2x3+ Teams Axis&Soviet Wanted

[WingedIncubus]

Even if I do not know why, whatever settings that makes it enjoyable for both sides suit me.

[SparkleyTits]

I concur Hardluck as I am playing with those settings myself now and am struggling more as time goes on.
Just hit turn 14 and have just started to go into a rather sublime little death spiral if I may say so myself

Reading AAR's makes it look so easy....

Hoping to gain some first hand experience and guidance by the hands of some grizzly vets

[charlie0311]

Axis player may have all out blitz set up. Mild blizzard, clear weather, no sov combat bonus, and no partisans for 41. Standard victory conditions or bitter end ok.

I will take the sov side.

PM if interested, no cheaters (reloaders) would be a welcome change.

[Neogodhobo]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus

We can wait for a firm interest in the Supreme job or start? What are your thoughts?

Neogodhobo you sound like you are up for it - your preference if Supreme Commander would be which side?

I am

I dont have any preference really ( edit : well, maybe a little towards Germans actually, since Iv only played them so far,) I can see having lots of fun playing either side.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain

IMHO Soviets ... ask for +1 Soviet attack Bonus & mild Blizzard & random weather.

Also taken from predecessor team game sign up thread.

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.

ORIGINAL: Drakken

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.

I have had a PM from an experienced player (whatever he may say) who was interested but wanted the settings changed. Apart from Drakken and Socket does anyone else have any particular views? Drakken would you be happy to change to get another willing Supreme Commander to start the game? My own experience is the Axis will definitely not be advancing in the blizzard - the question would be how they retreat?

This is endlessly debated point and you can get furious views on either side. My own take is ultimately they are two different games and the main deciding factor is taste. Perhaps if one is lopsided you may want to recalibrate the victory conditions - e.g. Soviet win if they still hold Kazan in 1945!!! [:D] I am not too bothered about the overall result, but you could argue for different win/lose conditions.

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
Soviets should not play the Bitter end campaign

I assume you mean not play Bitter End with those other options? Or do you mean at all?
I thought Bitter End was best as it would give intermediate victory results as the players who start the game might not be the same ones at the end - probably this set up is more open ended and fluid than a solo game. And as no team game has reached an end so far, some progress to date measure could be nice. If the thought was this should be changed what would be the suggestion?

[Telemecus]

ORIGINAL: HardLuckYetAgain
If the German team has more experienced people playing then the mild blizzard needs to be changed to full blizzard.

I'll do an update on the team lists next. For my own part I would say I am experienced with Axis, but as Soviet only real experience is playing against them. I assume on random selection there will be a balance of experience on each side. I know some have posted their experience already, and it is always a difficult question to appraise yourself. But for the purposes of being sure there is not a lopsided level of experience needing a rule change perhaps you can indicate. I would be surprised if it was so lopsided that the rules need to be tilted the other way.

[WingedIncubus]

ORIGINAL: Telemecus


I have had a PM from an experienced player (whatever he may say) who was interested but wanted the settings changed. Apart from Drakken and Socket does anyone else have any particular views? Drakken would you be happy to change to get another willing Supreme Commander to start the game? My own experience is the Axis will definitely not be advancing in the blizzard - the question would be how they retreat?

You have my benediction to change the set-up, no objection on my side. [:)]

[SparkleyTits]

I would rather play with whatever the rules are chosen for me by one person who believes they are fair than talk about how we "should" play as we will all be here with differing opinions and experiences until the cows come home.

My vote is anything is good aslong as Telemecus gives it the go ahead as he has had experience with these kind of games before.
The red tide of Communism will find a way to prevail no matter the cost!

[Telemecus]

Ground Commanders
I have taken the first 3 people to sign up for ground commanders where there was a vacancy on each side and assigned them which of their first preferences would be compatible with a full team line up. If I have made a mistake tell me. This is really to get something fixed, but do arrange swaps if you can agree. I have added a reserves list afterwards. Once there are Supreme Commanders the teams will be formed. They can enlarge teams with extra roles and invite some from the reserves. Most from the other team game would say this is a bad idea as it means even longer turns - time will be an issue. Personally I think going one over is good to cover for drop outs that will occur and it is better to get someone in when they are keen. The real issue is can they have roles that are engaging while still being fair to others. But that will be a decision for each team once formed.

[Crackaces]

I confirm on taking Axis North.

[SparkleyTits]

Sounds great to me

[Telemecus]

better cv maths

Someone had reminded me of this option, thankfully, as I had forgotten. Calculating the better cvs makes the game too long for the AI - but this should not matter in a non-AI game. It is there as a legacy for those used to the old values. Some might say it offers an advantage as it gives you a better idea of your forces. Personally I think these values are what should be part of the game, and was only left out for coding reasons originally. I have edited the first post to add this in, but post if there are any objections.

[Telemecus]

Supreme Commanders

Seems to be the remaining issue before we start, these are what I think are the current options

A - an experienced player has said they would be interested, I think it would be Soviet Supreme, in which case I would be Axis Supreme. I suggest we wait until we get a yay or nay on this.
B - Neogodhobo takes second choice to be Supreme Commander and is replaced by reserve in their ground position. I would be another Supreme Commander - and I guess we could be either side?
C - Wait for another Supreme Commander, I am happy to PM others I think would be interested

Neogodhobo has said they are up for it if they are needed. So if A does not pan out we can go for B. Views from all welcome though.

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla
Sounds ok to start. You are taking one of the Supreme Commander jobs right?

If there had been many interests for Supreme I would have given them first Dibs. But yes I would quite like to. Axis is what I know well and enjoy, Soviet would be more a learning experience.

[KenchiSulla]

South is good for me....

[Crackaces]

Something to socialize with the group. The bitter end campaign is based on scenario like victory conditions -- capture or keep certain cities. If in fact this game is to be a journey not an end goal it might be better to stick with the tried and true keep the "Ruskies" out of Berlin. The game might last and eventually flow better as a team game. I have socialized details with Telemecus who I truly believe would be better than I to simply explain the intended and unintended consequences of both types of victory conditions. I do think it is worth a discussion.

Crackaces
Commander Army Group North

"They crossed over the border an hour before dawn ..." [:'(]

[Telemecus]

Actually full credit to Crackaces for raising this as it had been a blind spot for me. Possibly this was HardLuckYetAgain's point (see post 25) but I was too dumb to appreciate.

Personally I completely disregard the victory conditions as my interest is the game play and in some sense role playing history and game testing alternatives. So the screen saying win or lose at the end has little interest to me. And to some extent to be in this team game you would probably have to be similar - in which case that choice is irrelevant.

However I know for most others a win or lose result is important. I suggested Bitter End as it does give intermediate point scores during the game for them on the assumption that not all of us will be there at the end. However it can skew the game for those aiming for points. For example Saratov is a very good objective for 1942; but unlike Stalingrad it has no points. Historically capturing Saratov could be better than Stalingrad.

So I will alter the set up option to 1941-5 campaign to avoid this, and assuming there are no objections. Let me know if there are. For those who need intermediate results I think we can agree our own appraisals of who is doing well. This will mean we avoid the groove of going down the same 1942 historical path. Other possibilities are availiable. And even if Axis repeats history, the Soviets cannot be sure they will. And similarly the other way after that for Soviets.

[KenchiSulla]

What do you mean appraisals? If someone is doing bad we'll shoot them, right? Being alive at the end is end game....

[Crackaces]

ORIGINAL: KenchiSulla

What do you mean appraisals? If someone is doing bad we'll shoot them, right? Being alive at the end is end game....

I'm thinking discussions in the main thread and trash talk but simply completing a game like this is a noble cause in itself

[Neogodhobo]

Apart from Drakken and Socket does anyone else have any particular views?

I would prefer settings to be as historical as possible, but Its not a deal breaker whatever people choose.