Love it

[Anthropoid]

Its a good point about TC capability being somewhat contrary to the courier system. One possible compromise would be if TC was only an option when you were close to the commander in question. There does seem to be some disparity in which commands are immediately executed and which ones take the delay for the courier to arrive.

Also agree that 35,000 couriers looks silly! But that is just one of those things to me.

My main point is that, requiring couriers to traverse the distance from the commander to the subordinate, for all its limitations and rudimentarity, does a better job of any system I've ever encountered with reflecting 19th century command and control, mainly two issues:

1. Commands would rarely be executed in instantaneous fashion
2. Couriers could be intercepted, captured and commands not executed.

The former point seems to change the pace of battles a bit, which us in our group have all commented we enjoy. The second point changes the opportunities and constraints on a commander. Things like camera distance aside, without couriers, you can command any subordinate from anywhere on the map. With couriers active, you need to position yourself so that your couriers have a safe LOS to the recipient of the command.

As you say, whichever way a player or group prefers! I was just hoping to 'recruit' a few of you guys to join us for courier battles from time to time if you are amenable

[Marching Thru Georgia]

It is a simple matter to remove the TC button.

[2ndAcr]

I will TC troops close by when I need to do so, I usually depending on battle size act as a Corps commander but with a div under my personal control. Sometimes it is just a single regiment TC'ed and detached from his brigade as my personal fire brigade to use when needed. Where I go, it goes.

I do leave most of my commanders not under other human players under the AI. Since our usual group is only 3-4 folks, and we might have a OOB of 2 Corps with 5-6 div, I almost always will have a personal div under my control.

I have nothing against the TC feature at all. I prefer courier for communication between my human commanders though. Plus courier overall to even my div commanders, more than once have I seen a AI brigade commander advancing into a fire storm and have to send a courier to try and halt him only to see him fully engaged and getting shredded before the courier arrives. But that is the flavor of the game overall. The delays in action while waiting for a courier to arrive really, IMO, adds to the true aspect of the game.

I have GCM loaded up, but have never gotten into it. One as I am not equipped with Team speak and 2, really have no desire for it. Only rarely have we used the in game chat feature. Mainly that is for any lag we might get hit with or a "how much time we got left" etc. All other in game communication is sent by courier.

As for camera range, that is about 700 meters right now, we are not expert enough to go true HITS but that is in the works. Some day I will figure out why there are 2 OOB in the Peninsular mod that refuse to allow any courier at all.

[Anthropoid]

I find I make pretty limited use of TC, and generally only when I'm fairly close to a subordinate. I avoid it because I prefer to move my whole unit towards engagements en masse. Turning TC on, I often find I lose track of regiments, brigades or even Divisions that have it turned on and wind up leaving them behind!

For example, last night, there were three of us playing a sandbox using the "Glendale-Jackson What If" Peninsula Campaign OOB on the Pipe Creek Line 3 map.

Somehow in my feverish clicking of buttons, I turned on Richardson's TC (if memory serves he is one of Sumner's three Div commanders, and one of only two Infantry Divs in that OOB). Didn't realize he had been left behind for 10 or 15 minutes.

[Garnier]

Just FYI, you can play GCM with your group without using teamspeak. It provides a lot of ways to play, with random customizable scenarios, all new random maps, casualties/experience carryover if you're into that, and detailed battle reports afterward. Plus lots of improvements (IMHO) to the game mechanics like how shooting works, how melee works, how artillery works, how morale works, how movement works -- particularly concerning terrain, roads and distance from combat. (If you're OCD about multipliers vs modifiers in games, this stuff matters.) Plus improvements to the user interface, etc to make it easier to play. Edit- forgot to mention, a fog of war mode where you can't see how many casualties you've inflicted.

Of course you don't need any of this stuff to have fun. I'm just sayin' it's there if you want to try it, it works well with or without HITS/couriers and there's no need for teamspeak, it's just what the big community uses.

[2ndAcr]

We might give her a whirl, I like the carry over aspect and such. Never did get the solo campaign to ever work way back when. Would never generate a battle for me to fight.

We are breaking in a newb this weekend so we will take her slow, don't want to overload him with mods yet. LOL

Curious, does it work with Reb's Bugle toolbar or will there be a conflict?

[Anthropoid]

Just FYI, you can play GCM with your group without using teamspeak. It provides a lot of ways to play, with random customizable scenarios, all new random maps, casualties/experience carryover if you're into that, and detailed battle reports afterward. Plus lots of improvements (IMHO) to the game mechanics like how shooting works, how melee works, how artillery works, how morale works, how movement works -- particularly concerning terrain, roads and distance from combat. (If you're OCD about multipliers vs modifiers in games, this stuff matters.) Plus improvements to the user interface, etc to make it easier to play. Edit- forgot to mention, a fog of war mode where you can't see how many casualties you've inflicted.

Of course you don't need any of this stuff to have fun. I'm just sayin' it's there if you want to try it, it works well with or without HITS/couriers and there's no need for teamspeak, it's just what the big community uses.

Sounds like we ought to check that out 2ndAcR!

I've used TeamSpeak a lot playing EVE Online, Arma II coop, Minecraft, DayZ, and the like. It can be a lot of fun to hang out and joke around. But then again there can be downsides to that too.

Don't think 2ndAcR like TS for whatever reason. Well for one thing none of us have a server paid for and we'd need to do that I guess; not an extra expense I'm particularly keen to absorb right now.

To me, the ideal system for comms in a game like this is:

Everybody has a free voice comms capability (such as TS, but without having to pay for a server) that is independent of the game engine. When I first started playing EVE Online, I was slightly annoyed to have to install TeamSpeak, Ventrillo, etc., etc. for each different groups I played with. Then I realized there is a major limitation to an ingame voice chat: game crashes and communications with other players lost. Obviously not a big deal, but it can cause lost play time while people baffle over what just happened.

And of course in games like EVE, having out of game comms is classic basis for evil meta-gaming tactics like the old Log-offsky trick

[Garnier]

Well if you ever do want to use TS, the GCM TS server is open to all, even if you're just playing by yourselves. I think it's helpful for setting up games and troubleshooting even if you don't use it to communicate during the game. But again, TS isn't necessary to use GCM.

Curious, does it work with Reb's Bugle toolbar or will there be a conflict?

It includes a modified version of that toolbar with the important parts, but without the half-buttons.

[Anthropoid]

Well if you ever do want to use TS, the GCM TS server is open to all, even if you're just playing by yourselves. I think it's helpful for setting up games and troubleshooting even if you don't use it to communicate during the game. But again, TS isn't necessary to use GCM.

Ah! Great to know! I may jump on there just to say hi sometime

Agree, great for setting up games and troubleshooting.