Low-VP game settings for GCM battles

[mike1984]

Palmer recently experimented using new settings for GCM games, and it appears they've been well-received. Here's an example, from battle 46015:

Number of Objectives: 1 Objective
Objective Points: 5%
Objectives area: 0.3 miles across
Map Area Used: Custom
Army Starting Locations: 40% scattered

Also, I think the obj points are awarded after holding the obj for 40 min.

Any thoughts on this format from those who have fought battles using it?

[johnd5555]

Certainly seemed to go fine... it was interesting that even with such a small value awarded to the one objective, the losing army obsessed over it, to the point of making bonsai charges to deny the other side the 5% award.... much of the battle in some minds still hinged on that ONE objective worth 5%, while literally destroying your troops as a result...

Interesting how habit forms around what an objective means, regardless of reality

[KG_Soldier]

Well. . . actually. . . that one objective at 5% was worth 2400 points. So turning it was very important.

[mike1984]

The funny thing was that no objective points were allotted in the end because neither side held it for 40 minutes or whatever Palmer set the timer to. I think the habit is deeply ingrained for GCM players to go for the objectives, even if those objectives are worth nothing in the larger victory.

This reminds me of the other bad habit to march straight for the objectives at the start of the games, even if it means getting isolated early or not having the army up at strength.

[exp101]

In this battle I increased the vp value from 2% to 5% as an experiment. In a 16-player game with a 50k troop limit (the standard setting I use for purposes of game performance), the VP does work out to be worth ~2,500 points. The points weren't awarded in this one because of the stringent 40 consecutive minute requirement, but Soldier's right: it would have been decisive either way had the points been awarded. As a result, the 2% option (max. 1,000 points) is probably better in this format where the goal is to truly de-emphasize objectives and decide the battle in favor of the side delivering more pain to the other.

It was also curious in this one that at least one of the VP resets was an unforced error on the Yanks' part, no doubt due to officers being inadvertently moved beyond the controlling 100 yard radius (my typical default setting). It's easy to do and happens a lot in games requiring extended periods to deliver objective points.

A final observation relates to Mike's & John's points about the psychological draw that vp's seem to hold for players, regardless of format. In battle #45183 (the 12-player, 2% battle) successfully holding the vp for 40 mins only delivered somewhere around 600 points. Yet, players fought tooth and nail over those small woods throughout the game. Likewise, in #46015 (the 5% game), players continued to concentrate in the vp area well after the 11:26a mark when the timer reset and the objective became irrelevant. We are creatures of habit!

Once we get the hang of this, I'm hoping the format will result in more interesting and creative tactics -- and meaningful battles even away from the center of the map.

[mike1984]

The next time I'm able to host a game, I'd like to try something along these lines, including Fog-of-War, which I failed to mention in the original post.

If battles do end up getting away from the "normal" objective-centric focus, it could be really interesting. We could end up seeing multiple stages of battles within each game, where maybe the two armies completely disengage at times.

There's also the possibility that we could see battles that are more historically accurate. One army could find themselves some really good defensive ground, leaving it up to the other team to dislodge them.

More often than not, we end up with straight meeting engagements in the standard GCM format, that require much less deliberation and planning for cohesive attacks or defenses. The new settings could change it. Maybe. Could be really cool.

[Saddletank]

I'd be interested in more GCM games as I never play ACW these days and its nice to have a change. Do you ever play HITS games? I have to confess I have never enjoyed helicopter view games as much as the "first person" atmosphere that HITS gives (I mean the 10yds HITS setting - not 25yds or 50yds).

[KG_Soldier]

I'd be interested in more GCM games as I never play ACW these days and its nice to have a change. Do you ever play HITS games? I have to confess I have never enjoyed helicopter view games as much as the "first person" atmosphere that HITS gives (I mean the 10yds HITS setting - not 25yds or 50yds).

We do not play HITS. Standard settings are 100 yards from the saddle, not actually "helicopter view," but you may call it what you like. Literally none of the regular GCM players enjoy playing in claustrophobic mode(HITS).

Unlike the KS games, GCM games are very competitive and very quick. You are always welcome, but take off your non-competitive KS hat and be ready for a brawl!

I wouldn't mind playing a HITS game every now and again, but honestly, I spend so much time fighting to click on units and move my commander around that the actual battle is second to managing the interface.

[johnd5555]

I think there would be more hits players coming out of the GCM roles if the battles were not so scripted in the ks world, where one might spend two hours chasing across a battlefield to shoot at some retreating regiment running to a safe area... with lag at 100%, after starting an hour late.

there were some ks hits battles that I enjoyed.... "some"

[exp101]

The Fog of War aspect is interesting and important to this format. IMO this element is essential because it makes it difficult for an army to coldly calculate early on when they have just enough points to win, then disengage. In a single, low-value vp game without FoW this would be fairly easy to do.

But FoW at the same time presents a potential hazard for especially inexperienced or unobservant players. A classic characteristic of this group, even when FoW is not activated, is to remain too long in losing firefights and melees. As unfortunate as that is, the problem is compounded when it is impossible to directly see how much relative damage is being inflicted on an opponent - and when "helpful" teammates are not able to provide "guidance" from observable stats. Of course, there are other indicators to those paying close attention of how their individual fights are going, but these are more subtle than straight casualty counts e.g., morale level changes; how quickly your regiments are losing men. When using FoW, players are mostly forced to draw on their own experience and sense for when a fight is going well and when it's not.

Bottom line is that I suspect using FoW could widen the gap between good and marginal players. Guess we'll see!