Scourge of War Boards

Generally getting 8-14 players every night for. usually, two battles...

Some new twists, courtesy of Palmer. These have added to the variability of battles and also tested the leadership of even the most veteran players. I highly recommend players who haven't tried GCM, or those who may have been AWOL for a while to come back and try it again.

Low-VP game settings for GCM battles

Restricted ID Mod

Thoughts on possible GCM "Mini-Campaigns

Another new addition is the use of custom maps like Chickamauga and Lynchburg. I believe Manassas is in there, too.

I no longer recommend GCM. I've offered to help fix some of the ongoing problems, but have not been allowed to even make an attempt, with no real explanation other than a more polite version of "sit down, shut up, or if you can't like it as-is, there's the door." The actual battles are still good, but there is nothing else of value in the once-outstanding persistent campaign Garnier created. So why bother playing a campaign at all? The regimental numbers are a joke (401st Penn, 210th Virginia, 135th Mass., etc.), the brigade pool has been broken for almost a year, the regimental listing page hasn't updated more than once since 2015... Any sort of historical immersion has been ruined through neglect by those who refuse to unlock the safe that GCM is apparently stored in.

Some new twists, courtesy of Palmer. These have added to the variability of battles and also tested the leadership of even the most veteran players. I highly recommend players who haven't tried GCM, or those who may have been AWOL for a while to come back and try it again.

Low-VP game settings for GCM battles

Restricted ID Mod

Thoughts on possible GCM "Mini-Campaigns

[quote]I no longer recommend GCM. I've offered to help fix some of the ongoing problems, but have not been allowed to even make an attempt, with no real explanation other than a more polite version of "sit down, shut up, or if you can't like it as-is, there's the door." The actual battles are still good, but there is nothing else of value in the once-outstanding persistent campaign Garnier created. So why bother playing a campaign at all? The regimental numbers are a joke (401st Penn, 210th Virginia, 135th Mass., etc.), the brigade pool has been broken for almost a year, the regimental listing page hasn't updated more than once since 2015... Any sort of historical immersion has been ruined through neglect by those who refuse to unlock the safe that GCM is apparently stored in.

That's too bad. Sounds like some arrogance needs to be dealt with.

One player's opinion. As Mike says, the battles are still good -- which is the reason most play. Other than Mike's hatred of non-historical regimental designations, his complaints focus on features that were enhancements to the original design anyway. The games and community are as strong as ever (though summer participation is on the low side with vacations, etc.). There are still battles virtually every day.

What Mike refuses to accept is that Garnier is no longer involved at all and isn't available to do what would be necessary even to transfer the guts of the program to someone else. It is his personal creation, probably done (understandably) without the documentation required to turn it over, even if he were confident that another could handle it. With respect, it is not a case of arrogance at all, from what I've seen. Garnier sacrificed untold hours in developing and maintaining a system he stepped away from long ago. And, believe it or not, there is no rule that he must spend the rest of his life maintaining a system for our enjoyment. On the contrary, he's been most gracious IMO.

Still, GCM goes on, a timeless application to an epic battle and game. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED for anyone who wishes to explore multi-player in a Civil War setting.

The only thing I refuse to accept is the position that there is no way to make and share a copy of the site. I refuse to accept that because it's simply false. It's quite literally as easy as sharing a folder of photos with a friend.

But as you said, it's one player's opinion. And that's all it was. I recommended it when I saw it as worthy. I no longer see it as such.

That's still an oversimplification. If it were turned over, and assuming you even found how and where to make changes, there would be questions of sign-ons, permissions, accesses, testing, and implementing patches/updates. And what if you biffed it up? You (or anyone) could simply disappear and leave the community high and dry. That would be a hefty risk to take on against the prospect of changing regimental designations and adding a few brigades to the pool. Hardly as simple as sharing a folder, as you make it sound.

Never--never--did I suggest turning over the live GCM site to my control. I've said that about a dozen times at least over the months that we've discussed this, including the thread where Garnier himself suggested the site-clone concept. Anyone who's worked on a website knows you never make changes to a live site. Garnier wouldn't even be hosting or involved in any of it. All he had to do was give me a copy of the site offline. Again, I explained all that and was working directly off the idea Garnier posed. If it didn't work, no one would ever know. There is, in fact, zero risk.

Garnier has made it perfectly clear he's not willing to invest any more time or effort in the GCM. So even if you found some way to fix the regiment number problem (which only you care about), who would implement the fix?

The GCM, from the beginning, has been about creating fair, fun battles every day. It's never been mean't to be some kind of carryover historical campaign.

If that's what you want, and since you think you have the ability to do such things, why not make your own?