The whole experience thing

[SouthernSteel]

I am glad that Jackson and Wolf have gotten on board, despite the fact that I haven't gotten to play with them yet. But what about players like Vegas? He seemed to really enjoy MP and has disappeared since his first couple of games (not a knock on him at all, just an observation). It seems like getting people to play in the first place is tough, and maybe getting them to hang around is even tougher. Just thinking out loud.

I don't follow the logic there.

basically, the entire thing functions in a sort of vacuum, which was intentional, I know, because you mentioned the strategic aspect doesn't interest you much. I know I'm not explaining the idea terribly well, so forgive my fumbling. It's more of an offhand remark.

but it required human effort, not a good thing.

Damned if that ain't the truth. Effort for MP stuff around here is treated like the plague nowadays.

[KG_Soldier]

I'm sure VegasMedic will come back, perhaps he's just been administering a lot of CPR lately. He's a Sid Meiers guy and played well in the games he was in.

I'm clueless as to what you meant by "Effort for MP stuff around here is treated like the plague nowadays."

[Garnier]

Effort for MP stuff around here is treated like the plague nowadays.

I wouldn't say it like that, but I at least don't do well when I have any obligations for games. I just like to play when I can, that's the idea GCM is based on.

... forgive my fumbling ... etc

Sure. I wouldn't say I'm uninterested in strategic or role-playing aspects, I've just always said I don't intend to make a strategic campaign -- the reasons for that are many.

But what about players like Vegas?

He played well, but the in-game score and the casualty reports make it look really bad because he had 1s and 2s against 3s and 4s.

[Barrow]

Hi all,

My thoughts on Garnier's original post...

Constraints:
1: Each player should have control if his own two divisions (1 North, 1 South),
2: Need some sort of promotion and reward system for past performances,
3: Don't want new players to have a big experience hill to climb,
4: Teams are assigned randomly for every battle.

Proposal:
1: All players start a GCM campaign at the same average experience level, say 4.5.
2: Players added to a GCM after its underway would get added at this experience level too.
2: After every battle, all the regiments that were on the winning side gain, say, 0.05 experience,
regardless of their performance in that battle.
3: After every battle, all the regiments that were on the losing side lose, say, 0.05 experience,
regardless of their performance in that battle.
4: During every turn, whatever reinforcements are assigned have the average experience
level, such as 4.5 in this example.

This system would reward players for being on the winning side. A general that has good
troops would be one that has had lots of success during the recent battles.
Reinforcements would lower the stats of good regiments,
and would boots the stats of generals that had a rough time of it recently, so things
would never get too far out of hand. Also new players wouldn't have to spend
so many hours working their way up to average experience levels. Since the teams
are assigned randomly before every battle there's little chance that a subset of players
becomes dominant after the first few battles.

Any comments?

-Wheel

[KG_Soldier]

So make experience a minimum of 3 and let's see how it goes. And do the regiment replacement thing however you think best.

[Garnier]

@Wheel
I guess it will be similar to that. The benefit for winning currently is that you get more wounded casualties instead of killed/missing, so you'll keep more experience. There is also a slight experience modifier in favor of the winner. There isn't direct experience loss for the losing side, but they do have some desertions if they didn't fight much, that indirectly cut experience when replacements arrive.

So make experience a minimum of 3 and let's see how it goes. And do the regiment replacement thing however you think best.

I like variety, I see nothing wrong with most divisions having a regiment or two at 1 or 2 experience most of the time, that they'd be able to train.


Perhaps the best regiment replacement system would be entirely random! Each turn, there's a % chance that each regiment leaves your division, you could say it's either mustered out or sent to another division. The chance wouldn't be huge, but this way you couldn't predict when you'll lose them, so you'll have to assume getting experience is worthwhile for any unit. Not realistic, but it may be the best.

Next time you go to a battle, the regiment gets replaced by an entirely new one. This way regiment numbers can be realistically lower since inactive players won't keep 10 numbers. (the numbers will recycle of course..)

[Barrow]

>@Wheel
>I guess it will be similar to that. The benefit for winning currently is that you get more wounded >casualties instead of killed/missing, so you'll keep more experience. There is also a slight experience >modifier in favor of the winner. There isn't direct experience loss for the losing side, but they do have >some desertions if they didn't fight much, that indirectly cut experience when replacements arrive.

OK, but I agree with your original speculation that it might not be much fun as a new player
in an existing campaign. I didn't participate for about a week after you restarted your current
campaign (January 1?), and by the time I started up again all the experienced divisions were way
ahead of mine. It took a long time to catch up, like you were saying. Missing a week shouldn't have
such consequences

[SouthernSteel]

I'm clueless as to what you meant by "Effort for MP stuff around here is treated like the plague nowadays."

Vegas seemed like exactly the sort that would've gotten hooked, hence my using him as an example of curious disappearance.

I was framing the issue in Garnier's terms, The Missouri campaign failed outright (through no fault of his own or the setup). Everything was put together, and then it was basically never touched because it required too much effort from the players. I'm not really 100% sure why it tanked, but it surely did. Meanwhile, the Platte games continued unabated, following Garnier's intent of quick, easily set up games.

In extension of this theory, I was moreso referring to the Shenandoah campaign, but that may be opening a can of worms that oughtn't opened here.

Wheel, there's a quote button at the bottom of the posts, should prove useful for you.

[KG_Soldier]

Ok. . . I get it. By "here" I thought you meant Norbsoft.

[Barrow]

One more comment before I call it a night...

Too much detail in my first post...

What I was getting at was I think that when a new player joins a GCM that is already
underway, that player's initial experience level should be comparable to
whatever the average experience level is at the time he joined,
whatever that current average is.