Campaign Update NEW CAMPAIGN STARTING

Hello all,

I received word from Mr. Digby that he is very occupied with significant responsibilities at work. He has requested leave to attend to these matters. I believe he will be available for games as we go forward, but that ability may be variable.

Therefore: MEET THE NEWS BOSS, SAME AS THE OLD BOSS.

I'm going to handle this once again, for the good of the order.

Before I dive into the swamp, I wanted to float some new changes as well as solicit ideas and suggestions. After a period of public comment, not to exceed seven seconds, I will make my decisions and post changes to the new campaign. We will then "volunteer" officers and lay plans for the next scenario in the new campaign.

Proposal 1: Only side commanders will be locked for side. All other players will be "floaters" and may play on either side, to help ensure balance. This will make battles easier to schedule as well as improve their stability. Players may state a preference in their doodle, and I will do my best to honor it.

Proposal 2: Forces will be broken up between two to three divisions, minimum. I'll find a cute way to devise this. Since the map will be more broad in scope both sides will need to split forces among a few commands to ensure success. While I may not expressly forbid the concentration of forces, I may impose a significant penalty for doing so. Only so many wagons can get through on a road at one time. (BTW: Any historical information on supply would be useful for crafting a realistic rule.)

Please give your feedback and proposals below. As the next few days unfold, I'll process everything and inform you of the changes. Then I will handle the final administrative details and we can start. I anticipate we will start well within February, moving at my customary speed.

See you on the field!

-Neal

Proposal 1: I disagree with that because it takes a major element out of the campaign. We do have some players that regularly show up and play the same Brigade or Division every time. To deny them to personalize them or to develop some emotional attachement wouldn't be to my taste.

Proposol 2: Why not. I do, judging from the 2 and 3 battle that this already happened to a major extent. Battles were strategically and tactically sophisticated and stimulating. If Digby ain't runnin' it, why not just do it like we did it before? It worked like a charm; army setup can occasionally be dictated by the Scenario, so that would vary either way.

I think just picking up your campaign would help to avoid a lot of the tedious arguing. I know this ain't a service we pay for but I liked the speed of the second part of the first campaign. All went smoothly, a lot of AAR's, which is always fun and a lot of nice reports. If it were up to me, I'd like even more people with a talent for writing to do that publicly.

MajorByrd wrote: I know this ain't a service we pay for

Umm... Do you mean I'm not getting paid for this??

Father General wrote:

MajorByrd wrote: I know this ain't a service we pay for

Umm... Do you mean I'm not getting paid for this??

Well if you want to be I expect a happy ending!

Neal, have you checked this with Brendan?

It's very kind of you to take on this task - thank you!

I agree with Sven - I like the continuity and playing with my Fighting Quakers. If we can keep sides without making scheduling a nightmare I would prefer it. If you make more battles happen with parts of the forces not engaged, then only some players would have 'their' formations present. Others could then fill in using the other formations?

I am also very much in favour of less jaw jaw and more war war. The seven second consultation period sounds good to me.

Thanks again,

Jeff

Blaugrana wrote:It's very kind of you to take on this task - thank you!

Ditto

Blaugrana wrote:I agree with Sven - I like the continuity and playing with my Fighting Quakers. If we can keep sides without making scheduling a nightmare I would prefer it. If you make more battles happen with parts of the forces not engaged, then only some players would have 'their' formations present. Others could then fill in using the other formations?

I can imagine that most will think the same way. Personally, I'm very happy to act as a floater though. With just a few of us in that category, you may find you can satisfy everyone, Neal.

Blaugrana wrote:I am also very much in favour of less jaw jaw and more war war. The seven second consultation period sounds good to me.

Strongly agree. There is a tradition in our face-to-face k/spiels that the umpire makes the decisions and is always right, at least during the game. It's partly a fairness thing, as he's the one who has put in all the work preparing stuff. Folks who are prepared to do that are a rarity, and should be cherished & supported IMHO. This of course is to sucker them into doing it again

Perhaps more importantly it's a practical issue, as if players start challenging facets of the game, or particular decisions, things slow to a crawl. That's the kiss-of-death for any face-to-face game. The time problem is perhaps not quite so acute with an on-line campaign, but I suspect that many will still find disputes & delays a turn-off.

I'm not suggesting we keep stumm forever if something's bugging us. In our face-to-face k/spiels, if we do disagree with the way a game has been designed or umpired, we save that for the post-event debrief.

Martin (J)

I plan to keep personal units, but also to mix in a number of generic units. If personal units are spread between several divisions, it should be easier to encourage floating.

Although I dearly love my Mississippi brigade, what I enjoy most is the scheming and planning before battle, no matter what [ahem: Confederate] unit I command.

I do want to give people a chance to have their voices heard before we start. Once we start, the period for "official" public comment closes. :-)

-Neal

I would prefer to stay union and keep in command of my own troops (even as a corp commander)
but I also dont have a problem being a floater

I agree with Steve and, while I would prefer to stay with my own troops (either as a brigade or division C.O.), realize there are times when the demands of the game require players to fill other roles.

The personal units that were established and commanded consistently throughout the Shenandoah Campaign will give the new campaign continuity, character and tradition. They also create the foundation of interesting AAR's and role-play. Without them, there is little to distinguish campaign events from the common run of HITS games.

My suggestion would be to maintain a relatively small cadre of those established brigades that were consistently commanded through the first campaign, filling in the OOB's with replacement units consisting of call-up draftees and recruits. These latter would be somewhat larger, having not been worn down by campaigning, but also relatively inexperienced. Player preferences should be honored whenever possible, but it would be better to "float" players new to the system before moving established players with their cadre units. In this way the core personalities and command structures of the sides should remain more-or-less intact, building interest, momentum, and a healthy rivalry as the campaign progresses, even as some players move back and forth between units and sides.

Everyone appreciates the hard work and challenges behind designing such a campaign. Thanks for taking the time to create such an interesting experience for us all. I'm sure it will be loads of fun!

-Ron

The personal units will stay. There will be added multiple non-personal units as well. The initial disposition of the units will be fairly broad however, so not every unit will see action right away.

I already have the opening move plotted, it's going to be a matter of filling out the roster of human players, then creating the OOB next.

I have a couple needs.

1. I need to email and chat with Hays to see if the OOB process can be improved upon to make his life easier. It's just a question to which he would need to answer. I have no requests or ideas I can think of at this time.

2. I need someone to walk me through scenario creation. I know there's a tutorial posted on this site, but really, I learn better if someone shows me and I make my own notes. Once I learn how to make my own scenarios, I think others will breathe easier -- less work for them, and I can move a bit faster to get things accomplished.

I think this campaign will move a little faster than the last, but who knows until it plays out.

Think about if you want to volunteer for command. I'll post a separate thread soon when we are ready for volunteers. Possibly late tonight.

-Neal

200 yard rifles?

kg little mac wrote:200 yard rifles?

Ah good catch!

I meant 300 yard rifles with laser bayonets.

Thanks.

I am up for this lets hope for good play times and i would love to stay with my Maine boys but have no afinity to ether side so could float to.