8 player multiplayer game - SIGNUP THREAD

[Neogodhobo]

Telemescus, I have notice in the thread, that your colleague are saying you are bringing this to complicated, but I dont believe so. I am that kind of person that gets really into it though .

With a friend of mine, I wanted to do a campaign, where we would play each other, and write every operation/campaign on papers ( or computer actually ) and write every details, the dates of start, the casualties, the outcome, the consequences of that outcome, everything ! And I wanted to start it on 22nd june, and play it every 4 turn so that we play it day by day as the real battle went on. We were planning for it to take 4 years as the real battle did, and at the end, I would collect all the information of the operation and write a fictional history book based on our war.

Although, I am highly motivated, my friend is not haha. Such is life I guess.

[Telemecus]

Just finished the Axis team turn and sent on to the Soviet team. So having done our bit of the team game we can return to what we do in our spare time - talking about the team game! [:)]

Neogodhobo - you have written a lot of interesting stuff so I may be responding to different bits spread out over time.

ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
Telemecus, I have notice in the thread, that your colleague are saying you are bringing this to complicated, but I dont believe so.

On a popular reality tv show following a group of people hoping to be successful in a business competition (a British version of another US series fronted by a now suddenly successful US politician) there was a famous time when a group had to go out and sell a certain amount that day. One group stayed in the office and got out flip charts planning what to do. The rest were already growing restless and frustrated. The point being one lot were "strategisers" and the other half were "sellers" who just wanted to go out and get going. I think in War in the East the equivalent would be the "planners" and the "just push the units".

Undoubtedly I am in the former group! I made what I called our team "protocol" which still gets some amusement, but was an attempt to find a system so that we could all quickly know what we could and could not do without having to check back with others all the time. You can read one version of it in the Axis AAR. If it was just for me, it would be 50 pages long! Undoubtedly we have not kept to it and it may be more an aspiration - but I like to think my team mates can see some advantages and some bits have grown on them. So there is an ideal balance of the two.

I think you have to measure whether something works by its utility, and as we are all different, wonderfully, what can be right for one is not right for someone else. So to be fair to my team mates I do not think there is a right or wrong answer, it just depends on what is right for them. Perhaps something will go wrong and we might learn the hard way that something more was needed - but it is worth the risk to get something more attuned to each players style. And there is also a structure or science to getting that balance too!

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
Yes I saw I was made aware when I pitch my idea somewhere else and the developers told me that it already existed and pointed toward here

That is very interesting. I know some staff are aware of our project. And I have seen some of the "big names" of the developers displayed in the top corner as "users viewing this topic" - so I did wonder how much it had registered with the makers of the game.

Strictly speaking the game is not designed for a team, and indeed a lot of the difficulty is trying to split it apart for different players. Really it is made for one controlling mind to run the airforce and armies at the same time. But you could argue this also simulates the friction of command and other issues that exist in real life armies with different egos.

I would like to think though that some of what we are doing might be giving the developers some good ideas or at least food for thought.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
This would mean a total of :
Soviet : 40 players
German : 34 players

ORIGINAL: EwaldvonKleist
people need to be online/available all the time, or the turn will take 2 weeks for completion. IIRC, there is an organisation called "Megagames" in the UK which does such things, but with all wargamers locked in one big room for one day

In fact I would go even further and say it would take a long time even with very quick players availiable all the time, or even shut in a room together. One of the lessons I have taken from our team game is that ever longer turn times are driven by the number of handovers. We do actually have some very quick players, but what one can do in one day you cannot get four people to do a quarter of in as much time. The number of handovers leads to longer turnaround times exponentially. So much more than 4 players at the moment and you could be talking months. And that is before you consider problems like people dropping out/disappearing etc.

The natural extension of this idea would be a massive multi player role playing game. So you could apply to join teams running a war game continuosly, probably online. But in some sense they would be able to go on whether or not you are there.

Unfortunately WitE is a long way from that. In our team game everything is sequential - one person does their bit and saves their turn and passes on to the next guy. As supreme commander I would love to be able to set the air doctrine and settings for the airforce that I will leave for the Soviet phase and save it, along with other such settings. Then when the army group turns come back I would merge the save files. Of course I cannot do that, instead you have to wait for the other turns to come through and then do those settings. One way that things could massively be sped up would be if there was a way of working in parallel. But for the core of the game we would need the technology to be changed for that - which is a developers thing.

There is the potential for more parallel working in other facets, for example writing an AAR, role-playing, propaganda or "intelligence." These are areas the Axis team in the current game could expand into. Neogodhobo, would you be interested?

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Neogodhobo
PROPAGANDA AND MEDIA
There could also be a player on each side, playing the media and propaganda. Meaning there will be a thread open on the public forum for EVERYONE to see, the opposing army, the general public who are not part of the war, open to anyone.

And the Propaganda part will be orchestrated by X player, under the directive of Hitler. Say the Germans just encircled 100,000 soviets. Than Hitler would go see MEDIA player and tell him : Hey, I want this to appear in the news 9 and give him the proper pictures, and statistic. Then Media player would write a small ( or big ) text about how, the Germans are completely annihilating the Soviet and that ( Insert soviet army general name ) was so bad that he let all of his armies being encircled and the german army's moral is boosted and are sure to win a quick victory.

But if ever, the germans got defeated badly, and saw 35,000 of their troops encircled, than Player Hitler go see PROPAGANDA PLAYER ( wich is the same player as media ) and tell him : Hey, modify those numbers, lets just write that 5,000 got captured and the rest escaped. Oh and if you could create a meme about a red bear being crushed to pieces by planes and publish it, it would be great.

So as to mimic the propaganda posters of WW2 and the censored press. And the enemy would have access to that...

This is one thing that particularly interested me. We do have a thread for both sides, whose first post described it as a place to "trashtalk" each other. And of course we have our team AARs. A lot of it is intra-game talk, but it wouuld be nice if there was something there that non-players could intereact with. Certainly there is the possibility of having a full AAR so that others could follow what was happening. But I get the sense others are peering into our game without really knowing what is happening. Perhaps a propaganda minister or official army historian is what we are missing. It is something I would be no good at so someone else would have to take the lead and know what they are doing. Perhaps it would involve more role-playing what is going on. Because our game is still making it work from the game mechanics side there is not much to build on. But if we could graft this on to what we are doing or build something small to see how it goes I think it could be good.

[Neogodhobo]

Hey sorry about the long wait for reply. I had read your message the day you posted it but took me a while to reply.

hhm, no I wouldnt be interested into doing propaganda talk. I dont have much time right now for this anyway. Iv been working 12 hours a day every single day for the past 5 months ( one more month to go ) so I dont want to have to add another chore to my list

I am hoping that it does give idea to the developers for an elaborate multiplayer, other than 1v1. This game has all the potential for it and your idea sounds good. ( about being able to play the turn of the person that isnt there )

Something like that would be the first wargame MMO to officially exist on PC. They should definitly try to grab that title, .

[Lictuel]

Well war in the west has a scenario that can be played by 4 players. One for ground and one for air on each side.

[Neogodhobo]

yes but...Who cares about the Western Front... haha Well I dont. I was thinking of buying it on special at 25$ just the other day but I just know I wouldnt play it.

Its a good news though for WitE 2. Hopefully there will be the same system of multiplayer.

[WingedIncubus]

I love this system in theory. It is perfect for beginners who wish to learn while having other people who have their backs. I have no real trouble playing the Germans, but the Soviets... makes me want to hit my head on the wall each I attempt to play them.

Let me know if there is another 4 vs 4 game anytime soon or place for a Deputy Commissar. Prefer playing Soviets because it is the side I have the most trouble to play competently, and this is the side I want to learn to play.

EDIT: Oh hi, Hort. [:'(]

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: Drakken
a Deputy Commissar

We did previously agree a change of rules to allow teams to have more than 4 players, although probably fair to check with some of the recent joiners that they are aware and fine with it. Even though the game has defined roles (Supreme Commander, North, Centre/West, South) there is quite a lot of team strategising and chat, as well as other useful things to do like writing an AAR etc. So it is quite possible to have someone else as a full participating member of the team. Also the extra players would be considered as first reserve, so when players have to drop out, as has already happened several times, they would find they do not have to wait long for one of the defined roles if they want it. From the Axis side I was quite keen to bring anyone who was enthusiastic in to the team if they wanted to, so let us know. I would like to put some thought into how an extra team member could have a role carved out that they would find interesting and useful, and they might have some ideas on what to do too. Some might prefer just to observe and learn only to begin with.

Being the enemy I will have to let the Soviet team brief you on what is possible on the Soviet side! [:)] They have had two recent team changes so it might be just now they still have their hands full making changes, and getting to know how to play with each other and their respective styles. And it may be their set up makes it more difficult to get an extra player involved, and be fair to those who are already involved. I can certainly say there is a lot you can see and learn from watching the game from save turns when you are on the same side that you just cannot get from an AAR or an opponent. So I would relish being able to be on the Soviet team.

ORIGINAL: Drakken
Let me know if there is another 4 vs 4 game

I have suggested one before, and I and maybe others from the current game would like to be on both. There are others who previously have asked on this thread. At the moment probably not enough. However perhaps if we post that we are looking for a new set of players many will sign up? I would say at the moment you should consider yourself on the list for the next game. If I get the sense that there is enough pent up demand then I am happy to post a message calling for players. If you think there might be now, feel free to ask here? There is also the possibility of being more conservative to start with and have say a 3 vs 3 game that could expand?

[WingedIncubus]

Thank you. [:)] I consider myself on the Reserve list for the Soviets for the current game or for the next 4v4 game, whichever comes first.

If the Soviet camp wishes to contact me to get me in the loop, they can do so by PM.

[Telemecus]

Just had a PM from a couple of people interested in another team game. I would encourage anyone interested to post so like Drakken here - it could be there already are enough interests, but we do not know it yet.

[Socket]

So, Telemecus coordinated me here. I am representing two players at once because my friend is not yet active here.
We are ready to play soviet side, but if there will be some troubles with it playing axis will not be a big problem.
Our native languge is russian, so the grammatics and sentence-formation can be sometimes stange or awful, sorry [:)]

[WingedIncubus]

I am still available for taking a spot in the next game. [:)]

[Telemecus]

By my reckoning there are 4 people on the list. Anyone else let us know. It may be that making a new thread would bring more interests, if we get to five I do not mind making a new signup thread.

[Socket]

Do you really think that no soviet combat bonus is a good idea? Soviet CB is a cheaty only if axis player is really low skilled and didnt surround ~2.5kk of soviet units. Considering that axis have first turn and they can encircle a lot of soviet forces in the south-west and west front - no soviet bonus would be too easy for german too stay. You must also take into consideration that +1 CB is going to be get only after the end of battle, so the soviets don't have any bonus DURING the combat, they always get it after.
And i hope you know that this only fist winter blizzard bonus, so it lasts after feb '41.

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Socket

Do you really think that no soviet combat bonus is a good idea? Soviet CB is a cheaty only if axis player is really low skilled and didnt surround ~2.5kk of soviet units. Considering that axis have first turn and they can encircle a lot of soviet forces in the south-west and west front - no soviet bonus would be too easy for german too stay. You must also take into consideration that +1 CB is going to be get only after the end of battle, so the soviets don't have any bonus DURING the combat, they always get it after.
And i hope you know that this only fist winter blizzard bonus, so it lasts after feb '41.

My main worry with Mild Blizzard is that it gives the Axis players the means to continue their offensive beyond in the first winter when, by all accounts, every AFV they had in front of Moscow was frozen and unusuable.

Any "average" setting is fine, but I remember back in the day that any Soviet-held default bonus has always been, well, controversial.