GPW v6a

[Mehring]

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.

[zigzag]

Count me in for one of the axis army groups.

[Mehring]

You're on.

[all5n]

I will take any available Slot.

[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...

[mavnb]

hello,

I want in. Russia north?

[Mehring]

Nice, welcome aboard. Think I'll go Rooskie too, but I'll clean up the post others leave.

[all5n]

I meant "any available slot".

I dont mind playing the russians.

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...

[Mehring]

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?
 
 

[Jay Doubleyou]

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.

[Mehring]

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 [:D] .
 
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...

[mavnb]

so, Am I or not?

Marc

[Mehring]

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?

[Jay Doubleyou]

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.

[mavnb]

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>

[british exil]

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 - ....

[Mehring]

...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.
 
 

[Jay Doubleyou]

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.

[Mehring]

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.

[Jay Doubleyou]

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.