Public Perseptions of the GCM

[NY Cavalry]

I get the vibe that some think that the GCM mod is just an Atari shoot 'em up game. This perception is very much incorrect. Many of us players are here because of our interest in the Civil War. If we did want a shoot 'em up game we wouldn't be here. Many of us take very seriously how we play the game.

GCM is the oldest "mod group" around. From the beginning, GCM has been asking and addressing historical concerns and how they are represented in the game. There has been a lot of trial and error. The current GCM is a balance of historical represented capabilities and playability. The word "playability" does not refer to including gimiks. An example would be, that we do not have 3 or 4 hours to fight a battle. We have 1.5 hrs to fight a battle. Things are designed for a 1.5 hr game. Lets not forget that this is a game anyway. No matter what is done for authenticity it is still only a game.

GCM has addressed concerns of column charging, front line resupply, fatigue, speed, etc and all of it within the boundaries of historical plausibility. If we were all a bunch of schmucks why wouldn't we just speed it up and give everyone supper weapons? The answer is that GCM has been at the forefront of historical MP play.

Lets not forget that the game inherently gives the artillery unfair advantage. Civil War artillery could not just be placed anywhere on the battlefield. They needed clear fields of fire on level ground that allowed recoil on level ground. There is not proper counter battery fire to keep artillery in check. Inside 600 yards was very dangerous for artillery. Napoleons were not used in counter battery fire very much as they didn't do well in that role. Read the Artillery of Gettysburg an excellent book(though not technical enough for me) describing the use, role, and effectiveness of artillery at the battle of Gettysburg. Willard turned me on to this book. We all know that there are no such constraints in SOWG for artillery.

The current modeling of artillery in GCM is a little weaker than stock. Again trial and error is still at work. The GCM does give a very good feel for Civil War combat and yes artillery is very much a factor in all the battles.

To hold infantry to the letter and not artillery is not right in my book. To each his own and that is another reason why this game is so good; mod the game to taste.

In closing, everyone is invited to try out GCM. There are some great battles being fought. The group can be competitive, but everyone in the end is. I say this as the least competitive player on these boards. I just like to play win or lose, though gamey tactics from time to time will get my blood up.

One more thing, if there is a problem with with infantry getting pounded by canister when out of range......easy fix 200 yard rifles. Problem solved and maybe a real issue like canister fired through friendly lines could be addressed.

[General P R Cleburne]

Hi Harmon,
Have to agree with you about the GCM being one of the foremost and oldest Mods for this game.
Id also say its been one of my favourite ways to fight MP too.I am open to all the formats that folks use to fight MP so i have seen all sides.I certainly have fought many many more GCM battles than i fought HITS battles but both styles are equally satisfying to me in their own doses.I think the problem with GCM has never been the MOD itself, Garnier has always seemed to strive towards keeping it balanced and as fair and historical as he can without corrupting playability.
The problem that the GCM has had over its term is the way users have abused the as you call them "gamey" tactics.This is what has caused the comments and concern from time to time i think.No one should hold the GCM itself accountable for the actions of those that use it...that should be simple enough in itself,but sometimes the rumours get spliced and who knows what gets said.In my opinion the MOD itself is never the problem at GCM, just the users from time to time.
I havent been their much of last year but i hear encouragingly that much has improved in that regard and its a much more friendly and "newbie" friendly enviroment.That is something i always hoped would happen.The key to maintaining a successful community for something like GCM is that of the fresh blood.Keep the new users interested and keen and informed and everything runs fine.Bash them on the head with a brick as they come through the door and continue with this method of greeting and i guess they will lose interest.Learning is the hard part for new users.Once they understand the mechanics and the GCM set up they usually all become competant and become good opposition or friendly team mates..This is hopefully how things are now.I myself intend to give it another look when i have more free time after the summer and i still pop in from time to time to chat.Hopefully all folks agree that its each to their own and no pride to be gained by bashing anothers taste.
Cleburne

[Baldwin]

It depends on how historically accurate you want the game to be. We certainly know the generals didn't get an aerial view of the battlefield while they were commanding. We also know they didn't have walkie talkies to give each other exact descriptions of what was happening on all parts of the battlefield. We also know that brigades didn't get instant telepathy commands from their superior officers who were hundreds of yards away. Also GCM plays it like team basketball not chain of command, chain of command is used in the military to this day for a reason. We also know that they couldn't shoot accurately at 220 yards back then, 160 is much more realistic. No one moves up the cannons to canister range on the offensive in our games, we don't try to be 'gamey' just because an exploit is there doesn't mean you have to use it.

Besides those things mentioned its usually just one big line battle in GCM. We try to craft scenarios that have more maneuvering and objectives unknown to the opposing team.

Not everyone can handle Hits and Couriers because it's too realistic for them.

That said to each their own and if people enjoy either one, it's a free country and they're welcome to it. I understand Garnier tries to counter all the gamey tactics and sometimes that leads to thing like 220 rifles, etc.

[NY Cavalry]

This thread isn't a challenge or an attack on the HITS group or anyone. It is in defense of GCM from the slights that come its way.

just trying to make two main points.

1) It's a game.
2) Those who play GCM are just as concerned about history as everyone else.


By the way, what computer game made doesn't use overview or instantaneous commands?

I like HITS and do play it. We all play to our tastes. Everyone can play HITS it just comes down to personal preference.

[RebBugler]

One more thing, if there is a problem with with infantry getting pounded by canister when out of range......easy fix 200 yard rifles.

Well, that's definitely some improvement since I played last and became disgusted. To explain my disgust a little more in detail:

At that time musket range was modded at 250 yards. Now as you all know, we balanced play whereas infantry was programmed to engage artillery foremost, regardless of how close enemy infantry was, so your infantry would not eat canister when focused on the nearest target when they could be knocking out the deadliest foe, artillery. With the 250 yard musket range, canister fire was made obsolete, basically non-existent, or, impractical to even consider since your guns would be routed well before canister range could ever be reached.

So, there I was, canister fire was totally erased, my guns were averaging 1 kill an hour each, and I wind up insulting Garnier's mod...go figure. For me, batteries had been reduced to mere fluff, why even have them at all.

[KG_Soldier]

Besides those things mentioned its usually just one big line battle in GCM.
Not everyone can handle Hits and Couriers because it's too realistic for them.

Sorry, Baldwin, you've played enough GCM games to know better: GCM games are rarely one big line battle. Most games are decided by big flank moves or one side leaving a division hanging in the wind.

And as for your "Not everyone can handle Hits and Couriers because it's too realistic for them" bs line.

Well. . . since when are you able to read minds? Most GCM players like big, tough fights where they are able to command a whole division -- 2 or 3 brigades and a couple of batteries of guns -- and playing Hits pretty much relegates you to commanding a single brigade or a battery or two of guns. I find playing at 100 yards from the saddle and commanding a division quite a challenge.

I think it's great that there is an alternative to the GCM for guys who want to play a more "realistic" way. I fully support the Hits and Couriers group. But you really shouldn't make statements like that. It makes it sound as if you guys are somehow superior because you like to play Hits and Couriers.

I mean. . . I understand you liking to play Hits and Couriers and not getting your ass handed to you in GCM games like you used to.

[KG_Soldier]

Yeah Reb, the GCM has certainly changed a lot. Canister is more effective now, especially late in battles, because of the severe penalty on fatigued troops. Exhausted troops are basically useless now in GCM games and weary troops aren't much better -- neither can hit anything.

The 250 yard rifles were used because they were the only option at one point: it was 250 or 160.

I'd support going to 200, but Garnier has yet to be convinced into giving it a try.

[Saddletank]

2) Those who play GCM are just as concerned about history as everyone else.

But this isn't true. And because it isn't true is why GCM now is like it is.

I agree that some of the GCM players are very concerned about historical accuracy but others don't care at all for it and are prepared to exploit anything in the rules that they can to win. The GCM that I know, has come about in its current form largely to counter the exploiters tricks and its elements do not reflect history. The unrealistic range of the rifles in the GCM is one exanple.

If you had a group of players who all really cared about historical accuracy, you wouldn't have half the problems the GCM group has or half the changes the mod itself has made to the game. There would be no need to because historcally committed players wouldn't do silly things with their units.

That and the simple insolence and rudeness of certain GCM players is why I no longer go there. I am amazed certain people were not banned from that group long before I joined it and became the target of their insults.

[KG_Soldier]

2) Those who play GCM are just as concerned about history as everyone else.

But this isn't true. And because it isn't true is why GCM now is like it is.

I agree that some of the GCM players are very concerned about historical accuracy but others don't care at all for it and are prepared to exploit anything in the rules that they can to win. The GCM that I know, has come about in its current form largely to counter the exploiters tricks and its elements do not reflect history. The unrealistic range of the rifles in the GCM is one exanple.

If you had a group of players who all really cared about historical accuracy, you wouldn't have half the problems the GCM group has or half the changes the mod itself has made to the game. There would be no need to because historcally committed players wouldn't do silly things with their units.

That and the simple insolence and rudeness of certain GCM players is why I no longer go there. I am amazed certain people were not banned from that group long before I joined it and became the target of their insults.

There's a difference between historically concerned players and historically committed players.

And you should tell the truth. . . you left the GCM because Garnier and/or Seal column charged you and you didn't like that tactic. I remember the last game you played and the third time you left in the middle of a game because you didn't like Garnier charging you in assault columns with an entire division. It was East Cav Field (probably a random version) and a tough, close fight. Your men were in line on a fence and you didn't see Garnier form up a whole division in the woods right in front of you. When he came out of the woods, you quit the game and never returned. This narrative that you left because Seal or someone else was rude is total bs. As I remember it (and I'm not in any way condoning Seal's behavior), Seal was mad at you for quitting in the middle of games.

We don't ban players in the GCM. We adapt and counter "gamey" tactics as best we can. We are competitive players; we relish the fact we are competitive. We get a lot of new players, and we do our best to help them become better players. The truth is that we would be more likely to ban a player for quitting in the middle of a game than for using gamey tactics.

[General P R Cleburne]

Likely best to move this thread to "Rant and Rave"?
I blame myself :pinch: for replying to it in the first place but no need to let it fly off topic and get out of hand.
I think horses for courses will see their own way to it once its moved.
Just a thought.