Another Grand Campaign

[Spharv2]

Joining is easy. Finishing is hard.

Yep...that is the trick.

[Longhairedlout]

I would prefer to be a general of any sort/anyside, Im not the presidential type....

[mikee64]

Joining is easy. Finishing is hard.

Truer words have never been spoken. (Says a spectator.) From reading the past GC threads....

IMO what a GC would need is a _dedicated_ replacement "Aide de Camp" for every person making moves (not the Pres/theatre comander) This ADC would be informed of all moves and have to report in every turn in response. A substitute that is not already up-to-date is not much use continuing in an absence.

The downfall of previous ACW GC's has IMO been how to deal with player no-shows. There needs to be a rule and replacement player in place before this happens.

[soundoff]

Joining is easy. Finishing is hard.

+1

When you actually analyse it in the cold light of day you come up with the following......

Assuming the players manage 1 turn per week and assuming that the campaign were to start in July 61 (as per the last) then to advance in game terms from July 1861 to Mid 1863 is going to take a year in real time. Thats a lot of commitment for folks to be making On top of that, if its going to work well, players will need to produce regular AAR's throughout that period. And never underestimate the time it takes to produce an AAR

[runyan99]

Also, half of you are going to lose the game. So, consider beforehand that you may be writing a long AAR about your disastrous defeats in the field, garrisons surrendered, and cities lost. AAR authors may get very busy in their personal lives right after the first embarrasing battle.

[Banks6060]

Also, half of you are going to lose the game. So, consider beforehand that you may be writing a long AAR about your disastrous defeats in the field, garrisons surrendered, and cities lost. AAR authors may get very busy in their personal lives right after the first embarrasing battle.

..."very busy in their real lives". Well said Runyan.

[soundoff]

Also, half of you are going to lose the game. So, consider beforehand that you may be writing a long AAR about your disastrous defeats in the field, garrisons surrendered, and cities lost. AAR authors may get very busy in their personal lives right after the first embarrasing battle.

Whatever can you possibly mean

At least as its a team game if you are a theatre commander and lose you can always blame the President for starving you of resources or if you are the President....well any losses are obviously down to your theatre commanders being useless wastrels.

Seriously though you are right Runyan. Doing an AAR when you are winning is hard enough. When you are losing it can be a real pig.

[runyan99]

IMO the fact that the losers get the game rubbed in their face via the AAR is a fatal flaw in the GC format.

If you want to finish a game, plan for generals to quit and be ready to replace them, perhaps several times. Also, take the AAR away from the players. Have an impartial reporter do the AARs, somebody who doesn't have skin in the game or an emotional investment. Then the losers don't get the double whammy of losing the game and then doing an AAR on why things are going so badly.

[Rafiki]

It's a good point, but then you need even more people, and potential replacements for them.

[runyan99]

Two theatre commanders per side, and one AAR newpaper reporter per side. That's a total of 6.

And then there is the President. By the way, what is the president's role, except to meddle in what the theatre commanders want to do, and make their lives difficult? In real life, the President has the power to hire and fire the generals, with limited control over operational matters, but that is very hard to do in the GC. How to handle the presidents?

[Rafiki]

Well, they are there to meddle in what the theatre commanders want to do, and make their lives diffucult

(In addition to handle production, options, ocean navy and provide a grand strategy outline for the generals to follow).

Without the presidents, you'd loose much of the "team" aspect of the GC, and make it a lot poorer. Granted, there are cases where the chemistry between the president and a theater commander has been "sub-ideal", so it is important that the team lays down good ground rules before the GC starts.

Two theatre commanders per side, and one AAR newpaper reporter per side. That's a total of 6.

I think it will be good to have some replacements lined up from the start, both for short-term stand-ins and for long-term replacement (should that become necessary)

[runyan99]

There is a problem with the president. If the president can dictate strategy, then the theatre commanders are puppets. If the president cannot direct strategy or move/remove theatre commanders, then the president is an impotent cheerleader.

[Rafiki]

...which is where the laying down of ground rules for how things are going to work should come in. It's possible to find a middleground between the two options you present.

[Banks6060]

The president is the commander in chief...and quite honestly...I think should be the least experienced of all the players. That would fit the player into the role of a "politician" alot better.

Have your less experienced players be president....have your more experienced players be Generals...

Have whoever else wants to do the reporting....be the reporters.

[runyan99]

If the president is really to be the CiC, then he has to have the power to replace the theatre commanders with another player. Otherwise, the theatre commanders can ignore his wishes with impunity.

On the other hand, it might be beneficial to keep a lot of the minute details away from the President, so that he is not tempted to micromanage.

My suggestion would be to give the Pres access to the AAR and direct communication with the theatre commanders, but don't send him the turn files.

[Banks6060]

Perhaps an objective mechanism for determining whether or not a theatre commander should be replaced could be implemented. Meaning if you lose a certain # of battles...or a very valuable strategic objective...So as not to offend anyone.

I agree with Runyan in that the Prez should have authority to either set such guidelines and enforce them...or simply have the ability to enforce an agreed upon set of guidelines for both sides.

This way theatre commanders are under a little pressure to perform....

[runyan99]

Perhaps an objective mechanism for determining whether or not a theatre commander should be replaced could be implemented. Meaning if you lose a certain # of battles...or a very valuable strategic objective...So as not to offend anyone.

A mathematical formula obviates the need for a human president, and doesn't address the issue of how a president controls a theatre commander who simply ignores him.

Pres: Attack

General: No

Pres: Attack!

General: I am not ready.

Pres: Attack at once!

etc.

[Banks6060]

A mathematical formula obviates the need for a human president, and doesn't address the issue of how a president controls a theatre commander who simply ignores him.

Pres: Attack

General: No

Pres: Attack!

General: I am not ready.

Pres: Attack at once!

etc.

Indeed...but the Prez player is certainly necessary since SOMEONE needs to make all the political calls, draft, money, etc...

[tagwyn]

In the ACW, presidents did dictate strategy!

[runyan99]

In a simplified format the east theatre commander could handle the political stuff.

If you really want a president, his powers should be clear.

[runyan99]

In the ACW, presidents did dictate strategy!

Not really.

[Spharv2]

A mathematical formula obviates the need for a human president, and doesn't address the issue of how a president controls a theatre commander who simply ignores him.

Pres: Attack

General: No

Pres: Attack!

General: I am not ready.

Pres: Attack at once!

etc.

lol...sounds like Lincoln and Mac, Buell, Rosecrans....etc etc...to me. I do like the idea of giving the president the power to remove a theater commander though, nice twist.

[soundoff]

IMO the fact that the losers get the game rubbed in their face via the AAR is a fatal flaw in the GC format.

If you want to finish a game, plan for generals to quit and be ready to replace them, perhaps several times. Also, take the AAR away from the players. Have an impartial reporter do the AARs, somebody who doesn't have skin in the game or an emotional investment. Then the losers don't get the double whammy of losing the game and then doing an AAR on why things are going so badly.

Although superficially attractive I cannot really see such a concept working. Unless an AAR provides some insight into the 'thinking' of the player making the move what purpose does it serve? Its simply a report of what happened. Force A met force B at location Y. Here is the result. Its probably me but what interest in that is there for the casual observer?

My view is that AAR's have to primarily remain the responsibility of the player to provide. So its hard when you are losing, even more so if you are getting 'thrashed' but surely those who sign up to participate know the score.....or should do. Was'nt it one of your presidents who said 'If you can't stand the heat then stay out of the kitchen'?


Edit - And I think we all know (with the possible exception of Manstein who I understand has yet to be beaten in PBEM play) what a resounding beating you can take in this game

[Rafiki]

Let's crank this up a notch this weekend, then see where we go from there

I was planning on making an "official" thread by now, but with the number of good points being made here, I'm holding off a bit for now

[Pat "Stonewall" Cleburne]

This thread intrigues me. Is there a link to information about previous/future GC's? I'm probably not experienced enough to participate but I'd like to read about the concept.

[Rafiki]

Here you go:

1st Grand Campaign: http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=187
2nd Grand Campaign: http://www.ageod-forum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=109

[soundoff]

Have not thought this through properly but its occured to me that one possible way of having 'aides' would be for the theatre commanders to each have a Corp commander under their wings. Could also be useful for the President....to be able to promote a Corp commander and demote an Army commander.

Only a throw away idea.

[Comtedemeighan]

I would like to participate if your still looking for people to help out

[Capt Pob]

Could the President not be responsible for the AAR? It would give them something more to do than drafts / money. Also as they would be involved in their sides strategy, they could add some good analysis and flavour to the report as Soundoff and Banks are currently doing with their AAR.

[Rafiki]

The goal is to have an AAR for each player taking part; I agree with soundoff's point earlier about the AAR being a place for players to say *why* they did stuff, and not just a play-by-play recounting of game events