I've been mulling over some ideas on balance. I'm putting here just to discuss as I'm not convinced on any one of them. I've posted some other thoughts at the end.
Random Draft
Use a random number generator to decide army composition. Each player in the draft is assigned a number, a coin flip determines which army receives a player first and a random number generator is used to assign players. A generator that doesn't repeat numbers would have to be used, or some other work around, or TAs will sit there all day waiting for the next number to come up near the end of the draft. There would be separate infantry, armor and air drafts.
The main benefits of this method is that it removes human error and creates a more transparent "fairness" to the draft system. It has major downsides though, no accounting for availability, no accounting for skill, completely removes a General's ability to decide the composition of his army and there is really no way to ensure if it would create a more balanced campaign. It would just be pure luck if the campaign ended up balanced.
"Skill Quotient" Variance Limit
Draft is conducted the same as it is now, but at the end of the draft the TAs will add up each army's "skill quotient" and if there is too wide a variance will declare the draft invalid. HCs would then need to trade players until the variance is within the decided upon limit.
What's a skill quotient?
A players battle log skill rating, or another statistic from a player's battle log profile that indicates their skill.
PROS:
Measurable statistic to balance campaigns.
Only minor, if any, detriments to General's ability to decide army composition.
Improved perceived fairness to draft system.
CONS:
Does not explicitly take availability into account (HCs should take into account during draft but players may get switched based on skill quotient disregarding availability).
Battle log numbers may not indicate actual skill, especially for air/armor players.
Many GCers only play at GC which doesn't report on battle log.
Creates additional work load for the TAs as they must look up every players skill quotient, or we must create a script to pull the information.
Does not account for team work or leadership skills.
Variable Division Campaign
This one is a bit complicated and is a departure from the traditional GC armies.
First HCs are selected, then officers are determined with input from both HCs. Officers then draft players to their divisions. There would be four infantry divisions, two armor divisions and two air divisions. The campaign would proceed as normal except that each week HCs would pick which divisions will play for their army with the first pick going to the HC with the lower WCP. Divisions would be static, but which army (or HC) they played for may change from week to week.
PROS:
Allows dynamic army balancing during the campaign.
Could create stronger ties between division members.
Improved division identity/competition
CONS:
Wins would be virtually meaningless to all but the HCs.
Completely removes ability to plan and organize as an army prior to battle.
Battles will be almost completely skill based.
Removes General's ability to decide army composition as there is no permanent army.
Eliminates army identity for all but HC.
Ladder squad draft
This idea is built off of the 8v8/10v10 tournament idea discussed in
this thread
First we pick HCs who will not participate in the tournament, or will have matches against each other to determine first pick. The HCs then determine, together with TAs, who in the officer draft they would like to lead their divisions. Those selected will then select people to join their "squads" in a draft. There would be 8 infantry squads, 4 armor squads, 2 jet squads and 2 helo squads. Those numbers are based on a typical army set-up of two infantry divisions, one armor division and one air division with one Captain and one Lieutenant in each division.
Those squads would then face off in a single elimination tournament. Battles would be best two of three on two maps, one chosen by each squad, "defender" picks side. Infantry squads would fight infantry only, armor would fight tank v tank and air would fight jet v jet or helo v helo. Match-ups would be decided by random number generator or by using the "skill quotient" to split squads between sides of a bracket (top two quotients are split, then the next highest, etc).
Squads would then be drafted to armies based on when they were eliminated from the tournament. First round eliminations are split between the armies, second round eliminations are split between the armies, etc. Pick of squads based on coin flip or HC match-up victory.
PROS:
Army composition based on actual in-game team based performance.
Exciting new "mini-game"?
Generals get to see their perspective officers in action before drafting.
Streaming fun.
CONS:
Doesn't take into account availability.
Players have to take part in the tournament or results will be skewed.
General's ability to decide army composition limited.
Difficult to integrate new members until completion of tournament
"Odd man out" issues if numbers don't match (or TAs skewing results).
Less effective for Jet/Helo/Armor match-ups due to lower numbers (only one match-up for jets/helos :-/).
Possible fix: Make those match-ups 1v1 or 2v2, but that limits HC ability to gauge officer leadership skills.
Three Armies
Probably the most complicated and would create real confusion for new members.
Essentially everything would be run the same except we would split the players between three armies. A third color would be added to the campaign map. Armies would continue to rotate attack weeks but it would be a three week rotation.
The army who is neither attacking nor defending would be split between the other two armies and integrated into their divisions during battle days. The HC with the lower WCP would get first pick for selecting integrated divisions.
If/when one army is eliminated the eliminated army's divisions would be split between the remaining two armies with the army possessing the lower WCP getting the first pick.
PROS:
Improved army balancing as third army divisions would augment the other army's
Dynamic balancing during a campaign as HCs alter third army division picks from week to week.
Improved strategic match-ups. (Possibly)
CONS:
Requires three HCs
Weakens army identity.
Could be very confusing to new members.
Complex. Adds additional steps prior to each battle which could delay start times, especially if the defender changes between attacks.
1/3 of the army would have no prior knowledge of the strat.
Could create problems with leadership in the loaned divisions.
Could create issues with loaned division members throwing battles so the attacking army does not make gains.
Increased complexity in campaign system and administration.
Other Thoughts:
Neutral Group
We had a neutral group for quite awhile and it was mostly effective at countering availability issues as the campaign progressed. It was disbanded because that group was always made up of veteran members who were much more needed in leadership positions in armies. It was draining us of 6 or so potential officers so we decided to tell them to stop hiding in the neutral group and start leading again. Some said ok (one even became a general), but others we haven't seen since. I don't think it's time to bring this group back for the same reasons we disbanded it.
Making the campaigns more interesting
The key to making campaigns more interesting is to have active and engaged people, especially in the officer corps. Yes the main event of the campaign is the battleday, but keeping people engaged in the forums during the week greatly improves the odds that they will show on battledays, or at least will tell you if they can't make it. Also, that all important organization we promise is created on the forums. If we're organizing on TS five minutes before the battle then we aren't delivering a truly organized battle.