Forums

I've had some informal discussion with some members about a Team Battle that would be similar to the Open Team Battles recently completed. I believe this has been done before, and like any idea it's full of potential problems. Having said that here it is...

A two team battle of roughly battlion size. The team would consist of an Overall Commander with 2 to 3 attached company commanders. Game play would move as follows: the Company Commander would start each turn. He would formulate a plan and set of orders for each company and he would move all the HQ directed units as he saw fit. The overall commander would then save the turn in progess (red arrow) and send via email directly to one of the company commanders. He would, at his discretion, email directions/orders to all his company commanders for that turn or series of turns.

Each company commander would move his company and units supporting that company. He would then save turn in progress (red arrow) and email to the next company commander. The last company commander would then save the turn on a thread here for the other Overall Commander to begin.

To add some "fog of war" the Overall Commander and then each subsequent company commander can only look at the map/move one time per turn. And, each player can only move the units under his direct control - so the Overall Commander can't "adjust" another team member's units to his liking on his turn. The Overall Commander can direct his company commanders - but the company commander may need to divert from those instructions as the game dictates (i.e. - The CO says go to a certain point, but movement by another company show that to be a bad idea).

A number of additonal rules could be added - like big points for killing a company commander unit and bigger points for getting the A0.

That's it in a nutshell. I'm sure there is a plethora of issues that would need to be worked out to keep everyone honest.;)

Now the big problem...Assuming that players would be in multiple time zones, probably have jobs (a real job), and/or families - this type of game would require an intense amount of long term dedication. For example - if you gave each team 48 hours to complete a turn, it would take 96 hours to complete one turn. A 25 turn game would take 100 days! And, that's if it went smoothly.

So, there you have it: the good and the bad. I'd just like to hear if any of you guys are interested, have experience with a team game like this, and/or have additional ideas about it.

Let me have it.

I ran this kind of battle once some years ago on SP H2H and it was a good experience. I think it was six players per side, my subs had each a company (tanks, tanks, TDs, motorized, motorized) and I commanded a tiny force of one FOO and his six mortars. It did take some time to finish one half of a turn, usually almost a week per side but we did it my email, each player had an addy to send after he had moved his company. Our sixth player sent the files to enemy and they went through the same routine.

This could be very interesting to execute in a campaign, each player had his dedicated company and overall leader would do the fix and upgrade.

A variation that I've been toying with that would play faster:
Turn the battlefield into a five by five grid of smaller "sectors." Each side has a pool of forces that must be divided up and allocated to each sector, then the commanders on the team are each assigned a sector and its forces. You end up fighting (for instance) five 1-on-1 matches on a team basis. The results of the fighting in each sector determine how the front shifts before the next round's fighting (much like Europa Twilight though on a much smaller basis).

This would be best handled in H2H because of its capacity for each side to allocate and call up reserves. Given more free time I already would have put this thing together ages ago, but work, boys, beer, and my wife's oh-so-fine derriere seem to keep distracting me ...

IIRC, a gamer going by "Double Duce" did this several years ago in W@W.
Maybe 2000 or 2001. I didn't play but one of my opponents at the time did and he seemed to like it.
I would think the cut and paste function of the new map editor would be a big help. If it was done in MBT, it would have to be an early (immediate post WW2 game) so the longer ranges of modern weapons wouldn't require a huge expenditure of time on map making.
You might want to google "Double Duce" and see if he's still active and has any tips. Re-inventing the wheel is a drag, making the same mistakes over again is worse.

If someone organized this, I would be interested in being on a team.

A few suggestions:

Setup
The Team leaders would have to deploy all forces, but not move them.

In the interest of a faster game:
Why would the team leader always need to go first? As long as he plays once per turn his input/orders will have almost the same influence in the long run. In same cases it would be better for him to go last, as he’ll have better artillery targets.

I would also recommend that the saved game files are posted on a forum thread, instead of emailed, because then the next coy commander available can download, move and repost. Everyone (on both teams) can then see exactly where the turn is, in the process.

The last coy commander to move his forces ends the turn. And posts to the same forum thread. They would have all seen the replay, but the last coy commander to move, would email his team about incoming enemy artillery and aircraft.

Force Control
I would recommend keeping it to 3 players per team, maybe, just maybe 4 per team.
Each player controls an infantry or motorized company.
The team leader controls one of the above infantry companies plus everything else. (Which could include a fourth infantry company even if only 3 on your team).
The team leader would assign control of other assets as he sees fit.
Coy commanders would need permission to call on battalion artillery assets (adjusting with their own LOS), but not coy mortars.

Which means if a coy commander had the northern sector, which was under serious attack, the CO (BHQ) could put some armour under his northern coy commanders control. But then take control back, or assign it over to another coy commander as soon as he thinks he needs it elsewhere.

I agree that players should not touch another player’s company, unless it’s ‘temporarily assigned support units’ that the CO decides to take back under his own command.

Campaign
I agree with Vesku that a PBEM campaign would be interesting, but you would need six/eight committed players. But you could certainly replace a coy commander mid-game if they had to drop out.

Question
Vesku, how much of a problem was players hitting the end turn button, instead of the save button?

With three players in a team, if the first player did that, then two players won’t get to move their company that turn. I guess that causes a serious enough penalty that you’re unlikely to make that mistake twice…

Cross Wrote:Question
Vesku, how much of a problem was players hitting the end turn button, instead of the save button?

With three players in a team, if the first player did that, then two players won’t get to move their company that turn. I guess that causes a serious enough penalty that you’re unlikely to make that mistake twice…

Not even once ... at least none came to my attention.

seabolt Wrote:A variation that I've been toying with that would play faster:
Turn the battlefield into a five by five grid of smaller "sectors." Each side has a pool of forces that must be divided up and allocated to each sector, then the commanders on the team are each assigned a sector and its forces. You end up fighting (for instance) five 1-on-1 matches on a team basis. The results of the fighting in each sector determine how the front shifts before the next round's fighting (much like Europa Twilight though on a much smaller basis).

Here’s an idea along those lines, and it may even be similar to what Gunslngr has in mind but without hassle of lengthy turns.

Let’s call it ‘Brigade Campaign’.

Teams
Two teams, doesn’t matter how many on each team, as long as they are equal, but let’s say four a side.
Each team has a team leader (Brigadier), who may also command one of his four battalions.

The campaign could be 3 to 5 rounds, of four battles a round (so each player fights one battle a round).

Each battle will be one player against one player, all battles will be meeting engagements.

Map Grid
The front lines would be four maps long (if 8 players), and the map grid would be seven maps deep for a four round battle. Doesn’t matter if the maps actually inter-lock, as long as they are from the same theatre.

All 28 maps would be picked out ahead of time. Each player could pick out 3 or 4 maps to be randomly assigned to the map grid.

Points
In the first round each team leader (Brigadier) gets 12,000 points.
After looking at the maps, and considering his Battalion commanders, he can distribute those points to any of the four sectors along his front lines.
He could give each Battalion commander 3000 points, or could give two 4000 points and two 2000 points. We could impose a minimum of 1000 points, and a maximum of 6000 points per sector.

Each battle would be set up at 10,000 points vs 10,000 points, but each player only spends what he has been given by his team leader.
Therefore, each Battalion commander won’t even know how many points the enemy has, that he is facing.

Sectors
Each Brigadier would also choose where he wants each commander. After both sides have assigned battalion commanders and points to sectors, they would find out which enemy Battalion Commander (BC) they are facing. BCs must stay in the same sector for the remainder of the campaign. Unless a BC has to drop out, in which case he could be replaced.

In subsequent rounds, a draw will mean you stay on the same map. A win means you advance a map on the map grid.

Artillery
All battles set to 6 aircraft.
Artillery is maximum of 10% for whole Brigade, but again the Brigadier can distribute as he sees fit.
So if round one has 12,000 points then Brigade has max 1,200 of arty. The Brigadier may give two sectors 4000 points and two sectors 2000 points, but he may allot 400 points of arty to each of the 2000 point Battalions and only 200 arty to each of the 4000 point Battalions.

Round Two and Refit Points
Each Brigade gets the force points that survived the first battle, plus refit points at the start of round two.
Calculate surviving force points by taking the total score of the enemy, minus VHex points, and deduct that from your start points.

Now here’s the interesting bit:
The refit points depend on the depth of penetration on the map grid. (success is rewarded)

EDIT: Here's a better Map Grid for two 4 man teams (8 players/battalions) (love using PAINT.net :))



If the allies had three draws and a win. They would get refit points of 3x1500 for the draws and 1x2000 for the win. For a total of 6500 refit points. If the allies lost 5000 force points in round one, then they add their remaining 7000 points to the 6500 refit points. Giving the Brigadier 13,500 points to distribute in round two.

The Axis had three draws and a loss. Giving them 3x1500 and 1x1000 for a total of 5500 refit points to add to their remaining force points.

The Allied Brigadier may then give more points to his successful battalion commander in an attempt to get another win and 2500 ‘rear’ refit points. But even if that commander gets a draw, he remains on the enemy ‘objective’ map and wins his brigade 2000 refit points for round 3.

Victory Conditions
After four rounds, the victory is decided by ground captured.
You get one point for each map grid you’ve advanced.

Misc
Depending on the date, theatre, the allied players could have US, UK, Polish sectors; the Axis, Italian or German.

28 maps? Or am I seeing that wrong? Those maps will have to be built so that roads and streams match. Is that going to be a problem? Time and Vis will have to be the same, won't they? It wouldn't be right to have direct fire weapons shooting from one map to another. What about arty?
Won't there have to be a referee? Or something like that.
What if some commander breaks his opponents front and sends a recon in force into another map, finds nothing there and sends it into the map beyond that?
This sort of battle is very much into the operational part of warfare and it would be good to resolve some of the operational issue now, instead of after the games start.
It's sounds like a great idea, but there are some practical issues that need to be addressed. Step 1 would be seeing if they have already been resolved and how those solutions worked out.

low_bidder Wrote:28 maps? Or am I seeing that wrong? Those maps will have to be built so that roads and streams match. Is that going to be a problem? Time and Vis will have to be the same, won't they? It wouldn't be right to have direct fire weapons shooting from one map to another. What about arty?
Won't there have to be a referee? Or something like that.
What if some commander breaks his opponents front and sends a recon in force into another map, finds nothing there and sends it into the map beyond that?
This sort of battle is very much into the operational part of warfare and it would be good to resolve some of the operational issue now, instead of after the games start.
It's sounds like a great idea, but there are some practical issues that need to be addressed. Step 1 would be seeing if they have already been resolved and how those solutions worked out.

Hi Low Bidder,

Thanks for the feedback.

28 maps shouldn't be a problem, we would use pre-existing maps; there's no reason at all why the streams and roads should match. Perhaps half the maps wouldn't even be used.

All turns would be the same for all battles and visibility would be the same for all battles in a round. No problems there.

Each sector/map is independant, so no direct or indirect fire will cross sectors/maps. Artillery support will have been committed to a sector prior to the battle.

I can't see a need for a referee. What would he referee?

If a 'front is broken' (on a particular map), a player is probably going to win that battle. So on the next battle he get's to start on the map that is deeper into enemy territory. IRL a battalion is highly unlikely to move two maps (10 to 12KM) in one battle (one to two hours) you'd out-run your supply, and there's casualties, repairs and replacements to organize before the next battle.

I think perhaps a bit more flexibility in arty air, still limit arty as a % & perhaps say air must be a certain % to. If overall arty is 10% can assign to formations at 5-15% say as see fit. Or each formation must have its own attached arty as in mortars or light arty & heavy stuff must be offboard & given out as commander sees fit.
Air could be treated as an airpool starting with say 30 planes a max of 20 used per set of battles. Destroyed planes are lost damaged miss one battle set. That way you will have some idea if you are winning or losing the air war.