Will this game really be cutting edge and addictive?

[BvB]

Back to Kiith's question - it sounds like he was asking if the exploiting panzers get any movement penalty for the time it took to wait for the breakthrough or if they still get their full amount. My bet is the second, but maybe with some sort of extra penalty as they move through the breakthrough area.

[jaw]

ORIGINAL: BvB

Back to Kiith's question - it sounds like he was asking if the exploiting panzers get any movement penalty for the time it took to wait for the breakthrough or if they still get their full amount. My bet is the second, but maybe with some sort of extra penalty as they move through the breakthrough area.

The game is not real time so you don't expend any movement points until you actually move and if other units have cleared all enemy units/ZOCs from your line of march nothing will slow you down but the normal movement costs.

[PyleDriver]

A PzD waiting a day while infantry busts a hole doesn't consume much supply. It is week long turns. A leaders ability does come into effect with initiative as to how many MP's it does recieve at begining of ther turn, along with supply...

[Joel Billings]

You pay extra movement costs for moving through enemy controlled hexes (you pay extra points for leaving ZOCs of enemy units, that that is something different - When I say controlled I mean those hexes considered enemy territory at the beginning of your turn). Those hexes that you take control of during your turn still force the units that move through the area to expend extra movement points. So yes, there is an extra move cost involved that must be paid by the follow up forces. How fast you move through enemy territory is based on the morale of the units. Poor morale Axis Allied forces and early war Soviet units with low morale ratings will move very slowly through enemy territory. High morale panzers will move quickly, but still slower than through friendly territory. Also, attacking costs MPs, although hasty attacks cost less MPs than deliberate attacks.

[Skanvak]

Ah, if only there was a true multiplayer for one side, like in Decisive campaign, this game would be really great.

[BvB]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Ah, if only there was a true multiplayer for one side, like in Decisive campaign, this game would be really great.

If it has the ability to save a turn before it is finished - which seems likely for such a large game, then why not save and send it to the next player and that way have multiplayer for a side?

[Grisha]

Given the time scale of a player turn, I'm not interested in realtime, which would only be hyper-accelerated time from a player's perspective. However, I do hope that in pbem games, the game state can be saved and sent to another player who can then continue a side's move. This way more than one player can play for a side.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: BvB

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

Ah, if only there was a true multiplayer for one side, like in Decisive campaign, this game would be really great.

If it has the ability to save a turn before it is finished - which seems likely for such a large game, then why not save and send it to the next player and that way have multiplayer for a side?

Codeing, codeing and more codeing. Did I say codeing? Your code would have to have a way so that your partner can't move your units. How do you say what's mine and what's yours is? Who get's what reinforcement? A good idea but you'd need to start from the get go with it. An how many people would actually use this function? A dozen perhaps 2 dozen ... not worth the extra code writing costs, that includes debugging. Almost a seperate program.

[BvB]

No need to get that complicated. You agree who controls what, and one player on a side is the leader who would decide on reinforcements, etc. I have been in plenty of games done that way. If you could do it with the older versions of this game, then the only issue is whether or not this version allows mid turn saves. The rest is up to the players to coordinate. And this game makes it even easier with color coding for each army.

[Joel Billings]

The game state can be saved in normal PBEM and sent to another player to continue with a move (as long as they have that side's password).

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The game state can be saved in normal PBEM and sent to another player to continue with a move (as long as they have that side's password).

Joel, I think BvB was talking about 2 German players and 3 Soviet ... team play. If I read him right.

[Joel Billings]

Yes, and this can be done. German player one loads in save, makes the move for AGN, then saves the game. They email the save to German player two, who loads the save (using the German password), then moves AGC (or whatever), saves off, and sends to German player 3, etc. When the last German has finished, they end their turn, create the end of turn save, and send it to Soviet player one. The tough part is keeping everyone moving, as all it takes is for one person to not move and the game gets stopped. If you have a regular group of people you can count on, then it should work fine, although at one player per day per turn, it could take awhile to get through a game. At least the 1 week turns makes things go faster than with WitP where you had 1 or 2 day turns.

Back in 1975 I played the original War in the East boardgame from SPI as part of a 3 person Soviet group playing against 2 German players (set up on a ping pong table in my uncle's garage). We managed to get to the Spring/Summer of 42, but it took us 4 months of real time to do it.

[BvB]

Yes, Joel pretty much hit it. I was talking about any number of players, either vs the AI or against each other. As long as the team had a common password and communicated that they would be away and a team mate would do their moves, things kept moving. But once one side felt they were loosing, players started to drop and the game would fizzle. Usually one or two would want to continue but with the others dropped, even they lost interest after a while with all their friends not in it any more. We generally did 3 vs 3.
Joel mentioned doing the SPI board version in 75. We tried that as well back in the 70's - I was in the army in Germany 74-78, but we couldn't keep it set up. We had to write down where everything was, put part of it away and hide the rest under our bed in the barracks! Then set up the next time we played -- that lasted only a month, then I continued it solitaire for 3 years till a fight with a girlfriend ended it while stationed in Arlington in 79. She said I spent too much time with the game and either it went or she did. I didn't say anything. She starts to cry since she thought I had to think about it. Then she lost her temper and messed the map up... so that ended the game, and a few months later her and me split anyway...
Baron von Beergut/BvB

[Skanvak]

"Your code would have to have a way so that your partner can't move your units. How do you say what's mine and what's yours is? Who get's what reinforcement? A good idea but you'd need to start from the get go with it."

Capt Cliff explain why we need a coded multi player with a hierachy built in that is a player that assign the unit to other player). Second it is important that player give order at the same time to represent the difficulty to coordinate operation between different command. the FoG of War should be based on player not side and so on... I think that this could really make those monster game get the full potential of the computer. We did what was done 20 years ago only with better graphics, cannot we innovate and improved on what was not possible before?

So that is were I disagree with Capt Cliff, I think this feature a necessity for such monster game (well may be for an expansion as the game is nearly if not yet in Beta, that just a realistic acknoledgement of mine).

[Grisha]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

The game state can be saved in normal PBEM and sent to another player to continue with a move (as long as they have that side's password).

Excellent, Joel.

[Capt Cliff]

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

"Your code would have to have a way so that your partner can't move your units. How do you say what's mine and what's yours is? Who get's what reinforcement? A good idea but you'd need to start from the get go with it."

Capt Cliff explain why we need a coded multi player with a hierachy built in that is a player that assign the unit to other player). Second it is important that player give order at the same time to represent the difficulty to coordinate operation between different command. the FoG of War should be based on player not side and so on... I think that this could really make those monster game get the full potential of the computer. We did what was done 20 years ago only with better graphics, cannot we innovate and improved on what was not possible before?

So that is were I disagree with Capt Cliff, I think this feature a necessity for such monster game (well may be for an expansion as the game is nearly if not yet in Beta, that just a realistic acknoledgement of mine).

If it was coded into the game it would prevent German Player two from looting German Player one's stragetic reserve. But if your playing with a bunch of buddies ... a hands off Das Riech order or leave my SS alone should suffice. But then if I need it to plug a hole in the line I'd take it and weasel my way out some how later!!
[8D]

Oh, one other thing ... attacking down the seam between team partners, if you could find it, might be to ones advantage.

[Joel Billings]

Attacking down the seam should be a good thing. My dad was one of the first into Germany in Sept of 44 and it's not where you think. The American First Army hit the seam between the two German army groups in the southern Ardennes, crossed the Our River and went about 10-15 miles into Germany. The Germans shifted their army group boundary some so that one of them had clear responsbility and fairly quickly sent the American force back across the river within a few days/week. Had the Americans been prepared to follow up on this breakthrough instead of being overstretched they might have done very well.

In the game, units from different commands have a disadvantage when fighting together, so we've tried to simulate this issue. However, nothing wrong with adding a human version of this issue into a game. It'll make for an even more realistic game.

[PyleDriver]

Yep I love the C&C rules. If the same corps does an attack, it 100%. If 2 corps from the same army attacks theres 90% commitment. But if two corps from different armies, the attack it goes to 80%. Now if you attack with a hogh pogh of units then it only 70%...Got to love how they brought in C&C...Btw its the same on defence, such as when reserves respond. Reserves that respond also suffer in CV due to how far the came to join the battle...

One other note, the leader there has everything to to do with commitment. So you may only get 100% of only 80 % with the same corps, and so on down the line. Leadership and C&C, its all here..

Ok, one last note. A poorly planned attack (leaders and C&C) can result in fewer men and equipment in the attack and results in losses and no gain.

[Skanvak]

"However, nothing wrong with adding a human version of this issue into a game. It'll make for an even more realistic game."

happy to hear that. It really need to be coded though. (I guess the usual answer is then do the specs...)

[Grisha]

ORIGINAL: Joel Billings

Attacking down the seam should be a good thing. My dad was one of the first into Germany in Sept of 44 and it's not where you think. The American First Army hit the seam between the two German army groups in the southern Ardennes, crossed the Our River and went about 10-15 miles into Germany. The Germans shifted their army group boundary some so that one of them had clear responsbility and fairly quickly sent the American force back across the river within a few days/week. Had the Americans been prepared to follow up on this breakthrough instead of being overstretched they might have done very well.

In the game, units from different commands have a disadvantage when fighting together, so we've tried to simulate this issue. However, nothing wrong with adding a human version of this issue into a game. It'll make for an even more realistic game.

Great to read this. Few computer wargames take this real life maxim into their design. Many WWII accounts about attacking at unit boundaries, you wonder how many computer wargame designers actually read their history. Good one.