Doodle link for Battle of New Market

Personally i would have hoped to see movement far sooner no one wants to be labeled slower than Little Mac this early in the Campaign but i fully understand where Lincoln was coming from while he was waiting for Maclellan to move in the months after Bull Run.

I am with Kevin that we should continue this campaign and learn some more lessons before starting the next one.

But I prefer that the battles are splitted / scaled down by the umpire to create smaller sized battles (max 5vs5 with the current player base) rather than to have AI controlled brigades.
From my understanding it was very common that not 100% of your troops were actually engaged in a given battle. And sometimes battles lasted for more than one day.

Who suggested stopping this campaign and starting a new one? It wasn't me. I'm suggesting some adjustments so that both sides can't win by massing their army into one big blob. Surely that's a good idea?

Kevin, what's your opinion of Stefan's proposal?

Split the Battle of New Market?

In all, I agree we should work to forge ahead with lessons learned. This has been a great learning experience for me, and the knowledge I have gained will soon be of benefit for all.

The campaign isn't broken. It's a bit inconvenient at the moment, but it's far from broken.

-Neal

Mr. Digby wrote:Who suggested stopping this campaign and starting a new one? It wasn't me. I'm suggesting some adjustments so that both sides can't win by massing their army into one big blob. Surely that's a good idea?

While adjustments In the rules may produce a more perfect campaign model, my concern is that we could spend another month talking and still not have had a battle. I would prefer to have a battle or two soon and then take stock. Of course, if no more CS players sign up on doodle do we win by default?

Jeff

Father General wrote:

Kevin, what's your opinion of Stefan's proposal?

If this were a scripted scenario, such as one of Stefan's, then I would agree that the number of brigades be limited to the number of players present. However, this is just an attack/defend a strong point battle on open ground where there are no surprises to be had. In this case I favor more troops with the AI controlling a portion of them if need be. That should generate a fair bit of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Having the AI in the mix makes the battle more unpredictable and from my perspective more interesting. Players just have to give up the notion that every man on the field must be micro-managed.

Still if everyone who is going to play is opposed to having AI troops on the field, I won't stand in the way. However, as it is now, there will be one rebel brigade facing a possible 6 from the union side.

I didnt mean the scenario to be built for the number of players which register in doodle. Then we wouldn't have any connection to the strategic game.
I say, before even posting times for a battle to be played, the umpire should scale down the size of the battle or split it up if needed.

This battle should be auto resolved anyway. Roll them dice! I thought if a side had 2 more brigades than the other it would be auto resolved. Obviously the balancing of players on team is a big issue too. Perhaps some players should switch before the first battle has started. That's the problem I've always had with SOW VS campaigns, attendance makes the winners. Which in reality should not be the case, people should be divided up by in the doodle, first come first serve to fill in as needed like in our regular scenarios. The troops/forces pool should be balanced at the beginning of the campaign and the 'regulars' should be split up as well so you tend to get a close to even number on both sides. Just like chess one starts with the same amount of pieces.

We also need it more interesting at the ground level as far as asymmetrical objectives. Always ask; if it's not fun at the ground level, why would anyone play?

So a solution for less AI would be to cap the brigades at 6 for each side that you can bring to battle and then players fill in roles as necessary. We can't stick to sides or this won't work unfortunate as that is.

I based my strategy on the goals and forces I was given. Had I known that the largest number of brigades I could bring to any battle was 5 or 6 and my brigade commanders would change from battle to battle, my strategy would have been very different. If the south wishes to concede the campaign, I will accept their unconditional surrender and we can begin a new one with different rules.

M.Jonah wrote:Personally i would have hoped to see movement far sooner no one wants to be labeled slower than Little Mac this early in the Campaign but i fully understand where Lincoln was coming from while he was waiting for Maclellan to move in the months after Bull Run.

Hey. . . watch it . . . I will swim across that pond and find you if you keep it up!