Thoughts on possible GCM "Mini-Campaigns"

[exp101]

As we all know, it's very difficult to pull off a true campaign in GCM that features real carry-over losses and results. However, I'm wondering if it might be fun to create 'mini-campaigns' using 2 x back-to-back same-day GCM games (like a baseball double-header). In most respects, these would be typical GCM games. However, there would be some differences. Modeling the successive grind-'em-out' fights of 1864 (think Overland Campaign) where Lee & Grant fought battles in quick succession with little opportunity to rest or replace losses in the front line formations, here's what we could do:
A mini-campaign consists of two games (either 60 or 90 minutes long) fought one after the other using the same player teams.
Players would not be allowed to run player turns between games. Everyone is forced to play the second game with the losses suffered in the first (albeit, with the automatic GCM adjustments to actual in-game losses made for winners and losers)
Teams would be chosen by captains as we often do these days. However, in a mini-campaign team captains have additional responsibility to guide the strategy and tactics for their respective sides; select divisions (if any) to 'hold in reserve' for the second battle; and decide how and who should press attacks in the first battle, etc.
Players would obviously need to commit upfront to playing in both battles. However, in extreme cases, I suppose it would be possible for a player to drop from the second battle and designate a different player to command the division with carry-over losses.

Campaign Victory Conditions
Strategic Victory - same side wins both battles;
Minor Victory - to the side winning the second battle.

Optional Rules
-Team winning the first battle is considered to have the initiative and can decide on custom settings to use in the second battle (e.g., map selection; number of vp's; vp value; spread percentage of vp's and divisions, view from the saddle, etc.)
-Use of Restrictive ID & FoW?

What do you think? Would this be something the community would enjoy? What other ideas or suggestions do you have? What should we use as standard settings for the first battle of a mini-campaign?

The pros of such a set up would be its ease of implementation (no new programming needed) and the quick completion (all campaigns would be one-day affairs). The cons include the idea that players would really have to commit to playing 2 games in a row. I suppose if someone shows up too late for game 1 but ready for game 2, he could either step in for an earlier player dropping out - or take the customary brigade or battery of an active division.

[KG_Soldier]

Might lead to some interesting strategy decisions: keep a division in reserve the first battle, go all-in and try to destroy the enemy in the first battle. I like it.

But I usually only play one game a day, so . . . .

[exp101]

Quite a few only play one, so that's why I was thinking we might consider making the battles 60 minutes instead of 90, and shrinking the battlefield some. Or, another alternative would be to play one and have somebody else lined up to play the second battle with the original division (e.g., Mike?). There are probably others in the same situation.

[kg_sspoom]

Ill play.
This could also be an opening for some Ranked Random games
People could have different options without destroying their own divisions.
But Im not sure randoms would carry over losses

[exp101]

I don't believe you can get random divisions to carry over losses, but might be wrong. If anyone knows how this could be done, chime in.

If there's enough interest in this, we can plan on running the first one later this week. Perhaps Friday or Saturday or some day when we usually see pretty large turnout and players are under less work time constraints. Also, it might be good to have captains prearranged. I'd be willing to captain a team in the maiden voyage of minis, if we don't get 2 other volunteers.

[mike1984]

Really interesting idea.

I do have a few cents to add, some I'm sure not as good as others...

1) Timer -- Shortening the game length to a max of 60 min sounds like the best way to go. Not only would it give players a better chance to participate in both fights, but it would also help reduce the chance that the first battle will end with completely annihilated divisions for most players. The long, drawn-out battles usually mean fighting to the last man in the last few battalions left on the field. If the two mini-camp games were shortened to no more than 60 min, players would at least bring serviceable regiments to the next battle.

2) Map -- What about using the same map sometimes, but different areas? The drawback to this is that there is no guarantee that armies would start on the same side of the map area as the first game. But it's something to consider. I'm not sure how close the two battles are supposed to be, in relation to historical campaign battles. For example, would it be a two-day battle like 2nd Bull Run? Or something more like the Overland Campaign, where battles were a few days or weeks apart? The same map for both battles could, in theory, give an effect of a two-day battle. Just throwing ideas out.

3) Divisions -- Taking over another player's division sounds like a workable solution, but I'm not sure it would happen in practice. Most players aren't too keen on handing over their troops to another general; it's bad enough when that happens unintentionally due to a drop. I'm wondering if there's a way to allow a new player to join the campaign for the second battle if he is replacing a division from the first battle. It's consistent with history that OOBs would change for battles within the same campaigns, even sometimes within the same battles. The Peninsula Campaign; Crampton's Gap vs Antietam; 1st vs 2nd/3rd days at Gettysburg; the Overland Campaign; etc. But I think adding a new player/division to the second battle would only be fair if another player/division were added to the opposing team. Something to think about.

4) Time of day -- This is purely selfish, but let's say the mini-campaign games were shortened to 60 minutes. If the mini-camp games were held starting at 5:15 Eastern, and the second game commenced immediately following the first, that second game would start no later than 6:30 on average. Combined with most players' tendencies to play a maximum of 2 games per night, that means I would *never* get to play in any of these mini-campaigns, even just the second games. My suggestion would be that on at least one night per week, preferably Fridays or Saturdays, a mini-campaign would be scheduled for 7 p.m. Eastern or later. I'd volunteer to do/host that, but if another mini-campaign were to go on as usually at the 5:15 ET slot, then I'd never get enough players to stick around for the later one. Again, I know I'm just one player asking for this consideration, but I don't think many other players would really mind if there were a later mini-campaign scheduled once in a while.

To wrap this up... This is a good idea, Palmer. I hope it can work. Sounds like a lot of fun.

[exp101]

The first battle of the first GCM Mini-Campaign has been set for Saturday, May 28 at 5:00pm EDT. Here are the particulars as they stand now (these may be changed as players offer ideas):

1) Campaign consists of 2 consecutive games. The first game will be 70 minutes (to allow the captains a few minutes at game start for planning and issuing orders). The second game will be set for 60 minutes. There will be a 10 minute intermission between games (for food, email check, natural functions -- but also for analysis, taunting, lying & blustering) :blink:

2) In game 1, the number of VP's will be adjusted to the number of players we have (8-10 players=5; 11-12 players=7; >12 players=9) on a 1.8 mile spread. VP value will be 10% of total troop strength. Sides will spawn by corps with the tightest location spread available (to make it easier for corps C.O.'s to assume command of dropping divisional players);

3) Before game 2, the captain of winning side in game 1 may change any of the settings in #2 above. In addition, the winning captain may choose whether to play the same map or select a different map for game 2;

4) Following game 1, players may not run player turns, adjust order of brigades, trade-out brigades, or adjust their settings in any way;

5) Restart policy: In both games 1 and 2, battle will be restarted for dropping players (of any command level) up to the time where there has been any visual contact between the sides. After that, a battle will be restarted only if the host drops

6) All games will be played using Fog of War & Restricted ID mods. Games will be played "blind."


Victory Conditions
Strategic/Decisive Victory: Winner of both games
Minor Victory: Winner of game 2

Special Situations
A/ Player Drops Between Games: If a player is unable to play in game 2 after playing game 1, the team captain will be permitted to either recruit a substitute player to assume command of the dropping player's division or direct that a corps or army commander in game 2 will take that command;

B/ Late Arriving Players: If both team captains agree, an even number of players may be added to game 2 who did not play in game 1 (simulating the arrival of reinforcing divisions). The winning captain of game 1 will choose first among available new players;

C/ Sub-Commands: Sub-commands (i.e. players taking brigades or batteries) are not permitted, unless these extra players are balanced out between the sides.

Miscellaneous
A special forum thread will be posted at the completion of each mini-campaign for any AAR's, insights, analysis, comments, or suggestions, that anyone wants to share. If this format catches on, we might also consider a forum that maintains won/loss records for captains & participants.

[KCarter]

That sounds like a great idea Palmer! I would love to try this with you. I may be out of town this Saturday, but will make sure to be there if I am home, or for the next one! It is awesome how creative you've gotten with the GCM scenarios lately! This and the restricted ID mod are really cool. For what you are talking about- a GCM mini-camp, this sure sounds like an intriguing setup. I don't have any suggestions; just want to try it! haha.

I am working on a beta test for a grand campaign as well. Carryover, though it can get tedious, is workable! Read more HERE.

[KCarter]

You can do carryover on just about any oob. Several ways:

1. In the scenario.ini change the carryover setting from "0" to"1". The NSD SDK is located HERE. See page 15-16 in the manual. It explains how to do this. To Mike's previous point about playing on the same field a la Overland, it even allows you to keep troops in the same locations as well as the dead bodies! (this may cause some people pc issues though I suppose?)

2. Hays Carryover Tool if you have it.
3. Leffe 7's Scenario Generator (available on KS forums I believe)

The problem is that you would have to create the oob outside of the GCM launcher to use option #2 or #3. The GCM launcher does not produce an OOB file that you could do the carry over on. However, it does produce a scenario.ini file. So you can use method #1 above to get rudimentary carryover result, and leave dead bodies on the field, etc.

This is what the gcm scenario.ini looks like:

[init]
carryover=0
failgrade=-20000
lvl1grade=-2000
lvl2grade=-1500
lvl3grade=-1000
lvl4grade=-750
lvl5grade=-500
lvl6grade=-100
strategicai=1
sandbox=5
sandboxsize=1
[init]
weather=2
map=RandomMaps4L_836
starttime=10:00:00
[MenPerSprite]
Inf=4
Cav=4
Art=10
[rank]
cmdlvl1=2
cmdlvl2=1
cmdlvl3=1
cmdlvl4=1
cmdlvl5=0
cmdlvl6=0
[GCM]
host_id=3990

[exp101]

Thanks, Carter. Hope you can make it for the first one. And good luck in developing a large scale campaign!