Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Harovan

Put me down where needed, may take a Soviet command (but not STAVKA please) or perhaps AGC.

EDIT: By the way, will the AG and front leaders have an AP allowance too, or will all leader changes, corps and army OOB changes and reserve handling done by OKH/STAVKA?

Good question. I will reply in the main AAR thread. We are moving all discussion over there now, so apologies to those who applied here - we are already full! However, feel free to create a parallel game or to wait in the wings for people to be executed!

I'd be interested in one of the Soviet commands, however, I'm just learning the game so putting me in command of the whole thing is not wise... I'll PM my contact info to redmarkus4.

Hello all.

Apologies to anyone who is still trying to sign up here. All slots are currently taken and we moved the discussion to the threads in the AAR. Please monitor one of the other (Axis or Soviet) if you are hoping to get involved later and let the OKH or STAVKA commander know of your interest.

A better plan might be to organise another team game, as this one is already very popular and over-subscribed.

Hope its a success so that those who were too slow can get involved. Look forward to the AAR and any hints on problems/how best to run a team play campaign much appreciated.

Sorry to put a downer on this but I tried this in Advanced Tactics a few years back. Both sides HHQs found the mixed abilities so frustrating they quit or sacked most of their subordinates. I'd love to see this work, but play with competent players or not at all, is my advice.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Sorry to put a downer on this but I tried this in Advanced Tactics a few years back. Both sides HHQs found the mixed abilities so frustrating they quit or sacked most of their subordinates. I'd love to see this work, but play with competent players or not at all, is my advice.

Entirely valid input and not a downer at all.

Having an experienced top-level STAVKA/OKH commander is probably the most essential part - one who is not afraid to do the firing and who can take temporary command and call on his network of experienced players to fill the ranks. Very much like the challenge faced in real life!

I would see you as a perfect candidate for such a role, notwithstanding your 3 stars and taking into account your AT experience, and as it happens the Za Rodinu game is only missing an OKH leader before it can start. Would you take this on? Younger players await your leadership and guidance!

I love the flattery, redmarkus4, keep it coming.

Here are the problems.

In real life, in most armies, officers get to practice working together or at least their roles, before they put it into practice. To make a game team work, I would strongly recommend getting a pool of players together significantly larger than the number of command slots and working through some team exercises before you start. When you start, keep the entire command pool involved through battle reports and soliciting comments and advice from them on the progress of the campaign, even though they have no command.

This solution creates a new problem: Most players are either busy or want to be busy playing, not playing second fiddle. How many good players are going to wait around to be called to a post when they could be playing a game? Prove me wrong, but in my experience, not many.

Gamers are held together by interest in and enjoyment of a game. There is no authority higher than personal dedication to a game. Being told you're doing stuff wrong, getting sacked, strong differences of opinion etc can all cut right accross that enjoyment and lose the dedication out the window. It can also get quite acrimonious. Believe me, I've been there and my oposite number in OKH had the same problems.

I wish you luck, hope you do better than I did and will take an interest if you get it off the ground. As for your kind offer, I will have to decline, but thank you.

Hehe, I was the OKH commander at that time fighting Mehring as Stavka [:)]
Despite not too competent subordinates it was stil a interesting game since it was the first game with this setup (at least in Advanced Tactics).

Playing with multiple players really adds some extra flavor!

But you need a pool of trusted and equally skilled players. Trusted for honest play and for not bailing out if things get tough in the campaign.
Equally skilled, because there's nothing more frustrating then incompetent subordinates messing up an entire section of the front.
You don't want too many commanders, since every players includes turn delay. A solution to that is that OKH/Stavka also controls 1 front/army group.

On the upper: players can participate in a GC while not having to spend hours on a turn!

So count me in for a army group/front [:D]

Hey, Jay, long time. I'm surprised you're still up for a multi.

I have NEVER spent so long on turns as when I took on STAVKA role.

My PC went the way of all things electronic along with my Advanced Tactics install, so it lives only in my memory. Apart from the weather, I think this is a much better game, anyway.

ORIGINAL: Jay Doubleyou

Hehe, I was the OKH commander at that time fighting Mehring as Stavka [:)]
Despite not too competent subordinates it was stil a interesting game since it was the first game with this setup (at least in Advanced Tactics).

Playing with multiple players really adds some extra flavor!

But you need a pool of trusted and equally skilled players. Trusted for honest play and for not bailing out if things get tough in the campaign.
Equally skilled, because there's nothing more frustrating then incompetent subordinates messing up an entire section of the front.
You don't want too many commanders, since every players includes turn delay. A solution to that is that OKH/Stavka also controls 1 front/army group.

On the upper: players can participate in a GC while not having to spend hours on a turn!

So count me in for a army group/front [:D]

Having the OKH/STAVKA player also controlling one front probably makes real sense. It reduces the team size to 3 and gives the commander a bit more enjoyment...

ORIGINAL: redmarkus4
Having the OKH/STAVKA player also controlling one front probably makes real sense. It reduces the team size to 3 and gives the commander a bit more enjoyment...

With regard to this, If ComradeP wants to take over command of the western front, I'll be happy to stand aside.I think it makes good sense, especially to have the CinC controlling the centre.As you say too many people is going to make for a very slow game and I sometimes have to work long shifts when I'll not be able to post a turn for a day or two.Maybe three a side would be a sensible maximum for pbem play.Even then players will need to be fairly committed.

ORIGINAL: Mehring

Hey, Jay, long time. I'm surprised you're still up for a multi.

I have NEVER spent so long on turns as when I took on STAVKA role.

I agree with you on the hours. My wife still complains about it [:D]

Added to the frustration I/we had about incompetent subordinates, i'm not up for a Stavka/OKH role. But an army or front is ok.