Colonial Campaigns Club (CCC)

If you can make this topic a STICKY it would be nice.
Here is my proposal. I would like to make a list for the club of YOUR preferences for battles. What rules do you MOST like to play with. Are you a SINGLE PHASE player or like me do you prefer to play with ADF/MDF ON? What rules do you prefer? Do you like the Victory Points for Leaders choice?
If this idea is generally received here is the format to use:
1. Your name (First, Last)
2. Screenshot of your favorite options. Send this to my email address with your NAME. I will make a table showing what options you like ON and OFF.
This can be used to find new players, etc. You can check this list for folks the like the SINGLE PHASE SYSTEM and so on. Email them for a game and off you go.
Interested parties please post here. If I get at least 20 responses for the idea I will go ahead with the project.
New members - you would need to play through 3 club games in order to get added to the list. Just a check to make sure that you will stick around. We have some that join and drop quickly. No offense meant. The other reason is that new members are usually new to the game system. As most know this system plays a bit different than any of the other Tiller games (hey, they are all different in some ways right?).
So post if you are intersted or just want to comment.

Pardon my thick Hessian noggin, and with all respects, but why ?

Bill,

I wouldn't mind seeing that. I don't play the old "phase" system at all any more.

Ken - why what? could you be more specific? Why should there be a profile page? Simply this - you want to find an opponent that likes to play the same way you do for the most part. Some folks really want to play the single phase system while others like me like to play with the MDF ON. Or were you just questioning why we are on this planet and not Venus!! [:p]

In general, it is a good idea. Maybe some simplification could be done, such as a general classification options level, like 1= prefers MDF only; 2= Prefers ADF only; 3= Prefers ????; 4= ????, etc. IOW a general set of 5 to 6 combinations. A player says "I am a 1 player" or "I am a 5 player" and this number is listed for them on the Actives list for their Army, linked to a chart of the actual combinations. Then a typical "1" player would look for a typical "1" player. Maybe easier than another place to go for this.[?][?]

I was actually thinking that the following are the usual ones that folks like to discuss before a game:
1. MDF ON or OFF
2. Weak ZOCs ON or OFF
3. Line Movement Disruption
4. Rout Limiting

Rifles and Cannons (1776 only for the latter) are usually a given - they will be OFF. On the other hand items like Victory Points for Leaders and the Isolation Rules also are important.

I was actually thinking of using a color code to match the players as well as the list. Use four color groups for each of the four above. So for MDF ON that would be a Light Blue while Dark Blue would be for OFF. Red would be for Weak ZOCs. Light is ON and Dark is OFF. Green would be for LMD. Again Light Green is ON and Dark Green is OFF. Rout Limiting would be use Grey. Light Gray is ON and Dark Gray is off.

Check out the sample roster to see how this color concept will work:

http://www.wargamesims.net/frdept/ccc_m ... files.html

By a quick glance you can see that the two members differ on two options. They can either look for other players of like playing options or can choose to negotiate on the choices.

One idea I had was a sort of pre-emptory challenge (PC) like in court cases for jury selection. Lets say that you want to play a member but you differ on six options. You can each agree to give the other two pre-emptory challenges whereby you would determine who goes first in selecting to turn on or off options that each of you differ on. For instance if you both agreed that Rifles would be off then that option cannot be turned on.
So if both players differ over Rout Limiting (RL), Line Movement Disruption (LMD), Manual Defense Fire (MDF), etc. they would determine who makes the first change to the option. Player 1 might turn ON LMD as his first pick. Player 2 could then turn it OFF as his choice. That option would then stay OFF. Player 1 could not use his PC to turn some other option that they differ on to ON or OFF.
So an exchange might go as thus:
Differences:
MDF
LMD
RL
Leader Victory Points
Isolation Rules (IR)
Weak ZOCs

Player 1 - Turn IR ON
Player 2 - Turn LMD OFF
Player 1 - Turn LMD ON
Player 2 - Turn Weak ZOC OFF

That would be the extent of the Pre-emptory Challenges. Kind of a nice system for tournies instead of going with what the rat pack wants for a set of options. It also works quite well in games designed for challenges between formations (Hessians vs. French for instance).

You could add in more PCs and so on if you liked. Or reduce it to 1 PC per player.

Here is another idea I had: Spy/Independent Scout/Local Farmer Information Rule

1. A intermediary knows the passwords for both players.
2. If the DOW JONES index rises above a certain amount as agreed on beforehand then the Americans get to see a certain portion of the British setup as determined by spying efforts/intermediary's judgement.
3. If the DOW JONES index falls below a certain amount then the British player is sent a screenshot of a portion of the American's rear area.

NOTE: This screenshot would be dated a turn or so before the actual turn that the player gets the info. So if it is Turn 12 and the DOW JONES falls below a certain amount then the British player would get
information from say Turn 8-10.

This rule would work well in large battles or in places were visibility is low. For instance a local farmer runs to the American commander (Gage) and lets him know the Johnny Burgoyne is coming down the pike! A small screenshot of a column is given to the commander.

NOTE: Phony reports could be given as well. The Intermediary could produce a table where he rolls a die and if the area is pro-British then the Brits would get better intel while if the Americans controlled the area then they would get better intel.

Just a few interesting ideas to try out....

I have some options I like, but I am pretty easy on the subject as mostly I just want to play. So I would not want to be avoided because of a list of preferred options.

Al - remember that not all folks post here and that when looking up an opponent you would have to check their profile as well - I think you would have to check the board for a post to find it.
This is a one page - quick look thing.

Larry - yes, as I can attest in our game of Rhode Island! My four companies of Militia thank you for the Rifles rule being ON!

Hehe! or me either! [:o)][:I][8D][;)][B)][:0][V][:p]
Never say never! That is my new motto!

I would only interject this.. Some of us have not had the opportunity to play against someone with varying options to see if we like that or not. Suchas the MDF. I am not against this idea, I just have not been able to play with the all of the different variables to see what I like and don't like the best.. YET.

Bill,

I have a set of optional rules I like to play with, but as with Larry, I'm flexible with most of them. So a column should be used to indicate whether you're firm with these rules or there's room to negotiate.

A notes on the way to you with my options, incase this get's off the ground.

Rich

Still looking for the set of options where I become a tolerable player.. no luck yet, but we press on! [:o)]


Seriously, I like trying different things, and the only ones I have real strong feelings on (other than Cornwallis and Rifle effects) is weak ZOC, I think there are way too many surround type attacks in this game, and so weak zoc is a positive help.

Rich - ok, will look for your mail. Good point - I will add in a FIRM or FLIMSY category just for YOU! (dont you just love flimsy handshakes guys?)

sweitzsp - (a kind reminder here to please update your profile so I know who you are) - good point - I have put up a rule that says that you must have a certain rank before we can add you to the list. That way folks dont join, make me sweat and then drop from the club and I have to delete their entry. The rank I was thinking of making mandatory before I post the preferences was Major General!! [8D]
Ok, enough [:o)]ing around. Probably Sgt. That gives the guys plenty of time to get acclimated to the club, options, me, Al, Dierk, Phil's poodle, Gary, Gary, Gary, Gary ....

I tend to select Single Phase and all preferences except rout limiting, MDF, Cornwallis & Rifles - but I've no problem playing a game with/without any of the other options.

There have been some games in which I've agreed to play in multiphase mode and/or with the rout limiting option on - so an opponent who particularly wants these shouldn't feel I'd refuse a game.

One or two games I've even played with rifles on - but as it stands this option is far too powerful, so there needs to be special circumstances before I'll agree to it. Cornwallis cannon is largely irrelevant - so if an opponent really wants it, he can have it.

Capt Rich White
28th North Glos Rgt
Right Wing British Army 1776

Bill,
I like Rich's idea of the extra column. If that were used, ( how about "flexable" instead of "firm"?) In that case, put me down for Weak zone, Line Disruption, Leader Casualty penalty, and ADF.