"Missouri" is a new variant of the GCM campaign which will run alongside it.
Links Removed -- The missouri campaign is discarded
It is separate from the standard campaign, you won't use the same troops. I imagine it will be a more competitive game, and perhaps it won't be everyone's cup of tea. I think I'll like it though!
Campaign 1 begins now (Jan 4) and will end next Monday (Jan 17) at 1:00 AM EST. (Meaning no battles started after that time will count). It will be pretty quick -- but more will come after if we like it.
Union Commander: KG_Soldier
Confederate Commander: Parker (SouthernSteel)
Minimum Score for Victory: 600 Points
Minimum Number of Battles: 5 Battles
The commanders of both sides will post recruitment threads here and organize their armies when and how they wish.
[Missouri] New Campaign Begins
[Missouri] New Campaign Begins
Last edited by Garnier on Tue Apr 12, 2011 2:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
You can view the current teams here.
By this weekend, we can decide if we want to extend the campaign end date, maybe for another week. Both commanders would have to agree.
I imagine these campaigns will get rolling quicker once everyone has this second Launcher and knows that to join they just have to login to the launcher to pick a side.
For the commanders information, the size of a battle affects how many points can be gained from it, so if a 2v2 is fought now for instance, it won't be as important for victory as a future 5v5.
By this weekend, we can decide if we want to extend the campaign end date, maybe for another week. Both commanders would have to agree.
I imagine these campaigns will get rolling quicker once everyone has this second Launcher and knows that to join they just have to login to the launcher to pick a side.
For the commanders information, the size of a battle affects how many points can be gained from it, so if a 2v2 is fought now for instance, it won't be as important for victory as a future 5v5.
-
SouthernSteel
- Reactions:
- Posts: 529
- Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:07 am
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
I will agree to extend this one another week or so. Nice to see the Yankees finally mustered up a bunch of conscripts, typical 
Edit: I may have missed it (or missed it again), but how will balancing apply? I was thinking perhaps Snell and I could agree to numbers beforehand and then divide them up as we see fit amongst our subordinates.
Edit: I may have missed it (or missed it again), but how will balancing apply? I was thinking perhaps Snell and I could agree to numbers beforehand and then divide them up as we see fit amongst our subordinates.
Last edited by SouthernSteel on Fri Jan 07, 2011 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"The time for compromises is past, and we are now determined to maintain our position and make all who oppose us smell Southern powder, feel Southern steel."
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Jefferson Davis, 1861
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
Seems I cannot get on the TS forum. Is the old TS still active?
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
It's still active, but it has a password now, and it seems to be having trouble with connectivity today.
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
We tried to run the first battle tonight, and after several failed starts we thought we finally got everything sorted out, only to have it freeze up around the 20 minute mark.
One issue we had, at least on the Confederate side, was that the commanders that were assigned a smaller number of troops received a noticeably higher amount than the commanders who were assigned a large division.
Parker and I had an idea I'd like to toss out there, at least for these types of small campaigns. If possible, how about each side has an overall amount of troops, and the Army Commander assigns each subordinate an amount from this force pool. The balancer would be turned off, or at least turned way back. This gives the army commander more leeway in his assignments, and puts the fate of the army as a whole in his hands, as it should be. There would still be a limit to the amount of troops any individual could command, to keep it from getting totally out of hand, especially if it was 5 vs 7, or the like.
Thoughts?
One issue we had, at least on the Confederate side, was that the commanders that were assigned a smaller number of troops received a noticeably higher amount than the commanders who were assigned a large division.
Parker and I had an idea I'd like to toss out there, at least for these types of small campaigns. If possible, how about each side has an overall amount of troops, and the Army Commander assigns each subordinate an amount from this force pool. The balancer would be turned off, or at least turned way back. This gives the army commander more leeway in his assignments, and puts the fate of the army as a whole in his hands, as it should be. There would still be a limit to the amount of troops any individual could command, to keep it from getting totally out of hand, especially if it was 5 vs 7, or the like.
Thoughts?
Re: [Missouri] New Campaign Begins
OK, I've been looking at the results you've got, and thinking about how to make this better.
I don't see anyone getting a lot more than their allotted troops in the two battles that were started last night. However, there is a rounding error of one regiment often, which is why Matt has two regiments instead of exactly 500 men -- the first regiment it gave him was not quite 500, so it added another. There are ways to give people the number allotted to them, for instance give everyone a possibly tiny regiment, which I don't think anyone wants. Another way would be to give regiments til the limit is reached, then shrink all the regiments until the total men equals the limit. For example, if you were allotted 500 men, it might give you a 450 man regiment, then another 450, and the shrinker would bring both regiments down to 250. I don't like this solution but it is possible.
One thing that happens is that half of a player's infantry and artillery is reserve, and reserve units are always removed from the side with more men first -- so if two players on the same side have limits set of 2000 and 4000 respectively, and combined the balancer needs to bring them down to 4000 men, it will bring the second player's strength down to 2000 first.
This is why in those scenarios last night the reb players all had about the same amount of infantry, because there was too much on the reb side when it set them to their limits, so it removed all the reserves leaving everyone with their main 5 regiments. I can easily turn this off for the Missouri campaign. If I remove this part, the results will on average over many battles correspond to the limits set by the commander, but each battle there would be some players who are unlucky and have lots of regiments removed from them, while others still have near their limit.
Now, this isn't a problem if the total limits on each side are equal for a battle -- so if their wasn't such a big difference in players at the battle it would generally give everyone what they are allotted, but still with the rounding error.
Another way to approach it, is I could have the hosting page tell the host which side has a higher overall limit, and how much higher it is. Then that side's commander could edit his side's limits temporarily, for that one battle, so when the scenario is created the limits could be the same. He would then get to decide which players lose troops to make up the difference. There will still be rounding error of course, and the numbers are never exact anyway because the balancer also takes all of the units' stats into account. I feel this solution would be the best and simplest, but what do you all think?
Now for the other idea of giving both sides a single army and having the commander break it up among the players. I've been thinking about how to do it and just can't come up with a good solution. Any way I approach it, it's going to involve a lot more work on the part of the commanders before each battle, meaning it will take longer for battles to start, particularly since players come and go while its being set up, this is why the automated system has worked so well for getting our pick-up games started really quickly. Also the players wouldn't have "their own" troops anymore, unless I made it possible for the commanders to choose exactly what troops go to who each time, which would be a lot of work both for them, and require me to write an entirely new system.
If this was what everyone wanted, the easiest way would be to just use the random OOB generator and let the commanders edit their sides in the OOB editor before a battle, and keep score manually.
I don't see anyone getting a lot more than their allotted troops in the two battles that were started last night. However, there is a rounding error of one regiment often, which is why Matt has two regiments instead of exactly 500 men -- the first regiment it gave him was not quite 500, so it added another. There are ways to give people the number allotted to them, for instance give everyone a possibly tiny regiment, which I don't think anyone wants. Another way would be to give regiments til the limit is reached, then shrink all the regiments until the total men equals the limit. For example, if you were allotted 500 men, it might give you a 450 man regiment, then another 450, and the shrinker would bring both regiments down to 250. I don't like this solution but it is possible.
One thing that happens is that half of a player's infantry and artillery is reserve, and reserve units are always removed from the side with more men first -- so if two players on the same side have limits set of 2000 and 4000 respectively, and combined the balancer needs to bring them down to 4000 men, it will bring the second player's strength down to 2000 first.
This is why in those scenarios last night the reb players all had about the same amount of infantry, because there was too much on the reb side when it set them to their limits, so it removed all the reserves leaving everyone with their main 5 regiments. I can easily turn this off for the Missouri campaign. If I remove this part, the results will on average over many battles correspond to the limits set by the commander, but each battle there would be some players who are unlucky and have lots of regiments removed from them, while others still have near their limit.
Now, this isn't a problem if the total limits on each side are equal for a battle -- so if their wasn't such a big difference in players at the battle it would generally give everyone what they are allotted, but still with the rounding error.
Another way to approach it, is I could have the hosting page tell the host which side has a higher overall limit, and how much higher it is. Then that side's commander could edit his side's limits temporarily, for that one battle, so when the scenario is created the limits could be the same. He would then get to decide which players lose troops to make up the difference. There will still be rounding error of course, and the numbers are never exact anyway because the balancer also takes all of the units' stats into account. I feel this solution would be the best and simplest, but what do you all think?
Now for the other idea of giving both sides a single army and having the commander break it up among the players. I've been thinking about how to do it and just can't come up with a good solution. Any way I approach it, it's going to involve a lot more work on the part of the commanders before each battle, meaning it will take longer for battles to start, particularly since players come and go while its being set up, this is why the automated system has worked so well for getting our pick-up games started really quickly. Also the players wouldn't have "their own" troops anymore, unless I made it possible for the commanders to choose exactly what troops go to who each time, which would be a lot of work both for them, and require me to write an entirely new system.
If this was what everyone wanted, the easiest way would be to just use the random OOB generator and let the commanders edit their sides in the OOB editor before a battle, and keep score manually.
Last edited by Garnier on Sun Jan 09, 2011 11:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.