While all these ideas would greatly speed up game play, I think my original intent is getting somewhat lost along the way.
I was looking to give the Team Commander greater involvement in actually directing the battle, more than just allocating resources to the individual players. If given that ability in a series of one on one battles - it would again greatly slow down the play - depending on how involved the CO wanted to be. Also, my original idea would give some degree of anonimity to who you were actually facing off against, and the possiblity of facing more than one opponent on the other team. If you're facing four opponents on the same map - it would be theortically possible for you to engage units from all four opponents at some point vs. sparing with the same opponent for a series of one on one's.
Again, it boils down to a time and dedication issue - which I believe affects any team or tournament play. We often went over a week between turns in the recent OTB games. However, I think we can give greater flexibility (with some imposed structure) to the teams ability to "play a turn" for an AWOL comrade - or for a CO to replace a coy commander if need be.
What I'll do is draft a brief word document that I'll attach with some basic rules that can be reviewed...and debated. If we can develop a general consensus - and enough guys interested in playing it - I'll put it together.
Along those lines - would anyone be interested in setting up a Battlion v. Battlion sized game for this purpose?
Enemy should send turn to all members of other team if they all want to watch replay. Otherwise CinC should get turn first so he can look at it and send to all team along with whatever assignments, missions and order of movement he if wants it that way or leave it open for any available team member to do their part with the CinC getting the last look before ending and sending. You could just limit the replay to the CinC of each team if you wanted to.
OK, I've attached a truly ROUGH DRAFT of a proposed way to play this.
If you are interested in this type of game, please take a look at it and fire away with additional recommendations. If you like what you see and want to try it - post that also. Once we get 6 to 8 interested parties, then we'll get something started.
Keep in mind that the goal of this is to have a game that simulates the changing situation on a battlefield with regard to command and control issues. It is the height of frustration to see your carefully laid plans completly devestated by the poor execution of your subordinates...it is the height of frustration to get your superiors to see your obviously correct point of view to get a mission done.
Also, if there is a volunteer to design and set up two realistically designed WWII battalions for this type of game - we'd love to hear from you...
I'd love to take part but will not burden my team mates because almost every week I have a period of 48 hours that I have no possibility to play.
If you take out work and sleep there's roughly 8 hours of free time for anything else. With 4 players 48 hours requires good sync of time zones where the players are to be able to play every turn within the time limit. There's no problem if you can find enough players with nothing but time.
If there is one thing I have it's time! I am pretty quick on the turns but my experience is lacking. If you are looking for more veteran players than i'm not the guy but if you need a body, count me in!
Vesku Wrote:I'd love to take part but will not burden my team mates because almost every week I have a period of 48 hours that I have no possibility to play.
If you take out work and sleep there's roughly 8 hours of free time for anything else. With 4 players 48 hours requires good sync of time zones where the players are to be able to play every turn within the time limit. There's no problem if you can find enough players with nothing but time.
All too true.
However, the time issue does not have to be set in stone - as long as all players are in agreement on how to manage it.
Also, remember you are only playing 1/4 to 1/3 of the units on your team. So if it would take you, say, an hour to complete a turn for a battalion sized game - in this case you should be able to complete the turn in 15 to 20 minutes...
What with a wife, 3 daughters, and keeping the free world safe - even I can find 20 minutes every 2 days.
Seahawk Wrote:If there is one thing I have it's time! I am pretty quick on the turns but my experience is lacking. If you are looking for more veteran players than i'm not the guy but if you need a body, count me in!
Great! This should also be a great learning experience for veterans and new guys alike - you can have a more expreienced player "guide" you, but you control your own guys.
Quote:What with a wife, 3 daughters, and keeping the free world safe - even I can find 20 minutes every 2 days.
I hear ya there..I have a son(25) and 2 daughters(17 and 20)..i remember how it was when they were young..I feel for you..teenage daughters are God's punishment for being a man!
Hi Gunslngr,
I have a couple of thoughts.
My preference would be to keep the game turns on the low side, as many battles are won within 10-15 turns (unless evenly matched) and the rest is clean up, which may drag out, especially for the losing team.
I would try to avoid penalties for tardy posting. I think most people want to play, it’s more a matter of real life interfering. We had a penalty in our OTB, but only to keep people from downloading and sitting on a turn.
I think the bonus points for killing senior officers is way too high. Currently, if you kill one captain that will probably win the battle. Teams won’t use their company commanders realistically; and it’s already a large morale loss to lose a Captain or Major. I would award a small bonus only.
I would use a forum thread for all saves. It's more transparent, and may move things along quicker.
Are you saying the team leader decides what forces are under each company commander at any time? I guess this is incentive for coy cmdrs to follow orders, or they’ll find themselves stripped of their armour or artillery support. :-)
My last suggestion is that you focus on finding another team leader, then the two of you can start recruiting.
Cross Wrote:My last suggestion is that you focus on finding another team leader, then the two of you can start recruiting.
That's not you volunteering is it?:)
I appreciate your suggestions and whole heartedly agree.
I think the game length would really depend on the map, as on a larger map it may take a few turns to even find each other. But 15 turns is probably a realistic run for this type of game.
I added the penalties as a way to keep the game moving, but I'm certainly not sold on the idea either. Particularly for a first time run of this thing. If it looks like they'd help, then maybe next time - for now, we can see how it runs with out them.
The bonuses can certainly be adjusted or thrown out altogether - another variation was the "Seabolt Variant" that would be a player is out if the unit representing his command is killed...though I think we decided that wouldn't be too popular. Although, the comedy of guys trying to kill their own Team Leader for poor leadership may be worth the price of admission.
Regarding the coy commanders, that was my intention regarding the Team Leader's ability to disperse units from one team member to another. It will probably create friction within the team, but the Team Leader may deem it necessary - or punitive for a player not getting the job done...a bit a human interaction in the midst of a cyber battlefield. It will also be tough on the TL, because his whole team may be screaming for artillery or support - but he has to decide how to divy up the always scarce resources.
So, are there any volunteers to step forward as a team leader?
I'll take first come first serve, and then we'll take this framework and create a set of rules of engagement for this experiment.
Anyone?