OPERATION EXPORTER - Multiplayer "User vs AI" Campaign

[Double_Deuce]

OK, based on replies in this thread I have the following positions spoken for;

• COMPANY CO: OPEN (pending cuckoo's acceptance of being volunteered or not) .
• 1ST PLATOON: gila
• 2ND PLATOON: Roman
• 3RD PLATOON: iCaMpWiThAWP

[Double_Deuce]

Another note. Whoever is the CO will need to know the process to load the next scenario file into the campaign game structure so that the Core Force carries over from scenario to scenario.

The process is basically the same we did with the RCW II game and is covered in this thread;

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=47288

NOTE: Of course scenario slots and file names will not be the same.

[gila]

As far as CO,the job goes to whom ever accepts,
icamp said earlier he would take it if no one accepts,
All good players here,we just need a CO,to get this rocking
I'll do it if no other takers.

[gila]

I can see a Band of Brothers campaign working well in this format also.

[gila]

One other detail,
Is excessive suppresive fire allowed?
Most cases in pbem hu v hu,there might be restrictions,
The AI does not use it the way a human may, and have a big handicap there.
I don't use z-fire unless been fired on from a suspected location against the AI.
Latley have a rule of never using in pbem.
Otherwise it's alot of waiting time as someone fires every round they have,very boring and gamey imo.

[cuckoo]

Capt.Cuckoo... I like the sound of that! I´ll volunteer for the role, but a platoon is just as good.

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by gila

One other detail,
Is excessive suppresive fire allowed?
Most cases in pbem hu v hu,there might be restrictions,
The AI does not use it the way a human may, and have a big handicap there.
I don't use z-fire unless been fired on from a suspected location against the AI.
Latley have a rule of never using in pbem.
Otherwise it's alot of waiting time as someone fires every round they have,very boring and gamey imo.

Good point. I'm thinking about having a rule that z-fire is only allowed against /suspected unseen targets and against vehicles (since AT capability is pretty limited in this time period).

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

Good point. I'm thinking about having a rule that z-fire is only allowed against /suspected unseen targets and against vehicles (since AT capability is pretty limited in this time period).

I use the "z" when I know the position of the enemy prior to an assault. or to avoid an assault the enemy. Bone is the use of fire suppression.
Could be used to suppress a hypothetical position but reveals our own position.

[cuckoo]

Originally Posted by Roman

I use the "z" when I know the position of the enemy prior to an assault. or to avoid an assault the enemy. Bone is the use of fire suppression.
Could be used to suppress a hypothetical position but reveals our own position.

Ditto... EXTENSIVE use of z-fire is another matter and actually is quite annoying. Also, isn´t the unit who shoots broadside less capable of op-fire the next turn? I´m not sure...

[gila]

Think excessive z-fire does affect a units ability to have op fire.
Not good when you are counting on the other platoons for support and one went a bit nuts previously,and can't op fire when needed most