<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
|