the Good Book in one hand (Hardee's Tactics) and the Bible in the other (at least the Old Testament - the good part).

We are never going to get every player in a game so he can command his own brigade. There will always be an element of doubling up, unfortunately, and players commanding other players brigades.

Completely understood. However, there's a difference between the occasional need to fill-in for absentees with expanded commands and transitioning to multi-brigade division control for everyone.
-Ron

WJPalmer wrote:Completely understood. However, there's a difference between the occasional need to fill-in for absentees with expanded commands and transitioning to multi-brigade division control for everyone.
-Ron

To avoid us all having to become division commanders, should we bring to battle fewer brigades?
-Jeff

WJP - I know, but this battle consists of almost the whole of both armies. Most battles that are smaller would be a good deal easier to organise.

It wasn't surprising that without any other objective than defeat the enemy, both sides would hurl almost their whole force directly at the opponent resulting in almost no strategy and one big punch up.

Neal and I did talk about ways to make the map movement part of the campaign more subtle but he wanted to get things moving along quickly so we bypassed those elements. In hindsight I think that may have been the incorrect decision. You can design a campaign so that the two sides are not concentrated to begin with, or make a winning strategy require the splitting up of your forces.

Mr. Digby wrote:WJP - I know, but this battle consists of almost the whole of both armies. Most battles that are smaller would be a good deal easier to organise.

It wasn't surprising that without any other objective than defeat the enemy, both sides would hurl almost their whole force directly at the opponent resulting in almost no strategy and one big punch up.

Neal and I did talk about ways to make the map movement part of the campaign more subtle but he wanted to get things moving along quickly so we bypassed those elements. In hindsight I think that may have been the incorrect decision. You can design a campaign so that the two sides are not concentrated to begin with, or make a winning strategy require the splitting up of your forces.

I must say, Digby's input about this was spot on -- unfortunately I couldn't make the change at that point, as it would have meant reversing a Father General Decision(TM).

Father General wrote:Practice gentlemen, practice!

Have the Good Book in one hand (Hardee's Tactics) and the Bible in the other (at least the Old Testament - the good part).

Actually, if one is limited in handling more than a brigade, Hardee's is not the answer; rather, Wm. Gilham's Manual for Volunteers and Militia would be much prefered as it provides more detailed information in a simpler format than the aforementioned Hardee's. Fortunately, among this distinguished group of military leaders, I have available on first-come, first-served, a limited number of copies of the latest printing of Colonel Gilham's manual. Colonel Gilham, distinguished instructor at Virginia Military Institute, at the behest of the Virginia State Government has produced the most complete treatise of military tactics covering infantry, artillery and cavalry tactics in one easy to understand handbook. Order now. Please send a blank, signed, international money order and I will be happy to fill in the details and forward the manual.

J.

Father General wrote:I must say, Digby's input about this was spot on -- unfortunately I couldn't make the change at that point, as it would have meant reversing a Father General Decision(TM).

Neal, when we are talking in the real world, can you drop the roleplaying please? It's not helpful. When I suggested the VP system, no decision had been made, you just went ahead with a simple option because it was the fastest way to get the campaign running. Rushing headlong into things is not always the best way. With just a big lump of troops in one place many of the subordinate commanders had no task to do and many were confused what was going on. The map movement part of the campaign is the best place to engage all the players, not leave them dazed and confused.

Sorry for being critical, but we are at this point because this game was rushed and not planned more carefully.

We can still add detail to the campaign to make it less likely that both sides stomp around in one big lump. It'll probably require a restart though.

I mean, what will happen next turn? I think there will be a second huge battle... and the turn after that? Another, or the campaign is over pretty much.

Sadly i disagree with the feeling of movement the lack of forward motion within the campaign is what is making this stall IMHO people have lost or appeared to have lost some interest because things are not moving or do not appear to be doing so even to the extent that we have still to have a battle.

-Mark

Worriedly Digby, I see the same possibility. Of course, you are correct about the issue at hand. It is a difficult thing to wait. In my experience, waiting is more deadly than anything, so I tend to avoid it. It's the waiting for the current campaign battle that's the problem now. However, this is a good time for drill.

I think the heart of the problem is my choice of a map that was a bit too linear.

That said, I'm open to suggestion.

I think the battle will happen, just one week later than I preferred. No worries.

-Neal

Father General wrote:Worriedly Digby, I see the same possibility. Of course, you are correct about the issue at hand. It is a difficult thing to wait. In my experience, waiting is more deadly than anything, so I tend to avoid it. It's the waiting for the current campaign battle that's the problem now. However, this is a good time for drill.

I think the heart of the problem is my choice of a map that was a bit too linear.

That said, I'm open to suggestion.

I think the battle will happen, just one week later than I preferred. No worries.

-Neal

The main problem I see with the current campaign starts with the rather large divisions (1 human player = 1 brigade) and that there is no restriction to move a lot of units as one big blob on the map. And when two big blobs have to fight each other we are either unable to get enough players online at the same time, or we cannot host such a big game.

If we are to restart the campaign, we should aim at creating battles sized up to 5vs5 players at maximum.

Here are some ideas:
-> non-linear map with need to secure a wider area, split forces into several divisions and detachements.
-> not every player has his own troop (corps cmdr, div cmdr, staff)
-> restriction on how large a division may be created and moved on the campaign map (e.g. A detachement can have up to 3 brigades. A division with div commander can have 4 brigades. A division with corps commander can have 5 brigades...)
-> movement penalty on division sized troops (e.g. a Move order from node A to node C is given. The division starts to march with 1 turn delay, but proceeds without extra delay until the final node (C) in the subsequent turns.
-> a supply system. Depending on a friendly city or a supply wagon train in an adjacent node, the nodes are limited in how many troops they may "feed".

May I suggest that some skirmishes should have been fought maybe with Brigades able to play in a prelude to the bigger battle this was not uncommon in the Civil war for lead elements including the Cavalry to meet on the battle field with short savage fights over places like road junctions and fords in rivers. The winning army getting a battlefield bonus type thing at the larger event?

The main problem I see with the current campaign starts with the rather large divisions (1 human player = 1 brigade) and that there is no restriction to move a lot of units as one big blob on the map. And when two big blobs have to fight each other we are either unable to get enough players online at the same time, or we cannot host such a big game.

In this regard its about how much lag you can all deal with I regularly host games with 5v5 with very little lag the maps are some of the problem but the majority of lag being created by the slowest machine in the player list. If time and lag is not a worry then 7v7 can be run relativly easily again it comes down to the slowest machine dealing with all the information received by said machine ultimatly you are only ever at a maximum going to bring 40k troops to a battlefield with maybe only 75% of those going to be engaged at any one time.

-Mark

The map is not a problem at all. It gives much scope for clever strategies.

The problem isn't so much with lag but with HITS, in that most players wish to only control a brigade, with a division commander having a brigade plus whatever artillery is attached to his division. Commanding more troops is very difficult for most players. With a battle as big as the one we've just created we cannot gather enough players on one date to allow each player to just have a brigade.

Perhaps we should look at a system that only allows battles with as many brigades involved as half our number of players. If we have 8 players on each side, the maximum number of brigades present is 8, bigger battles being broken up into equal-sized smaller actions as Jonah suggests.

You guys worry too much. The AI is perfectly capable of handling brigades proficiently. Just divide up the brigades so no one has to command more than 3 brigades and two batteries. A player can micro-manage one of them if he chooses and let the other two perform on their own. If there are still not enough players, then the corps commander can give orders to completely AI controlled divisions. As long as each side has approximately the same number of humans, it will be a fair fight.

I also disagree that the campaign is the place for all the players to be engaged. Since the corps commanders generate the movement and the umpire determines the results, I don't see much opportunity for brigade level originality. Better would be to have an interesting battle scenario with somewhat asymmetric secondary goals, (read Stefan's scenarios here), which is where brigade and division commanders can be creative in accomplishing their tasks. If we are to have battles where the only objective is direct destruction of the enemy army, then I would suggest they be fought on the larger maps using sandbox mode. At least a meeting engagement can generate some interesting battles, especially if an added requirement of protecting one's line of operations is added.

Okay, so split the BofNM into 2 battles?

One idea might be to stage a fight for the town while there is a separate fight for the heights commanding the town.

I have been reluctant to be so granular with the objectives as to restrict freedom of command, but perhaps this is a way forward?

I'm not in favor of a restart. That doesn't mean "no, never" it just means it's not what I prefer.

I am strongly in favor of personal units. It changes the dynamic considerably. That being said, if you cannot show up, then your unit may be commanded by another player, or worse, the AI -- or yet worser, the Father General.

Right now, we're looking at a first weekend in November date for this battle. That's enough time to make adjustment. Heck, at my pace, any change could happen quickly. But we do need to make a decision.

Ultimately, changes must be approved by the corps commander, even if I don't like them. Two corps commanders in agreement override me any day.

So, Stefan and Kevin, what do you think?

Let's keep this thread open. I like some of the ideas proposed to date, I'd like a day or so of public comment, then the corps commanders should talk to see if they can agree.

Once I hear from them, I'll issue the final pronouncement and we can forge ahead.

-Neal

I'm not in favor of restarting the campaign at this point. By the time all the nuances of the changes being proposed are worked out, it will probably be the new year. Better, in my view, to play on and make changes to the next campaign based on what we learn from this one. I look at this as an eastern theater campaign, where large armies maneuvered against one another. Finesse was never a priority. If we want a diffuse, multi-objective campaign then we should have used the western theater as a model. All the players would need to take on the role of division commanders. They would then have the autonomy to make decisions in their area of operations.

I am also not in favor of breaking up the current battle into two smaller ones. If 40k troops have indeed moved onto the map, then we are going to have a large, chaotic battle. With the AI taking a major role on both sides, I believe it will be one of our more interesting ones. As a bonus, the loser can blame it solely for causing the disaster. I am sorry I will miss it.

I was looking at it more like this.

Friday evening early 19:00 skirmish aka Digby and another CSA brigade maybe 2 defend the hieghtd against advancing Union forces.

Saturday 19:00 or 22:00 major battle over New Market 5v5 or full on all brigades involved .

Sunday 19:00 or 22:00 rearguard action time limited battle to allow retreating forces to get away.

This is how I would envisage a weekend of battles to be fought it would also give the maximum number of players the opportunity to fight at least once.

Uncle Billy wrote:I also disagree that the campaign is the place for all the players to be engaged. Since the corps commanders generate the movement and the umpire determines the results, I don't see much opportunity for brigade level originality.

A campaign that engaged more players on the map would not be using the rules we're currently using and with individual brigades being moved about the place, brigade commanders would be kept busy even at the startegic level. In this design the corps commander gives orders to his divisions and detached brigades and the lower level officers do the map moves. It would be closely analagous to a HITS battlefield game.

Mr. Digby wrote:A campaign that engaged more players on the map would not be using the rules we're currently using [....]

I'm getting a bit lost here, but you seem to be suggesting a campaign with different rules.

IMO, we've spent a long time getting this far and expended a lot of time over fine details. This doesn't have to be the definitive, perfect campaign. It is a campaign. Or it will be, when we get a couple of battles under our belt!

I'm in favour of having a game, ASAP, and then another one, ASAP. If things need tweaking then, I would tweak them.

Despite being very wary of commanding three brigades, if that's what it takes to get a battle going I'd prefer that to much more discussion.

my 2c worth

Jeff

Blaugrana wrote:

Despite being very wary of commanding three brigades, if that's what it takes to get a battle going I'd prefer that to much more discussion.

Not to worry, I am appointing Niall as division command instructor. His tactical grasp of the situation in Saturday's battle was simply breathtaking. You will be sitting at the feet of a true master. After he passes along a few commander secrets, you'll be up and running in no time.

The "running" part being the keyword there.

Blaugrana wrote:

Mr. Digby wrote:A campaign that engaged more players on the map would not be using the rules we're currently using [....]

I'm getting a bit lost here, but you seem to be suggesting a campaign with different rules.

IMO, we've spent a long time getting this far and expended a lot of time over fine details.

Not at all, we can adjust the rules on the fly... right now in fact... to make the game less of a "my big army's gonna find and smack your big army" and more of a subtle creature requiring dispersal of forces with ownership of said dispersed forces being handled at a lower command level. The corps commander still controls the overall startegy, but he tells his brigadiers or division commanders where to move and its these lower level officers who send e-mails to Neal to say "march my unit to here".

It wouldn't require a campaign restart, it would require some planning work beforehand though to get it to make sense.

If we can't get a result at New Market by mid-November the umpire could back the two sides apart stating that an engagement was inconclusive, then the new rules kick in and we continue. The adjusted rules would place far more value on dispersing your forces in order to win.