[Abandoned] - Secesh Heresy: Gettysburg, Day 2

[wisemanpsemc]

This map looks like it will be a lot of fun. I am looking forward to playing on it. At first glance the cannons look like abstract arrows. Not sure if some sort of detail would help that out or not.

[MarshalNey]

This map looks like it will be a lot of fun. I am looking forward to playing on it. At first glance the cannons look like abstract arrows. Not sure if some sort of detail would help that out or not.

well, it's already been pointed out that maybe the cannons should be from a side-view anyway... that would solve the problem if I did choose to go that route.

It's coming along quite nicely, though I think the colors need to get a Ye Olden fade to them, to look a little more like a battle map of the Civil War and a little less like the Hippie Reinterpretation of that Horrible War.

hee, love the HRTH War, it was waaaay better than that stupid Civil War thing. Anyway, yes, yes, the colors. Everyone hates them (except maybe Ender) but they're going to stay dramatically different from each other if possible for colorblind issues and gameplay analysis, so this might wait until graphics.

Think you could get a good feel for contour if you incorporate actual map elevation lines or incorporate this style into it.
Be nice if you could make Gettysburg feel more like a town too.
In re of the flag pennants your using blue obviously works well for the Union. For the Confeds how about using red instead of gray. It would be color appropriate, be more noticeable and would liven it up.

Regarding the contour lines, those are my favorite lines to look at in Civil War maps, too, jefjef. I was hoping to mimic them when I started the map, then realized that they would make the borders really really hard to distinguish and I'd better go simple. I might revisit the idea in graphics, or maybe earlier if I have some luck and spare time....

Gettysburg: yes, agree, have no fear I was planning on adding some buildings/streets or other urban-esque qualities. Might be a while, might be soon, who can say

As for the flags, great suggestion! Simple and effective, it will be a definite improvement.


Thanks again everyone for the encouragement and advice.

[Industrial Helix]

This one is ready for a little more in depth gameplay analysis I think.

[jefjef]

This one is ready for a little more in depth gameplay analysis I think.

Congrats on the move to game play Marshal! Lets get er rolling.

The "courage" is an extremely novel and great idea. My only problem with it is I think the strength should be 1 and not 2. Even ones can be quite an obstacle at times with my random and could make some bonuses awkwardly strong.

[Frito Bandito]

Looks awesome Marshall!!

[Evil DIMwit]

Just to be clear about courage: Player at SW1 assaults SW1 Courage, and from SW1 Courage can assault either Wilcox or Barnes?
I think 2 neutrals is good for Courage. Don't want to make it too trivial.

[MarshalNey]

Sorry for the awful delay everyone; I'm currently contemplating a scheme to destroy the vampiric livelihoods of all 'education experts' (i.e. state and federal bureaucrats). Life has gotten even more stressful than anticipated, so bear with me over the next several months as I'll likely be slow in my responses.

The "courage" is an extremely novel and great idea. My only problem with it is I think the strength should be 1 and not 2. Even ones can be quite an obstacle at times with my random and could make some bonuses awkwardly strong.

Thanks for the support and advice, jefjef, seriously you've stuck with this despite my slowness; but I promise this map will get done, even if it takes a year.

I'm not sure that I feel that 1 neutral would be enough of a barrier, as there are no impassibles. If some bonuses seem to strong right now, best to just lower them and leave the courage at 2, I think... the hills were all very difficult to assault in the actual event, and I think 2 is more consistent with the history of the battle than 1. That's not set in stone, of course, but that's the way I'm leaning unless there is another reason I'm not seeing.

Looks awesome Marshall!!

Thanks Frito Any ideas? What do you like the most about the map?

Just to be clear about courage: Player at SW1 assaults SW1 Courage, and from SW1 Courage can assault either Wilcox or Barnes?

er, not so much. Picture the Courage killer neutrals as one-way obstacles.

One only needs to assault the 'Courage' territory when coming 'uphill' past the pointy end; so, to assault SW1 from Wilcox or Barnes, one needs to assault SW1 Courage, and then can proceed to SW1; once on SW1, however, one can attack back 'downhill' to Wilcox or Barnes directly, or assault SW2, Gibbon or Ayres.

The Stone Wall (SW terts) is a particularly nasty barrier, since it involves a series of two killer neutrals, but that's intentional as it was arguably the strongest part of the Union line and ultimately proved its worth in the debacle of Pickett's charge on Day 3 of the battle.

I think 2 neutrals is good for Courage. Don't want to make it too trivial.

Agreed. Although, now that I think about it, it might be worthwhile to lower a few of the courage neutrals to 1, just to indicate the steepness/entrenchment present. For instance, there was little entrenchment on Seminary Ridge, and none at all along the 'back' of Cemetery Ridge... hmmmm

[Evil DIMwit]

Oh, silly me, it seems I had read the hill direction backwards.

Graduated courage sounds like a fine way to add strategic nuance without more instructional complexity; it seems you're at the limit already. Once again, please try to reduce this map to small size just to make sure you can fit all the instructions in. It may be necessary for you to cut out the historic background text on the small version. Likewise, make sure the army numbers all comfortably fit the courage section in the small map.

[Frito Bandito]

I really like the straightforward bombardment rules, totally make sense, unlike waterloo-- which I can never quite understand:)

plus, as a history buff, just finished Shiloh by Shelby Foote, I always enjoy something that touches the civil war.

fwiw, there is a great book, called "the nation of Jones?" I think, about a part of Mississipi that seceded from the South. Cool stuff!

[MarshalNey]

I really like the straightforward bombardment rules, totally make sense, unlike waterloo-- which I can never quite understand:)

plus, as a history buff, just finished Shiloh by Shelby Foote, I always enjoy something that touches the civil war.

fwiw, there is a great book, called "the nation of Jones?" I think, about a part of Mississipi that seceded from the South. Cool stuff!

Thanks Frito! I'm glad you like the bombardment rules- I was hoping to keep them simple yet not overpowered.

This map isn't perhaps quite "on vacation" since I'm not specifically ignoring this map- I'm just pretty much ignoring everthing equally, as my real life is quite hectic at the moment. However this was partly expected and should change dramatically in December.

Anyway, Shelby Foote is indeed an excellent writer and a fairer, more extensive and more scrupulous historian than most (cough, cough Bruce Catton et. al.). His 3-volume work on the Civil War, considering both its breadth and depth, could remain the definitive overview of the conflict for decades if not for centuries. That's saying a lot I know- but considering that he took something like 30 years to complete it, perhaps not a surprise.

"The Nation of Jones" is a book I've noticed. Obviously I don't have the time currently to read it, but I might pick it up given your recommendation. Reading the minutiae of the Civil War is far more instructive than in some conflicts, as it really was not solely a national conflict as it is often portrayed but also a war between states. The Thirty Years' War actually has some striking political similarities, although it of course occured centuries earlier and had much heavier foreign involvement which caused a stalemate in the end.

[sm8900]

Final Rough Draft (Updated 8/20/10)

Click image to enlarge.

The map has no impassibles, technically, but I use some low-level killer neutrals for the same purpose. In the case of the hills, I made a poor-man's one-way attack, where someone wishing to go uphill must first attack a killer neutral 2- which I call 'courage', while someone attack out from a hill may proceed normally. For stone walls and streams, I used a killer neutral 1, to indicate the impossibility of staying on such a place for long- the creeks are meant to be crossed quickly since any troops stationed there would be extremely vulnerable.

The cannon bombardments are the other major setpiece of the map. Any cannon can bombard any region within its own bonus area. In addition, the big black cannons can bombard any region in adjacent bonus areas. This is a bit like Waterloo, where a lot of the map is vulnerable to bombardment. However, about 1/3 of the map is immune- the Round Tops bonus area, Gettysburg, Devil's Den and the Federal Supply bonus area. For region names, I used the commanders of the relevant regiment, brigade or Corps; or I used an abbreviation for a piece of terrain with a number.

I like it. one question though; any spaces for cavalry units?

"Sir, I have cavalry moving on my flank. Request permission to deploy along the ridge to repel them."

[MarshalNey]

Brig. Generals Kilpatrick, Gregg and Buford represent the Union cavalry on this map.

Kilpatrick and Gregg are in the upper right in the Union Reserve; they saw limited action skirmishing against Confederate troopers well east of Rock Creek. Their main contribution to the battle was to keep Walker's rather strong brigade- the Stonewall Brigade of fame- tied up so that it did not participate effectively in the evening/night attack on Culp's Hill, which nearly carried the Union position and might have succeeded with Walker's help. Only after the Union had rushed reinforcements and re-occupied and strengthened their breastworks did Walker's brigade arrive, too late to do anything but vainly sacrifice some hundreds in a pre-dawn attack on the 3rd day.

Buford did not accomplish much on the second day and in fact got whipped on the third day. His command screened the left flank of the Union Army rather poorly.

As for the Confederate side, J.E.B. Stuart notoriously took off with most of the army's cavalry early on during the march into Pennsylvania, with a somewhat deceiving assurance to General Lee that he would stay in touch. He broke contact and Lee was certain that Stuart's entire force had been destroyed- otherwise Lee would have heard something back... but as it turned out Stuart was merely pursuing fame and glory by making another massive supply raid deep into enemy territory.

In short, the Confederates had almost no cavalry for the entire battle; Stuart's worn and tired cavalrymen arrived in time to do battle on the third day.

Given these facts, I'm not sure a whole new unit is justified, and I don't want people to think that this map is a cheap knock-off of Waterloo

On the other hand, the regions will be noted as cavalry in the name, and they are represented with a division flag. I could add a graphic there as well...

[Evil DIMwit]

[Moved]

Alas! Two fortnightly review periods have passed without any updates or meaningful engagement from the mapmaker(s),therefore the map is considered stalled. If the mapmaker wants to continue with the map, then one of the Foundry Moderators will be able to help put the thread back into the Foundry system, after an update has been made.