3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Opponents wanted



Message

Barb -> 3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (3/19/2009 7:54:34 PM)

As my current PBEM opponent is unreachable for two weeks now, I am playing with the idea to try 3v2 game to get into the situation, simulate Command structure, ... . This can also create good team for some future AE 3v2 games.

Currently there are these command structures in my mind (A,B,C-allied, X,Y-japan) :
1. "standard" command division
A - Pacific Ocean Areas, B - SWPAC (Australia, Philipines), C - CBI (China, India, Burma, DEI)
vs
X-Army (HI, Army air, vehicles, armament), Y-Navy (+Navy air production, shipyards)

2. probably slower, will make players "specialists" in their Branch, closer to reality
A - Ground, B - Air, C - Naval
vs
X-Army (HI, Army air, vehicles, armament), Y-Navy (+Navy air production, shipyards)

3. this will be probably the slowest, most complicated, but also closest to reality
A - POA strategic + POA Navy-Marines + SWPAC Ground + CBI Air
B - SWPAC strategic + SWPAC Air + POA Ground + CBI Navy-Marines
C - CBI strategic + CBI ground + POA Air + SWPAC Navy-Marines
vs
X - Japan, Kwantung, China, Southern Area, N. Guinea strategic + Army ground units + Navy Air + HI, Army air, vehicles, armament
Y - Pacific strategic + Navy ground units + Navy Ships + Army Air + Navy air production, shipyards

(for the 2nd and 3rd command structure: Japaned finished turn with replay will be sent to all three allied players at the same time, they will first work orders* for "subordinates", sent them to other players and only then the first allied player will give his orders tactically)
*Like: POA CiC to 13th AF: Light/Heavy/AM/PM airfield attack requested, Buna, Solomons.

Even if no 3v2 game will be started, you could share your oppinions about proposed command structures...



Nomad -> RE: 3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (3/19/2009 8:19:32 PM)

#2 sounds most interesting and most frustrating. [:D]



Big B -> RE: 3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (3/21/2009 12:30:44 AM)

Hi Barb,

I have played several 3x2 games and the command structure we have most often used is as follows:
1) USN & USMC
2) US Army & USAAF, + Soviets
3) British Empire, Dutch, & Chinese

Vs

1) IJN & Pacific assets (Southern Area Army?)
2) IJA & IJAAF

This requires some coordination between commands on the Allied side, and autonomy on the Japanese side. I think it reflects real life fairly well.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
...
Even if no 3v2 game will be started, you could share your opinions about proposed command structures...




GaryChildress -> RE: 3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (3/21/2009 1:32:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

Hi Barb,

I have played several 3x2 games and the command structure we have most often used is as follows:
1) USN & USMC
2) US Army & USAAF, + Soviets
3) British Empire, Dutch, & Chinese

Vs

1) IJN & Pacific assets (Southern Area Army?)
2) IJA & IJAAF

This requires some coordination between commands on the Allied side, and autonomy on the Japanese side. I think it reflects real life fairly well.

B
quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb
...
Even if no 3v2 game will be started, you could share your opinions about proposed command structures...




In my team games we always divided commands geographically. Usually I've split Japs east versus west with the dividing line somewhere around the PI. US three way was usually 1. British Far east. 2. OZ 3. Eastern Pacific.



Barb -> RE: 3v2 game (Stock or BigB) (3/21/2009 5:55:01 PM)

My idea is to "force" players to coordinate tactically, not to share the same map coordinating only strategical assets. Yes it will complicate things bit, but also could add little flavor in things like requesting airstrike or requesting enough shipping to transfer a division.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.5625