Scourge of War Boards

I would think adding the possibility of a complex multiplayer campaign where no battle is ever the same would be a massive expansion and step forward for SoW. The community all comes from people who play SoW, the same people who paid for the game. Yes, there's a risk involved with this, but I certainly think the attention the game could receive for having a multiplayer campaign could be huge.

You guys know better than anyone what is possible, or practical, in allowing Garnier access to enhanced map-making capabilities for MP. Most of the arguments have already been made in previous posts. I would just emphasize again how much pure SoW energy is generated by the ever-growing group of players who meet virtually every evening to satiate their obsession with this game. So, please have patience with us and recognize that what might occasionally sound like annoying and unappreciative requests is born from our fascination with this magnificent simulation and a hunger to take the SoW experience to even higher levels. To that end, whatever can be done to increase and improve on Garnier's already substantial enhancements to SoW MP will be MOST appreciated by those who, I have no doubt, are far and away the game's most ardent devotees (as reflected by the GCM community's nearly 100% recidivism rate with Antietam.)

Best,
"WJ Palmer"

P.S. Norb and the NSD developers are all highly admired and respected by the MP & GCM community. So whenver you feel the need to recharge your batteries a bit, stop in and enjoy a GCM game with us. I guarantee you'll love the experience and be warmly welcomed!!

Damned Black Hat wrote:

I would think adding the possibility of a complex multiplayer campaign where no battle is ever the same would be a massive expansion and step forward for SoW. The community all comes from people who play SoW, the same people who paid for the game. Yes, there's a risk involved with this, but I certainly think the attention the game could receive for having a multiplayer campaign could be huge.

Like a random map generator, I'm sure Norb has thought about this too. No doubt a campaign game would be very popular. But again, it may take a significant rewrite of the game engine. I think we need to trust Norb a bit in his decisions of what to release and when he wants to do so. After all, it's not like he has a cohort of programers typing away. He's a one man show.

And besides, if it isn't practical for whatever reason for "Norb & The Gang" to code etc a campaign module to SOW, we can design rules and cobble together javascripts/php/other programs/whatever and design a set of campaign rules that work with what we are able to have from SOW. The only modding that would require - my guess - would be modded Scenario-dot-csv files to have slightly different divisions etc in the Corps and to carry along fatigue, morale and head count changes from one battle to another. (I know: I can't do it so why talk about it, eh? Because: someone out there can do it and may need encouragement. B)

I'd like to note that the GCM group is not the only MP community. I know of at least three other groups. All this talk of 'Garnier and the GCM this' and 'Garnier and the GCM that'... people need to appreciate that there's a wider community too and that modding work should be something that benefits all players in the community, SP and MP, not just a few. For NSD to supply tools to allow one person to satisfy the desires of one small part of the community would be a very peculiar business decision.

Sorry Saddletank, you know theres a lot of us GCM guys, we like to give credit to are slave... i mean Garnier. Unfortunately in MP human players learn. Assaulting the AI in single player you can do the same thing over and over from battle to battle. Assaulting a human player is different. They remember,they learn, and they adapt. Which is a good thing, this means we have to constantly change our tactics, but we are stuck with the same strategies. You can assault culps hill with many different tactics but the strategy is always the same, "take culps hill". There is the biggest problem .Sure we could change are strategy but after many games on the same maps you begin to understand there are only a few options for winning.

Hopefully this request gets added to the wishlist and makes it into reality some day.

I'd like to note that the GCM group is not the only MP community. I know of at least three other groups. All this talk of 'Garnier and the GCM this' and 'Garnier and the GCM that'... people need to appreciate that there's a wider community too and that modding work should be something that benefits all players in the community, SP and MP, not just a few. For NSD to supply tools to allow one person to satisfy the desires of one small part of the community would be a very peculiar business decision.

What harm is it to you if Garnier is allowed to make maps like the other modders who have been given that privilege? Is there someone in your group or any other MP group who wants to make maps? If so, I sure haven't seen a request to be able to do so.

You and your MP group have been posting here asking norb to solve your problems much more than anyone in the GCM. So I don't get your "all this talk of Garnier and the GCM. . . ." horse crap. NSD hasn't shown any favoritism to the GCM over any other MP group.

Anyone or any group can use the GCM. Games don't have to be recorded. So anything on the GCM is accessible to anyone who wishes to use it.

Look, Digby, we all know (at least the GCM players know) you didn't like playing GCM games because not everyone wanted to play by your rules. That's fine. I have no problem with that. And honestly, we don't miss your quitting games in a huff because you didn't like the way someone attacked your division. And we don't miss your posts on the GCM forum where you tried to speak for the whole GCM community and claimed your opinions were the same as a majority of the players.

That said, I'm glad you've found a group of players who play the game the way you like to play. I'm all for as many people playing MP games as possible.

But my opinion is that the MP community should support each other and not complain that one group wants to do something another group can't, especially when that group doesn't have the ability to do so and haven't even expressed a desire to do so.

Beef Stu wrote:

You can assault culps hill with many different tactics but the strategy is always the same, "take culps hill". There is the biggest problem .Sure we could change are strategy but after many games on the same maps you begin to understand there are only a few options for winning.

You've put your finger on the problem. Each side races to occupy Culps Hill. Each side wants to play it safe. Instead, go to other parts of the map. Try fighting around Spangler's farm in the southern part of the map. Duke it out east of Gettysburg. Launch an assault across Rock Creek. It's a map on which hiding a division is very easy. Fight meeting engagements instead of set piece battles. Spread the divisions out to different parts of the map and then try to concentrate when the main thrust of the enemy is determined. Given the level of detail on some of these maps, there are many places to have a good fight.

Marching through Georgia what you have to imagine is 12 or 20 guys showing up for a fight. Where do you put all the divisions and where do all the objectives go? The objectives go in the middle of the map. So you can see that with that many guys and the number of times a map is played there starts developing patterns.

It is true that parts of the map (the edges) don't get used like they should. Culp Hill is an example. Wolf hill is a good place to fight and yes we have fought there, not all the time, but yes it does get played.

I think a solution would be if we could get (somehow?) the map guys to make 2 or 3 maps that we could use in mp. I know that is asking a lot, but the redundancy with the maps for some players is evident.

Davinci is working on one that looks to be a good fit for MP. I hope that is out soon. The Jenkins stuff looks good. I hope we could get some decent sized battles played with those. I like the 2 newest maps myself, but they do not allow for large GCM games.

It would be great if we could get a valley represented with maps such as the Shenandoah valley and we could get a small scale campaign going. I would buy that map pack and so would everyone else that would want in on the campaign. Imagine a 10 or 15 turn campaign where players carried their troops throughout. If you want a big boost for a map pack and maybe sales(for sure sales), get us a series of maps for the Shenandoah Valley and let GCM do the rest.

I was with the GCM group for 2 months, playing almost every night. In that time I didn't experience one single game on any of the Pipe Creek maps at all. Not once, and the number of times we used Turner's Gap and Crampton's Gap could be numbered on the fingers of one hand.

The Gettysburg maps and the random map got worn out, Antietam less so (but we had stability problems with it).

Looking through the list of GCM battles on the webpage, you guys do not play on Pipe Creek at all, so there's 3 maps for ten bucks you guys are not using. You say all of you have bought all the add-ons? They why don't you play on them?