multi players (Full Version)

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



Message

dirtyharry500 -> multi players (1/9/2005 9:57:54 PM)

who will be interested by a multi players game like 3 allied against 3 japs or more ?[:)]
official map and sceario 15 or mod map andrew scenario 115
i'm ready steady to play a multi like allied general

[image]local://upfiles/14494/Ge945004255.jpg[/image]



Bill Durrant -> RE: multi players (1/9/2005 10:09:17 PM)

Yes, I'd be interested



jwilkerson -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 6:29:28 AM)

How to you play the game multi-player ?



AmiralLaurent -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 4:17:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

How to you play the game multi-player ?


Japanese player 1 gave orders to his unit and then saved it. It sent the saved file (still in Japanese turn) to Japanese player 2.

Japanese player 2 gave orders to his unit and then saved it. It sent the saved file (still in Japanese turn) to Japanese player 3.

Japanese player 3 gave orders to his unit and then cliked on 'end phase'. It sent the file (now on Allied turn) to Allied player 1.

Allied players do the same.

Of course, the combat replay and report are mailed to everybody.

It's a rather funny way of playing (even if I never did that in UV/WITP) as you spent more time arguing with your "Allied" than planning ops against the enemies.... as do most Allied people.
Example: almost every WITP concentrated all CVs in one fleet (one TF or several TF sailing together). In a multi-player game, of course each player want at least some CVs and will be less than willing to give them to the next player for another's plan.

In WITP, the most historical game would be :
2 Japanese players (one Army and one Navy, so each of them has units on each war theater)
3 Allied players: British (Malaya, Burma, India), South Pacific (including PI, ABDA, NZ, Australia) and Central Pacific (including China to have more to do).



String -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 4:24:30 PM)

Dibs on the British allied side :D



jwilkerson -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 5:05:35 PM)

So if everybody is available everyday [ or at least when needed during the week] - you get about 1 ( maybe 2 ) turns per week. So only takes 7-14 years to get to 1944 !

Hum - I've heard the idea of allowing simultaneous order entry has been nixed, but without that -practicallity would seem to be an issue - and I'm a "1 day per turn" guy who can play a game for months and months ... but 7-14 years !?



String -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 5:08:05 PM)

Well this would need some organizing yes, but imho if we have dedicated players and exchange information about our availability then we can manage 1 turn per day..
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

So if everybody is available everyday [ or at least when needed during the week] - you get about 1 ( maybe 2 ) turns per week. So only takes 7-14 years to get to 1944 !

Hum - I've heard the idea of allowing simultaneous order entry has been nixed, but without that -practicallity would seem to be an issue - and I'm a "1 day per turn" guy who can play a game for months and months ... but 7-14 years !?



AmiralLaurent -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 8:49:39 PM)

IMHO one turn a day is possible most of the times... would say 5 turns a week will be a reasonable thing. Then you can also have players saying: "nothing to change this turn".

The first Japanese player will be the man who generated the combat replay and report and should send it at once to all players involved, so some of them may say: I have nothing to change this turn. That will speed things a bit.

Of course they will say that only to their own side....

Best thing may be a match between an Aussie team and an US team (or an European one). I mean, that so evening hour are not the same, so one team has a ful levening to do a turn and then the other team will have as much time.

My own experience of multi-player wargame was boardgames, not computer, so all people had to be on the same place at the same time. As I said, the funny part was not to take enemy places, but to steal units to your friends to be able to do what you want.



ltfightr -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 9:58:40 PM)

I am playing in a 4 person game 2 allied 2 axis. It is an fun game and you will enjoy. We do about 5 turns a week sometimes more. I would think that adding 2 more people will slow the game some. But you should still get 4 turns or so a week. It is a very intersting style of play.



Feinder -> RE: multi players (1/10/2005 10:33:04 PM)

(* scowls at LtFighter *)

-F-



jwilkerson -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 7:00:27 AM)

Well I can say that anything that can be done to make it multi-player would be increase enjoyment. Not to try to speed it up but to increase FOW ! I too have played multi-player board games ... including for years one called WITP ! With a group called N(ational)M(onster)G(aming)S(ociety) We played about once a year with 15-20 people per game ... 8 days straight 16 hours per day ... you really felt immersed ... you knew what you were doing - but had no time even to talk to your team mates much .... didn't even stop for meals.

How to segregate commands in this game ? Something like, East, West and China/Home Is. for Japanese ... with NOR/CENPAC and Australia/NZ/NG and CBI for the Allies ? How does the ANZAC player talk the others out of units and supplies ?



Hoplosternum -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 8:46:19 AM)

If you are still looking for players I'll play [:)] Either side. How are you going to split the commands?



AmiralLaurent -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 11:59:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

How to segregate commands in this game ? Something like, East, West and China/Home Is. for Japanese ... with NOR/CENPAC and Australia/NZ/NG and CBI for the Allies ? How does the ANZAC player talk the others out of units and supplies ?


The problem with segregating commands is that:
1) every player should have something to do.
2) if possible, player "conflicts" should simulate historical disagreements between commands.

As I said before, I think a division between IJNAF and IJAAF between two Japanese players is the best way to play. IJNAF will be more concerned with Pacific and IJAAF with mainland Asia and both should cooperate in the big islands (PI, NG, Solomons).
In you proposal, the China/Home Is player will have few things to do.

On the Allied side, my proposal would be:
1 "British" player
1 "Australian" player (with ABDA, NZ and Southwest PAC)
1 "US" player (Nor, Cen & South Pac). And I will give China also to this one, and PI at start.
And the rule is: once a TF sails to a port under another command, it is given to this player.
So the "US" player will have most US ships at start, but any ship sent to DEI or Australia will be given to the Australian player. Same thing for air units.

Edited:
Forgot to say I would also be interested to play, but as I live in Paris, time zones discrepencies may slow too much the game.



Hoplosternum -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 12:31:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Edited:
Forgot to say I would also be interested to play, but as I live in Paris, time zones discrepencies may slow too much the game.


Well apart from the poster 4 people have actually said on the thread they would like to play so far and they are all from Europe - 2 Brits, 2 French and an Estonian so time zones won't be much of a problem [:D]

Besides I am playing a few PBEM games against opponents who all live in the USA (I think) and I have not really had any problems with time zones. Unless you are trying to coordinate many turns in an evening it's not an issue. There is usually a turn or two there every morning and evening [:)]. Likewise with other games I have played PBEM. Some people go to great lengths to coordinate turn orders based on where people are based but the speed of the game is decided as ever by the slowest player as ever [;)]



AmiralLaurent -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 2:13:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

Edited:
Forgot to say I would also be interested to play, but as I live in Paris, time zones discrepencies may slow too much the game.


Well apart from the poster 4 people have actually said on the thread they would like to play so far and they are all from Europe - 2 Brits, 2 French and an Estonian so time zones won't be much of a problem [:D]


I hadn't watched at all the locations of the posters. Thanks for pointing that. Seems to me there is no problem then. I kept used that most people here are US/Aussies... and I even wonder why there are so few Japanese players.

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent
Besides I am playing a few PBEM games against opponents who all live in the USA (I think) and I have not really had any problems with time zones. Unless you are trying to coordinate many turns in an evening it's not an issue. There is usually a turn or two there every morning and evening [:)]. Likewise with other games I have played PBEM. Some people go to great lengths to coordinate turn orders based on where people are based but the speed of the game is decided as ever by the slowest player as ever [;)]


For 1vs1 PBEM, time zone are not so an issue and I played with people from USA, Aus, Russia and so on with no problem. The key is to have 2-3 PBEM at a time, so you have enough time to have a real life away from your computer and still enough opponents to not wait for the turns.
But in a 2vs3 or 3vs3 game, it is far more important that people play at the same time.



String -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 4:06:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

How to segregate commands in this game ? Something like, East, West and China/Home Is. for Japanese ... with NOR/CENPAC and Australia/NZ/NG and CBI for the Allies ? How does the ANZAC player talk the others out of units and supplies ?


The problem with segregating commands is that:
1) every player should have something to do.
2) if possible, player "conflicts" should simulate historical disagreements between commands.

As I said before, I think a division between IJNAF and IJAAF between two Japanese players is the best way to play. IJNAF will be more concerned with Pacific and IJAAF with mainland Asia and both should cooperate in the big islands (PI, NG, Solomons).
In you proposal, the China/Home Is player will have few things to do.

On the Allied side, my proposal would be:
1 "British" player
1 "Australian" player (with ABDA, NZ and Southwest PAC)
1 "US" player (Nor, Cen & South Pac). And I will give China also to this one, and PI at start.
And the rule is: once a TF sails to a port under another command, it is given to this player.
So the "US" player will have most US ships at start, but any ship sent to DEI or Australia will be given to the Australian player. Same thing for air units.

Edited:
Forgot to say I would also be interested to play, but as I live in Paris, time zones discrepencies may slow too much the game.


I agree with you AmiralLaurent, and as I said before, I'd like to play the british.

So now if other would be players would also pick their areas then with five players we could start :)

My time available for this week is from around 14:00 CET to 03:00 CET, starting from next week it'll be usually 15:00 cet to 23:00 cet



AmiralLaurent -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 6:56:07 PM)

quote:


I agree with you AmiralLaurent, and as I said before, I'd like to play the british.

So now if other would be players would also pick their areas then with five players we could start :)

My time available


I have currently no ADSL, as I just moved in Paris from another part of France. I will be connected sometimes between now and 20 January.

Can play any side, any command. More experienced with the Japanese and can be funniest if the division is done between IJAAF and IJNAF. Will play IJAAF in this case (and let someone other get all the glory with Zeroes, CV and other big ships, while the grunt do all the real work: killing Allied troops and seizing bases).

If you're OK to wait me, this time can be used by each team to build a common strategy.



String -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 7:33:42 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:


I agree with you AmiralLaurent, and as I said before, I'd like to play the british.

So now if other would be players would also pick their areas then with five players we could start :)

My time available


I have currently no ADSL, as I just moved in Paris from another part of France. I will be connected sometimes between now and 20 January.

Can play any side, any command. More experienced with the Japanese and can be funniest if the division is done between IJAAF and IJNAF. Will play IJAAF in this case (and let someone other get all the glory with Zeroes, CV and other big ships, while the grunt do all the real work: killing Allied troops and seizing bases).

If you're OK to wait me, this time can be used by each team to build a common strategy.



I personally am ok with this, we need some time organizing anyway



Hoplosternum -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 7:51:32 PM)

Well with AmiralLaurent moving in the Japanese direction it seems all set up for the two French to pick the bad guys [;)]

Either of the two free allied commands are fine with me but I am not sure how the assets would be divided. Or do we want to do a US Navy & US Marines side and a US Army plus Australian & Dutch split? The Chinese no hopers can be bundled in to any of the commands then.... I am happy for Bill Durrent to choose which he'd prefer.

Of course I am happy to have a Japanese command if DirtyHarry500 would rather play the allies [:)] Either is fine.



dirtyharry500 -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 8:01:21 PM)

hi man
you've a response in yur email yu're a new recruit know if yu agree



Feinder -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 8:08:52 PM)

FWIW, being in the team game with LtFighter/KBullard vs Me/Knavey

Knavey is USN and Canada, and I'm basically everything else. For about a 3 weeks, he thought I was running China, and I thought he was running it (nobody was). But since it impacted India/Burma as such, I took it over (wish I hadn't). I -can- do it, but handling Oz, DEI, India -and- China is just a little much.

Knavey is my brother, and lives in a nearby town, so we can easliy get on the phone an argue over the situation for an hour or so. That's an advantage over KBullar/LtFighter, because they probbaly have to resort to email, and don't have the luxury of knowing each others schedules, so they're probably limited to a short email or two discuss current/future ops. Still, we had some interesting tug-o-wars.

SWPac region is truely annoying, because it's on the border of commands. I'd say creates a realistic feel for the historical situation.

Again, Knavey is USA.
I'm everybody else (so therefore own Oz).

Feinder = Ok, so I'll have conceed East Oz to SWPac, altho but don't have PPs to convert it.
Feinder = So why am I garrisoning it?
Feinder = And Port Moresby for that matter?
Knavey = Because you have troops there already.
Feinder = But I want YOUR troops there. I want to use MY troops to whack LtFighter up-side the head.
Knavey = I need transports.
Feinder = Are you kidding? You've got a billion transports.
Knavey = They're hauling stuff from the West Coast.
Feinder = I sent you 30 transports last month.
Knavey = KB clobbered half of them near Canton Island.
Feinder = Not my fault. You shouldda sailed further south. And her Majesty will be sending you a bill by the way.
Knavey = I've got guys about 10 days out, they'll be ready to be deployed in about 2 weeks. KB is patrolling Oz coast by the way.
Feinder = You think so? Maybe that's why I just had 80 Zeros show up over Port Moresby. Why am I still there by the way?
Knavey = Because I'm on the way.
Feinder = And my crappy fighters are gonna help your P-40s how? Which they totally sucked by the way. Tell 'em to get out of the o-club and practice their gunnery a little more.
Knavey = Your crappy fighters are better than nothing.
Feinder = No, it's NOT better than nothing. Nothing -IS- better than nothing. Don't feed the KB! I'm not throwing them away against his Zeros.
Feinder = Not to mention your B-17s didn't do squat. I told you they wouldn't fly. I want your guys off my AFs sooner than later, so I have room for my own planes. You Americans are like the frickin' creeping doom. You get on the continent, and take the whole place over.
Knavey = By the way, there's an enemy TF north of Luganville. We need your fleet from xxxx, how fast can you make it?
Feinder = Where is YOUR fleet? We used MY fleet to intercept the Rabaul Op. Your CAs only showed up for the closing act. That was -my- cruiser group you "borrowed" again at Ndini, to protect YOUR PBY base. Luganville is your base (oh wait, MY guys are still on the ground there, bah). Use your own fleet.
Knavey = We need your fleet, because it has radar. Mine doesn't.
Feinder = What good is your fleet good for then?
Knavey = Escorting my carriers.
Feinder = And where are they...?

We actually do play quite well together (have a game with the two of us vs. U2 also). But like I said, there can be some interesting "discussions".

My suggestions for two allied players :

UK, Dutch, Oz/NZ
USA, Canada, China

You'll probably get conflict in SWPac and China, just like we do, simply because they heavily impact the shared situation.


or

UK, Dutch, China
USA, Canada, Oz/NZ

Here the zones impact each other less. But the UK player might get a little bored after DEI falls.

I think LtFighter/Kbullard have theaters set up for Japan. Something like a line from Japan to Truk to NG and points east is one, and points west is the other. Not sure who does China for them.

-F-



dirtyharry500 -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 8:21:57 PM)

salut laurent[:)]
are yu interested by my offer ? i'm playing actually as yu know a campaign with some guys but in can spent more time and i'm enjoyed to play with guys from other countries and matrix's forum is the best for this purpose.
yu can reply in french for more details on my email.
regards[:)]



String -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 8:53:47 PM)

I still support the five player solution

IJA and IJN for japanese side

British/china, Australia/DeI, US/pacific

allied control areas can be changed later on when DeI is captured by the japanese, but i think that it will be a long time before that happens [:D]



Hoplosternum -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 10:50:37 PM)

Well I have sent my email to DirtyHarry. I am still happy to play on either team.

Feinder - your game sounds great. Do you think it's best to have geographical, country or service splits? And do you share out the choice assets (CVs and BBs especially) or one of you use them for one operation and the other the next?

PS - I have just started playing LtFightr in a PBEM and played him at UV until his offline period ended the game. Any bad habits / weaknesses of his you'd like to share [:D]



Hoplosternum -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 10:55:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

I still support the five player solution

IJA and IJN for japanese side

British/china, Australia/DeI, US/pacific

allied control areas can be changed later on when DeI is captured by the japanese, but i think that it will be a long time before that happens [:D]


I believe that we are 5 as DirtyHarry says Bill Durrant is in too.

Just waiting to see which team I am put on.



String -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 11:17:37 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hoplosternum

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

I still support the five player solution

IJA and IJN for japanese side

British/china, Australia/DeI, US/pacific

allied control areas can be changed later on when DeI is captured by the japanese, but i think that it will be a long time before that happens [:D]


I believe that we are 5 as DirtyHarry says Bill Durrant is in too.

Just waiting to see which team I am put on.



well pick one yourself.. only I and AmiralLaurent have picked.. others are free



mlees -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 11:41:18 PM)

quote:

Feinder - your game sounds great. Do you think it's best to have geographical, country or service splits? And do you share out the choice assets (CVs and BBs especially) or one of you use them for one operation and the other the next?


Well, I assume that one the purposes of multiplayer games like this is the interservice (interplayer) squabbles over naval assets and operational goals. Don't iron these out before the game starts, and have fun!! [8D]



Feinder -> RE: multi players (1/11/2005 11:43:18 PM)

Hop,

Well, when it's divided by country, he gets his toys, and I get mine. I'm not allowed anywhere near his CVs. Frankly, I don't want them anyways. If they end up at the bottom of a trench somewhere, I can say it's all his fault.

We just trade stuff. If I've got extra (transports), I send them. If he's not using something, I'm usually asking for it. I've also grabbed a sqdn of B-17s and a group of LB-30s (the LB-30s started as SEAC anyways). Most of my RAN and RDN CA/CL/DD have radar, so he gets a few of those on loan, because none of the USN CA start with it (didn't realize that you). If he gets them shot up, I send him a nasty note and "borrow" the Louisville until RMAS Oz gets out of the yards.

Since SanFran is the only place to do conversions, I put in my order, and sent a like number of ships for conversion (altho he went ahead and started the conversion, before the ships arrived).

And make USN bring it's own gas. You'll -never- satisfy the USN CVs. Lay the law down early and make the USN early to bring their own fuel. Otherwise there'll be cold nights in Brisbane because all the gas has gone Nimitz gassing up his CVs.

Oh, and it's best to put one person in charge of PPs (in our case, me). Pool your requests and discuss it. But only have one persons spending them. Otherwise you get the situation where you -need- to convert something, but your Ally has already spent all the points for the turn.

Knavey probably gets tired of me saying,

So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?
So when are you gonna attack something...?

Go bomb something already!

[;)]
-F-



dirtyharry500 -> RE: multi players (1/12/2005 1:36:43 AM)

hi string the team is growing if yu join us[:)]
so, you, bill durant and me as allies ,hoplosternum and amiral laurent as japs [:)],may be wating another jap ? even we are ready to fight.
you could contact to me on my email and together we'll begin to plan the game.
best regards



String -> RE: multi players (1/12/2005 1:49:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dirtyharry500

hi string the team is growing if yu join us[:)]
so, you, bill durant and me as allies ,hoplosternum and amiral laurent as japs [:)],may be wating another jap ? even we are ready to fight.
you could contact to me on my email and together we'll begin to plan the game.
best regards


I did add you to my MSN earlier already (string58@hotmail.com)



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375