[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

[MarshalNey]

So far so good, your placement of neutrals follows logically and should eliminate the worst outcomes of a 'lucky drop'.

I'm going to fool around with some math and figure out (if my brain is up to it) the probability of dropping any of those 4-region bonuses. There are a whopping 7 of them, which may or may not be a problem.

It may seem that I'm paying undue attention to mitigating the luck of the drop, but the map is very bonus-rich in both number and payout- so if a bonus is dropped, it will likely be a game-changer (+4 bonus or higher). If worse comes to worst, consider lowering the bonus values overall.

Finally, you might consider playing around with some of the neutral values to reflect the ease or importance of the bonus in question. For instance, Round Top gives an autodeploy of 2 (which it should as it was critical) so maybe it should start neutral 4 instead of neutral 3... same could be said for Western Cemetery Hill. Or alternatively you could lower the neutral values for the other autodeploys to 2.

-- Marshal Ney

[Minister X]

I'm no fan of lucky drops so I also will try to simulate many games and see what the chances are. Anything at all significant should trigger the adding of more neutral starters.

Gameplay: The bonuses are as per the spreadsheet but the rest is just my first/best guess at things. Please inform me: when can/would playtesting begin? Is it only when a game goes Beta? Or is there some off-record playtesting once XML is done but before Beta?

[Minister X]

I set up a spreadsheet to calculate how often a bonus would be earned on the drop. It's not 100% foolproof but it's got to be close. If anything, I've been conservative. (Details if asked.)

With eight players the chances are negligible. With six they're about 3%. One in 33 games would have a drop onto a bonus. With five players, surprisingly enough, the odds aren't much worse. With four players there should be a bonus drop once in every twenty games on average. I could calculate more -- for three and for two players -- but it's very time-consuming and I think these numbers might be good enough to conclude that no changes to the map are needed. I was expecting them to be much worse.

[MarshalNey]

I set up a spreadsheet to calculate how often a bonus would be earned on the drop. It's not 100% foolproof but it's got to be close. If anything, I've been conservative. (Details if asked.)

With eight players the chances are negligible. With six they're about 3%. One in 33 games would have a drop onto a bonus. With five players, surprisingly enough, the odds aren't much worse. With four players there should be a bonus drop once in every twenty games on average. I could calculate more -- for three and for two players -- but it's very time-consuming and I think these numbers might be good enough to conclude that no changes to the map are needed. I was expecting them to be much worse.

With the size of the bonus that we're talking about (+4 or larger), anything in single-digit percentages or higher makes me nervous. I'll use a quote from the Rome map thread:

Also in general, I like to see the percentage for bonuses on the drop at or below 5% (1 in 20 games), particularly if they are greater than a +1 bonus. For something like a +4, the percentage should be 1% or lower. That may sound harsh, but consider that many thousands of games will likely be played on the map, and every time players see an opponent get a whopping +4 on the drop, they'll howl and scream at the Foundry and CC (plus they'll foe the map... well, they would if they could anyway).

Consider the topic and the sweet graphics that are shaping up for this map. With that in mind, when this map goes beta it will probably get several hundred games created in the first couple of weeks. If we're looking at the percentages your trials gave (my rough math actually puts the top percentages at 3-4%) then one can estimate that about 4 or 5 games will result in a player starting with a +4 bonus or better. That's maybe 10 or 20 players who will probably never want to play the map again based upon that experience, before it even gets quenched.

I realize that we can't eliminate luck on the drop sometimes, but the maginitude of the bonuses in question makes a lucky start on this map really lucky. We're not talking Berlin where the French bonus of +1 gets dropped regularly (although that's still quite irritating) or even Waterloo where the flags bonus of +3 gets dropped on occasion (tolerable only because players start with so many regions that it makes less of a difference). We're talking about +4 on a medium-sized map, where 4-player games (most likely Doubles) could be over before they begin.

I think that perhaps the bonuses values overall could use a bit of toning-down (not counting the autodeploys, which should be left alone I think). Thoughts?

-- Marshal Ney

P.S. As for the question about play-testing, you will unfortunately have to wait for Beta testing. There have been suggestions in the past for trying out a map at earlier stages, but so far nothing has come to fruition. Although BisonKing ingeniously made a board-game version of his Thysenal map and play-tested it with some of his friends (!)

[jefjef]

Think ER5 should be located inline with West Cem Hill and The Angle. Perhaps change its name to Zieglers Grove or Bryan farm.

[Minister X]

Think ER5 should be located inline with West Cem Hill and The Angle. Perhaps change its name to Zieglers Grove or Bryan farm.

According to the maps I've researched The Angle lies exactly halfway between Emmitsburg Road and Taneytown Road, so I'm going to say 'no' to this suggestion unless you can provide some compelling argument. Why did you suggest it in the first place? You provide no rationale or explanation.

BTW, I found an online game map of huge detailed proportions that looks to me to be excellent. Warning: enormous .JPG file.... HERE.

Regarding bonus-on-drop: in looking over what I'd have to do to eliminate the chances, I realized I made a mistake in my calculations. They're really about half of what I said they were. (I forgot about some of the neutral starters I already had!) Still, if it would be easy enough to reduce the odds still further, why not? I'm sitting at 68 deployable out of 79. The golden numbers below 68 are 67, 66, then it skips to 59. There are only three droppable continents that consist of four terts: Hagerstown Rd., Carlisle Rd., and the Confederate Left. I can put neutral starters on the first two -- it would look consistent with the other neutral starters we've created on the other roads -- and stay on a golden number. It leaves just one continent of four or fewer terts that doesn't have a neutral starter on it preventing a drop-to-bonus. I think that will be fine.

NEXT: I've had two PM's from a constructive critic who obvious has poor command of the English language. I think maybe he PMed me instead of posting here because he's embarrassed by that so I'll protect his identity. He wants, if I understand him correctly, where I've got red and blue army boxes corresponding to Confederate and Union forces, to have then IDed as cavalry, infantry or artillery. It's a fascinating concept that I want to consider. [He also warns me that if I fail to do this the map will be unable to qualify for inclusion in a collection of "Greatest Battles of the Civil War".]

I had responded above to one request for artillery: the range at this scale was short (essentially just to the next tert) and the guns were spread amongst the divisions. That said, there are a few places it would make sense to put artillery, and if, instead of ranged attack they were given one-way attack, then we could actually set up artillery duels. Cavalry: most of the significant cavalry action took place off this map, and cavalry mostly fought dismounted. Still, cavalry played a role in the battle and if I could find places on the flanks to put a few units, having them be able to access two terts as in Austerlitz, it would provide a taste of their importance. In each case we'd be sacrificing geographic authenticity and accuracy but gaining, IMHO, flavor-of-the-battle authenticity. [Plus I'd retain eligibility for inclusion in that collection! ]

Would you like to see a draft that includes unit types? It will be a major revision/redrafting but I'm willing to give it a try.

[Minister X]

Here's an example of what the units might look like:

[MarshalNey]

Regarding bonus-on-drop: in looking over what I'd have to do to eliminate the chances, I realized I made a mistake in my calculations. They're really about half of what I said they were. (I forgot about some of the neutral starters I already had!) Still, if it would be easy enough to reduce the odds still further, why not? I'm sitting at 68 deployable out of 79. The golden numbers below 68 are 67, 66, then it skips to 59. There are only three droppable continents that consist of four terts: Hagerstown Rd., Carlisle Rd., and the Confederate Left. I can put neutral starters on the first two -- it would look consistent with the other neutral starters we've created on the other roads -- and stay on a golden number. It leaves just one continent of four or fewer terts that doesn't have a neutral starter on it preventing a drop-to-bonus. I think that will be fine.

Agreed. I'm honestly a little too lazy to do the exact math here, but if bonuses get dropped more than a couple of times during Beta you might want to consider lowering the values overall as a last resort, to mitigate the effects.

According to the maps I've researched The Angle lies exactly halfway between Emmitsburg Road and Taneytown Road, so I'm going to say 'no' to this suggestion unless you can provide some compelling argument. Why did you suggest it in the first place? You provide no rationale or explanation.

Perhaps jefjef knew that the Emmitsburg Road ran directly over Cemetery Hill, and thought that the Emmitsburg Road was being shown as parallel to Cemetery Hill. In reality, since it can't have two names at once, the final stretch of the road is simply labeled as 'West Cem Hill' on this map.

Or maybe jefjef is proposing that the West Cem Hill region should be designated as part of the Emmitsburg Road bonus. That would be another case entirely, and up to the mapmaker's discretion I think. It might tie a record as the region would then be part of 3 separate bonuses (!).

In any case, the map is accurate as shown.

NEXT: I've had two PM's from a constructive critic who obvious has poor command of the English language. I think maybe he PMed me instead of posting here because he's embarrassed by that so I'll protect his identity. He wants, if I understand him correctly, where I've got red and blue army boxes corresponding to Confederate and Union forces, to have then IDed as cavalry, infantry or artillery. It's a fascinating concept that I want to consider. [He also warns me that if I fail to do this the map will be unable to qualify for inclusion in a collection of "Greatest Battles of the Civil War".]

I had responded above to one request for artillery: the range at this scale was short (essentially just to the next tert) and the guns were spread amongst the divisions. That said, there are a few places it would make sense to put artillery, and if, instead of ranged attack they were given one-way attack, then we could actually set up artillery duels. Cavalry: most of the significant cavalry action took place off this map, and cavalry mostly fought dismounted. Still, cavalry played a role in the battle and if I could find places on the flanks to put a few units, having them be able to access two terts as in Austerlitz, it would provide a taste of their importance. In each case we'd be sacrificing geographic authenticity and accuracy but gaining, IMHO, flavor-of-the-battle authenticity. [Plus I'd retain eligibility for inclusion in that collection! ]

I think that the added complexity would lower the map's popularity on this site; although I personally like involved rule sets I know that they mostly cater to a niche market on CC. If your goal is to keep the gameplay straightforward, then I think that no further gameplay elements should be added. As for the other site, you could always add those elements in for a different version of the map as I see no reason why the CC map and the 'collection map' need to be the same.

If the map does take a more complex route however, I might have some comments on the artillery in particular. The effective range of some emplacements was considerably longer than others, based in part on visibility and the time that the units had to prepare and mark the various ranges in their field of fire. The artillery on Cemetery Hill, for instance, bombarded targets accurately as far away as Benner's Hill and Seminary Ridge on the map. And of course the artillery on Seminary Ridge bombarded Cemetery Ridge and the Angle on Day 3 (and overshot it shortly thereafter). Finally I think that bombardement rules, rather than 1-way attack, makes more sense for an artillery duel.

-- Marshal Ney

[jefjef]

Didn't intend to cause any offense in re of my sugg. It was purely for historical troop alignments. Emmitsburg road at that point was never part of the union line. It had to be crossed to assault the actual line at the Bryan barn/farm/Ziegler grove region which was on elevated terrain. At that location the road is not yet on the hill. The way it is now makes for an unnatural alignment. That's why I suggested. That's all. The connections also looks like we won't really be able to reenact pickets charge by directly assaulting the angle from Seminary ridge/Confederate position.

Good luck with the map. Looking forward to it.

[Minister X]

... historical troop alignments...

As I mentioned above, my deployment pattern is based on a Day Two "overview" map that doesn't precisely reflect any one moment's deployments. Also, I haven't an unlimited number of terts and have made a less-than-total effort to get the ones I have directly atop the main troop concentrations. Result: inaccuracy in where I'm showing troops versus where they were at any one point in time.

That explanation aside, I'm not wedded at all to the current pattern. It sounds like I could satisfy jetjef simply by removing the blue coloring from ER5. That would make the Union center three terts instead of four but that's okay. Perhaps TR6 can be moved northward and made blue to make up for it. Jetjef: would that do the trick? If not, can you please suggest some simple realignment like that, bearing in mind that the roads should have exactly as many terts as they have - no more or less. (Reflects road bonus versus how useful that road was.) Also bear in mind that I need to insert more impassable areas than truly existed on the battlefield. ("Impassables" on a map like this simply means dotted lines not present.) Once again, I'm not wedded to the pattern I have, but if you want to add more dotted lines someplace please suggest some other place where a similar number could be removed so gameplay can remain sufficiently channeled.

NEY: the constructive critic wasn't talking about some collection off-site, but rather (I think) something here like the WWII games. I dunno. Forget it. I don't want to start some unnecessary controversy.

I think you're right about the map needing and wanting no more complexity. I'll save the cap-and-cannon-plus-horse for my next Civil War game.

[Minister X]

7th Draft: shading under army bonuses, legend title added, armies shown (including location and value of neutrals).
I'm ready to creat a small version if given the size I need to meet.

show: superseded

Regarding the Union troops at ER5: I double-checked my source map. Since Emmitsburg Road goes through Cemetery Hill there are of course Union troops on it. The map I'm using shows them on or just a touch east of it down to ER5/the Angle. Given where my terts are and what the map shows, this then is the most accurate approximation. But my terts can move and my map isn't necessarily the final authority.

[MarshalNey]

Given the large amount of ground that each region represents, I think it could be argued either way for ER5. Frankly, since it works better for the gameplay, in my opinion I say keep it and let history be fudged just a tad. There were quite a few Federal skirmishers roving in front of the main lines, fighting a little-documented but costly battle for both sides (costly for the Union in men- a couple hundred! and costly for the Confederacy for the mortal wounding of General Pender).

I'm satisfied with the gameplay here, so I'll put this in the next bulletin and send out a message to my fellow CAs for a look-see.

-- Marshal Ney

[Victor Sullivan]

One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

As for the box format you're using, I'm frankly not a fan. Mostly this is because it just makes your map look far more confusing that it really is.

-Sully

[Minister X]

One thing I would add is a penalty for holding both a Union and a Confederate "flank," as it doesn't make much sense that one would benefit from holding both sides, if that makes sense. The idea of the penalty would be more to encourage players to stick to one "side of the war," and I think this could play out neatly in 1v1s.

As for the box format you're using, I'm frankly not a fan. Mostly this is because it just makes your map look far more confusing that it really is.

-Sully

How would the "no opposing flanks" rule get reflected in XML coding? I can't think of how to do it. On the boxes: what would you prefer: circles, ovals, lines as in Austerlitz, territories with borders on all sides? Bear in mind that I want to show the roads as roads, and make the roads continents. That almost rules out border lines - they'd be confused with the roads.

[MarshalNey]

I do have to say, that although I'm no graphics expert I think the previous version with the smaller, 'softer-looking' boxes was more visually pleasing. The larger boxes do make the map look more cluttered, and they are larger than they need to be to accomodate the army numbers. In fact, the army numbers could go outside the box and I don't think it would hurt. I feel that the boxes are there simply as an indicator of place (location), not to house the numbers.

However I wouldn't ditch the boxes just yet, until some others weigh in with opinions. Perhaps old-style army circles would do.

As for the negative bonus, I think that again one should be careful not to overcomplicate the map. Although this is a battle between two bitterly opposed armies, the main theme here is siezing the roads and defensive terrain in a race against time.

-- Marshal Ney