<blockquote id="quote"><font size="3" face="book antiqua" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by D.S. Walter</i>
<br />Well, Gentlemen ... I am genuinly surprised by the intensive debate my little rambling post has triggered. One thing is sure, the art of discussion is definitely not in decay in the club!
Some brief remarks from my side on a few points:
1. In lamenting the decline of the "roleplaying clubs", I didn't mean to say that roleplaying is (or was) the most important characteristics of this club. I just needed a convenient label to distinguish it from a mere ladder club or gaming zone. I tried to define what I mean by that in the opening paragraph of my initial post.
2. I was amazed to see so many grizzled old generals &c. return to the tavern to tell their third-person tales. [;)] I have certainly re-discovered the concept of actual roleplay myself in the process and have learned how much it contributes to creating an atmosphere beyond the sober everyday issues of games and boards. However, when I was lamenting the demise of the roleplaying clubs, this actual, time-intensive roleplay of elaborate tales woven around comparatively simple messages was not really what I was thinking of in the first place. Rather, it was the much more simple concept of taking the ranks and other attributes provided by the club seriously and using them in everyday communication, in preference over a internet community board style based on first names or even board user names which emphasizes the sober, technical side of an internet community rather than the historical, roleplaying aspects. Hence I don't think splitting the community in a minority of "roleplayers" and a majority of "gamers-only" is what we want. I believe a minimum of roleplay that doesn't make any additional time demands and hence can be sustained by every member, if he so chooses, is what will keep the concept of these clubs alive.
3. I don't believe we are doing anything wrong. The club has not changed (much), the world around us has. The people who want to support a club of this sort which demands additional time investment beyond just playing games (and discussing them) have become relatively fewer, those who just seek gaming opponents and some point/rank-based incentive for keeping playing have become relatively more, as internet communities have become more common and more numerous. I bet that in 1997, most members of this club were just that and maybe of the NWC as well. Today I know literally scores of people who are in practically all the wargame.ch clubs, and often also the Blitz etc. That must invariably mean that a single club cannot claim the same importance and the same amount of time.
4. Since I don't think we are doing anything wrong, I definitely don't believe that we should try to become something different. The club works well as it does. We just should take care not to be made into something different against our will. The one thing that we should take care not to let happen is that the ACWGC becomes another Blitz or Strategy Zone - a board plus ladder. Once the purpose of the club could be defined primarily by General Breen's statement "I am not a fan of 'role playing'. I enjoy competitive games", it would become just that. Now I don't for a moment believe that this is the whole extent of what the club means to General Breen; for that he is doing a way too excellent job as a corps commander in the AoS, rallying his officers as best he can, and what he does there is roleplay pure and simple! But let me take the statement at face value for a moment, because I believe it describes the motivation of a majority of the wargamers out there.
The truth then is that for these pure gamers this club can be the right environment only if it changes its nature fundamentally. For everyone who thinks that way, the Blitz and similar ladder clubs are always a much better choice because they offer gaming and game discussions without any additional demand on the members' time. Just in having command positions, musters and all that we are already requiring an involvement that, for a pure gamer, is rather tiresome and unnecessary. Thus, without ceasing to be what we are, who we are, we cannot compete with the ladder clubs anyway on this field. So why even try? I believe we ought to be willing to remain different, and emphasize that we are.
5. So I think my bottom line is this. The club doesn't need changing. It's great as it is. But it should make a conscious effort to remain what it is. Everything that brings us closer to the ladder clubs--for instance abandoning the battle/maneuver distinction, for instance making roleplay (in the above-defined minimum sense) even less important--makes us a little more unnecessary in the face of all the huge ladder clubs out there. If we accept that we are just a place to meet opponents and discuss the games, we accept our own redundancy. We are that, too--but more than that. And the other part is what makes us different, and what makes us worthwhile even in 2006. Let us emphasize it, let us advertise it, let us fight for it. Let us dare to be different. If that means 50 new members less, I think we shouldn't care. We'll never beat the Blitz anyway.
Gen. Walter, USA
<i>The Blue Blitz</i>
Reserve Artillery, AoS
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Hmnmm, I have noticed other civil wargaming clubs on the net but in my opinion none compare to this club. If you let it, this club will help you embrace not just the games but the era of the civil war. I have found myself immersing myself in the history far more , thanks to this club. That is, as they say, priceless and I think, unique. But I do think that to bury your head in the sand and say that adjustments don't need to be made is wrong. The fact is, that the number of officers willing to invest even the minimum amount of time it takes to run a division is dwindling. Not adjusting for that could and I think already is hurting the club at a fundamental level. The increase in command responsible positions came when there were more officers demanding those positions. Now there are more officers voting with there actions (or lack thereof) to decrease the number of those positions. I can only speak for the Union side, as I am not familiar with the Rebel condition but it seems all too obvious to me that the Union CoA, the cabinet and the army CoAs need to seriously consider ways to decrease the number of command positions including decreasing the number of armies. Creating all kinds of inane sommittees and subcommittees is dodging the real issue. Tough decisions await you gentlemen, but ultimately, I think those decision can and should be made.
Major General Don Golen
1st Div/ V Corps/
Army of the Potomac, USA!
"The Bucktails"