How feasible is team play? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's War in the East Series >> Opponents Wanted



Message

Redmarkus5 -> How feasible is team play? (2/13/2011 7:49:30 PM)

I have been wondering how feasible it would be to arrange a team game, say 3 players each side:

- OKH and STAVKA players set strategic objectives, spend AP to assign armies to HQs, create sub-units, and manage the air doctrine and factory moves, as well as the strategic reserves.

- Army Group or Front commanders (one player will need to manage more than one Front) do their best to achieve the objectives given and bid for resources, as well as offering up their suggestions for strategy.

Could add some real life tensions and interesting decision making/politics :) ??



Harovan -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/13/2011 7:58:49 PM)

Seeing there's a 2vs2 game running, it's probably possible. I bet it's running very slowly, though. I might be interested.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/13/2011 8:42:29 PM)

OK, let's see who else signs up. We could start with a '41 scenario and play a few turns to test the method, then move the the GC if it works...



Harovan -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/13/2011 9:03:40 PM)

good idea



smokindave34 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/13/2011 10:35:12 PM)

I'd be interested in this. I like the idea of dividing up the areas of responsibility - seems very realistic.



Duality -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 2:23:20 AM)

I'd be interested if you are looking for another player.



bairdlander2 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 2:27:05 AM)

Im interested as well,would like to command AGS



vonsheaffer -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 3:13:54 AM)

I wouldn't mind giving it a try.



bairdlander2 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 3:35:20 AM)

Why not 4 players each side.Set it up and I will play,I prefer AGS command.



jomni -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 3:40:45 AM)

Should be played as regular PBEM outside the servers...



buchand -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 7:25:32 AM)

Sounds like a great idea. Some 30 years ago i was involved in a team play, by snail mail, Drang Nach Osten game. Like Guderian you can get frustrated that you aren't given all the reinforcements but probably not as frustrated as the OKH/STAVKA going mad when there strategy colllapses because of "incompetent" commanders[:D]
Would love to get involved.



jomni -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 7:29:18 AM)

Hypothetical roleplaying question:
If the leader of your command gets purged (executed) or dies in battle, will you also be out of the game?



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 9:17:09 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jomni

Hypothetical roleplaying question:
If the leader of your command gets purged (executed) or dies in battle, will you also be out of the game?


No - I would suggest that we link the player to a sector, rather than to a specific identity or command. 4 on each side feels right to me, with the roles divided as follows:

Axis

Player 1 = OKH/OKW (commands all AP usage, Air and all reserves until they are assigned to an Army Group. Issues strategic orders. Can 'punish' a commander for not obeying or poor performance by withholding resources. Takes temporary command of any AG whose owning player is unavailable or unresponsive after, say 2 days. Responsible for 'driving' the AAR thread, with inputs [field reports] from each of his commanders).
Player 2 = AGN
Player 3 = AGC
Player 4 = AGS (When AG A and AG B are formed, Player 1 can decide to take over one of them, bring in a 5th player, or let Player 4 run both groups, etc).

Soviets

Player 1 = STAVKA (Commands AP, Air and all STAVKA reserves PLUS Moscow MD and Reserve Front and move of factories. Note; Player 1 moves first and decides how rail move points are to be allocated - he may opt to use them all! Plus the above points as per the OKH/OKW player).
Player 2 = All forces in the Baltic States, Finland and around Leningrad (details to be agreed with STAVKA).
Player 3 = Western MD - all forces from one hex south of Vilnius to the Pripyat R.
Player 4 = Southwest - all forces from the Pripyat R to Odessa.
Player 5 = Optional - may join to take over command of the Caucasus region and/or Crimea when required.

STAVKA will reassign commands as the front expands, to keep the burden shared.

Definitely a PBEM game - interim moves need to be saved and email (NO F12!) and then Player 4 hits F12 when he's done and sends to the STAVKA/OKH player, as appropriate.

A few house rules? Any suggestions?

Also, volunteers for roles? I will make a list here and then start a shared 'Combined Ops' thread in the AAR section to serve as our main reference. No confidential posts in that thread - just discussions involving both sides.

OKW/OKH - BigAnorak
AGN - Redmarkus
AGC - open
AGS - Bairdlander

STAVKA - open (this player needs to create the game and send it to the OKH player, once assigned)
Baltic etc. - open
West - open
Southwest - Smokindave34

Finally, if everyone PMs their email address to me, I will create a master list and get that back out to everyone involved.

RM



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 9:21:53 AM)

Important note.

The STAVKA and OKH players must also coordinate the boundaries between their subordinates to avoid gaps and clashes. This is a real life challenge and failures in this area have led to major military disasters, as you know :)

Issuing properly formatted orders (mission, execution, admin & logistics) is critical.

I also have an idea for one more role on each side - Intelligence Officer. His job is to assess the enemy's capabilities and intentions (without going to their AAR thread!) and to post an intelligence assessment each turn, including the body count. Comments?



karonagames -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 9:54:51 AM)

Go on then,. As I am not doing any AARs for my other games, I will take on OKH.

Objective - Have Fun!

I will have to change my Avatar I suppose.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 10:50:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigAnorak

Go on then,. As I am not doing any AARs for my other games, I will take on OKH.

Objective - Have Fun!

I will have to change my Avatar I suppose.


Excellent - I have added you to the list above. Please PM me your email again as I cleaned out my Inbox a while back...

I'll need a new Avatar as well...



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 11:00:21 AM)

New shared AAR is up at http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2726532&mpage=1&key=�

Big A will setup the OKH AAR and 'Open' will do the Soviet one.



Harovan -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 3:05:12 PM)

Put me down where needed, may take a Soviet command (but not STAVKA please) or perhaps AGC.

EDIT: By the way, will the AG and front leaders have an AP allowance too, or will all leader changes, corps and army OOB changes and reserve handling done by OKH/STAVKA?



Tarhunnas -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 3:30:27 PM)

I could take a Soviet command, maybe Baltic.



ComradeP -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 4:08:51 PM)

It might be a good idea to continue the discussion in the other thread: http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2726532



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/14/2011 5:14:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Harovan

Put me down where needed, may take a Soviet command (but not STAVKA please) or perhaps AGC.

EDIT: By the way, will the AG and front leaders have an AP allowance too, or will all leader changes, corps and army OOB changes and reserve handling done by OKH/STAVKA?


Good question. I will reply in the main AAR thread. We are moving all discussion over there now, so apologies to those who applied here - we are already full! However, feel free to create a parallel game or to wait in the wings for people to be executed!



eloso -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/15/2011 1:15:41 AM)

I'd be interested in one of the Soviet commands, however, I'm just learning the game so putting me in command of the whole thing is not wise... I'll PM my contact info to redmarkus4.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/15/2011 12:55:38 PM)

Hello all.

Apologies to anyone who is still trying to sign up here. All slots are currently taken and we moved the discussion to the threads in the AAR. Please monitor one of the other (Axis or Soviet) if you are hoping to get involved later and let the OKH or STAVKA commander know of your interest.

A better plan might be to organise another team game, as this one is already very popular and over-subscribed.



buchand -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/16/2011 7:09:05 AM)

Hope its a success so that those who were too slow can get involved. Look forward to the AAR and any hints on problems/how best to run a team play campaign much appreciated.



Mehring -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/16/2011 8:10:31 PM)

Sorry to put a downer on this but I tried this in Advanced Tactics a few years back. Both sides HHQs found the mixed abilities so frustrating they quit or sacked most of their subordinates. I'd love to see this work, but play with competent players or not at all, is my advice.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/16/2011 10:16:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Sorry to put a downer on this but I tried this in Advanced Tactics a few years back. Both sides HHQs found the mixed abilities so frustrating they quit or sacked most of their subordinates. I'd love to see this work, but play with competent players or not at all, is my advice.


Entirely valid input and not a downer at all.

Having an experienced top-level STAVKA/OKH commander is probably the most essential part - one who is not afraid to do the firing and who can take temporary command and call on his network of experienced players to fill the ranks. Very much like the challenge faced in real life!

I would see you as a perfect candidate for such a role, notwithstanding your 3 stars and taking into account your AT experience, and as it happens the Za Rodinu game is only missing an OKH leader before it can start. Would you take this on? Younger players await your leadership and guidance!



Mehring -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/16/2011 11:48:26 PM)

I love the flattery, redmarkus4, keep it coming.

Here are the problems.

In real life, in most armies, officers get to practice working together or at least their roles, before they put it into practice. To make a game team work, I would strongly recommend getting a pool of players together significantly larger than the number of command slots and working through some team exercises before you start. When you start, keep the entire command pool involved through battle reports and soliciting comments and advice from them on the progress of the campaign, even though they have no command.

This solution creates a new problem: Most players are either busy or want to be busy playing, not playing second fiddle. How many good players are going to wait around to be called to a post when they could be playing a game? Prove me wrong, but in my experience, not many.

Gamers are held together by interest in and enjoyment of a game. There is no authority higher than personal dedication to a game. Being told you're doing stuff wrong, getting sacked, strong differences of opinion etc can all cut right accross that enjoyment and lose the dedication out the window. It can also get quite acrimonious. Believe me, I've been there and my oposite number in OKH had the same problems.

I wish you luck, hope you do better than I did and will take an interest if you get it off the ground. As for your kind offer, I will have to decline, but thank you.



Jay Doubleyou -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/19/2011 1:27:53 PM)

Hehe, I was the OKH commander at that time fighting Mehring as Stavka [:)]
Despite not too competent subordinates it was stil a interesting game since it was the first game with this setup (at least in Advanced Tactics).

Playing with multiple players really adds some extra flavor!

But you need a pool of trusted and equally skilled players. Trusted for honest play and for not bailing out if things get tough in the campaign.
Equally skilled, because there's nothing more frustrating then incompetent subordinates messing up an entire section of the front.
You don't want too many commanders, since every players includes turn delay. A solution to that is that OKH/Stavka also controls 1 front/army group.

On the upper: players can participate in a GC while not having to spend hours on a turn!

So count me in for a army group/front [:D]



Mehring -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/19/2011 5:14:47 PM)

Hey, Jay, long time. I'm surprised you're still up for a multi.

I have NEVER spent so long on turns as when I took on STAVKA role.

My PC went the way of all things electronic along with my Advanced Tactics install, so it lives only in my memory. Apart from the weather, I think this is a much better game, anyway.



Redmarkus5 -> RE: How feasible is team play? (2/19/2011 5:58:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jay Doubleyou

Hehe, I was the OKH commander at that time fighting Mehring as Stavka [:)]
Despite not too competent subordinates it was stil a interesting game since it was the first game with this setup (at least in Advanced Tactics).

Playing with multiple players really adds some extra flavor!

But you need a pool of trusted and equally skilled players. Trusted for honest play and for not bailing out if things get tough in the campaign.
Equally skilled, because there's nothing more frustrating then incompetent subordinates messing up an entire section of the front.
You don't want too many commanders, since every players includes turn delay. A solution to that is that OKH/Stavka also controls 1 front/army group.

On the upper: players can participate in a GC while not having to spend hours on a turn!

So count me in for a army group/front [:D]


Having the OKH/STAVKA player also controlling one front probably makes real sense. It reduces the team size to 3 and gives the commander a bit more enjoyment...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8125