3 x 3 Multiplayer game - Closed

3 x 3 Multiplayer game - Closed (Full Version)

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

Message

GaryChildress -> 3 x 3 Multiplayer game - Closed (7/19/2005 7:16:16 AM)
Edit #2 OK, I think we have consensus that 3 x 3 is going to be it for us instead of the original plans for a super game. Well, just goes to show, aim high and anything you get in between is bound to be worthwhile. [:)] I do hope to keep this game alive for the duration so if it does go dormant, the remaining players can immediately seek new recruits. But I think we've got a good match up, a good bunch of people and should be an interesting game. [:)] Good luck and Godspeed be with all of you my friends (except of course for the Japanese [:)])! Gary Childress C-in-C Allied Forces EastPac ==================================================== HELP WANTED: LOOKING FOR VOLUNTEERS TO PLAY EITHER ALLIES OR JAPANESE SIDES IN LARGE MULTIPLAYER GAME. SEE POSTS BELOW FOR MORE INFO ON GAME BEING FORMED. WE ESPECIALLY NEED ALLIED PLAYERS! HURRY, MANY COMMANDS STILL VACANT! If you would like to get involved in a large multiplayer undertaking, if you are playing a PBEM for the first time, if you are playing other PBEMs on the side and are looking for even more action than you're already getting, if you are in between PBEMs, If you've played every other PBEM there is to play and are simply looking for something different, if for whatever reason you feel the need to command your own forces against a human opponent or against several of them, then please step right up and join us! We're going to create some hell in the Pacific! All we ask is that you be dedicated to our cause and help facilitate smooth game play once the game is up and running. Anyone may opt out at any time. Just give others notice so someone can take over your duties. Temporary commands may become available as the game progresses for those interested in sitting in a few turns. Once you have played a side, you will be inelligible to switch sides. All are welcome, experienced players and novices alike! Best Regards, Gary Childress acting C-in-C Allied Forces EastPac ===================================================== Game Settings version: 1.6 scenario: vanilla # 15 1 day turn increments settings: Player defined upgrades ON Allied sub doctrine OFF Japanese sub doctrine OFF Fog of war ON Advanced weather effects ON Allied damage control ON Historical first turn ON Vary setup OFF December 7th surprise ON Reinforcements +/- 60 days (Allies and Japanese both) Map hexes ON Additional house rules: 1) Max 6 ships for ASW TF. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Original post: Is it possible to initiate a PBEM game where the different control zones can be controled by different players? For instance I could control the India theatre and an ally could control the South Pacific theatre and a game could be constructed where each control zone for each side could be controled by a different PBEM player? The reason I ask is that I'm interested in playing my first PBEM game, however I work during the week days and don't have the time in the evenings to plot and plan over an entire map. I would be good for about a turn per work day if I only had to oversee one or two control zones. And I'm more interested in a grand campaign than a smaller one. Then on the weekends I could probably get a few more turns accomplished. I'm not an expert at the game yet and wouldn't mind taking on some drudge assignment, even controlling the forces in mainland China for a first PBEM. Although ideal might be China and the India theatre together where I could do a little work with a navy. [:)] Gary

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/19/2005 9:45:51 AM)
Yes it is possible to play WITP as a team. The idea is to not click on the "end turn" button, but just to save the game when you have finished managing your units and then send it to your team mates. It is a good way to learn the game in PBEM but it is far slower than 1 vs 1 PBEM. I played a 3 vs 3 PBEM that died by lack of interest of most of the players, probably due to the slow sped of turns.

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/19/2005 12:11:40 PM)
Hi! I can be interested in team play. Just to clarify: how will u divide the zones: by geographical position or by unit attachment? I mean, one player to command all units (LCU, naval, air) on one part of the map or to take one special kind of units (fleet, for example). So if u gonna establish one, count me in, please. Japanese side likely - but another side will do fine. Alex.

Terminus -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/19/2005 1:41:52 PM)
Check out the "Fear and Loathing" AAR. That's a 3x3 team PBEM, divided along geographical lines.

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/20/2005 4:49:55 AM)
quote: It is a good way to learn the game in PBEM but it is far slower than 1 vs 1 PBEM. I played a 3 vs 3 PBEM that died by lack of interest of most of the players, probably due to the slow sped of turns. I see your point. Perhaps some of us could start a kind of legacy game or something where players can come and go as they please, so long as they notify the other players and then perhaps a replacement could be found, or one of the other players could temporarily take over his or her units. What's more, perhaps we could make it open to anyone who wants to jump in and command a particular area of the map (not necessarily divided by official WitP control zones). When a player decides to quit, or take "leave" we could post a "help wanted" sign in the forums. Maybe each side could elect a supreme commander to coordinate operations and the arrival of new commanders and assigning them duties and who would be keeper of the saved games that get passed on to others. The only house rule would be that once you have played either Japanese or Allies you are not allowed to switch sides later on down the road. The game might take a long time to play, however, those who find it too slow can play other PBEM games on the side to fill idle time while they are waiting for their turn to come along in this one. And if the game finally dies out from lack of interest...so be it. At least it would have been there for a while for those who were interested in it at the time. I don't know if it would work, just some thoughts. I think it would be neat to have a big cooperative effort going, something anyone could jump in on when they have down time between opponets or just to get the feel of being a part of a big campaign. I'm open to any ideas or criticisms. [:)] Gary

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/20/2005 5:28:12 AM)
quote: Hi! I can be interested in team play. Just to clarify: how will u divide the zones: by geographical position or by unit attachment? I mean, one player to command all units (LCU, naval, air) on one part of the map or to take one special kind of units (fleet, for example). So if u gonna establish one, count me in, please. Japanese side likely - but another side will do fine. Alex. Hi Alex! You're in as far as I'm concerned! If we can get a couple other people that would be great! I'm up for ideas on dividing zones. We could do China/Burma/India as one zone (I'd be happy to command that one as either Allied or Japanese if no one else wants it.) and then divide the Pacific into a couple regions, or leave it as just one if it will only be a 2 x 2 game. Or if we get enough people we could appoint someone in charge of all supply operations, including the escorting of supply convoys, managing of industry etc. whatever it takes to keep the rest of us fighting in the field, someone in charge of anti-submarine duties, someone in charge of sub operations, including the positioning of AS ships, someone in charge of major fleet operations, someone in overall command to assign units to the other players... Whatever works. I'm new to this so I'm open to any and all suggestions. Perhaps some of the more experienced players could give some tips on what may or may not work. My first hunch is to go with dividing the map up into two or three large zones as opposed to giving people specific functions. But if you want to try dividing people according to special kind of unit, I'm up for it. Or, alternatively, we could divide things up by commands, one person could take command of Southeast Asia, one of Southwest Pacific, one of Central Pacific etc. etc.. or of combinations there of. For instance, the ABDA could be commanded temporarily--until it is most likely overrun--by whomever is commanding either Southeast Asia or Southwest Pacific. As the ABDA collapses what's left of its units would be integrated into those two commands. Same with the USAFFE. Central, South and North Pacific could all be combined if there aren't enough players. And the Japanese could similarly divide up their commands among players, 4th Fleet, Southern Area, China, etc. etc.. [:)] Gary

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/20/2005 4:29:46 PM)
Hi! I propose to divide the Japs on 4 different areas of command: 1) Burma/Tailand, later Malaysia and India and on... if all go well. Somewhat isolated war theatre, got ships, planes, troops... 2) China/Manchukuo/Korea... Syberia??[;)] - almost no fleet, not much planes, but hundreds of thousands troops! For real tough guys out there... 3) DEI/PI invasion area - forces on Formosa and Hainan. Plenty of planes, amphibious forces, ships too... most strategically advanced part. 4) Islands Area - all islands in Pacific, forces on Saipan, Kwajalein, Palau, Truk. For bloody Island war fans[:)]. Invasion area - whatever u can handle... If u noticed, no mention about homeland. I suppose we should count it as a strategical reserve, and the local area commanders can (and should) require forces from motherland. Now who's gonna handle this part? Redistributing the reserve troops, planes, most of warships... resources, supply, fuel... micromanagement, production... BIG strategy planning, overall command. Connection between players. This is for Supreme Commander - all in all, a coordinator of actions for the Japs, the one, who's word is the final decision for any local commander. I see the structure that way. For this role we can invite an experienced player like Mogami (well, I'm not too demanding, am I?). If we will be lacking players or too slow on move (btw, what about sending the final turn to all opposing players to save some time on re-sending it from one player to another), we can merge areas, 1st with 2nd and 3rd with 4th... so minimum is 3 players, max - 5 (or more?). And another important thing - we should synchronise the timelines... I'm GMT+3. PS I'm really willing to take part in such back-to-back contest...[8D] Alex.

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/21/2005 6:39:03 AM)
quote: Hi! I propose to divide the Japs on 4 different areas of command: 1) Burma/Tailand, later Malaysia and India and on... if all go well. Somewhat isolated war theatre, got ships, planes, troops... 2) China/Manchukuo/Korea... Syberia?? - almost no fleet, not much planes, but hundreds of thousands troops! For real tough guys out there... 3) DEI/PI invasion area - forces on Formosa and Hainan. Plenty of planes, amphibious forces, ships too... most strategically advanced part. 4) Islands Area - all islands in Pacific, forces on Saipan, Kwajalein, Palau, Truk. For bloody Island war fans . Invasion area - whatever u can handle... If u noticed, no mention about homeland. I suppose we should count it as a strategical reserve, and the local area commanders can (and should) require forces from motherland. Now who's gonna handle this part? Redistributing the reserve troops, planes, most of warships... resources, supply, fuel... micromanagement, production... BIG strategy planning, overall command. Connection between players. This is for Supreme Commander - all in all, a coordinator of actions for the Japs, the one, who's word is the final decision for any local commander. I see the structure that way. For this role we can invite an experienced player like Mogami (well, I'm not too demanding, am I?). If we will be lacking players or too slow on move (btw, what about sending the final turn to all opposing players to save some time on re-sending it from one player to another), we can merge areas, 1st with 2nd and 3rd with 4th... so minimum is 3 players, max - 5 (or more?). And another important thing - we should synchronise the timelines... I'm GMT+3. PS I'm really willing to take part in such back-to-back contest... Alex. Hi Alex, your idea for the Japanese sounds like a good one. For the Allies I propose 4 major commands along the lines of how air groups and land units are assigned in WitP: 1. Supreme Commander Allied Forces in the Pacific, including West Coast, Canada Command and command of all supply task forces leaving the West Coast and their escorts as well as any anti-sub operations conducted along the West Coast. The Supreme Commander's function is to keep supplies pouring into all the local commands as well as coordinate the local commands to make the war as painful to the Japanese as possible. Of course the Supreme Commander would consult his local commanders constantly to get their view of war plans. Like Montgomery and Patton, the local area commanders will be competing with one another for material and who gets to be the first one to Tokyo. The supreme commander would have to be a good strategic planner, and a good logistics specialist although the most combat he will probably see is occasional ASW combat. But if he's sending a convoy deep into harms way, he might need some cruisers for escort too. Of course a WitP PBEM veteran would probably be best to fill this position BUT, if I consult my local commanders enough on their strategic views, I might be able to handle this assignment. 2. Commander-in-Chief South, Central and North Pacific. This commander would no doubt see a lot of action, ranging from climbing the Solomons, Island hopping in the central Pacific, and holding onto a network of recon bases to keep an eye on Japanese movements. Lots of Navy action for this one. This would probably one of the coveted positions which I'm not that qualified for so I would definitely back down from this one. 3. CinC Southwest Pacific, Australia Command, New Zealand Command, ABDA and USAFFE. This commander would see the most action early on. He would have somewhat less of a Navy to work with but plenty of ground forces, and land based air units. This position would be coveted early in the game. 4. CinC Southeast Asia, China Command, Far East Front. Lots of ground combat, a fair amount of land based air and a small fleet to work with. Also he would be in charge of Karachi and any and all supply task forces that leave there and making sure they make their destinations intact. If you like ground combat with air support, a little naval interdiction here and there, and commanding a supply operation to boot, this would be the command to have. To accomodate 5 players we could split South Pacific off as a single command from Central and North Pacific as a single command. To accomodate 6+ players we could split off other commands. To accomodate 3 players we could combine #1 and #2 into one assignment. For two players, also combine #3 and #4 into one assignment. I think this could shape up into a good game. Like I said elsewhere, if things get too slow between turns for the veteran players, they can easily play other PBEMs on the side while playing this one. Or they could opt out and replacements could be welcomed in. I wouldn't mind being keeper of the allied side until new recruits can be brought into the game. We could advertise the game in the forums as "Open to all". Maybe we could make ways of accomodating anyone who wants to pop in and play a few rounds, provided they haven't played as the opposite side at any point prior. At the very least I'd like to have a 2 x 2 game going at all times. Anyway, I'm GMT - 4 for the summer months, then GMT - 5 in the second half of the year. We set our clocks here to "daylight saving" in the summers. Worst case scenario Alex, if we can't find anyone else to get in on the game or if it just won't work, I'll gladly play you in a 1 on 1, Allies or Japanese, doesn't matter--if you're up for a 1 on 1. [:)] Since you've taken the initiative, let me know what you propose for realism, preference and game settings. Also I'm about to update my WitP to 1.6. Are you likewise upgraded to 1.6? [:)] Gary

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/21/2005 7:01:54 AM)
Hi! I'm on 1.6 already. As for settings... well, standart ones, excluding, maybe Japs sub doctrine, wich I propose to set to 'off'... 1 day turns, reinforcements I usually set to +- 60 days (very variable). So... we need to invite people somehow... they just don't know about our proposal... U can rename this tread or we can start another, something like "Multiplayer game - volunteers, sign in!" or something.

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 3:56:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AlexCobra Hi! I'm on 1.6 already. As for settings... well, standart ones, excluding, maybe Japs sub doctrine, wich I propose to set to 'off'... 1 day turns, reinforcements I usually set to +- 60 days (very variable). So... we need to invite people somehow... they just don't know about our proposal... U can rename this tread or we can start another, something like "Multiplayer game - volunteers, sign in!" or something. Hi Alex! So... 1) I'll convert to 1.6 tonight. 2) For settings, then, how about: Scenario # 15 1 day turn increments Allied sub doctrine OFF Japanese sub doctrine OFF Fog of war ON Advanced weather effects ON Allied damage control ON Historical first turn ON Vary setup OFF December 7th surprise ON Reinforcements +/- 60 days (Allies and Japanese both) Map hexes ON Hexside details OFF everything else ON. Let me know if there is anything else you want to turn off. And let me know if you disagree with any of the above settings. 3) How about we start a new thread tomorrow to announce our plans once I get your input on the game settings above. I take it you'll be keeper of the Japanese side and I'll be keeper of the Allies in the event that the game goes temporarily dormant? If it does go dormant we can both enter our pleas in the forum to get players interested in our respective causes. I can probably manage 1 turn per week night and maybe 2 - 4 per day weekends. I can be at my computer during the week starting 23:30 GMT to somewhere around 05:30 GMT. On weekends I'll be available almost anytime. [:)] Gary

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 6:22:39 AM)
Hi! The preferences are ok by me. Let's invite some people here. I'm usually online at morning (7:00-8:00 GMT), and at evening (18:00-24:00 GMT). So rarely we should be able to produce more then 1 turn during per day, except for weekends. But we got a lot of time to figure out the moves[:)]. Alex.

Nomad -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 6:31:04 AM)
If you are looking for players, I am available. I willl play either side and any area you need me. I will NOT be a supreme commander, only a second level commander. [:D] Just let me know where I am playing and which senario and which map we are using. kdamon(at)wyellowstone{_dot_}com BTW, as you can see, I am in the US and Mountain time. We do use daylight savings time here so I think right now I am at GMT-7.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 9:01:27 AM)
I'm game here as well! I'm fairly new also, currently just started my first scen 15 PBEM and have finished my 1st turn as Japan. I tinkered around with some other PBEM scenarios for practice, but as we all know, this game takes a while to 'fully' absorb. Anyway, the slow pace of this game would not be a problem for me at all! My other game is my 'main' one and so if I could just do a partial turn for this game that would be great. I'm GMT -8 (Pacific Daylight), I'd only want to play Japan as I just don't have the time to get as familiar with the Allies as I already am with Japan. If divisions end up being based on geography, I'll take anywhere, including China (although don't get mad if I do poorly [:)]). If you want to treat the Home islands as an 'area' of responsibility, then maybe that person could be the one to plan production and make strategic reserve allocations - each area commander could explain what and why they need things, and then that Home Island commander could decide what goes where - similar to the real world of various generals begging for stuff, and the guys at the top deciding who is the most persuasive. I'd have no problem filling that role either. If things are divided up functionally, I'd most like to do the sub ops, but again, anything would be fine. Sounds interesting, I hope it gets off the ground!

MarcA -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 12:12:36 PM)
Hi everyone I am interested as well. I would be willing to play anyone anywhere, I haven't tried Japan yet, but everyone has to start somewhere. [:)] My personal preference would probably be SE Asia. Would it be too silly to suggest division by service. That really would lead to some interesting reaslistic confilct of interest. Also, I think it would make sense to have Japans Industrial production controlled by 1 person. Edit: P.s. I am on GMT

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 3:46:41 PM)
Wow, we got a bunch of volunteers here...[:)] Ok, so right now we have 5 players. Japanese - AlexCobra & Feurer Krieg Allied - Gary Childress (or do u wanna join the evil ones[;)], ha?) Not decided - Nomad & mantrill. I suppose using standart scenario 15, but if anyone offer CHS or another mod, I would agree. Though I need to say I saw them only once, try to look closer, but always short of time. Should be interesting. Any map will do I think. Well, talking about division of forces... I proclaimed to divide by geographical sign, because if we take different types of forces (one - fleet, another - aviation and on...) it'll be much more realistic, but again much more difficult to coordinate. In this case we should discuss with each other every single little step, because u couldn't organize amphibious assault without cover by navy and from air. Taking local areas is way much easier to plan and execute, and still we'll have to coordinate most operations with one another. Hey, if u guys know simple way to schedule the command on unit types, go on and tell us - be sure if it sounds good I'll be the first to vote for it. If we take geo variant, I'll preferrably command one of the invasion areas or Pac islands... In case someone stupid enough make me the Boss, I can do the thing... I think... but if there will be an oppotunity, I'll add another area (kinda schisophrenic to play two roles - I'll issue orders to myself... can I refuse to execute them[:D]?). That's in case there will be lesser than 4 players on Jap side. Alex.

MarcA -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 4:45:51 PM)
I will take the plunge then. If no one else has a strong preference for it, sign me up for the Japs as well. Might as well have some fun with the other side. I think someone else aught to look after the production side of things though.

AlexCobra -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 7:18:07 PM)
Japs: AlexCobra, Feurer Krieg, mantill. We got initial HQ staff for our side. Well, there's still vacant places left, I think. Ok, I can manage production... the way I can handle it. Don't expect too much though. Allies: Gary Childress, Nomad (?). We need a couple of men to fill the posts in Allied High Command. Come on, sign up here! What? Do you want to live forever?[:)] Alex.

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/22/2005 8:02:22 PM)
If no one objects I'd prefer to stick with scen 15, not CHS. AlexCobra - I have no problem with you doing production, I'm really just looking to get my corner of the world and run with it! :)

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 2:27:19 AM)
Fantastic! Things are definitely shaping up! I just hope I can find a few recruits for my side [:)]. How about it Nomad? You get first dibs on any command you like, if you want to be the first comer to the Allied side! Looks like I'll need all the help I can get. And I could definitely use some experience on the Allied side as the odds seem to be stacking up against us. [:)] I can take supreme commander for the time being until someone more qualified comes along (and I can stick with it even if someone doesn't) and you can take up whatever combination of commands you like. I could take control of supply operations jointly from Karachi and the West Coast and any other sectors you don't control. You could maybe take Southwest Pacific, South and Central Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, and ABDA and USAFFE until the latter two--no doubt--get overrun, for instance or any combination thereof. Alternatively, we could divide the Allied command into two equal commands, East and West. East would include, West Coast, Canada Command, South, Central and North Pacific. and West could include Southeast Asia, Southwest Pacific, China, Far East Front, Australia, New Zealand, ABDA, and USAFFE. That way each of the supreme commanders could control a combination of naval, air and land forces and also a central supply base (Karachi or the US West Coast). In the event more players join on, the two main commands can be fragmented further so that each of the two supreme commanders would have lieutenants. In such case there would be no real single supreme commander. Newcomers to the Allied side could decide which of the two theatre commanders they prefer to serve under and then take up one of their lesser commands. [:)] Gary

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 2:47:15 AM)
After some further thought, I think I can volunteer to do the following, at least until any more players join the Japan side: 4th Fleet, Southeast Fleet (South Pacific in general), and a good portion of the subs of course. Also I can take care of production if no one minds. I think the other two main sphere's should be Southern army & Burma army to someone, and then China/Kwangtung/Northern Area/Home Defense to someone else. Just my 2 cents!

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 3:02:34 AM)
quote: Wow, we got a bunch of volunteers here... Ok, so right now we have 5 players. Japanese - AlexCobra & Feurer Krieg Allied - Gary Childress (or do u wanna join the evil ones , ha?) Not decided - Nomad & mantrill. I suppose using standart scenario 15, but if anyone offer CHS or another mod, I would agree. Though I need to say I saw them only once, try to look closer, but always short of time. Should be interesting. Any map will do I think. Well, talking about division of forces... I proclaimed to divide by geographical sign, because if we take different types of forces (one - fleet, another - aviation and on...) it'll be much more realistic, but again much more difficult to coordinate. In this case we should discuss with each other every single little step, because u couldn't organize amphibious assault without cover by navy and from air. Taking local areas is way much easier to plan and execute, and still we'll have to coordinate most operations with one another. Hey, if u guys know simple way to schedule the command on unit types, go on and tell us - be sure if it sounds good I'll be the first to vote for it. If we take geo variant, I'll preferrably command one of the invasion areas or Pac islands... In case someone stupid enough make me the Boss, I can do the thing... I think... but if there will be an oppotunity, I'll add another area (kinda schisophrenic to play two roles - I'll issue orders to myself... can I refuse to execute them ?). That's in case there will be lesser than 4 players on Jap side. Alex. Hi Alex! I'll take the Allies! I would prefer to stick with the standard scenario 15 myself. It's got plenty of room for a lot of players and most of us know enough about the layout of forces that we won't be blindly groping in the dark (and I need as much help as I can get.) I'm not as interested in mods. I suppose we should take a vote among those of us assembled so far to see what the general consensus is. But my vote is with # 15. I think it has a nice offset of advantages/disadvantages for each side. Just about all the early advantages are with the Japanese to grab as much as they can while the grabbing is good and hope for an early 1943 or 1944 point victory, while time is on the Allies' side as they try to stay afloat for the first part of the war until enough new material arrives to turn the tide. Let me know what the vote is and I'll start a new "help wanted" thread in the group listing all the parameters for the game decided upon so far. [:)] Gary

Nomad -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 3:14:12 AM)
As I said above, I do not care what senario we play or which map we use. We just need to agree which it will be, you decide and tell me, I'll put another install in with what you decide. Gary, you are for the time being the Allies Supreme Commander( hmmm, Roosevelt, Churchill, Marshal, King, etc. all rolled up together? [:)] ) I will let you parlay with the Japanese supreme commander. Gary, I'll take the West side of the map, India, China, Russia, and Malaya. I do have some experience and I am willing to impart some wisdom(?) [:D], well some words anyway. [8D] Please send me an email with the email address you want to use for our internal communication. Mine is as above. If we have the full Japanese team, and the agreed upon house rules, map and senario, then the Japanese can start their turn, it will take a few days to do so they need to start on it. [:'(]

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 3:14:41 AM)
BTW if anyone wants to e-mail me please use the following e-mail address: GRChildress@aol.com. The e-mail address I have listed for the group (grchildrss@aol.com) (note there is no "e" between the "r" and "s" in this one) is sort of my junk mailbox which I seldom check. I just let all the advertisements and such go to that box and redirect friends and important correspondence to my preferred e-mail. Thanks, [:)] Gary

FeurerKrieg -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 3:16:24 AM)
Vanilla scen 15 for me. My email is bfeurer -at- comcast.net. Do we want to go with 1.602? It seems to have fixed the ghost and vanishing units problem.

GaryChildress -> RE: Question re: multiple players in PBEM (7/23/2005 3:29:27 AM)
quote: Gary, I'll take the West side of the map, India, China, Russia, and Malaya. I do have some experience and I am willing to impart some wisdom(?) , well some words anyway. Please send me an email with the email address you want to use for our internal communication. Mine is as above. Sounds great! I'll definitely need some advice along the way, even if it's just telling me "You're @#%& crazy to throw the Lexington into that hornet's nest". [:)] Gary

GaryChildress -> multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 4:47:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg Vanilla scen 15 for me. My email is bfeurer -at- comcast.net. Do we want to go with 1.602? It seems to have fixed the ghost and vanishing units problem. I have 1.6 downloaded from Matrix and installed on my computer. Alex is @ 1.6 too. How about we all take a yeah or nay vote on the following: version: 1.6 scenario: vanilla # 15 1 day turn increments settings: Player defined upgrades ON Allied sub doctrine OFF Japanese sub doctrine OFF Fog of war ON Advanced weather effects ON Allied damage control ON Historical first turn ON Vary setup OFF December 7th surprise ON Reinforcements +/- 60 days (Allies and Japanese both) Map hexes ON If nay, then list what you would like to change and we can knock some ideas around till a consensus is reached. I hesitate to loose anyone at this point because of a disagreement and I know we're all anxious to get started, but I'd like to do this fair and to everyone's liking. As Nomad says the Japanese can start plotting their strategy for the first turn. I agree, the Japanese side looks pretty well fleshed out for the time being. I propose each side posts seperate threads in the OW forum to try to gain new recruits. But in the mean time I think the 5 of us could get this thing off the ground. If there are no objections, I will be keeper of the Allied side, as I plan on staying on for the duration and Alex can be keeper of the Japanese side. I think basically we just need someone to remember what the password is to their side and be able to pass it on to newcomers if the game goes temporarily dormant. I also propose the following house rules: House rule #1: Once someone has played on either the Japanese side or the Allied side, no switching of sides will be permitted later on in the game. Given the nature of the Internet this will mainly be enforced on a code of honor basis. House rule #2: The door is always open to new players, and anyone can come and go as they please so long as they give notice of a departure so that the rest of us know to take over their duties and/or recruit new players. Please give me your votes on the above along with any additional house rule proposals/ammendments. If we all vote yeah, then we can begin at once and perhaps Japanese and Allied sides can begin plotting their strategies and post separate "help wanted" threads in the forum to gain recruits. If there are any nays speak now and we may all try to come up with something better. [:)] Gary

Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 5:07:39 AM)
Probably everything is fine except historical first turn. That should probably be off so out Japanese opponents can scheme and shape their stratagy from turn 1. [:D] I do not want them to say they lost becasue they could not do what they wanted on the first turn! [:D] I think to refelect surprise, the Allies can only move units in China and give orders to any TFs that start the game at sea. In exchange, the Japanese can only do one port attack on the first turn. Other than those, let loose the dogs of war. [8D][;)] And may the Allies kick butt. [:D]

FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 5:08:54 AM)
How about 6 ship limit on ASW. Other than that, things look fine to me. YAY! EDIT: Yea, if we can do historical off that fine with me, really since I tend to think of this as a more 'casual' game, I'm easy on the initial settings, but once those are down - its full speed ahead! Rising sun all the way baby!!!

Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 6:01:02 AM)
I have no problem with the 6 ship max for dedicated ASW Taskforces. Just remember, other TFs might have more than 6 ships with ASW capability. [:)] Help, we need at least one more Allied player and preferably two. I did not really intend to run 1/2 of the Allies. Someone step up and take some of the load off. [:D]

FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 7:07:54 AM)
Of course, no limit on non-ASW TF escorts.

Page: [1] 2 3 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.859375