GPW v6a

[Barthheart]

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.....[&o]

[Mehring]

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.

[Barthheart]

Well.... "Martix Legion of Merit" just means I can blabber alot! [:D]

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.

[Mehring]

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.
 
 

[Mehring]

@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.
 

[Barthheart]

Very good outline of a turn sequence. I think that might work.

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.

[Jay Doubleyou]

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.

[Mehring]

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.

[mavnb]

playing GPW already but proposed russia 41
just in case. Will we start soon?

[mavnb]

plaing GPW already. Proosed russia 41 just in case. Will we start soon?

[Mehring]

If you'd be kind enough to wait for me until I get back from holiday, and we get two more players, we could start in 2 weeks+ but...
I think everyone should have some practice with the command system before we start, me too. So I'd recommend that you organise 4 player practice games, against the AI or whatever, just to get the feel of/improve, the experimental system and see if it works. There are bound to be hiccups and oversights.

Taking the outline turn structure below, it would be helpful to start fleshing out what might be included-

1. HQ issues orders and sends current file to all players.
What should orders include? Should the subordinate HQ have an idea of the strategic objective of their font as well as the current operational one? Top HQ will have to think to what degree they will manage their subordinates, loose directives vs micro-management. This may vary according to personal characteristics as well as experience and the situation. Micro-management will doubtless annoy a subordinate who feels he can do the job without interference. Trusting them to do their own thing might not get the job done- or they might do it better than top HQ. Commanders' dilemas!

2. AGs/Fronts request strategic support (if centrally managed) and any special unit/supply allocation.
You're going to have to justify your requests for resources as Top HQ will often have more requests than resources. Cry wolf too often and you might not get resources when you REALLY need them. Make do and those resources will probably tend to go elsewhere.

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.
Top HQ has to balance operational priorities while maintaining good relations with subordinates if possible.

If it happens anywhere, I suspect this is where sub-HQs get to throw a hissy. Few people are going to like having their troops taken away and given to someone else or see the attack they'd been tasked with and then planned with two airfleets in support actually recieve only one squadon. What do you do? Sulk, get on with it, or both?

4. Last AG/Front returns file to HQ. All make turn report to HQ.
This report is going to help Top HQ allocate resources, and, if the enemy doesn't turn the front upside down in their turn, help the Top HQ determine realistic objectives for the next turn. Top HQ has various tools in Statistics, like OOB and Totals but the latter gives stats for the whole front, not an individual AG/Front and there are a lot of units to look through in OOB so if your units are in bad shape, here's another opportunity to tell Top HQ. And having got your recce planes out and looked behind the enemy front, pinpoint enemy concentrations to Top HQ or draw attention to weakly defended areas. put yourself in Top HQs shoes and think what they's need to know to make your own job easier.

5. HQ replenishes frontline lower HQs/units from production and forms new units.
6. HQ sends file to other side.

Please add to/subtract from/disagree with any or all of the above. If you try it out, let us know how it goes.

[Manus von Olie]

Hi guys,

what a super cool idea to have somebody play the top HQ! All players of this game are awarded 100 bonus study points from the Advanced Tactics Free Academy for Pacifists! Points can be exchanged in the usual fashion for FREE gadgets .

No, but seriously, I hope you'll keep us all informed about the development of this best idea since ages on AT!

[zigzag]

I would still like one of the Axis AG'S[:)]

[Mehring]

@zigzag
Why don't you PM all the people who have expressed an interest on the thread and get a team together for the Axis side, then sort out your roles and practice them?
 
@Manus von Olie
Thanks for the encouragement, why don't you join a side?

[Mehring]

Thanks to Jay Doubleyou, we've got a  PBEM anti-cheat PBEM method. The file can only be opened 5 times by each side, twice by HQ, once each by subordinate commands. So we get four possible cheat messages per turn, I guess.

[british exil]

Sounds like you're planning the offensive of the ofensives. The battles of all battles.

You can count me in. Willing to serve wherever the need may be. Already sent a pm to zigzag.

[Mehring]

Excellent, welcome aboard!

[Mehring]

Good luck, have fun, and back in a couple of weeks.

[Jay Doubleyou]

Zigzag, British Exile and I started a tryout game against AI to see how it works out.
Because we have only 3 players, i combine the commander role with commander of AGS.
Greif an meine Kameraden!

[Manus von Olie]

ORIGINAL: Mehring

@Manus von Olie
Thanks for the encouragement, why don't you join a side?

I'd love to, but I can't guarantee a steady flow of moves at this moment, so I'll just stand at the side, cheering.