American Civil War Game Club (ACWGC)

ACWGC Forums

* ACWGC    * Dpt. of Records (DoR)    *Club Recruiting Office     ACWGC Memorial

* CSA HQ    * VMI   * Join CSA    

* Union HQ   * UMA   * Join Union    

CSA Armies:   ANV   AoT

Union Armies:   AotP    AotT

Link Express

Club Forums:     NWC    CCC     Home Pages:     NWC    CCC    ACWGC
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 9:47 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 3:39 pm 
Maybe consider scaling back and/or simplifying some features? Early on things were moving at about the rate of real life: Each turn represented I think 2 months? Each battle played took about that long. Then another month or two till the next was played while players swapped thoughts/strategy, and all these features were recomputed, the next strategic turn implemented and the next battles generated. The rules were enhanced/modified/changed as things went with more stuff added. Then the time between battles got longer till it stopped all together. Since it is currently still 1861 that means the commitment of players would be another 4 or 5 years at best unless one side or the other met victory before that. Maybe by then some of us will be in the old folks home and have more time available... :)

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 09, 2006 11:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 02, 2002 3:53 am
Posts: 6
Location: United Kingdom
I think it was a great effort that just got bogged down by the insatiable desire for more realism (and thus complexity); I agree with Gen Haynes that the project, as it became, was simply too large for anyone to manage.

My own contribution was limited, in the latter stages, by the, er, erratic nature of internet communications in China, which meant that Notso's site was unaccessible (as indeed is the MDT for much of the time). I now have ways of getting round this and even reading the BBC if I want to [:0], but for obvious reasons I do not use them unless necessary.

Be that as it may, if the project is to restart it should have different people at the helm; I have been President for over three years and that's long enough for anyone. Great fun though! I suppose the finest moment for me was how we fooled the Rebs into... but perhaps I'd better say nothing more for now. [:D]

BG Simon Macbeth AoT
(formerly) Union President, FtW


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:44 am 
Notso,

Once you've made some determination about the scope of FTW, perhaps you could post a list of game management positions and duties, so that we can determine whether we have enough reliable people on hand to fill those positions.

Off the top of my head, I think we would need a 'player' Scenario Design Manager, to generate custom battlefield maps; a 'non-player' OOB Manager, who would place the armies on the custom maps; a 'player/non-player' Overall Game Manager, who would track wins and losses and be responsible for determining (with the help of some program) a tally of the recruits and supplies generated between turns. These facts and figures would be turned over to the 'player' Presidents, who would then be responsible for disbursing the men and material, and for coordinating tactics and strategy with the 'player' Generals under their command.

As to the practical management of the FTW campaign, we might want to simplify the process of communications in the following ways: During the ‘movement phase’ of each turn (which should be limited to one month in duration) all officers found to be still ‘in communication’ from the previous turn, should be allowed to post freely to their respective army’s forum on the FTW site, in order to work out strategy, tactics, logistics, equipment and manpower distribution. Officers determined to be ‘out of communication’ would be forbidden to post (or read) the forum during that period. We have the ability to temporarily ban player access to the site, but I hardly think it neccessary.

At the end of the 'movement phase' month, the ‘Presidents’ would communicate their overall plans to the OGM, who would use this information to update the Master Game Map and determine where battles (if any) would take place, and make a die roll to determine their duration. (It is my personal opinion that all battle scenarios should be set at the maximum duration, leaving their length to be determined when one of the Generals involved either surrenders or withdraws from the field (board). The OGM would turn this information over to the SDM, who would generate the neccessary custom battle maps, and to the OOBM who would be responsible for placing the men on the field once the maps were completed. The OOBM would then forward the scenarios to each of the players involved and the shooting would commence.

The players involved in the scenario would communicate directly to each other via email, as in any game. In multiplayer scenarios, the Generals on each side would be allowed to communicate freely between each other via email to coordinate their operations. (This may not be strictly accurate, but it will save time and avoid needless communication delays.) Generals may post mid-battle 'dispatches from the front' or 'newspaper accounts' at the Mason Dixon Tavern. Generals could also post accounts of the fighting at their respective closed FTW sites, provided they weren't declared 'out of communication' during the previous phase.

The 'Battle Phase' would continue until all battles were completed for that turn. (It is my personal opinion that any General who, for whatever reason, could not complete a battle, would be declared the loser, and his force withdrawn from the field to the closest 'friendly' site on the MGM. An army which could not withdraw to a friendly site will be declared 'surrendered' and lost. This would encourage Generals to leave themselves a 'back door' to keep supply and communication lines onpen when marching off to do battle.) Once a battle was concluded, the participating Generals would forward the resulting casualty reports to the OGM, who would be responsible for creating a new OOB for each army; for calculating the overall outcome of the phase (new enlistees, income and supplies generated); for deseminating a general recap of the previous turn's fighting and for setting a new date for the end of the next 'movement phase'.

My point in all this is to eliminate the need for 'non-player' Communication Managers, who are obliged to act as a clearing house for all communications, and to take maximum advantage of the closed and open FTW sites already available to the players. In my opinion, the honor system would be sufficient to prevent 'out of communication' officers from communicating to their superiors. Communications between Presidents would be conducted at the open FTW forum or at the MDT.

Of course there are plenty of other aspects that still need to be discussed: Assigning Govenorships: Good feature or needless drag?; Deploying, capturing and the reliability of spies: Good idea, but needs work; Naval operations: Should shipping lanes be handled like rail lines, or should we incorporate sea battles, and if we do, do we have a game system in place to pull them off? I'm personally of the opinion that we should handle ship traffic like rail traffic: If Union General A wants to sail from Philadelphia to Charleston, and he has the transports available, then he sails down there and fights, on land, whoever is holding Charleston.

Lets work these details out and get back to what we do best: carrying the fight to the enemy.

Carry On Gentlemen,

Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 1:07 pm 
<i>"My thought was for each player to maintain the OOB for just their troops. It is my job to put the two sides together for an OOB file that works with the games"</i>

OK, I can do that. I still got my Nashville OOB (that you and Hank approved) on file.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Aug 11, 2006 9:38 pm 
The players in a scenario having direct email communication would be fine if they have a direct link on the map to communicate by. A couple battles I was in had a problem: One I was coming onto the map from the opposite side of my teammate Gen Edmonds and couldn't communicate at all until we finally linked up. The other later on the same map had Paducah under siege. Gen Pinkham could not communicate with Gen Weir's relief force with no direct line of communication. In these cases Hank allowed couriers to send messages and rolled to see if they got through or were captured.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:06 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by PEagle</i>
<br /><i>"My thought was for each player to maintain the OOB for just their troops. It is my job to put the two sides together for an OOB file that works with the games"</i>

OK, I can do that. I still got my Nashville OOB (that you and Hank approved) on file.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That certainly might move things along: If the Generals were required to maintain their own OOBs and report them to their respective Presidents, or to the OGM if they were deemed 'Out of Communication'(OC) at the end of the Battle Phase.

Once the Battle Phase was completed, and the OGM generated a tally of the recruits and supplies generated between turns, these facts and figures would be turned over to the 'player' Presidents, who would then be responsible for disbursing the men and material, and for coordinating tactics and strategy with the 'player' Generals under their command (who were still in communication) at their respective FTW site during the month-long Movement Phase.

Once the booty was distributed, the Generals would update their own OOBs, and have them available to turn over to the OOBM if, at the conclusion of the Movement Phase, the OGM had determined they had found themselves in a fight.

The month-long Movement Phase would, in many ways, be the most critical phase of the game, as it would determine who, what, when and where troops would be moving; and would thus require the active participation of each player. There were some discussions early on about placing limits on communications between theaters (to enhance the realism), but I feel very strongly that everyone still 'in communication' should be allowed to participate freely in the month-long Movement Phase discussions, just to keep things moving along and everyone involved between battles.

At the end of the discussion month, the Presidents would draft a report of all the decisions made and turn it over to the 'non-player' OGM, who would update the Master Game Map (MGM) and determine where the next turn's battles would take place.

Whoever volunteers for the OGM position would have to be responsible for managing the movements of all troops on the MGM. So a summary of OOBs and their movements would have to be part of the President's Movement Phase summary report. The OGM would have to calculate the turns required for the movement of troops between armies (If General A wants to send some troops over to General B, or if troops recruited in Atlanta need to be transfered to General C in Charleston); what type of battles might result (meeting or seige), and where the battles might take place (If CSA Army A leaves Nashville dragging cannon toward Paducah, and USA Army B leaves Paducah headed toward Nashville with just infantry and cavalry, where will they meet?). I feel that every effort should be made by the Scenario Design Manager (SDM) to create custom battlefield maps that are as accurate as possible, drawing on historic and geographical references whenever possible.

Question: Just how time consuming is it to make a custom map? I've never made one myself, and have no idea how user friendly the scenario generators are on HPS. If we're gonna fight the whole war, we're gonna need LOTS of battle maps. Fortunately, once we've created a map for a location like Bull Run, we can use it again and again, but I expect we'll eventually need a map for every point on the MGM, and some generic meeting maps, for battles fought between point. Is this something that one person can do, or should we consider creating an FTW Cartography Department, with members creating maps and submitting them as time permits? Since the actual placement of troops in a battle would be delegated to a non-player, there would be plenty of incentive for our cartographers to create balanced battle fields. We might also want to consider that the maps might slowly evolve over time: That if the Union wanted to fortify Washington - over time the new fortifications would be added to the original map.

As to the question of battlefield communications, I'm still of the opinion that the players should be allowed to communicate freely via email, as in any game. If, however, it is determined that restrictions should be placed on communications, then I am inclined to think that we should rely on the honor system, rather than routing all communications through a third party. If, in a multiplayer scenario, you have no clear line of communication with your partner, then do not communicate. And if you have no clear line of communication, then establishing one should be your first priority.

In a situation like the one described by Gen. Schlitte between Gen. Pinkham and Gen. Weir at Paducah, neither party should have communicated directly until Weir forced a breakthrough. Gen. Pinkham would have been aware that something was up, because he was receiving battle turns, but should not have communicated directly. He could have 'moved toward the sound of the guns' to force a link, but no communication should have been allowed until then. The point is that the communication restriction (if any) should be a matter of fair play and honor among players during a fight. It is unenforcible otherwise.

As always, it is my sincere hope that we can work out any problems, establish clear rules and guidelines, assign reasonable duties and responsibilites, reorganize ourselves, recruit some new blood and move forward with this project.

Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 6:32 am 
How's this for solving the spy/intelligence problem: If a general is captured on the field of battle. A copy of the orders issued to him by the President at the end of the Movement Phase, and any communications received by him during the fight from his partner (in the case of a multiplayer) would fall into the hands of the opposing player(s), along with three cigars.

Just a thought.

Carry On Gentlemen,

Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Aug 12, 2006 9:01 pm 
<i>"As always, it is my sincere hope that we can work out any problems, establish clear rules and guidelines, assign reasonable duties and responsibilites, reorganize ourselves, recruit some new blood and move forward with this project."</i>

Yea, what he said! Fall is just around the corner. Time for the Union to be moving South for the Winter! [:D]


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Aug 13, 2006 4:56 am 
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by notso</i>
<i>Until I get the automated OOB generator going ...
Capt. Larry (Notso) Quick</i><hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Larry,

Which parts of this game system are already automated, and which parts are still on the drawing board? If we're going to continue this campaign, we need to know which duties can be performed with the touch of a button, and which duties require an abacus and a working knowledge of probabilities and statistics.

The point that Gen. Eagle made earlier about Generals keeping track of their own OOBs is a valid one, <i>However, do it yourself OOB tracking could end up generating "errors" as in inflated army sizes. There would still have to be some way to find and correct such inaccuracies if they arose.</i>

While I’m confident that any “errorsâ€


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Aug 15, 2006 10:24 pm 
<i>"The economic engine is in its infancy. I decided to go no further until the economic rules were flushed out."</i>

True enough, in fact it was to be implemented for the first time this very next turn. If time is now at a premium and something needs to fall out in order to get things going again, my vote would be to drop that. I believe it was Hank's desire to try and implement a robust economic engine into the game after it was well underway anyhow, so if you did all right without it for the first four turns, we might as well continue that way.

Don't get me wrong, it's a great idea. It's just that no one seems to have the time to do it justice anymore.

V/R

Col Eagle
1/1/XXIV/AOJ


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:15 am 
<i>Originally posted by notso</i>
<i>Gentlemen,</i>

<i>To the best of my knowledge, there is no easy way to track casualties in a game (the system is locked). Hank would track this by hand with a pencil and a piece of paper. Hmmmm???? I am open to suggestions on this one.</i>

I have paper and pencil, and I don't have a dog in this hunt, so to speak.

However, the tracking of casualties would seem to be the kind of thing that the Generals themselves could easily track during the course of the game. After all, going into a battle, each General would know their initial OOB and could compare it to their 'after battle' OOB and subtract.

As for the more detailed accounting, perhaps the Generals involved could exchange Loss Records between turns, in order to keep a running total, that would be verified by both sides.

For instance, during the battle phase of turn one, General A is attacked and looses 40 soldiers from the 18th Michigan at location (18,105). He also inflicts casualties on 25 soldiers at (25.104). Along with his completed turn, General A sends an accompaning Loss Record email to General B stating:

I concede the loss of 40 infantry soldiers from the 18th Michigan at (18,105).
I inflicted the loss of 25 soldiers at (25,104).

General B reviews the Loss Report, confirms its accuracy and procedes with his turn. General B does his worst, lossing 20 infantry soldiers from the 15th Virginia, 2 parrot guns from the 8th Tennessee, and the death of General Archer; and causing the deaths of 100 soldiers at (14,108) 25 soldiers at (14,109) and capturing 1000 soldiers at (14,110). He updates the Loss Report (conceding the loss of his 25 soldiers from the previous turn) and sends it back to General A along with his completed turn.

By the end of the contest, the Loss Report should provide an accurate loss record for both sides, confirmed by both players. This could be turned over to the Overall Game Manager, who would update the respective officer's OOBs, and make any calculations for upgrading the quality of soldiers involved, before proceding to the start of the Movement Phase.

Also General Passmore, made an excellent suggestion early on, that may solve our map making problems, and should be, IMHO, seriously considered. Instead of making new custom maps (which may, or may not be, a HUGE undertaking) perhaps we can fight the battles on already existing maps, with the new OOBs we generate at the end of the Movement Phase. After all, the point is that two (or more) Generals fight on a battlefield with accurate OOBs, and record the resulting damage. The historical accuracy of the battlefield itself is not important.

If two Generals are fighting for possession of Washington, they can easily decide the question on the Corinth battlefield. What matters are the results, not the location. If the Confederate wins the contest, then they are allowed to occupy the Washington point on the FTW Master Game Map.

Of course, nothing would be better than having accurate custom maps for each location, and perhaps this can be accomplished as the game procedes, but the need for accurate maps shouldn't delay the resumption of general hostilities, IMHO.

Carry On Gentlemen,

Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 4:30 am 
Ok, stupid question here (my favorite kind btw [:D] ) In terms of the calculating losses; could another application or program be modified (slightly) to assume this role? You know, taking a section of code from another, older, game and adapting it to this one. With the underdogs site having many games that are essentially "public" property you'd think something would be available that would offer possibilities. Then again, I'm just guessing here and only had one cup of coffee today.

Maj.Gen. Mike Smith
Smith's Brigade
Smith's Division
Carroll's Corps
Army of Georgia
[url="http://blog.notso.org"]ConvolutedMuse[/url]

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them (around the banks), will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), US Founding Father


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 6:52 am 
<i>Originally posted by Michael Smith</i>
<i>In terms of the calculating losses; could another application or program be modified (slightly) to assume this role? You know, taking a section of code from another, older, game and adapting it to this one. </i>

I'm not sure if that wasn't the original plan for developing the FTW OOB calculator. Unfortunately, I have no idea how to code or design computer programs, or whether there might be simpler ways to track all the different battlefield variables that Hank was tracking, ie. losses from deaths, woundings, surrenders, equipment losses and the like. But it's certainly worth looking into. Anything to get this project moving again.

Carry On Gentlemen,

Formerly
Col. Charles S. Hayes
Copperheads Brigade
2nd Division
1st Corps
AoA


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 8:11 am 
Agree with Gen Eagle that we could postphone implementing the economic engine since we've done without it up until now anyway.
Maps, we most likely have most of what we need now anyway and can probably download many others if we need more. They may need modified over time to add or delete various fortifications, bridges, etc.
OOB I don't entirely agree with the exchange with opponents of emails idea as it may give added intel to each side that they might not otherwise have - identifying units. On my own I had an intel file I created listing each enemy unit I'd run into, it's strength and quality and what brigade it was from. That over time allowed me to better guess what I was facing in future battles and an information edge over my opponents.
As it was we were passing our turns also to Hank & Notso. So we could again pass our end turn to them or some other appointed person who could then confirm our end of game OOB and compare it with the start one. Hank then computed what units increased in quality for the next round, we'd say what number of replacements were to go to what units and he'd see if that would decrease their quality any. So maybe we could report our losses/coordinate changes in OOB with a person who will be creating the battles each turn.

MajGen, 2/VIII/AoS
"Beer! It's not just for breakfast anymore!"


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 4:32 am
Posts: 1737
Location: USA
Thought I would jump in with some comments. First I am probably to busy and want to burn Washington to bad to switch from General to Umpire [:D] but if a new game is started later I should be able to help out then.

As for the OOB since the files are encrypted there is probably no way to make a program that works any better than just filling in a spreadsheet with the initial OOB and end of battle OOB values. Then let it calculate losses, effects on morale level, etc. For the most part the players could handle their own OOB changes except of morale level changes. That would still require a separate referee to make the die rolls for changes. The spreadsheet could automate some of the process but the gain versus letting the player edit his own OOB is small. I kept up with mine with just a Word document and a hand calculator. The only thing required of the players for tracking during the game is captures and officer kills since these were put in separate pools for exchange and, in case of officers, return to duty if only wounded.

I don't see any reason player's can't handle directly mailing game files to each other but I highly recommend keeping the correspondance restrictions for multiplayer games. It adds a nice touch of fog of war and could be handled on a trust system, but would need a "game master" to handle message delays, lost messages, etc.

The economic engine I am not familiar with so can't comment on how difficult it would be to automate or use. I agree with the observation that we could finish the current FtW without changing it. Mostly because I suspect its going to be a short war, unfortunately because the Rebs are going to lose it.[xx(]

Being in total ignorance of what is involved I probably have the expertise to automate the economic part (easy to say when you are totally ignorant of what you are about to step into[:D]) but it would be mid next year before I could apply significant time to it.

Of course I might have to put in my "If the Rebs when a battle in the North Rule" which causes the British to break the blockade and send us tons of money and munitions in exchange for New England being given to Canada.[:D]

BG. Kennon Whitehead
Chatham Grays
III Corps, AoM (CSA)


Top
 Profile Send private message  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 83 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group