Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

GPW v6a

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Opponents Wanted >> GPW v6a Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 1:36:15 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Any volunteers for Russia? Five stalwart generals required to take on a Front or Army Group in a six player epic (hopefully).

Axis Powers-
Army Group North
Army Group Centre
Army Group South

Russia-
North West Front
West Front
South West Front


All slots open, apply with CV ;-) below.
Post #: 1
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 3:05:17 PM   
zigzag

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 4/13/2008
Status: offline 		Count me in for one of the axis army groups.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 2
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 3:22:04 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		You're on.

(in reply to zigzag)
Post #: 3
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 6:59:32 PM   
all5n


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline 		I will take any available Slot.

< Message edited by all5n -- 8/1/2008 10:23:36 PM >

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 4
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 7:48:38 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		AG as in German, not a Front? No prob if so, best to make your exact choices though.

Step up, three more gluttons please...

(in reply to all5n)
Post #: 5
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 9:25:37 PM   
mavnb

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/26/2000
From: bellefeuille
Status: offline 		hello,

I want in. Russia north?

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 6
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 9:52:12 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Nice, welcome aboard. Think I'll go Rooskie too, but I'll clean up the post others leave.

(in reply to mavnb)
Post #: 7
RE: GPW v6a - 8/1/2008 10:24:01 PM   
all5n


Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline 		I meant "any available slot".

I dont mind playing the russians.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring

AG as in German, not a Front? No prob if so, best to make your exact choices though.

Step up, three more gluttons please...


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 8
RE: GPW v6a - 8/2/2008 9:40:28 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		OK all5n, NP, we'll sort out the small print later. Welcome aboard.

Do we have two more warlords looking for an East Front Fiefdom?


(in reply to all5n)
Post #: 9
RE: GPW v6a - 8/2/2008 1:54:55 PM   
Jay Doubleyou

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		Sure. Doesnt matter which side or front.

Btw, i'm have some experience with the scenario played a few 1 vs 1 games.
I dont know what experience the other players have, but it would be good to make balanced teams so we have a good war.


< Message edited by Jay Doubleyou -- 8/2/2008 2:03:22 PM >

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 10
RE: GPW v6a - 8/2/2008 2:59:36 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Good thinking, Jay Doubleyou.

I'm a novice to this system but have been playing strategy games for 30 odd years. I think I'm getting the hang of this system and am running through this scenario for first time playing both sides. I'm happy to play second fiddle to someone more experienced with the system but will step up to play a lead Front if needed. Maybe if more experienced players play Germans, us Rooskies can embark upon a learning curve  .

Another idea might be flexibility of command, ie players changing Front/AG within a side as required, as happened historically. I'm not sure how supplies and reinforcements are dished out in a 3 player side, but it might be an idea to elect overall commanders for each side, who make strategic decisions and allocations. Open to ideas...

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)
Post #: 11
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 1:25:48 PM   
mavnb

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/26/2000
From: bellefeuille
Status: offline 		so, Am I or not?

Marc

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 12
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 3:25:54 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Everybody's in who wants to be, Marc, but the details have yet to be finalised.

I had a look at how the six player game version works, and this is what I find- It divides the war into three seperate battles, which means you can't transfer units or re-allocate supply bases/factories from one front to another as the situation demands. Because every Front/Army Group is a seperate "regime," you could only take over ground from a neighboring AG/Front... by attacking it. Hmmmm.

So, unless I've overlooked something, I think we could play a better six or eight player game, but using the two player version. Simply move the units assigned to your Front, save, and email the file to another player on your side until all three have played, then the other side does the same etc. In a six player game we could do this having decided on a senior player on each side to control boundaries, logistics, and inter-front unit transfers, or....

...if we could find the players and everyone agrees, I'd like to try an eight player game in which there are two levels of command. In this, each side would have three front commanders and a Stavka/OKW high command player who fights no battles and moves only strategic reserves/supplies and reinforcements, but has overall command of production, strategy and Army Group/Front boundaries. So, rather than three more or less unconnected battles on the same map, the game would be integrated, with a command structure and distinct strategic/operational levels.

With such a set up, a turn would begin with the high command player analysing the strategic situation and condition of the front, then allocating resources and orders to the three Army groups/Fronts. They would have to notify the subordinate of their objectives, boundaries with neighboring formations, reinforcements and supply from production as well as units transferred to and from other parts of the front. Also of command transfers.

Subordinate commanders would then have to execute their orders to the best of their abilities and lobby High Command for type and quantity of resources, ie. "build me some *#%*^ing medium tanks, I'm getting creamed here, and can I borrow some of AG Centre's air support this week to disrupt the enemy concentration in hex 45,35?" or suchlike. Subordinate commanders could also submit suggestions and operational plans to high command, so a real two way management structure exists.

I hope that doesn't sound too involved, as it would probably make for an interresting game by replacing some player omnipotence with command structure relationships. The only drawback, and I hope this fear is irrelevant, is that with four players using the same file, clearly the PBEM anti-cheat mechanisms wouldn't work.

Any thoughts?




< Message edited by Mehring -- 8/3/2008 3:36:37 PM >

(in reply to mavnb)
Post #: 13
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 5:42:38 PM   
Jay Doubleyou

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		If we play like you suggest it would make the scenario with 6/8 players much more interesting, but also difficult to organize.
It will lead to a lot of discussion and frustration i'm afraid. And the save option if you play with 1 side but 3 players will keep coughing messages about turns opened for the ..th time.

I've never tried with splitup fronts and would like to see how it goes just to see if you like it. But you cant call it realistic since you fight 3 separate wars instead of 1 big war.

Thats why i play this scenario 1 vs 1. A lot of work each turn, but you can decide everything yourself.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 14
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 7:31:59 PM   
mavnb

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/26/2000
From: bellefeuille
Status: offline 		structure is interesting
and it will lead to nice politics. For the opening,
it is simple. 1 for the mastercommander and 2 for north,
3 for center and 4 for South. On each sides. We could use russia41 then instead of GPW>

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)
Post #: 15
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 10:25:34 PM   
british exil


Posts: 1686
Joined: 5/4/2006
From: Lower Saxony Germany
Status: offline
ORIGINAL: Mehring

I had a look at how the six player game version works, and this is what I find- It divides the war into three seperate battles, which means you can't transfer units or re-allocate supply bases/factories from one front to another as the situation demands. Because every Front/Army Group is a seperate "regime," you could only take over ground from a neighboring AG/Front... by attacking it. Hmmmm.


Each Army group has handcards so that you can tranfer PP's and a war of convience card that allows your allies to move into your sector.

Playing with 6 players, the three germans make their moves then the russians make their moves.Turn 1: = AGN - AGC - AGS - SWN - SWC - SWS - turn 2 AGN - ....





_____________________________

"It is not enough to expect a man to pay for the best, you must also give him what he pays for." Alfred Dunhill

WitE,UV,AT,ATG,FoF,FPCRS

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 16
RE: GPW v6a - 8/3/2008 10:48:46 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		...more interesting, but also difficult to organize. It will lead to a lot of discussion and frustration i'm afraid.
...and it will lead to nice politics.
 
Yes, it would be a trade off, interesting dynamics against communication hold-ups, and frustration and annoyance at, eg. not getting the reinforcements you wanted, your subordinates not executing orders as you wanted them to, not liking the orders you're given, not feeling listened to, one person going on holiday and holding up the game (oops, that's me soon)... Just like real life except we'd all be volunteers and could throw a hissy and quit if we don't get our own way enough. Working with other people is always more difficult than on your own but is also potentially more rewarding.

Also, clearly, we can't anticipate all the problems and command channel issues in advance and would have to figure out a lot of issues as they arise.

It's not, then, a "pure" wargame I'm proposing, but a wargame with a lot of interesting challenges added on. Not for everybody, but the more I think about it, the more I'd like to give it a try.

And the save option if you play with 1 side but 3 players will keep coughing messages about turns opened for the ..th time.

Am I right in thinking that if you turn off the PBEM Anti-Cheat option and trust  everyone, you won't get these messages?

For the opening,
it is simple. 1 for the mastercommander and 2 for north,
3 for center and 4 for South. On each sides.
 
..and maybe split Army Groups as required (like  AG South was split into A and B) or add new Fronts and add extra players...
 
We could use russia41 then instead of GPW
 
I haven't made a proper comparison but I certianly like the historical division numbering in GPW, as far as it goes.
 
 

(in reply to mavnb)
Post #: 17
RE: GPW v6a - 8/4/2008 8:56:28 PM   
Jay Doubleyou

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		Its interesting to try the new idea i think. It would add more to a game then just play a wargame.

But also if you could transfer PP and move troops on eachothers fronts like British Exile pointed out, it might not soo bad with the regular setup.


(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 18
RE: GPW v6a - 8/4/2008 10:40:42 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Had a look at the unit transfer and "war of convenience" options in GPW and while they do fall short of the benefits of the game I'm suggesting, they are better than nothing. If that's the road we take, we may still need an overall commander to order the transfer of PPs from one Front/AG to another. The benefit of this version, as I see it, is that the PBEM anti-cheat mechanism will work.

What I suggest is that everyone take a look at the options and make up their own minds, then we have a vote. I'll go with the majority.

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)
Post #: 19
RE: GPW v6a - 8/5/2008 6:48:50 PM   
Jay Doubleyou

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		My vote is for the regular version, just because i want to try and see how it works.
If im not happy with it, i would like to try another game with the other structure.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 20
RE: GPW v6a - 8/5/2008 7:32:10 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline 		This discussion is very interesting. I was thinking of how to organize a game like you have described:

OKW - controls supplies, new troops, overall strategy, maybe Luftwaffe
AGN - controls troops assigned to AG, makes requestes for supplies,troops, air support
AGC- same as AGN
AGS - same as AGN

Soviiets - same setup.

Easy to replace players that quit/delay game.

VERY different play thatn normal 6 player setup.

I'll be very interested to see how it goes.....

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)
Post #: 21
RE: GPW v6a - 8/5/2008 10:48:24 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Would you be interrested in taking a slot, if your "Matrix Legion of Merit" is anything to go by, maybe an HQ slot?

One thing that occured to me is that the HQ/subordinate roles should not be taken as rigid. Like you say, HQ maybe controls air, but maybe not. Doctrines differed from one country to another and developed (or degenerated) with experience and pressure of circumstance/ideology. Starting from this loose 1:3 structure, it could be up to each side to develop the command and control structures that best suit their circumstances.

If we can get enough players on board, I can't wait to get back from holiday.

My vote, if you hadn't guessed, is for the experimental version.

< Message edited by Mehring -- 8/5/2008 11:00:20 PM >

(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 22
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 2:08:18 AM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline 		Well.... "Martix Legion of Merit" just means I can blabber alot!

Thanks for the invite, but may be each side should desides who gets what job....

If you are not going to start too soon I might be interested. How long is your vacation? I have soem games going now so don't want to hold up any.


_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 23
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 11:13:06 AM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		OK, blabberchops,  you are of course right that each side should decide who gets what job. I was just thinking that someone experienced with the system but thinking along the same experimental lines might put themselves forward for a Top Cat.

From Friday, I'll be "hors de vacation" for about 2 weeks but that shouldn't stop teams forming and practicing co-ordination in the meantime.

Given that commanders will want to move as well as have their divisions replenished, I suggest the following outline structure for a turn-

1. HQ issues orders and sends current file to all players.
2. AGs/Fronts request strategic support (if centrally managed) and any special unit/supply allocation.
3. Having consulted all concerned, HQ allocates strategic support, authorises inter-front transfers (if any) and detemines that turn's order of play (movement/combat resolution) among the Fronts/AGs.
4. Last AG/Front returns file to HQ. All make turn report to HQ.
5. HQ replenishes frontline lower HQs/units from production and forms new units.
6. HQ sends file to other side.

Clearly, practice and further input from players will determine whether or not that outline includes all that is necessary to make a turn run smoothly, or indeed, practice will show whether playing the game like this will work at all.

One question with regard to air support- Will changing the HQ reduce readyness or have any adverse effects? If not, big HQ could physically show to which Front/AG an air unit was allocated by changing HQ. players could then just use "thier colour" air support.


(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 24
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 12:55:44 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		@mavnb
I had a closer look at the 1941 scenario and compared it to GPW. In my view GPW is the better scenario, for the following reasons- I prefer the map which is more extensive, possibly larger scale, and detailed. As well as partly numbering the divisions, GPW also distinguishes better, if incompletely, between nationalities, ie German, Finn, Axis minor. I think also, that unit compositions abstract better the make up of the divisions. Have a look, if you haven't already, and give us your thoughts.

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 25
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 1:34:54 PM   
Barthheart


Posts: 3194
Joined: 7/20/2004
From: Nepean, Ontario
Status: offline 		Very good outline of a turn sequence. I think that might work.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mehring
...
One question with regard to air support- Will changing the HQ reduce readyness or have any adverse effects? If not, big HQ could physically show to which Front/AG an air unit was allocated by changing HQ. players could then just use "thier colour" air support.

As far as I can tell from my other games changing the HQ of air units or ship units does not affedt their readiness. So transfering air units to fronts for use would be easy to do.

_____________________________

Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty & well preserved body,
but rather to skid in broadside, totally worn out & proclaiming "WOW, what a ride!"

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 26
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 7:54:05 PM   
Jay Doubleyou

 

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline 		Well count me in for the experimental version. Its interesting to try. One condition: find committed and trusted players. And subsequent holidays might be a problem. I'm on holiday from 30 augustus till 15 september.

And regarding airforce control: I think it should be used by the different Army commanders, but its up the overall commander to transfer airsupport to different fronts which suit the overall strategic goals best.



(in reply to Barthheart)
Post #: 27
RE: GPW v6a - 8/6/2008 10:15:06 PM   
Mehring

 

Posts: 2179
Joined: 1/25/2007
Status: offline 		Good to hear you're in.

It's always good to get reliable, dedicated players, but in the real world, there will always be reasons for absence. Where was Rommel every time a major offensive was launched against him? Sick or on holiday!

As Barthheart said, "Easy to replace players that quit/delay game." There are no individual passwords. If we can eventually get a pool of players to take new commands and cover absence in existing ones, maybe even holidays can be covered by temporary command. So we should never stop recruiting for this game... if it works. Just hope not to come back and find your pet command all messed up.

My biggest reservation is there's no way to prevent cheating, and that could really spoil things, so yes, trustworthy players is an issue. Not sure I can think of a way round that either, but I'm all ears.

As for airforces, I reckon that's for each side to decide their doctrine and test it in practice.

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)
Post #: 28
RE: GPW v6a - 8/7/2008 3:31:18 AM   
mavnb

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/26/2000
From: bellefeuille
Status: offline 		playing GPW already but proposed russia 41
just in case. Will we start soon?

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 29
RE: GPW v6a - 8/7/2008 3:32:25 AM   
mavnb

 

Posts: 93
Joined: 8/26/2000
From: bellefeuille
Status: offline 		plaing GPW already. Proosed russia 41 just in case. Will we start soon?

(in reply to Mehring)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Advanced Tactics Series >> Opponents Wanted >> GPW v6a Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.908