Thunder in the Shenandoah continues... 1862...

Neal and I have been talking behind the scenes about a continuation for his excellent "Thunder in the Shenandoah, 1861" campaign. I suggested some ideas to him, he gave some feedback but said he wanted to play in the game the second time around. With his input I have worked out a basic idea that will follow on from where the current campaign ends.

The result of the final battle will affect how the continuation campaign begins and where troops are placed/garrisoned over the winter of 1861/62 in the Valley, so there is everything to play for.

The game will be set in May 1862 against a backdrop of McClellan's campaign on the Peninsula and some political panic in Richmond. The Union army's slow but creeping threat to the Confederate capital will colour the CSA's military planning and once agaain affect the Shenandoah Valley.

There is going to be scope for several high-ranking command positions. These may or may not involve issuing orders to formations to move on the map but they will involve strategic decision making and issuing orders via e-mail to subordinates and peers and assessing intelligence reports. Those who want high command slots should please express your interest in this thread, and anyone else who wishes to play should also put a post here. If some GCMers join us (all are welcome) I would like to mesh the sides so that there is as much as possible an equal sprinkling of HITS/KS players and GCM players on each side. If you have a particularly strong leaning to Union or Confederacy please express that in your post, I will try and satisfy these requests but balanced sides in terms of numbers and a HITS/GCM split may mean you fight for the opposition.

We will be using a fairly similar set of rules, the ones I created for my Roamoak Valley Campaign, and a nodal map again. The rules need adjusting since the existing set was specific to that campaign, but they can be found here.

I expect we shall be ready to begin the campaign a few weeks after the final battle of the current campaign, so that should place us in late January or early February.

Thanks for reading!

Sounds like a very interesting sequel. I'm certainly looking forward to it. The first one has been a lot of fun.

Just a suggestion... if you're looking to increase player numbers for 1862, it might be wise to consider posting news and announcements of upcoming campaign plans over in the GCM forum as well, or at least post links back to these KS posts. Many GCMers have heard of the first campaign through interaction with those who cross-over, but I've no doubt the vast majority don't (yet) visit this forum.

From the 1861 campaign and the HITS/GCM games, more players are realizing they can enjoy multiple styles of play.

I would like to play. Either side is fine. Division command is as high as I would be willing to go for now.





P.S. I destroyed my last Division, Just ask Flashman =) so Im willing to be demoted back to Brigade command also

Thanks guys - Ron, by all means, please advertise this over on GCM for us. Linking to this thread and one of Neals campaign threads would be enough to bring people looking if they are interested.

I'm excited about this myself, and I am tremendously happy with Mr. Digby for taking this mantle upon himself.

Naturally, the Father General knows how to beat the Yankees, so he wants a position of responsibility, but Neal will take what he gets.

Ammo wagon? (BUT CONFEDERATE ONLY)

I'll volunteer for either a division or a corps.

I'd like to Continue the role i had in the previous campaign: Division command or Even Corps if possible.

I'd happily take a Corps command if there's one going. Just as happy to take a division or brigade of course.

I'd like to continue as a Union brigade commander if possible.

-Jeff

My preference is to continue in command of my Union brigade -- or leadership of a Yankee division that includes my brigade and a second under another player.

-Ron

Provided the valley has been resupplied with silver and women of the town, Gen. Georgia is willing to lay waste to these environs again. He will be on leave during the last week of January though.

Either side is fine by me. I wouldn't mind a division command.

I enjoy the HITS-style play, but sadly, I think that just a single Brigade puts my command abilities to the test. I'll see if my internet (in all its horrificness) is able to hold out, but a Brigade is my limit. Preferably the Maine Brigade I have right now.

There won't be much scope to retain the units we created for the first campaign to be carried over. Some will be, but others will have to be assumed to be operating now in other theatres, or disbanded. The campaign definitely will not use formations created for GCM MP games because I need to design the forces around semi-historical formations and troop qualities of the period.

In our fictional version of the war, "historical formations" do include those who fought in the valley under Genls. Georgia and Hebert in '61, although as I said above, due to size constraints on the overall forces and wanting to bring in fresh formations, some of the forces on each side will be drawn from historical or semi-historical OOBs.

If you do own a GCM formation it might be possible to incorporate it, or at least part of it, but almost certainly not its stats. This campaign isn't linked in any manner to the GCM MP games.

Due to the need to remain flexible, I don't forsee players owning formations as such, but all players will fill slots in the OOB of each battle as needed. I think this is a more flexible way to approach things, and as it turned out in the campaign that is just winding down, we had many instances of plaayers not commanding their own formations so I don't see this as a significant loss.

So while I'll try and fit players old commands into the new structure, I can't make any promises.

Fine also for me, no problem for command type or side.

I take it since teams are being rebalanced - our old brigades won't be carried over. All the lost commendations and promotions ! Either way I'd like a brigade command preferably on the Confederate side.

Not quite true - old formations may well be seeing action again, but I want to bring in new forces and don't want the sides to be TOO huge, I want things to still be manageable. As I said old formations may be around. It depends on how things go.

Count me in - preferrably on the CS side, any command.

I will join under union colors and as a Arty Commander. DivArty Command will be fine with rank of Major.

I would say there probably isn't going to be scope to have pure artillery commanders, as division commanders will have command of their attached guns. Everyone else will be either an infantry or cavalry commander.

Matter of fact, after the last battle fought, I'm pretty sure that I'd like to try Corps command on the Confederate side if possible.

I've heard many people say that they'd like some kind of carryover of forces which I would also prefer since it adds some campaign flavor.

I would be happy to try and play in the next campaign and would be happy on either side though i do believe that you might be a might confused as to this carry over of regiments no one created GCM brigades/divisions to my knowledge it was more that in the creation of this campaign players were given 4 regiments which they were allowed to give a state name to or individual regiments were named these are not GCM divisions. As you should be aware when you create a GCM division over time regiments get transfered out and new ones transfered in with varying qualities so no one has uber divisions ever. I can see where your leaning again Martin towards the ultra realism and i appeal to you to not get to engrossed in it running this campaign will take enough of your time anyways.

So for going off track but needed to be said.

I would also be happy to command upto division though would probably err more on the brigade level on a more tree restricted map.

Well if we can again create our own forces like in the last campaign it'd be alright I suppose. The only problem I see is, how I understood it to be, people are just randomly assigned to Brigades and divisions. I guess I'll wait until the ruleset is up, although assignment was already pretty random in this campaign since most people never even showed up, so except maybe 2-3 people, nobody every played his own troops, so that wouldn't be so much of a change I suppose.

Indeed even though i showed up i found Ron had my guys not that i am worried i am sure he handled them far better than I and to be honest its an attachment thing all players have with thier own when a game is created in that form.

In the new campaign if we are to assigned a brigade if you are playing you should at least have control of that brigade/division or it should be that there is no ownership of a brigade and that you will get what you are given on the night regardless of position in the army.