Latest topics
» Impromptu Games
by Charmead Yesterday at 5:46 pm

» Quantifying the effect of the ground
by Martin Yesterday at 12:57 pm

» Half battallion consistency
by spock Tue Dec 05, 2017 2:17 pm

» German Fotothek
by Martin Sat Dec 02, 2017 5:20 pm

» Losses table
by spock Wed Nov 29, 2017 1:34 pm

» SOWWL KS----Waterloo Historical Battle---Half Scale---- 1:7 Sprite Ratio
by Didz Sun Nov 26, 2017 2:28 pm

» Game Crashes when troops ordered into column
by mikea030 Sat Nov 25, 2017 10:47 pm

» Army level rules?
by Martin Thu Nov 23, 2017 1:13 pm

» SOWWL KS----Scaling Down Waterloo Map by 2/3rds
by Mr. Doran Thu Nov 23, 2017 12:07 am

» KS mods for SOWW?
by Uncle Billy Wed Nov 22, 2017 3:36 pm

» Just posted part 3 of my DARPA research presentation on tactical AI
by Martin Mon Nov 20, 2017 4:47 pm

» Gore or Glory: A brief ACW, AAR, 22/10/17.
by Martin Sat Nov 18, 2017 6:15 pm

Statistics
We have 996 registered users
The newest registered user is Maiorianus

Our users have posted a total of 24254 messages in 1938 subjects
Log in

I forgot my password


The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

View previous topic View next topic Go down

The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  WJPalmer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:20 pm

The Cumberland Gap
(Looking ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2")

Considering the results, sentiments and new intelligence that have come to the fore since our first game, I've begun a list of possible adjustments and settings for a potential "HITS MEETS GCM 2". Take a look and let me know what you think:

Game Length: 120 minutes or until one side capitulates;
Starting locations: set to “least scattered” – respective armies will begin grouped together.
Game Map: one of Garnier’s Large Random Maps
Council of War: At game launch (i.e., after each army is able to view the placement of its own units on the map), no movement will be allowed during the first 10-15 minutes (or by agreement of the Army commanders). This time will be used by the armies to conduct councils of war, briefings, answer questions, assign sub-commands and give initial orders
Army Commanders: will control their leaders only, with no direct responsibility to command troops or batteries
Objectives: 1 objective set to 100% point value (its location will be known to all at Briefing time); This point represents symbolic control of the Cumberland Gap, a natural invasion route in the Appalachian's where Virginia, Tennessee and Kentucky come together. The Gap was coveted by both sides throughout the war and changed hands several times. The army in control of the objective at the end of the fighting wins strategic victory. The army that inflicts 1000+ net casualties (not points) is the tactical victor http://www.americancivilwar.com/cumberland_gap.html
Sides/Player Assignments: Players may choose army loyalties well in advance. These will then be implemented using the new “fixed” sides feature in the GCM Battle Queue. Any imbalances in players-per-side will be adjusted just before game launch, primarily through assignment of walk-on players
OOB’s: - Use one of Gettysburg’s stock historical OOB’s. Players can express preferences for unit assignments well in advance, subject to the approval of Army C.O.’s. The OOB’s should be large enough to accommodate last-minute “walk-ons” who wish to join.
Fog of War/Assymetry: Ultimately, any division-level units in the OOB not assigned to human player control will be TC’d by the army commanders, marched to the closest map edge, and remain out of play. These details will remain unknown to the other side.
Other Rules: Players agree to abide by all standard KS/HITS rules and guidelines
avatar
WJPalmer

Posts : 526
Join date : 2012-08-10
Location : Colorado

http://rwberg53.wix.com/adventure-images

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Uncle Billy on Tue Dec 11, 2012 5:40 pm

I'll play. I'd suggest that the Union 11th & 12th corps not be included. Otherwise it will be a walkover for the rebels.

_________________
I can make this march and I will make Georgia howl.
avatar
Uncle Billy

Posts : 2897
Join date : 2012-02-27
Location : western Colorado

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  MajorByrd on Tue Dec 11, 2012 6:56 pm

In. Let's do it!

Not there on Sunday so maybe we can do some HITS this Friday & Saturday.
avatar
MajorByrd

Posts : 232
Join date : 2012-07-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  WJPalmer on Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:18 pm

This Saturday is Martin's big Arkansas Rumble! Cool
avatar
WJPalmer

Posts : 526
Join date : 2012-08-10
Location : Colorado

http://rwberg53.wix.com/adventure-images

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  WJPalmer on Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:46 pm

Since we're experimenting... a suggestion has been made for the next HITS/GCM game that in place of movement couriers at the regimental level, a "100 yard rule" be imposed. This means that players would be honor-bound to keep all leaders within 100 yards of friendly troops (a regiment or gun) at all times -- or at least be within 100 yards of troops to whom direct movement orders are issued. The idea here is:

-elimination of those nasty AI-generated order confirmations;
-the 100 yard limitation restrains players from conducting ahistorical extensive advance recon through woods, over ridges, etc., without the use of skirmishers, which helps maintain "the fog";
-with brigade commanders remaining close to the troops being directed, the realism trade-off with HITS order responsiveness should be minimized;
-game performance should improve. The multitudes of horse-bound messengers running about will increasingly drag on performance, especially as events increase in size to 12, 16 or even 20 players.

Might be worth trying for a single game.
avatar
WJPalmer

Posts : 526
Join date : 2012-08-10
Location : Colorado

http://rwberg53.wix.com/adventure-images

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  MajorByrd on Wed Dec 12, 2012 2:56 pm

Might be tough in some situations but why not.
avatar
MajorByrd

Posts : 232
Join date : 2012-07-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Blaugrana on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:28 pm

Thanks Ron. It'd be interesting to see how this plays out, but I prefer couriers, for various reasons.

The automatic messages are only a minor annoyance for me.

I think it would be impractical to follow this rule, particularly in HITS, particularly in battle. I often cannot see all my units, let alone judge exactly how far away they are. Surely one's units are rarely all within a radius of 100 yards of some central point?

I am very much in favour of players doing advance recon in the initial stages. This, to me, represents the pickets, skirmishers, scouts or whatever that commanders would have used. There is no way to represent this in game so I think restrict ing this recon is actually ahistorically reducing the information commanders would have had.

-Jeff

PS. When you are within 20 or so yards of a unit flag, no courier is sent as you are deemed to be within shouting distance. One way of making this rule practical would be if this distance can be modded to 100 yards. This has been discussed before but I can't remember the conclusion ...

PPS. It can't be modded Sad

http://www.norbsoftdev.net/forum/modifications/50714-realism-mod#51097
Kevin said: As Con20or says, the shout radius is hardcoded. The current distance is fine IMHO. The only reason I can think of to enlarge it is to get rid of the flood of return receipt courier messages every time you give an order to a regiment. That does break the flow of the game, especially during the heat of battle when the player may be issuing a flurry of orders. Having a switch to turn off just the regimental replies would alleviate the problem.


Last edited by Blaugrana on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:45 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Blaugrana

Posts : 293
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  kg little mac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:39 pm

Blaugrana wrote:Thanks Ron. It'd be interesting to see how this plays out, but I prefer couriers, for various reasons.

The automatic messages are only a minor annoyance for me.

I think it would be impractical to follow this rule, particularly in HITS, particularly in battle. I often cannot see all my units, let alone judge exactly how far away they are. Surely one's units are rarely all within a radius of 100 yards of some central point?

I am very much in favour of players doing advance recon in the initial stages. This, to me, represents the pickets, skirmishers, scouts or whatever that commanders would have used. There is no way to represent this in game so I think restricting this recon is actually ahistorically reducing the information commanders would have had.

-Jeff

PS. When you are within 20 or so yards of a unit flag, no courier is sent as you are deemed to be within shouting distance. One way of making this rule practical would be if this distance can be modded to 100 yards. This has been discussed before but I can't remember the conclusion ...

All GCM divisions now have an objective holder team which could be used for scouting, which would be much more realistic than the division commander or brigade commander personally doing the scouting. As well, the 100 yard rule would only apply for issuing orders. If you wanted to scout ahead, that's fine, you just wouldn't be allowed to issue orders to your brigade/regiments if you were doing so.
avatar
kg little mac

Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Blaugrana on Wed Dec 12, 2012 4:55 pm

Thanks, Mark.

I don't get the objective holder idea. In the early stages of HITS battles I will ride around a bit, to see what I can see. I might also join a fellow commander for a chat. This has to be me, it can't be an AI subordinate.

I often will then send couriers to bring the regiments to me, or to order them to some other point, where I will join them. Under this proposed 100 yard rule, I'd have to go back to where they are first.

However, I think the biggest problem is in battle. To follow this rule properly, you'd have to be constantly nipping back and forth between regiments and always judging accurately the distance to the flag. I think this would be a much greater headache than the courier messages.

Just my 2c worth.

-Jeff
avatar
Blaugrana

Posts : 293
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  kg little mac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 5:50 pm

Blaugrana wrote:Thanks, Mark.

I don't get the objective holder idea. In the early stages of HITS battles I will ride around a bit, to see what I can see. I might also join a fellow commander for a chat. This has to be me, it can't be an AI subordinate.

I often will then send couriers to bring the regiments to me, or to order them to some other point, where I will join them. Under this proposed 100 yard rule, I'd have to go back to where they are first.

However, I think the biggest problem is in battle. To follow this rule properly, you'd have to be constantly nipping back and forth between regiments and always judging accurately the distance to the flag. I think this would be a much greater headache than the courier messages.

Just my 2c worth.

-Jeff

Jeff,

I think the 100 yard rule would be a general guideline. If you're within a 100 yards of a brigade's regiment you could issue orders to a regiment that might be 200 yards from you.

If you ride out to scout or chat with another commander, you could still issue a courier command to your brigade commander (in GCM, everyone's is a division commander or above); you just wouldn't be allowed to issue a point and click command.

While the spam courier problem may not may not be much of a nuisance for you (more than likely, you've gotten used to them), all of the GCM players who played expressed concern about spending so much time having to close them.

Personally, I feel like in the GCM games you wear more than one hat, not only the division commander's, but also the brigade and regiment commanders' as well. Also the battery commander's. To me, a brigade commander sending literally hundreds of couriers in a two hour battle (granted compressed compared to real time) is less realistic feeling than having a player wear multiple hats.

I talked with Ollie on TS yesterday and we had an interesting conversation about this. I agree with Ollie that the way courier battles should be handled as a division commander or above is by not TC'ing brigade commanders and letting the ai control the regiments. However, since this thread is about combined HITS/GCM games, I don't think many (if any) GCM players are interested in that kind of game.

Also, almost all of the GCM players who played in the game didn't like the fact that at 2 yard HITS, it's so very hard to move your commander around, especially around hills. I've seen you guys' posts on the NSD forums looking for a way to move the commanders around with keyboard functions:W,A,S,D and such. I think that would make the 2 yard HITS much more enjoyable. I know I got really frustrated in the game trying to move my commander over a hill. I gave a movement order I thought would move him 20 yards or so and ended up have a destination 400 yards away or so. I haven't played HITS from 10 yards in quite a while, but as I remember, it was almost as restrictive visually but much easier to move around.

I enjoyed the game, even though I hardly got engaged in the fighting, and look forward to more. But I think both groups should be open to experimentation. The last game was 100% HITS/Couriers group rules. I hope you guys will give our suggestions consideration and maybe even try a few changes you won't feel comfortable with. I promise you the GCM guys' comfort level was severely stressed in that last game.

Very Happy
avatar
kg little mac

Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  MajorByrd on Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:06 pm

Compromise is not a dirty word.

Now here's a dirty word - Job.
avatar
MajorByrd

Posts : 232
Join date : 2012-07-30

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Blaugrana on Wed Dec 12, 2012 6:30 pm

Hi Mark,

I get what you mean about the 100 yards being a guideline. I guess this means, though, that players will just use point and click unless they're obviously a long way from their troops. Which may be fine.

I absolutely agree that moving your commander is sometimes a pain using HITS. I'm hoping my tweaks to my keyboard will help. Spin 180 degrees, 'advance' 20 yards, spin round 180 is now three keystrokes and may work well. If 10 yards is better, I happy to try 10 yards.

I'm very happy to experiment and am really pleased by the HITS/GCM games initiative. The first game used HITS & Couriers rules and courier settings and GCM gameplay so I think all players were, to some degree, playing differently to now we most often play.

Again, all just my 2c, and my opinions.

Jeff
avatar
Blaugrana

Posts : 293
Join date : 2012-01-21
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Mr. Digby on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:00 pm

We have had this conversation so many times!

I am against players being kept close to their troops because the game lacks any form of intelligence gathering/patrolling/recon function which both armies had. Using the 2yd HITS view height it is hard enough to see, judge, understand and respond to what is going on when you can see the enemy, let alone when you can't. Stopping recon by general is the wrong decision, in my view.

To me the generals represent cavalry patrols and the inherent ability of both sides to gather data.

Remember with HITS, even though a whole enemy division might be visible on the battlefield, it often remains invisible to most of the players, even those quite close to it due to trees and hills. Garniers random maps are especially good at hiding troops or the intention of troops once you do see them. It does need a player to have sight of the enemy and have a clue what he's up to.

Once a general in advance of his units sees the enemy he still has to inform his superior officer or react to the sighting. Our chain of command slows down reaction times as well remember. If a player is in advance of his units then they will take a lot longer to react since his courier needs to ride to them, so sending your general on ahead is a double-edged sword: better knowledge/sighting of the enemy vs poorer command and control. I find it a neat trade off.

We all know that the "message received" popups are a pain in the ass, but we just have to put up with them. Couriers need to remain of course, its a major element of the gameplay - unless I'm misreading what is being suggested.


_________________
The other Martin - Charles Reille, le dernier Maréchal de France.

"Any hussar who has not got himself killed by the age of 30 is a jackass." - Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle, commander of Napoleon's light cavalry, killed in battle at Wagram 6 July 1809, aged 34.

"I had forgotten there was an objective." - Generallieutenant Mikhail Borozdin I
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  kg little mac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:23 pm

MajorByrd wrote:Compromise is not a dirty word.

Now here's a dirty word - Job.

Please stop drunk posting. Embarassed
avatar
kg little mac

Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  kg little mac on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:35 pm

Mr. Digby wrote:We have had this conversation so many times!

I am against players being kept close to their troops because the game lacks any form of intelligence gathering/patrolling/recon function which both armies had. Using the 2yd HITS view height it is hard enough to see, judge, understand and respond to what is going on when you can see the enemy, let alone when you can't. Stopping recon by general is the wrong decision, in my view.

To me the generals represent cavalry patrols and the inherent ability of both sides to gather data.

Remember with HITS, even though a whole enemy division might be visible on the battlefield, it often remains invisible to most of the players, even those quite close to it due to trees and hills. Garniers random maps are especially good at hiding troops or the intention of troops once you do see them. It does need a player to have sight of the enemy and have a clue what he's up to.

Once a general in advance of his units sees the enemy he still has to inform his superior officer or react to the sighting. Our chain of command slows down reaction times as well remember. If a player is in advance of his units then they will take a lot longer to react since his courier needs to ride to them, so sending your general on ahead is a double-edged sword: better knowledge/sighting of the enemy vs poorer command and control. I find it a neat trade off.

We all know that the "message received" popups are a pain in the ass, but we just have to put up with them. Couriers need to remain of course, its a major element of the gameplay - unless I'm misreading what is being suggested.


What we are suggesting is we try one game playing without movement by couriers, unless you are more than a 100 yards from a brigade. You can still scout ahead with your commander, but if you want to order your brigades/guns/etc, you would have to use a courier. As I said in my previous post, and most GCM players agree, having to send so many couriers as a brigade commander/division commander does in HITS/Couriers games seems to us less realistic than not using courier by brigade/division. Most GCM players agree that HITS at 2 yards is so restrictive, one can't effectively control a brigade from a long distance away anyway.

I'm not suggesting that the Hits/Couriers group change the way you guys play all the time, just that we do some experimenting in the combined HITS/GCM games and perhaps find settings which both groups like and will attract more players.
avatar
kg little mac

Posts : 430
Join date : 2012-07-09
Age : 59
Location : Eden

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Muleskinner on Wed Dec 12, 2012 7:36 pm

kg little mac wrote:
MajorByrd wrote:Compromise is not a dirty word.

Now here's a dirty word - Job.

Please stop drunk posting. Embarassed

He's only drinking because he misses Speckled Jim.

/end thread derailment

Muleskinner

Posts : 9
Join date : 2012-07-29

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  FlashmanKBE on Thu Dec 13, 2012 4:08 pm

Ron,

Thanks for all your efforts. I can see that you've gathered feedback from everyone, and are working with Garnier on this. I really do think this is a significant effort towards making some excellent in-roads towards a fantastic gaming experience!

I would love to join in. This Friday is ok for me, but NOT this weekend! Or I could manage some time next week.

Is there a doodle?

I would be very keen to take Division or Corps command, but will happily take Brigade command if necessary.
avatar
FlashmanKBE

Posts : 137
Join date : 2012-08-30
Age : 40
Location : Lymington, UK

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  mitra on Thu Dec 13, 2012 6:31 pm

>Stopping recon by general is the wrong decision, in my view.

I agree, my suggestion is if it is possible to raise the possibility for the officers to be killed or captured with modding, for avoid too extreme recons near enemy troops.

If you play friday i can be of the match

mitra

Posts : 337
Join date : 2012-10-10

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Mr. Digby on Thu Dec 13, 2012 7:24 pm

Mitra, the HITS people now generally play a musket range rule - that is your general cannot go within about 200yds of enemy troops and should never go around behind them. If you find yourself behind enemy lines, gallop out the way you came in. THis last bit is quite sensible as it would be a known safe way out for a party of horsemen who feared being captured and it prevents you "accidentally" riding through even more enemy troops as you try to get back.

_________________
The other Martin - Charles Reille, le dernier Maréchal de France.

"Any hussar who has not got himself killed by the age of 30 is a jackass." - Antoine Charles Louis Lasalle, commander of Napoleon's light cavalry, killed in battle at Wagram 6 July 1809, aged 34.

"I had forgotten there was an objective." - Generallieutenant Mikhail Borozdin I
avatar
Mr. Digby

Posts : 4912
Join date : 2012-02-14
Age : 58
Location : UK Midlands

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  WJPalmer on Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:25 pm

FlashmanKBE wrote:Thanks for all your efforts. I can see that you've gathered feedback from everyone, and are working with Garnier on this. I really do think this is a significant effort towards making some excellent in-roads towards a fantastic gaming experience!

I would love to join in. This Friday is ok for me, but NOT this weekend! Or I could manage some time next week.

Is there a doodle?

I would be very keen to take Division or Corps command, but will happily take Brigade command if necessary.

Not planning a GCM/HITS game this weekend with Martin's scenario being scheduled -- but thinking we'll do it either the following weekend or the first weekend there isn't a HITS scenario or Campaign game on tap.
avatar
WJPalmer

Posts : 526
Join date : 2012-08-10
Location : Colorado

http://rwberg53.wix.com/adventure-images

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Martin on Fri Dec 14, 2012 1:39 pm

Sounds good Ron. I'd like to have a go, subject to family commitments.

Great job you're doing btw, helping to bring the 2 communities together.

Martin (J)

Martin

Posts : 2185
Join date : 2008-12-20
Location : London

Back to top Go down

Re: The Cumberland Gap: Looking Ahead to "HITS MEETS GCM 2"

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum