Discussion thread for the SoW-Gettysburg Campaign

[Joshua l.Chamberlain]

I have decided to make this thread so that we can discuss the campaign for Gettysburg. Maybe Norb will use our ideas when his team starts to work on the campaign .

I want to see:
1. The ability to divide the army up as they did with the corps.
2. Maps that portray the general look of the area we are fighting in (The Shenandoah Valley would be mountainous).

I have other ideas but they escape me at the moment.

[IronBMike]

A detailed supply system would be essential. I'd like to see some system which would allow for some armies/generals to march farther and faster while others slower, but maybe better at entreching. Should the campaigns have specific goals to achieve? Or should there be none and just wing it? Or should an innovative system be made where, say, if you're Lee and you cross into the North, you have to declare an objective which you will then be measured against (for example, "Capture Harrisburg" or "Destroy Union army" etc)?

[Janh]

A single player campaign that stretches the whole war would be the cream for this engine. I keep dreaming of something a like Forge of War, just with more subdivided provinces (like all counties). Economy and equipment handling, managing your forces and command (bit like the new War in the Pacific-Admirals edition).

And then the War3D engine to fight out the battles you want to on either random maps, or satellite maps with somewhat random growth coverage etc. And maybe some of the counties would have historical battle maps to them, maybe lots made and added by modders. And the microbattle maps would at least 15x15 miles^2 (big enough to play a Chancellorville or Seven Days in one full 7 day battle).

MMG could do two separate games for that, with the strategy game having the option to interface the War3D engine if you own both! Or maybe Norb could find another small garage company would be interesting in going that direction?

Think about this.... I hope it one day (sooner rather than later) becomes real!

[2nd Kentucky]

The one thing I see in all campaign/rts battle is that the battles are very quick taking only 10-15 minutes to fight out. And one thing I really don't like about it is the unit creation method. Think about it, we wouldn't have Hood's Texas Brigade or the 20th Maine, we would have volunteer regiment 1-46. Units should be harder to create other than to pay up 200 natural resources and 500 food units.

[Hancock the Superb]

I'd like to see something like this:

Individually created campagin maps. None of this it sorta looks like it. They should be completely, it!

2nd: You don't get to build troops or anything. You can request that Stanton send you additional troops, and you might collect reinforcements if you sweep through a garrison and order it to join your army, but you must make do with what supplies you are given, what troops you are given.

3rd: Weather, slowing marching, decreasing visibility, and a changablity factor.

4th: Ability to detach brigades to certain points.

5th: Even better, have your order of battle be brigades.

6th: Don't mess around with this, if you meet an enemy within 3 miles of you, a random map is loaded. Just have the brigades duke it out on your campaign map. Imagine if your army was split into 5 pieces, it would be difficult to manover it while fighting a battle on two separate maps.

[Flanyboy]

Personally I don't think in a campaign mode jumping right to the entire war would be feasible. The team would have to do a lot of work to get it to that point and it would be to long of a wait. It would make more sense... assuming the game is economically viable. To take it step by step. So the first campaign scenario would be a fixed historical campaign with reinforcements on time tables and one theater.

Personally I love the Idea of...

1. Peninsula Campaign for the first step by step. The sheer size of the campaign really makes me interested in it. Largest AONV at any one point and a huge Union Army as well.

2. The second step prior to full war could be the Overland Campaign. Much longer than the Peninsula Campaign and much bloodier. Might introduce multiple theaters. So you could do the Valley with Early and the Siege of Petersburg at the same time. You would have to worry about theater replacements (bringing in the heavy artillery units from Washington) so it could begin to introduce recruitment but not in a grand scheme of things.

Personally I think those two are the best suited to a campaign game. Then again the Atlanta Campaign would fit as well.

Another interesting one which would be on a smaller scale so it might be easier for a first attempt would be the Kentucky Campaign of 1862.

On second thought after considering the Kentucky Campaign...

Maybe it would be to small scale for some peoples interest but Jackson's Valley Campaign would make the PERFECT first step for the team to try to get into the campaign mode. Not to large and all the fundamental elements of a larger campaign but at a more manageable firs step. Even from a marketing standpoint it is probably easier to sell it than the Peninsula or Overland campaign because lets face it. Jackson's Valley Campaign is probably one of the top 3 most famous civil war campaigns of all time. It certainly captures the imagination of anyone interested in military history.

(After saying all of that I must admit I think Longstreet was just as valuable and talented as Jackson)

[O. O. Howard]

2nd Kentucky wrote:

The one thing I see in all campaign/rts battle is that the battles are very quick taking only 10-15 minutes to fight out. And one thing I really don't like about it is the unit creation method. Think about it, we wouldn't have Hood's Texas Brigade or the 20th Maine, we would have volunteer regiment 1-46. Units should be harder to create other than to pay up 200 natural resources and 500 food units.

Did you ever play Close Combat V? It has a relatively good campaign/rts battle. You didn't actually create units, you worked with an order of battle. Battles could be 15 minutes to an hour, but might be continued the next round. My friend and I battled in Carentan for literally months on end, sometimes with the same two units gaining or losing just a house or two per turn. They key in the campaign was not so much food units,etc but keeping supply lines open. Once supply lines were cut, fuel and ammunition levels quickly dropped. A system like that could be improved upon and work well for SOWG.

[O. O. Howard]

Hancock the Superb wrote:

I'd like to see something like this:

Individually created campagin maps. None of this it sorta looks like it. They should be completely, it!

2nd: You don't get to build troops or anything. You can request that Stanton send you additional troops, and you might collect reinforcements if you sweep through a garrison and order it to join your army, but you must make do with what supplies you are given, what troops you are given.

3rd: Weather, slowing marching, decreasing visibility, and a changablity factor.

4th: Ability to detach brigades to certain points.

5th: Even better, have your order of battle be brigades.

6th: Don't mess around with this, if you meet an enemy within 3 miles of you, a random map is loaded. Just have the brigades duke it out on your campaign map. Imagine if your army was split into 5 pieces, it would be difficult to manover it while fighting a battle on two separate maps.

I would definitely say you don't build troops. That is kind of hokey. It is better just to have your OOB in the way it was during the given campaign. I would say divisions would probably be the most realistic level for campaign (rather than brigades).

[kellysheroes]

Janh wrote:

A single player campaign that stretches the whole war would be the cream for this engine. I keep dreaming of something a like Forge of War, just with more subdivided provinces (like all counties). Economy and equipment handling, managing your forces and command (bit like the new War in the Pacific-Admirals edition).

And then the War3D engine to fight out the battles you want to on either random maps, or satellite maps with somewhat random growth coverage etc. And maybe some of the counties would have historical battle maps to them, maybe lots made and added by modders. And the microbattle maps would at least 15x15 miles^2 (big enough to play a Chancellorville or Seven Days in one full 7 day battle).

MMG could do two separate games for that, with the strategy game having the option to interface the War3D engine if you own both! Or maybe Norb could find another small garage company would be interesting in going that direction?

Think about this.... I hope it one day (sooner rather than later) becomes real!

Me too, but, if they made a game like this with this combat engine I doubt I'd buy another game as it would be the ultimate wargame. I've always liked this combat ai except for it's relentless throwing itself at cannon and gives the name cannon fodder new meaning in OPEN battles. I've watched entire armies wasted on this one battle of Bull Run charging and charging and continuing to charge cannon on both sides. I hope Norb can fix this in the Gettysburg game?

[norb]

kellysheroes wrote:

Me too, but, if they made a game like this with this combat engine I doubt I'd buy another game as it would be the ultimate wargame. I've always liked this combat ai except for it's relentless throwing itself at cannon and gives the name cannon fodder new meaning in OPEN battles. I've watched entire armies wasted on this one battle of Bull Run charging and charging and continuing to charge cannon on both sides. I hope Norb can fix this in the Gettysburg game?

We have spent a ton of time working on the AI. Everyone on the team feels it's better, but none of us are satisfied. There are many things that it does awesome, but there are still too many dumb things. Some may say that this is accurate, that there were dumb commanders, that may be true to a degree. But some of the dumb stuff just doesn't make any sense. It's always a battle between keeping it random and unpredictable and making it smart. I know we'll have people that love it much more and others that won't. No matter where anyone stands, we are dedicated to continuing to support this game on the long haul. We will listen to what people say and mix that in with our own comments and keep making it better. Our patches are more about improving the game than fixing bugs.

Right now our focus is making our historical scenarios play like the actual battle we are trying to recreate. That is very hard with the AI because it was not meant to be controlled. We have had to add new commands just for this purpose. We are closing out a lot of scenarios, but we have a few that still need more work. We'll code freeze at the end of the month. We just brought on two more veteran testers so that we can really hit these hard.

The other spot is the sandbox setup that we really want to do more work. The test team has said that the AI just isn't paying enough attention to the VP sites. This is sort of a design issue in that I like to randomly have the AI choose one or more of the sites. But if the player chooses one and the AI chooses a different one, then it's a very boring battle But I'll look at that soon. It doesn't affect anything else, so it can be tweaked after code freeze. Code freeze is more for AI and scenario scripting.

Long answer

I see your signature I've heard. I've come to grips with it. It's hard when you first start reading public lies about yourself. I've gone at it a few times and every lie that I prove wrong, just opens the gate to more. There is no way to convince certain people of the truth. So it's a waste of time to worry about it. If someone wants to get people to pity them by spreading lies about me there's really nothing I can do about it. This game will get done and all the people that significantly contributed to it's completion will share in the reward. That's what I wanted to do and that's what I achieved. I've never been someone willing to carry people along while other's do their job. I pull my weight and expect other's to do the same.

This team is great! Everyone is doing what ever they can to make sure this game is the best. It is extremely dedicated to publishing an excellent product. We've really meshed and everyone has found their role. Jim (6th Vermont) and I have been together for a long time now, and he has kept on top of everything to make sure things continue to move forward. I therefore get to spend a lot more time on coding than I every have in the past. I think it shows.

I believe that MP in this game is just going to blow people away. Can't wait to get it out there!