Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Did anybody done this?


Idea: group of players play as one side against strong AI.

Roles:


Game Master(an experienced player): a Colonel(buys, set up units, than give orders to Company leaders. He also uses artillery)

Rest of players: Company Leaders.

Each payer only moves his own Company units than pass the savegame to another player and the Game Master(he will review progress).


If some player doesnt want to play or gets silent for too long, than he can be replaced by another.



That would be pretty awesome and fun to play. :)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

We already did something similar with DD, but we had separate battles, i think the game can get messy pretty quickly if everyone's on the same map, but that sounds fun.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

This has been discussed and even done before on the Blitz,but with only human players,not sure if against the AI.
I see better gameplay if it's HU players only.

The trouble when playing the AI is it's inevitible reckless use of units and poor arty plotting,even when it's given better pref's, and then it get's non historical,unless you want to say they will be the elite.

But then would elite unit's still be so reckless?
More likely they would have already learned from battle tactics experince and use units more strategicly like a human,that's something the AI is incapable of.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

In "The Blitz", we're playing something similia, but human vs human.
Now we're playing 2v2. We played with larger units with two or more battalions for each player.
Can be made a practice game vs AI but surely be more interesting human vs human, but surely the games take longer.
If you want to do a practice I offer myself to play.
Greetings

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I know we did something like this a while back over at the Blitz but it was Human vs Human.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

robertt,

I'm not saying this is a bad idea,but getting enough players interest here,is not likely going to happen;)

You should post this idea on the:
Blitz,

http://www.theblitz.org/message_boar...lay.php?fid=14

To discuss this possibilty,where there is more eager players,myself included:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

As I said we're playing 2 humans vs 2 humans. In The Blitz was not more interested. But try not to miss anything.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I would be happy to be in command of maybe a mech Bn held in reserve,then pieced out as needed, as fire brigades:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Then we play. I propose the following.
If we are 4 or more us to play human vs. human. If we are less than 4 we play vs AI.
Saying?

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Something I was just pondering and thought that I would add is . . what about doing it at the campaign level instead of just a scenario?

Something similar to what Wulfir and I were doing with the custom user campaigns BUT instead of multiple parallel campaign games where each players is playing their own campaign, you have multiple commanders running in a single campaign game.

Basically, just like I was running BUT instead of one player commanding the core force through the campaign, you have 3-4 players passing the campaign save file around so each "commander" moves and shoots with only their own assigned units. Say for example that the core force is a reinforced company and each player is a platoon leader with one player being the overall company commander who runs the HQ units AND any artillery/air support and provides general orders to his platoon leaders.

It would take some coordination between players where the CO player plays his units 1st and then writes up a short set of orders (transmitted via radio) and passes the file to the 1st platoon leader, who moves his units and then passed the file to the 2nd platoon leader and so on. As the turns progress the platoon leaders can request support from the CO for artillery, air or other available support he has at his disposal and he would pass along the approval or not so that players could take control of the units or call artillery/air attack from their platoon HQ unit.

Perhaps a short campaign (3-4 battles) following a company of the Australian 2/16 Battalion during Operation Exporter (circa June/July 1941) in the Middle East?

Thoughts?

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I like it, but coordinating moves and such things may be a little hard.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

That's what keeps it interesting. In RL you do not have time to site down and discuss what each platoon should do in the heat of combat every few minutes. You might be able to give general guidance such as you attack x building while I sweep around the flank kinda stuff, but nothing in great detail.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Yeah, maybe limit the amount of characters that can be transmitted as orders to make it feel like you had little time to describe your plan. Sooo, when do we give it a go?

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I think keeping the maps and core force small, like we did with the RCW II game you can aim for a 4-7 days per turn (12 turn game) turnaround time. However, with that time schedule you are looking at around 10-12 weeks per scenario/mission. That's 12 months for a 5 scenario campaign, a long time for a campaign to hold interest.

Questions is . . . are there 4+ people out there with that kind of time on their hands?

I have some ideas but might need to do a little testing to see if I could implement some special configurations like a really customized core force and how casualties are replaced.

Also, what if a platoon leader unit (the x0 unit) is wiped out, does he keep running his platoon or get replaced?

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

This will take some dedication,i'm up for it!

I beleive when the x0 is wiped out,then the x1 takes over "and so on down the chain" with it's own rally factors,usaully much less than the orginal x0, i don't think it should be replaced imo.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

This thread is probably best in this sub-forum

Andy

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

re Icamp,
I like it, but coordinating moves and such things may be a little hard.[/quote]

Cd users should use the *5* key utility,
Non cd users could just rename thier units,keeping units more cohesive that way;)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I would rename the units for easier tracking so there is consistency. Players would be limited to only calling for fire/air by submitting a request and getting permission from the CO and coordinating it through him.

I'm thinking that the CO gets the file 1st each turn and then, after moving/shooting with his units, passes it to the other platoon leaders in sequence, with the CO and each platoon leader passing along a short briefing to the next player for reference. We could use the forums here with a special thread and when each player is done they upload the save file and post a short/brief kind of AAR for that part of their turn (say no more than 100 words maximum which is about 2/3 the size of this paragraph) for the next guy to download, play and repost. That way there is a flow to the story line that the players and lurkers can follow.

Also, it would allow me as the GM to snatch the file, from any point in the game, load it and take some screenshots and do a running AAR.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Yeah,you as GM,could rename each unit to make gameplay easier,but would that make it more labour intensive for you?

Trading turns,could be a bigger issue here,the most important thing to remember is never end turn unless CO does so,

And a good AAR will help keep interest going in the case of drop-outs and in eventuality of recuiting new commanders:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

The renaming should really only be needed in the 1st scenario of the campaign, then everything should carry over, at least for the Core Force.

You are right about the CO, he should probably go last and end the turn so he can assess the situation up until the very end of the turn, after the others have made their moves/shots and therefore get an idea of what to post for the next turn's order/guidance.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I will try to work up the base campaign outline and post more so we can officially make a call for players. We can then go from there.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Thanks,for even considering this possibilty.
I'm still way in:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

:D[quote=Double_Deuce;778417]Exactly:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Here's a draft of the map for Scenario/Mission #1. ;)

The Orchard looking terrain is actually regular Orchards on top of Desert Rough and are meant to simulate extensive Vineyards in the area. They are intended to limit visibility and make movement harder.

The Mosque type building at the crossroads is a Police Station along the Palestine/Syria border.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

This sounds more like me MBT. But for me no problem.
If the map is small and the units are few believe that the battles would not delay.
One option may be several people playing against one.
3v1 or 4v1. Just to give you the human touch. If we manage to battalion level I offer to play alone.

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

[quote=Roman;778423]Hi Roman,
That map suits a Bn for WW2 for both sides,and suitable for 3-4 player per side,
just my opinion,but i think overly large maps (for the sake of manuever) are a waste of time.
Remember the whole concept,is to keep Multi-player interest in the game and keeps the action going,from the first turn to the last hopefully:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

[quote=gila;778424]The map size is fine. Just saying it sounded like MBT, because Deuce names Palestine and Syria. Hitler had wanted to get there, but could not.:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I got your drift,Palistine Vs Syria? not what one would expect for WW2 action,more post WW2,i'm sure it was overlooked on which game.

:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Palestine and Syria as an area in WW2 would tend to suggest the actions Vs the Vichy French by various Allied units in that area...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E...banon_Campaign

(and the Luftwaffe did turn up there :)!)


Andy

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Actually German and Italian aircraft operated out of Syria against British forces in the Kingdom of Iraq. The primary reason the British invaded Vichy France held Syria from Palestine was to kick the Axis forces out of the airfields and prevent them from shipping armaments to pro-German rebels operating in Iraq via rail through Syria.

See also > > Führer Directive No. 30

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

My aplogizes,to DD for assuming you got mixed-up on which game:o
Of course i should known you would find a more obscure campaign:)
BTW,posted this thread on the blitz,hopefully that might draw more recuits in:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

No worries . . the East Front just doesn't hold the lore it used to for me.
Thanks, still cannot post there so they'll need to come here. :(

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I also posted same on WaW club,doubtful any those mainly CM guy's will join,but gave it a shout out:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Hey Double Deuce!

In the meantime could you do a small campaign with me?

Using the rules that I proposed in this thread namely #16?

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...t=47417&page=2

It's my new fangled way to play a campaign in pbem,small map 30x30 ,only a coy of infrantry per side,for the first battle,after which it can expand, and only up 81 mm section(bought from support) allowed and always no more than 5% of core.but at least a sec. of morters allowed,no matter how low the core force gets.
No support allowed except for arty or trucks if needed.
Set at hardest or hard level.
Hope that makes sense:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I'm probably not one you want for a Pbem opponent as my turn rate is usually only about 1-2 turns per week if that. :(

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I'm pretty much slowed down on PBem myself:)
Only have 1 game going now and will probaly not take anymore,unless it's something interesting;)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Ok gentlemen. The official sign up and game thread has been posted;

OPERATION EXPORTER - Multiplayer "User vs AI" Campaign

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Thanks. One always learns something new.:D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Well, its not like it was a major theater. :D

I have recently (ok not recently :cool: ) developed an interest in some of the more obscure theaters and campaigns so if we continue running these kinds of games you may end up learning about a lot more. ;)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

This is better than history class, and much more fun :D

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

I was reading the information. It really was a major theater. Gives much to think about strategy and politics of the time. I knew of some incidents against the Republic of Vichy in Tunisia and some naval engagements.
There nazi everywhere, even in England. Now I think the intensity of political warfare. Perhaps equal to the battlefield ....
I also read that there Czechoslovak forces. I'm about to get the film that talks about the performance of the Czechs in Tobruk. The film is called "Tobruk ".
Greetings

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

The german war engine got thirsty.
It came to a matter who had control of oil resources,pretty much the same nowdays:)

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Hello DD...been a few years. If you folks have need of another player or a reserve please keep me in mind.

Regards
7thcav

Re: Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.
 

Hey 7th. If you haven't already done so, you may want to check this thread:

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showt...720#post779720