New GCM "Super Blind" Format

[exp101]

Do we want to prohibit unaccompanied guns on the flanks? Guess I was focused more on guns scouting ahead of infantry than generally whether they can be used by themselves independent of the foot soldiers. No doubt it's a hair-splitting distinction much of the time, but it does seem like two different situations. To reduce argument, I'd like to keep the interpretive elements to a minimum.

[Mark]

duplicate post...

[Mark]

No absolutely not. When I am an Army's flank I routinely secure my exposed flank with a battery 4-600 yards away from the last of my infantry. Usually unsupported if on open ground. There are strong practical reasons for doing this; namely the guns can overwatch and still keep a flank eye out. If you stick an infantry regiment out there it is wasted.

GCM wasn't that broke in my opinion for a drastic rewrite of the rules.

[KG_Soldier]

We all know what scouting the flanks with guns means. There is, of course, nothing wrong with posting guns on the flanks. Sending guns down a road or across a field to scout a flank is a completely different thing.

[exp101]

After last night's battle a short discussion began about the relative advantages/disadvantages to attackers and defenders as they are required to maintain real garrisons at VP's. This is a good conversation to have as we look for that settings 'sweet spot'.

The settings in the first two super blind battles used 200 man garrisons, 30% objective values and 200 yard vp radii.Objective spreads have been tightened slightly to 1 or 1.3 miles and limited to 5 to reduce garrisoning burdens.

A few general considerations about these levels and their relative impacts:
-the team defending (i.e. garrisoning more vp's) probably assumes a slight disadvantage - at least until the attacking team is close enough that the garrison may be used;
-conversely, the attacking team (with fewer vp's) carries some slight advantage) - at least until their success translates into increased garrison burdens of their own
-the relatively high vp values (I've used 30% so far), translates into considerable points beginning at 11:00a that typically should more than offset the need to commitment a 200-300 man regiment (especially one beat-up in combat). The offset advantage would decrease if a lower vp value is used;
-the larger vp radius should mean that objectives near the front will often be neutralized for significant periods by attackers;
-early in the battle teams should consider their garrison strategy. For instance, it probably doesn't make sense to commit a 450-man regiment to garrison duty before vp points expand at 11:00. After that, both armies typically have spent regiments that can take on those chores.

Overall, I'll admit that the introduction of garrisons does come with some impacts, but I'd also suggest those impacts and relative advantages/disadvantages shift with the ebb & flow of the battle. Comments are welcomed about whether this is an overall positive or negative addition to our battles, or suggestions about further adjustments.

[KG_Soldier]

With the higher objective point values, this makes the luck of the spawn even more important. Not a fan.

[exp101]

What would make it better?

[KG_Soldier]

I prefer the lower point games we've been playing, putting more emphasis on casualties rather than random victory locations.

[Willard]

I won't be playing in any games where gun movement is restricted from road use during the first 10 mins. I understand that several players use guns to scout but it is limited to the same players all the time. Instead of punishing those players, everyone is punished. Guns have been nerfed enough in GCM that further diminishing their movement or adding an additional arbitrary fatigue malus by requiring to move through woods/ground is not a solution to the problem.

There are multiple instances of guns legitimately being deployed ahead to a strategic point unsupported at the discretion of the commander. Day 1 at Gettysburg, the Union battery's forced the Rebs to deploy slowing up their advance into Gettysburg. At Fredricksburg a battery deployed on the far Reb right flank slowing down the Union advance.

It is a risk-reward decision to deploy batteries forward with strategic ramifications that has been removed from the commander because Wales can't stop scouting with guns. A better solution is to prevent Wales from using guns because he gets them all killed anyway.

As for the VPs, I would suggest a different format if GCM allows it. 3 VP games with 1 one major VP and 2 minor VPs. The two minor VIPs would be at opposite sides of the map and represent each armies base/line of advance. In order to win you need to hold that position to secure your avenue of advance/withdrawal. A lose of this VP, results in an automatic defeat, as the opposing army has "cut your army off" from supply, etc. The 3rd VP would be in the middle of the map and represent the strategic objective for the armies. This could be done also with a supply wagon that could placed by the Army Commander at the start of the game. Either would limit some of the pinwheel battles as both sides would need to focus forces to defend those "supply" minor VPs or wagons.

[KG_Soldier]

Enjoy your self-imposed exile while we try to make the games better.