PBEM framework for an Oathmark campaign

 I'm thinking of running a PBEM for two friends, specifically with Oathmark, but I feel that this process could work for a lot of miniatures games. One of the things that triggered this was watching Ash and Stone's video about playing Oathmark solo, a technique that could work well for me as GM fighting battles on behalf of two players. Watch the video here and check the info on it for a download of his solo rules:

That pretty much covers the tabletop side of things. For the campaign, the kingdoms that each player has would be publicly available, so players will know what types of troops they might face, and the available figures for each terrain type are listed on the Oathmark page on this blog. That gives the players some degree of foreknowledge, but they will not know what the enemy army will actually look like until they face it in the field.

 The key question for me is how to streamline the campaign, so that it involves the fewest possible exchanges of emails. If I strictly follow the sequence of play in the Oathmark rule book, I get something like the following:

1. Players muster their armies and send the lists to the GM
2. The GM checks the lists and tells the players what the scenario and battlefield layout are
3. Players send the GM a deployment map each.
4. The GM tells the players how the enemy is deployed.
5. Players then send the GM a battle plan each.
6. The GM fights the battle, reports the results and adjudicates how this affects the campaign.
7. If the campaign will continue, start at point 1 again.

This framework involves three emails from the players to the GM and three from the GM to the players. I wonder if it would make a huge difference to the progress of the individual battles if the sequence started with the GM sending the players the battlefield map and the scenario, and they then reply with their army for that battle and their list, deployment and proposed tactics. That would result in the following sequence:

1. The GM informs the players about the scenario and the battlefield layout.
2. Players muster their armies and send the GM army lists and a deployment map each.
3. The GM tells the players how the enemy is deployed.
4. Players then send the GM a battle plan each.
5. The GM fights the battle, reports the results and adjudicates how this affects the campaign.
6. If the campaign will continue, start at point 1 again.

That is still three emails from the GM but reduces the input required from the players. It would be possible to reduce it still further by combining points 2 and 4, resulting in this sequence:

1. The GM informs the players about the scenario and the battlefield layout.
2. Players muster their armies and send the GM their army lists, a deployment map each and their battle plan.
3. The GM fights the battle, reports the results and adjudicates how this affects the campaign.
4. If the campaign will continue, start at point 1 again.

This reduces the campaign turn to two emails from the GM and one from the players, but also reduces the level of control the players have, because they must plan their tactics in more general terms without knowing how the enemy army is deployed. Some players would react against this, while others would be happy sending more general orders to try to cover various eventualities. I guess it would come down to the players' preferences and desire to be actively involved, plus their willingness and ability to respond quickly to game emails. With a planned turnaround of one month per battle, it should not be impossible to follow the first framework, but I shall have to ask my players what they think.