3v3[Rematch in progress]

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

3v3[Rematch in progress]

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 >> 3v3[Rematch in progress]

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

3v3[Rematch in progress] - 5/21/2012 2:55:57 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Hi guys,
We are interested in getting an XX-large 3v3 match going.
With summer approaching and with the difficulties of finding 3 suitable opponents, it might take weeks to get started.
This will be a very long and gruelling match. Serious and experienced players only please.
Our team will be electing one of our members to be the Supreme Commander, and he decides strategy, and chooses operations for the Sub Commanders. It is strongly advised that our opponents do the same or they will suffer from unco-ordinated operations.
Our team will be, Meanfcker, DanF, and Shadehawk.
We hope to attract some good players to this, maybe Kraftwerk, All5n, Sailing guy, Webizen, Lazyboy?
If any of you guys want to try and get mates together for this, it promises to be so much fun, they will probably make it illegal! :-)
This will be true strategic and operational warfare. Good experience for all.
Paul.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 10/17/2012 2:33:26 AM >

Post #: 1

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/21/2012 4:44:10 PM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I'm in if All5n is. I'd also suggest Jeff Reid and Jay Doubleyou as potential players.

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 2

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/21/2012 5:50:27 PM

ironduke1955

Posts: 2037
Joined: 5/17/2006
From: UK
Status: offline

Count me in

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 3

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/21/2012 7:38:14 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Id surely participate, sounds like fun :)

(in reply to ironduke1955)

Post #: 4

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/21/2012 9:50:20 PM

Jay Doubleyou

Posts: 245
Joined: 8/12/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

I'm in if All5n is. I'd also suggest Jeff Reid and Jay Doubleyou as potential players.

Hi Roy, I don't participate in new random games anymore. No fun anymore and usually terribly slow pace.
I only play 1 on 1 historical scenario's.

< Message edited by Jay Doubleyou -- 5/23/2012 9:02:37 PM >

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 5

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/21/2012 10:49:56 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Ironduke, I surely do not mean to offend, but I think you might be a little raw for this. All of the players already committed and considering are very experienced and it would not be fair to our opponents to saddle them with a relatively new player.

Roy, if you can talk Allan in, we could do Kraft, Weziben and All5n verses Meanfcker, DanF and Shadehawk.

With summer here and everyone having fun in the sun on their minds, we can get started in the next week or two, and just be patient while we get it rolling through the vacation season.
This will be a long term back burner kind of project anyway. I guess one turn every one to two weeks during the summer. There will be approximately 24 cities each to start with. This size will allow for very large mechanized operations.

Cheers,
Paul

(in reply to Jay Doubleyou)

Post #: 6

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/22/2012 1:54:05 AM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

holy bass ackwards, sorry about the mis spell Webizen

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 7

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/22/2012 1:32:45 PM

hatemf90

Posts: 305
Joined: 1/1/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Meanfcker

Ironduke, I surely do not mean to offend, but I think you might be a little raw for this. All of the players already committed and considering are very experienced and it would not be fair to our opponents to saddle them with a relatively new player.

I was just about to say count me in , then I read this... lol

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 8

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/22/2012 2:51:25 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Wezibezna! Wait what? lol

(in reply to hatemf90)

Post #: 9

RE: 3v3[Recruiting] - 5/23/2012 11:38:02 PM

jreid

Posts: 100
Joined: 10/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

I'm in if All5n is. I'd also suggest Jeff Reid and Jay Doubleyou as potential players.

Sure, I'll play if there is still room.

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 10

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/24/2012 10:37:02 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Ok, it looks like the teams are Webizen, All5n and Kraftwerk, verses Meanfcker, DanF, and Shadehawk.
For everyone else who is interested, why not form a team and play the winner.
All of you guys who are playing, please email me (pas.x@hotmail.com) so I can get all of your emails, and I will set up dropbox and invite to share.
You guys may wish to tell me who your Supremo will be, only so I can make sure he goes first for your team (for strategic consideration).
We could probably be starting within a week. You guys may also vote on whether or not to include PBEM protection. It is nice to be able to save if we are all men of honor, but I don't care which way we run it.
Paul

(in reply to jreid)

Post #: 11

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/25/2012 12:50:25 AM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

Suggestion: this is going to be a long and arduous game. Let each player select a sidekick with whom he will share his game password. This sidekick can follow along by opening previously played turns and be ready to step in if the primary player goes on vacation or otherwise needs to take a break. One isn't required to have a sidekick but can if he so chooses. What do you think?

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 12

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/25/2012 3:25:15 AM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

An excellent suggestion.
Ironduke, check with your buddies, you might get one going with Jeff Reid and his mates.
If there are 6 other guys interested, you could try to get another game running concurrently.

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 13

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/26/2012 3:58:29 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Ill take Ironduke as my side kick if no one minds, ive played a few games with him and he knows my play style, he'd be able to hop in and see what I was attempting to do.

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 14

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/26/2012 5:13:02 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

I have no objections. Kraft, could you email me please?
As soon as you email me, I will set up dropbox and get it rolling.
Webizen does not wish to be Supremo for your team. It is up to you or All5n.

(in reply to Krafty)

Post #: 15

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/26/2012 11:19:06 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Ill take Supremo if All5n has no objections. Are we using some sort of custom map to facilitate this? I envision being in command of a single city, in permanent alliance with my teammates, while they have larger areas with multiple cities that surround me preventing my expansion, but im considered "in charge" of generalized strategy, while say maintaining an HQ and maybe some flak guns (pew pew!) and possibly in charge of strategic transferring?

Theres a ton of ways this could work, curious how you guys are figuring this works.

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 16

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 5:33:49 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

We will be running like this, Supremo is just like the other guys. He goes first. He is resposible for co-ordinating the three armies toward common objectives. Generally, Supremo will visualize the grand strategy and using terrain features and railroads, determine where the main shwerpunkt will be directed.
As soon as this is done, he directs sub commanders toward the objectives. Operational planning should be discussed on a turn by turn basis with sub commanders. Sub commanders should accept the larger view of Supremo and customize thier production to suit operational requirements. Supremo should try to never overmanage and give tactical orders, tactics will be at the sole discretion of the sub commanders.
Supremo is responsible for Identifying enemy shwerpunkt and containing it with operation level orders to sub commanders.
This is how we generally run allied armies.
Supremo can take screenshots and annotate in paint and mail to subs with operational concepts marked on them.
We will get it started probably next weekend.
We usually run allied games where all of the guys on one team go, and then all of the guys on the other.
Any objections to that?
And could you guys please vote on whether or not to include PBEM protection?
Cheers,
Paul

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 5/28/2012 2:32:47 AM >

(in reply to Krafty)

Post #: 17

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 6:15:49 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

I like to keep it on, but with xxlarge maps, it can take hours sometimes to do turns. I trust you guys, and will vote for protection off.

As to the specifics of the map, are we going to be using a 1 city start, or prebuilt nations? Are we going to be randomly scattered around the map, or is it an east vs west sort of thing?

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 18

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 7:02:03 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

Full nations, no shroud. I will be generating and I will endeavor to try to align East, West or North, South and to be as fair as possible in the initial layout. While i like winning, I love playing even more. I want this to be as equal as possible at the start. I will use mirrorish, so if someone gets a bad deal with an occasional city, oh well and it should balance out. Also, the game will likey be won or lost by the Supremo's decisions, so sub commanders really must strive to fullfill his wishes or every effort might well be wasted. Supremo should share grand vision and all allied operations with every player, every turn, allowing for enemy action and changes to the plan.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 5/27/2012 7:05:27 PM >

(in reply to Krafty)

Post #: 19

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 7:47:50 PM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

PBEM protection off is ok with me. If off is what we agree to use, another way to organize the game is as follows:

1) game is setup up as 1vs1
2) there are 3 players per side.
3) El Supremo is the Command in Chief (player 1) and controls the capital and all cities. He is the only one that can build factories and ports. He controls the Navy, if there is one, and strategic bombers and any fighters assigned to protect them. He gives orders to his Front Commanders (players 2 and 3) and they try to carry them out operationally/tactically. CinC may control an army if required. The CinC of both sides is always the first player for this team. The CinC determines the order in which his two Front commanders move on a per turn basis.

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 20

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 8:29:29 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

The method I described is tried and tested under extreme conditions, (ie one of All5n's production storms, lol). I intend to set it up as 6 players and we chose allies on first turn.
I was offering advice to kraftwerk, not instructions. You gentlemen may run your army any way you wish.
We will operate under our normal command structure.

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 5/27/2012 8:31:08 PM >

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 21

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 5/27/2012 11:28:29 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Webizen

PBEM protection off is ok with me. If off is what we agree to use, another way to organize the game is as follows:

1) game is setup up as 1vs1
2) there are 3 players per side.
3) El Supremo is the Command in Chief (player 1) and controls the capital and all cities. He is the only one that can build factories and ports. He controls the Navy, if there is one, and strategic bombers and any fighters assigned to protect them. He gives orders to his Front Commanders (players 2 and 3) and they try to carry them out operationally/tactically. CinC may control an army if required. The CinC of both sides is always the first player for this team. The CinC determines the order in which his two Front commanders move on a per turn basis.

How do you land and build a port then? If im player one, and I turn it off to the front commander, and they land engineers in an invasion, theyd have to build the port then, making the player 1 spot kind of superfulous.

What hes suggesting isnt a rigid set of rules, just a recommendation that you pick someone to be the "head" the one who makes the over all decisions about operations to eliminate bogging yourself down with in fighting, and almost a plea to coordinate your operations. Which if we dont coordinate well. Were going to lose badly ill tell you that. Theyre all really experienced players who play together often, not being well coordinated on our part will be a mistake.

I think were good enough to manage our own production and units, we just need to coordinate well, communicate often. The essence of teamwork. Nothing we cant accomplish in spades :)

I also suggest having one of us be the "last word", incase we disagree about an operational aspect. While the course of action the "last word" may lead us to failure, arguing SURELY will :) Ive learned that in many big team games lol.

< Message edited by Kraftwerk -- 5/27/2012 11:31:10 PM >

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 22

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 6/1/2012 3:31:11 AM

all5n

Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline

This sounds interesting. Cant wait to start.

(in reply to Krafty)

Post #: 23

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 6/1/2012 3:32:43 AM

all5n

Posts: 371
Joined: 12/19/2007
From: Republic of Texas
Status: offline

I dont mind Kraftwerk being supremo for our team.

(in reply to all5n)

Post #: 24

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 6/1/2012 10:36:30 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

I will set up dropbox and start on Saturday.

(in reply to all5n)

Post #: 25

RE: 3v3[Pending...] - 6/2/2012 11:55:46 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

It has begun, the black hats (us) are going first.
Kraftwerk (leader of the white hats) you may decide on your teams turn order.
Good luck and have fun everyone.
Meanfcker/Paul

< Message edited by Meanfcker -- 6/3/2012 1:15:11 AM >

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 26

RE: 3v3[In progress...] - 6/3/2012 12:58:24 AM

Tac2i

Posts: 2001
Joined: 4/12/2005
From: WV USA
Status: offline

I hope the team moving second gets at least one turn to move before war is declared.

_____________________________

Tac2i (formerly webizen)

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 27

RE: 3v3[In progress...] - 6/3/2012 12:31:49 PM

Meanfcker

Posts: 307
Joined: 12/4/2011
Status: offline

lol, I give you my word of honor (for whatever a nations word is worth in war time), that you will get at least one turn to move before war is declared.
Meanfcker :-)

(in reply to Tac2i)

Post #: 28

RE: 3v3[In progress...] - 6/3/2012 5:31:00 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Seeing as everyone will start with the same thing, and theres no shroud, mind if I peak at Dans turn so I can start formulating? And what nations are we all?

Wants some Rangers

(in reply to Meanfcker)

Post #: 29

RE: 3v3[In progress...] - 6/3/2012 5:39:10 PM

Krafty

Posts: 395
Joined: 3/26/2010
Status: offline

Also seemed to have misplaced Webizen and All5ns email addresses, if you guys could send em to me, war_in_84@comcast.net, ill invite you to our private drop box folder for planning, chatting, drinking, and the tossing of beer steins.

(in reply to Krafty)

Post #: 30