RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (Full Version)

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



Message

scott64 -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 8:34:42 AM)

Me, Me, Me, Me, Me..pick Me. [:D][:'(][:)][8D]



FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:21:22 AM)

Certainly! Allies okay for you? I mean, we can always use some more for Team Nippon, but seeing as how the Allies only have two so far....



GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:41:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Me, Me, Me, Me, Me..pick Me. [:D][:'(][:)][8D]



Hi Scott!

We're two for the Allies so far. Nomad and I have things broken down by commands. Nomad is currently commanding the Western half of the map and I'm commanding the Eastern. Nomad is especially looking for someone to split his command since he is involved in other PBEM games on the side at the moment. I'm more able at the moment to devote myself to the Eastern portion so would you be interested in something in the West for the Allies. Currently the West is comprised of Southeast Asia Command, China, Far East Front, Southwest Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, ABDA and USAFFE. If so you could work things out with Nomad how he might like to split things.

Of course if you want to command the Japanese or the Allies in the East Pacific you're more than welcome also.

[:)]


Gary



MarcA -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:19:54 AM)

Hi everyone

I am easy with the rules. To be honest I am just on board to have some fun and kick some allied bottom. [:)] I would prefer someone else to take care of the various diplomatic discussions, team leadership and production. AJust give me a handful of divisions a target and more planes than you can wave a large stick and let me go




GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:55:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mantill

Hi everyone

I am easy with the rules. To be honest I am just on board to have some fun and kick some allied bottom. [:)] I would prefer someone else to take care of the various diplomatic discussions, team leadership and production. AJust give me a handful of divisions a target and more planes than you can wave a large stick and let me go




Hi mantill!

I think we just need one more Allied player and we will be good to go. Then others could join on at their leisure. I don't want to leave Nomad with more than he wants to handle right now.

In the meantime I think "Team Nippon" is off the ground--pending Alex's approval of the settings and rules.


[:)]

Gary



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 2:57:48 PM)

Scott, you are picked. [:D]

You now control the Allied effort in the PI, DEI, Australia, and SW Pacific. Make those imperialists suffer. [:D]
That would be everyting in these commands: Southwest Pacific, Australia, New Zealand, ABDA and USAFFE.

I am glad someone joined up. [8D]




AlexCobra -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 4:22:25 PM)

Hi!

[X(]

Sorry, I was away this night/day... sleeping carelessly. Things getting more and more interesting[:)]!

Howdy, Scott, welcome to our team...
Now. According the rules and approval. The rules are fine... except one thing: historical first move/december 7th surprise. I suggest we should turn it off (EDIT: I mean, on[sm=00000506.gif]). Why? Because here we need to figure out tonnes of house rules about what J's can and cannot do during first turn... I mean, as for we are evil, we have no moral principles, so we can do anything our collective mind can imagine... and that's very insane[:D]! Anyway, I just prefer historical first turn - like initial hand of cards in poker game; btw, it's different from game to game, so if you'r not tired, let's go historic.

House rules suggested are fine by me. Just this 1st move obstacle.

Any time we can start. Silence, please!

Alex.

PS: And sorry again, I will not be able to upgrade to 1.602... for certain reasons. Just the official patches.



GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 5:30:06 PM)

quote:

Hi!

Sorry, I was away this night/day... sleeping carelessly. Things getting more and more interesting !

Howdy, Scott, welcome to our team...
Now. According the rules and approval. The rules are fine... except one thing: historical first move/december 7th surprise. I suggest we should turn it off. Why? Because here we need to figure out tonnes of house rules about what J's can and cannot do during first turn... I mean, as for we are evil, we have no moral principles, so we can do anything our collective mind can imagine... and that's very insane ! Anyway, I just prefer historical first turn - like initial hand of cards in poker game; btw, it's different from game to game, so if you'r not tired, let's go historic.

House rules suggested are fine by me. Just this 1st move obstacle.

Any time we can start. Silence, please!

Alex.


Hi Alex!

The first turn being like a poker hand sounds good by me. I'm pretty flexible as far as rules go, and I definitely see your point. I don't think we can expect the Japanese to hold anything back on the first turn, especially since you all have to grab everything you can in the first few months of the war just to survive. As it stands the Allies have enough advantages in manpower and material that the Japanese are going to need to get the most out of that first turn.

I'll go back with an historical first turn and December 7th surprise--vary setup OFF (don't want to risk any of my carriers getting caught in port). What do you say Nomad? Being the good natured people we Allies are, should we try to appease the Japanese aggressors in the name of peace?

[:)]

Gary



AlexCobra -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 5:43:07 PM)

quote:

Being the good natured people we Allies are
.... [sm=00000939.gif]

quote:

should we try to appease the Japanese aggressors in the name of peace?


[:'(]

Alex.



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 5:55:12 PM)

It doesn't matter to me, just as long as they don't complain latter about it. [:D][:(][&:][:@]

I just thought the Japanese position would be much better if they did their own thing for turn 1. It doesn't really matter that much what they try to do on turn 1, by July 1943 we will be kicking them repeatedly and hard. [:D] We are the mighty Allies, we will win no matter what they try. [:-][8|]

I am agreeable to pretty much anything. As I said before, let loose the dogs of war. I want to get the first few months over with so i can start counter attacking in Burma. [:D]

BTW, Alex, you keep away from Scott, he is an Allied player in this team effort( well, I hope he is, he hasn't said yet ) [&:]



MarcA -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 6:36:20 PM)

Just one things guys, I see you wanted to use 1.6. Well I have some experience with ghosts and they are a PItA. I would strongly recommend we upgrade to 1.602, not 1.6.

It is avaiable in the download section and Frag recommends we all use it, even though it is still a beta. He says 1.7 is unlikely to be released for a long time. 1.602 also fixes problems with whole divisions disappearing which would certainly have a negative effect on the game.

I am sure there are plenty of new bugs in 1.602 but can they be worse than loosing whole divsions without warning.

Alex do you want to start your machinations, assigning areas of command, etc. We might as well get moving. I haven't played Japan before so would like some time to familiarise msyelf with what I own. If you let me know where you want me I will start having a poke around.

Marc



Cap Mandrake -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 6:59:03 PM)

Good luck gents. I suspect you will have a blast. I would suggest no more than 3 per side so you dont impair game speed.

And, of course, make sure everyone signs the prenuptial agreement. [:'(]



GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 7:09:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mantill

Just one things guys, I see you wanted to use 1.6. Well I have some experience with ghosts and they are a PItA. I would strongly recommend we upgrade to 1.602, not 1.6.

It is avaiable in the download section and Frag recommends we all use it, even though it is still a beta. He says 1.7 is unlikely to be released for a long time. 1.602 also fixes problems with whole divisions disappearing which would certainly have a negative effect on the game.

I am sure there are plenty of new bugs in 1.602 but can they be worse than loosing whole divsions without warning.

Alex do you want to start your machinations, assigning areas of command, etc. We might as well get moving. I haven't played Japan before so would like some time to familiarise msyelf with what I own. If you let me know where you want me I will start having a poke around.

Marc



Hi Marc!

I definitely don't want to loose divisions. I checked the WitP space on Matrix games and only saw patches up to 1.6. Where can we all get 1.602?

[:)]

Gary



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 7:18:50 PM)

I just went to the members area and downloaded 1.602.

That said, AlexCobra stated he would not be able to upgrade to 1.602.

Alex, do you have enough disk space to put two different installs on? That is what I do, I have an install for
each of my 4 games. That way nothing gets confused.



AlexCobra -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 7:33:03 PM)

Well, if u'r going to upgrade to 1.602, u gonna lose me. I definitely said that I can't use beta-version patches available through members area, so I'll stay on 1.6 anyway (well, until next official patch comes out[:)]). If u wanna know the exact reasons, I'll PM it or e-mail it. Sorry. And, btw, the ghost bug affects only units touched with 'follow' command, and I use only 'march' command, so there's no difficulties for me.

quote:

We are the mighty Allies, we will win no matter what they try.


Heh... u better prove it, man[;)]

Ok, I suppose Scott will take Japs, so we are ready for launch... If no other circumstances will appear, I'll start the game tonight, taking last edited preferences. It'll be 1.6 and with historical 1st turn I'll send it strait to opponents (exactly to Gary). Now we should consider who's gonna be the first reciver of opponent's turn and that person should deliver it to other members of High Staff... And Feurer, mantill, I'll send u mail about the common staff.

quote:

And, of course, make sure everyone signs the prenuptial agreement.


Highly appreciate your approval, C. M. Read your AAR's - they'r fantastic![8D]

Alex.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 8:13:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexCobra

Well, if u'r going to upgrade to 1.602, u gonna lose me. I definitely said that I can't use beta-version patches available through members area, so I'll stay on 1.6 anyway (well, until next official patch comes out[:)]). If u wanna know the exact reasons, I'll PM it or e-mail it. Sorry. And, btw, the ghost bug affects only units touched with 'follow' command, and I use only 'march' command, so there's no difficulties for me.

quote:

We are the mighty Allies, we will win no matter what they try.


Heh... u better prove it, man[;)]

Ok, I suppose Scott will take Japs, so we are ready for launch... If no other circumstances will appear, I'll start the game tonight, taking last edited preferences. It'll be 1.6 and with historical 1st turn I'll send it strait to opponents (exactly to Gary). Now we should consider who's gonna be the first reciver of opponent's turn and that person should deliver it to other members of High Staff... And Feurer, mantill, I'll send u mail about the common staff.

quote:

And, of course, make sure everyone signs the prenuptial agreement.


Highly appreciate your approval, C. M. Read your AAR's - they'r fantastic![8D]

Alex.



I assume you mean Scott will take allies. Also, any chance you can run two installs? One with 1.6 and one on 1.602? With the river shock attack rules, using the follow command is nearly mandatory on river assualts. Won't affect me so much, if I'm in the Pacific, but for those Burma/Hong Kong/China type areas, might be a bigger issue.



GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 8:29:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlexCobra

Well, if u'r going to upgrade to 1.602, u gonna lose me. I definitely said that I can't use beta-version patches available through members area, so I'll stay on 1.6 anyway (well, until next official patch comes out[:)]). If u wanna know the exact reasons, I'll PM it or e-mail it. Sorry. And, btw, the ghost bug affects only units touched with 'follow' command, and I use only 'march' command, so there's no difficulties for me.

Alex.


Hi everyone!

How about we not use the 1.602 patch and just use march instead of follow (make it a house rule)? I don't think any of us want to loose Alex.

Alternatively, is it possible for the rest of us to be on 1.602 and for him to play using 1.6?

Does anyone have ideas here on how we can resolve this situation?

[:)] [:(]

Gary

edit: PS. Just now saw Feurer Krieg's reply to Alex.



FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 8:35:56 PM)

I can run two installs on my machine, so it isn't a problem for me to play 1.6 if Alex cannot run 1.602. As I said, it really doesn't impact me, but whoever is running the land campaigns may be of a different opinion.



scott64 -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 8:59:45 PM)

Thanks [:)]
I do not care how we do it but it will be done. I think we should stick with 1.6 because I am on another (3x3 Fear and Loathing Jap style)[:'(] and am not sure if they want to upgrade or not. my email is s dot kime at comcast dot net.



GaryChildress -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:04:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

I can run two installs on my machine, so it isn't a problem for me to play 1.6 if Alex cannot run 1.602. As I said, it really doesn't impact me, but whoever is running the land campaigns may be of a different opinion.


Hi Feurer Krieg!

I haven't upgraded to 1.602 yet so I can just stay at 1.6 if need be.

I also propose we take C. M.'s advice and put a limit on the game at 3 x 3.

[:)]

Gary



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:09:36 PM)

I have the Allies on the ground in the CBI. I do not care whether we use 1.6 or 1.602. Let's just use 1.6 and get moving on this. [:)]



scott64 -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:12:01 PM)

Allied Commander for DEI, Australia, New Zealand, and Southwest Pacific reporting in.[:)][8D][:'(]



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:15:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: scott1964

Allied Commander for DEI, Australia, New Zealand, and Southwest Pacific reporting in.[:)][8D][:'(]


Don't fortget the PI. [:-] It might be very important. [8D]




scott64 -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:32:33 PM)

That would be very benificial to them if We did not do anything [X(][:-][:'(]



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 9:38:53 PM)

The only real problem is that there just is not a lot we can do. It is nice to save some ships and aircraft but even if we don't, We still win [:D]



FeurerKrieg -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:10:59 PM)

Sounds like we are pretty much ready to roll then. Alex/Mantill - you guys okay with me doing 4th, Southeast and the sub fleets?



MarcA -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:19:39 PM)

v1.6 it is then. Just no crying when the 2nd US marines disappear [:'(]

A point about player orders, we should set the order we handle turns in order of GMT, depending on where there last allied player is located. If that makes sense. So if the hand it over at GMT-6 it would go to Bob at GMT-8 then Alex GMT+3 then me GMT, otherwise we could be waiting 2 days for us to do our turns as it would keep arriving when we have gone to bed. If we do it this way we stand the best chance of getting a turn per day



MarcA -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:20:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

Sounds like we are pretty much ready to roll then. Alex/Mantill - you guys okay with me doing 4th, Southeast and the sub fleets?


No problem here



AlexCobra -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 10:29:46 PM)

quote:

So if the hand it over at GMT-6 it would go to Bob at GMT-8 then Alex GMT+3 then me GMT, otherwise we could be waiting 2 days for us to do our turns as it would keep arriving when we have gone to bed. If we do it this way we stand the best chance of getting a turn per day


I accept this. It means that Bob have to begin the game. Or should it be me? Anyway, it's time to.

Alex.



Nomad -> RE: multiple player PBEM - vote (7/23/2005 11:24:31 PM)

For the Allies, send your turns to Gary at EDT and he will send to me at MDT and I will send to Scott also at MDT. He can send it to Bob when he is done.



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.59375