Coallition Responsibilities

[Anendrue]

In my own group we usually seperate all nations except Germany, USSR, and Italy into 2 components. The first is a civilian leader and the second is a military leader. The civilian leader decides what units to produce, the strategic strategy, entry issues, etc.... By the way he never sees the actual map. He gets his own maps and battle reports from a referee to give a FoW (fog of war) perspective. He announces the prospective builds and strategic goals a turn in advance does actual builds at the correct time. Strategic goal changes are also delayed a turn at a time. This delay is critical in creating the military leaders challenge in fighting a war with civilian controls.

The militray leader is tasked with carrying out that strategy with the delegated resources alloted by the plolitical leader and tries to formulate future plans only knowing what the politico has announced for general plans and builds.

Germany, USSR, and Italy are single entities due to the "follow the leader attitudes" prevalent in their governments.

Will there be any way to do this in MWiF for our group?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

In my own group we usually seperate all nations except Germany, USSR, and Italy into 2 components. The first is a civilian leader and the second is a military leader. The civilian leader decides what units to produce, the strategic strategy, entry issues, etc.... By the way he never sees the actual map. He gets his own maps and battle reports from a referee to give a FoW (fog of war) perspective. He announces the prospective builds and strategic goals a turn in advance does actual builds at the correct time. Strategic goal changes are also delayed a turn at a time. This delay is critical in creating the military leaders challenge in fighting a war with civilian controls.

The militray leader is tasked with carrying out that strategy with the delegated resources alloted by the plolitical leader and tries to formulate future plans only knowing what the politico has announced for general plans and builds.

Germany, USSR, and Italy are single entities due to the "follow the leader attitudes" prevalent in their governments.

Will there be any way to do this in MWiF for our group?

Not in my plans.

I have intended to eventually enable more than 1 player to control a single major power. But my concept there was to delegate control of theaters of war to different players (e.g., Europe versus Pacific for US & CW, East Front versus West Front for Germany). Or air versus land versus naval units.

[Ullern]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

In my own group we usually seperate all nations except Germany, USSR, and Italy into 2 components. The first is a civilian leader and the second is a military leader. The civilian leader decides what units to produce, the strategic strategy, entry issues, etc.... By the way he never sees the actual map. He gets his own maps and battle reports from a referee to give a FoW (fog of war) perspective. He announces the prospective builds and strategic goals a turn in advance does actual builds at the correct time. Strategic goal changes are also delayed a turn at a time. This delay is critical in creating the military leaders challenge in fighting a war with civilian controls.

The militray leader is tasked with carrying out that strategy with the delegated resources alloted by the plolitical leader and tries to formulate future plans only knowing what the politico has announced for general plans and builds.

Germany, USSR, and Italy are single entities due to the "follow the leader attitudes" prevalent in their governments.

Will there be any way to do this in MWiF for our group?

Really? [X(] [X(][X(] You must be patient players.
I would never have guessed anyone would do this. But interesting indeed. How does it affect game play compared to normal games? Do the split nations error a lot?

[brian brian]

this would be a fascinating way to play, for sure. I don't think it would be too hard with a computer version, with either a volunteer that can monitor the whole game and report results to the 'civilian' leaders, or maybe just email them a turn file a turn later or something. not letting them see the map seems a little too 'foggy' - surely FDR could know which cruiser was where if he wished, frex, but it would be up to him how much to micro-manage those cruisers and how much to leave to his 'admiral'.

for the CW & US, it would be even more interesting to have land and naval commanders, with a Chief of Staff or even the civilian leader picking the impulse type. same for Japan. and see my next point...

perhaps too with the online play option for MWiF, it would be easy to get people to play the civilian role or the partial military commands, as it would be very easy for them to be playing a regular game with other opponents at the same time.

[Xenocide]

Please tell me you also had a point system for the civilian leaders. If you buy X unit this year you get so many points. Gotta score political points with the right contractors.

Military Leader: You built WHAT????

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: ullern

ORIGINAL: abj9562

In my own group we usually seperate all nations except Germany, USSR, and Italy into 2 components. The first is a civilian leader and the second is a military leader. The civilian leader decides what units to produce, the strategic strategy, entry issues, etc.... By the way he never sees the actual map. He gets his own maps and battle reports from a referee to give a FoW (fog of war) perspective. He announces the prospective builds and strategic goals a turn in advance does actual builds at the correct time. Strategic goal changes are also delayed a turn at a time. This delay is critical in creating the military leaders challenge in fighting a war with civilian controls.

The militray leader is tasked with carrying out that strategy with the delegated resources alloted by the plolitical leader and tries to formulate future plans only knowing what the politico has announced for general plans and builds.

Germany, USSR, and Italy are single entities due to the "follow the leader attitudes" prevalent in their governments.

Will there be any way to do this in MWiF for our group?

Really? [X(] [X(][X(] You must be patient players.
I would never have guessed anyone would do this. But interesting indeed. How does it affect game play compared to normal games? Do the split nations error a lot?

Game play is a bit slower but meeting twice a month for 4 hours at a time helps a lot. We just make sure that civilan issues are done before we break up to prevent "table-talk". Game play tends to be conservative due to being a bit more carefull due to the induced fow for military commanders. Our game is combined with Days of Decision and the entire game has a bit of suspense. It also allows for teaching inexpierenced people the game without feeling overwhelmed by the massivenes of the combined games. Wild eyed gambits are very rare since the complexity of planning is harder to overcome. D-Day is a big deal and the feel of invasions and their outcome is decidely higher. Overall it is a bit of a pain but very fun! Oh and also needs decidely mature players with patience.


For Steve

I understand it will not be in the game as a tool, mechanic, or designed function. However wiil Net Play allow 2 people to log in at the same time or have one player log in and do their part and log out so the 2nd half of the team can do their phases? If so this will still work just fine and free up garage space and all the time consideration issues we face.

[ezzler]

We just had my DAD who had never played a Wargame and his knowledge of WW2 was from War movies.
He was the 'Churchill' leader and gave out instructions like .. we must have more Battleships .. Aircraft Carriers must be armed with jet fighters..
 Attack Swden .. they are supplying the enemy .. they deserve it..

 If you couldn't talk him out of it , then that was the strategy you had to adopt.

My Mum played as the Axis leader but she was a pushover and just .. ' well whatever  you think is best dear '

Actually it was a real challenge being the Alan Brooke figure trying to keep the maddest schemes of the agenda and 'getting on ' with the war.

[composer99]

I think that is a neat way to play. I wouldn't have the patience or the maturity for it, but it is pretty neat. [:)]

[Jimm]

ORIGINAL: abj9562


Game play is a bit slower but meeting twice a month for 4 hours at a time helps a lot. We just make sure that civilan issues are done before we break up to prevent "table-talk". Game play tends to be conservative due to being a bit more carefull due to the induced fow for military commanders. Our game is combined with Days of Decision and the entire game has a bit of suspense. It also allows for teaching inexpierenced people the game without feeling overwhelmed by the massivenes of the combined games. Wild eyed gambits are very rare since the complexity of planning is harder to overcome. D-Day is a big deal and the feel of invasions and their outcome is decidely higher. Overall it is a bit of a pain but very fun! Oh and also needs decidely mature players with patience.

Do you play with DOD? Strikes me this split would work well with a DOD/WiFFE game- although I love it, the politics can at times be a distraction from the main event especially when things start getting spicy.

[Anendrue]

yes we have done it with DoD II