[Abandoned] - Gettysburg

[Minister X]

Okay. I am in the process of totally re-designing the map. I'm using "army boxes" instead of drawing borders. This allows the roads to be shown as roads, with the army boxes strung along them like beads. In addition, some boxes will be blue, some red, and some neutral. The blue will correspond to Union positions as per the USMA "Overview Map" for July 3rd; the red will correspond with Confederate positions. They, in addition to the roads, will be continents. This will be similar to the Austerlitz map. Watch this space.

[TaCktiX]

I like the change in direction, but I'm struck with how perfect most of the territories look. We've got quadrilaterals aplenty all over. It doesn't really jibe with what I think of when I hear "Civil War." And while I think this is closer to Gettysburg than your first go at it, I'm distracted from the Round Top by people marching into town. It's more of a Preparations for the Battle of Gettysburg than the Battle of Gettysburg. I realize you've already done one absolutely massive redo on the idea and if you want to set my comments aside I won't be offended and will still try to get its gameplay balanced and its elements clear.

Speaking of which, I almost missed Impassable's description on the map. Perhaps set that off?

[Minister X]

SIXTH DRAFT
This is a complete from-scratch re-design - almost worthy of having started a whole new thread. This version gives roughly equal weight to the most famous elements of the battle and to the nature of Gettysburg as a road junction, which is why the battle was fought there in the first place. The "elements" are the recognizable placenames and the disposition of forces illustrating the general course of day two of the battle.

If/when choosing to display a disposition of forces for this battle, more so than for most, the question is: when? Each day had different starting/ending dispositions. The ones I chose are from a US Military Academy map illustrating what they call the "Overview" of day two - neither the start or end, but a representative look at where most of the forces were most of the day. This seemed to me to show battlelines that would not only be most familiar to most people and run along the most famous landmarks, but also give the most representative feel for the engagement as a whole.

There are 79 terts and 17 different bonuses. There are also seven terts with autodeploys (of one or two). These seven will start with neutral forces of 3 troops each.

The bonuses come in two flavors: roads and historically disposed forces. Each road continent is discrete and solid and linear. Disposed forces continents are a lot less organized/cohesive. The two types overlap: to own certain roads you'd need to own certain disposed forces terts and vice-versa. This overlapping is extensive but only takes place on about half the map, making this something of two maps in one. The gameplay up north, with several small and one very large road will be much "cleaner" than gameplay in the more confused south-center.

Confused, but hopefully no confusing. Roads have names to identify them as per the legend, and are strung along the actual roads. Disposed forces are colored red or blue and have little tags denoting whether they belong to a left or right flank or the center of their respective side. I think this should all be clear enougth so that the only prospective players who are scared away will be those like me, who have almost zero tolerance for anything that looks like it might be confusing.

I see no difficulties making a smaller version of this map. This large version is 840 x 800.

show: superseded

[gimil]

At first glance this is far, far superior graphically to the last version of the map. The tones and colours really give a feel for what the map is about. I shall take a closer look at it in the future, when your game play has been more fine tuned!

[cairnswk]

What a difference a day makes, twenty four little hours....

Wow, you've really changed this around.
i have suggestions that are gameplay and graphics...when i started doing this map, i had some difficulty in remebering who was Union and who was Confederate. Is there anyway you could work that reminder into the legend somehow for non-US players.

Also, i see you have bonuses for right flank, centre and left of each side which agrregate for Union 13 and Confed. 16.
Is this unbalanced for gameplay?

Also, do these bonuses include only the coloured positions marked on the map of also ER1, TR1 and TR2 for instance.

I am really lilking where you are heading with this though.

[Minister X]

... difficulty in remebering who was Union and who was Confederate. Is there anyway you could work that reminder into the legend somehow for non-US players.

Also, i see you have bonuses for right flank, centre and left of each side which agrregate for Union 13 and Confed. 16.
Is this unbalanced for gameplay?

Also, do these bonuses include only the coloured positions marked on the map of also ER1, TR1 and TR2 for instance.

I honestly think all these questions could be answered simply by spending another minute studying the map.

The "tags" on the red and blue boxes indicate C for Confederate and U for Union (or USA). However, in the legend, I can put these red and blue colors under the appropriate words to strengthen the association. It will make the legend more difficult to read, however, so I'd like to hear from others whether they think it's needed.

The fact that there are more Confed. than Union terts makes absolutely zero difference to gameplay balance.

The right-most legend indicates the bonuses for the roads. Apparently this is not sufficiently clear? I have room to add the words "ROAD BONUSES". Would that help?

**I'm glad the reaction so far has been generally positive. Thanks.

[cairnswk]

...
I honestly think all these questions could be answered simply by spending another minute studying the map.

The "tags" on the red and blue boxes indicate C for Confederate and U for Union (or USA). However, in the legend, I can put these red and blue colors under the appropriate words to strengthen the association. It will make the legend more difficult to read, however, so I'd like to hear from others whether they think it's needed.

The fact that there are more Confed. than Union terts makes absolutely zero difference to gameplay balance.

The right-most legend indicates the bonuses for the roads. Apparently this is not sufficiently clear? I have room to add the words "ROAD BONUSES". Would that help?

**I'm glad the reaction so far has been generally positive. Thanks.

You've left UC out of the bonuses legend
From my experience with somewhat complex maps like this (and yes even i still don't get it correct out of the box), you need to make it perfectly clear what constitutes a bonus or not. That is to say, not everyone will read the map just like i did.

A lot of players will want to jump into the map and go pow wow and immediately expect to understand it, so anything you can do to assist this sitution and lessen your pain later would help...i.e. some colouration of the union and confed legend pieces. Perhaps this can be done as a background colour.

The title of Road bonuses or some such will assist also.

Are there going to be any bombardment positions? you have cannon on the map which leads me to think there might be.

Also, i have to say the additon of the flags in the background leads me to think literally one side against the other on the map, and as such i would consider to be distracting from the actual gameplay.
Perhaps they can be moved to the legend where they could be more useful in identifying the sides.
Just some suggestions if they help.

[Minister X]

I'll fix those things. It means losing the flags, which is okay if something just as good replaces them. There's plenty of imagery from the war, so it shouldn't be too hard, but if anyone wants to propose something specific I'll be receptive.

In Austerlitz both sides are shown, as here, and even have little men facing each other, but there's no confusion I've seen that would lead asnyone to say, "leads me to think literally one side against the other on the map, and as such i would consider to be distracting from the actual gameplay." So hopefully it's just the flags, and their removal, unfortunate as that may be, will solve the problem.

Bombardment positions: I had considered them but three things made me decide against them. 1) unlike so many earlier battles, at Gettysburg the artillery was spread onto every commanding height. For instance, Little Round Top was bristling with canon, but it also had infantry. It would be misleading to make it a bombardment position. 2) This was a big battle for the time. The union line is two miles top to bottom. Artillery had limited range. At this scale it would have been just to the next tert - rarely beyond. 3) I'm just starting out as a mapmaker. I'm having enough trouble (as you've seen) getting just a few different elements explained. Bombardment terts would add one more.

[MarshalNey]

I agree with Minister about the bombardments. While they would be a nice touch in a more complex map, I believe that Minister is aiming for a moderately simple gameplay framework. Given that goal, the number of gameplay elements should be small, probably no more than one, possibly two 'non-standard' types on the map (e.g., autodeploys, superbonuses, bombardments, one-way attacks, etc.)

Wow, though, this map is looking wonderful I think that the framework that you've settled upon here is a keeper. The attack routes look reasonable and historically sound too. Tweaking and balancing for the drop will probably be the main bulk of work.

I'm going to check the 1st post and see if you've posted any ideas for starting neutrals and the number of regions per player on the drop. If they're not there, then that's the next step I think as far as gameplay is concerned.

Excellent work!

-- Marshal Ney

P.S. Edit: Okay I checked the 1st post and it needs an update. Newcomers to this thread will see that post, and it needs to provide them with easy info that they can use to comment constructively (plus it helps us CAs too ). I realize that you just came out with this version, but I think it will be the definitive revision as far as concept goes, so it's worthwhile to revise the 1st post as well.

P.P.S. Edit: For neutral starts, obviously the auto-deploy regions should all be included. The smaller road & army bonuses should also be considered (like the MR bonus for instance). Try to tweak it so that you get a "golden number" of regions open for the drop. The "golden numbers" are listed under the Foundry gameplay guidelines (I think).

[Minister X]

I agree with Minister about the bombardments. While they would be a nice touch in a more complex map, I believe that Minister is aiming for a moderately simple gameplay framework. Given that goal, the number of gameplay elements should be small, probably no more than one, possibly two 'non-standard' types on the map (e.g., autodeploys, superbonuses, bombardments, one-way attacks, etc.)

Wow, though, this map is looking wonderful I think that the framework that you've settled upon here is a keeper. The attack routes look reasonable and historically sound too. Tweaking and balancing for the drop will probably be the main bulk of work. ...Excellent work!

Thank-you. That's great news.

For neutral starts, obviously the auto-deploy regions should all be included. The smaller road & army bonuses should also be considered (like the MR bonus for instance). Try to tweak it so that you get a "golden number" of regions open for the drop. The "golden numbers" are listed under the Foundry gameplay guidelines (I think).

Live and learn. I looked up the golden numbers. They are HERE under "Balanced Deployment". I have 79 total terts and the 7 autodeploys are already noted as being neutral starters so that's 72: a bad number. I need to add one to six more neutral starters. I want to prevent unreasonably good drops, so the small continents are the obvious targets. If I include continents with 4 terts that would be too many add'l neutral starters but two's and three's are just right. MR1, HAR1, HUN1 and YP1 will become Neutral starters, thus giving me the golden number of 68 deployable starters.

[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