"Strategic Campaign"

[InferiorBaton]

excellent! I'm eager to try this out! Your skills never disappoint Garnier! :cheer:

[Garnier]

I'm going to start writing down the rules/how it works.

Most of the stuff here is built into the campaign code, so the players don't have to know how it works to play, but of course it will help them to. Currently, the decision phase and score keeping must be done manually. These would be a lot of code so I'll wait til we decide we like how it works before coding it.

Edit:

Rules moved to the wiki

[Garnier]

This morning I made a new map and added rail movement and territory control, so you won't have to have an army in a region to "own" it, when that matters. (picture in first post updated)

The rail system is just a collection of connections between pairs of regions, that you can move along up until you reach a region you don't control.

Every division requires at least one infantry brigade now, so you won't be able to control regions or block enemy movement with just artillery.

The difficult question is, what sort of victory conditions should there be, do we use points like before, and how do you get the points. There's no obvious right way to do it.

[InferiorBaton]

what if you made territory control a victory condition. like the first side to control all of the territories wins.

[Garnier]

You could do that, but then who would attack? There has to be some benefit to holding territory the whole time. Historically, holding more territory in this region gave food, recruits, morale and theoretically, political sway in diplomacy with Europe.

Maybe give the north more men and say they have to take Richmond before the south gets X number of points (which come from territory control and casualties).

Divisions can arrive on certain turns in the game, so if the north is getting reinforcements faster than the south, it will give the south some incentive to go fight before they get too heavily outnumbered.

[InferiorBaton]

That could work. In territory control, i was thinking more of the Total War style. I know you've played those games before, but i dont believe its possible to make a map like that. but since the union invaded the south much more than the confederates invaded the union, yours sounds more historical.

[Garnier]

We've been working out the rules during some tests this weekend. It's not done yet for sure, we caught a few bugs in a test just now, though these ones are fixed no doubt there are others.

Supply lines are in, so divisions that are cut off from supply lose a percentage of their troops each turn.
Territory control is rather complex, there may still be adjustments for that.

In a battle, divisions that moved into the region that same turn come with fewer men and less ammunition, and will get tired faster. This is done by division rather than side.

Amyway schoolwork has been piling up over the last week while I've been working on this, so if I'm not around this coming week that's probably why. By next weekend at least I'll be ready to give testing another go.

[Neal]

This looks exciting. I'm interestind in playing!

[giob60]

Very good ideas.

[Garnier]

Either tonight or tomorrow morning/afternoon I'll want to test/play this more, if anyone else wants to and is there. Hopefully by then I'll have it set up where people can start their own campaigns.

Now for most of the players the battles in this might not be as fun as normal ones. I don't suppose everyone will want to play this -- it's designed to just need two players, but to be open for anyone to take part in battles if they want to.