Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

dr. hal: passed through me, who sometimes injected gibberish

You mean like "I can't do that, Dave."?

No, more along the lines of "all the world wonders"!

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Is a prime qualification a wasted youth? Blame AH and S&T.

[:D]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: pontiouspilot

Is a prime qualification a wasted youth? Blame AH and S&T.

[:D]

[:D] +1000

Its an interesting position. Think of the budget you may be able to acquire. Yum.[:D]

As for me, I'm retired and have no time for such nonsense.[:'(]

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One thing I thought of doing was giving each student a character (and thus a command domain) and then imposing restrictions on communications, including those induced by the characters themselves. This worked to some extent. Main characters such as King, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc., could not talk to each other directly, only by written note (passed through me, who sometimes injected gibberish), and some players were told to be hostile to others. This was done at the Japanese level too, especially between Navy and Army types. It led to some interesting confusion and misdirection. I know, hard to believe huh???? In all instances I acted as head of state of each nation involved (which says a LOT about me!).

I’ve been thinking about this recently, with an idea to get a few interested forumites to role play National and/or Command HQ leaders while the main player is the Grand CIC.
Role players mainly to have power of veto on decisions to spend Political Points and the use of “their” units in certain geographic areas.
The main purpose to bring a bit of international politics (Allies) or inter-service rivalry (Japan) into the game.
I might start a new thread on it on the weekend.

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One thing I thought of doing was giving each student a character (and thus a command domain) and then imposing restrictions on communications, including those induced by the characters themselves. This worked to some extent. Main characters such as King, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc., could not talk to each other directly, only by written note (passed through me, who sometimes injected gibberish), and some players were told to be hostile to others. This was done at the Japanese level too, especially between Navy and Army types. It led to some interesting confusion and misdirection. I know, hard to believe huh???? In all instances I acted as head of state of each nation involved (which says a LOT about me!).

I’ve been thinking about this recently, with an idea to get a few interested forumites to role play National and/or Command HQ leaders while the main player is the Grand CIC.
Role players mainly to have power of veto on decisions to spend Political Points and the use of “their” units in certain geographic areas.
The main purpose to bring a bit of international politics (Allies) or inter-service rivalry (Japan) into the game.
I might start a new thread on it on the weekend.

Very good idea..... and remember that "inter-service rivalry" was in no way confined to the Japanese. It would be very interesting to write the script for individual players. There would be competing designs over individual units, land, sea and air. I wonder if you could compartmentalize individual areas so that one person could move his or her units (be it alone national or zone lines), then pass that along to the next so that another component of the move could be completed, etc. It sure would prove a challenge to get any coordinated effort done!

Just think how valuable political points would suddenly become!

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
It would be very interesting to write the script for individual players. There would be competing designs over individual units, land, sea and air.

I think jdsrae's idea is cool and would be fun to see, but probably hard to logistically implement. If you tried, however, I think having a script for each player and their faction is a necessity.

ORIGINAL: dr.hal
Interesting jwolf, let me know if you dig anything up that's more specific on the paper.

Not the same thing, but in 2014 the Marine Corps War College used the mod-turned-game Darkest Hour variant of Hearts of Iron 2 to teach a class and conduct a wargame, with groups playing respective sides (US, Soviets, British, etc.) against the Axis played by experienced HoI2 players. They even wrote an official AAR for it and there used to be a number of pictures showing the course of the game (but the host for those images seems to have since been lost).

Marine War College Official AAR

Article on MWC Excercise

You can find the AAR also in the Paradox forums where it was posted, but the images have since been lost.

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One thing I thought of doing was giving each student a character (and thus a command domain) and then imposing restrictions on communications, including those induced by the characters themselves. This worked to some extent. Main characters such as King, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc., could not talk to each other directly, only by written note (passed through me, who sometimes injected gibberish), and some players were told to be hostile to others. This was done at the Japanese level too, especially between Navy and Army types. It led to some interesting confusion and misdirection. I know, hard to believe huh???? In all instances I acted as head of state of each nation involved (which says a LOT about me!).

You might be interested in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... e&#2913089

where JWE explained how AE was CPX'd amongst a group of professional military players.

Alfred

My idea is just a slight adaptation to remove a single player being in complete control of everything.

It could be a team vs a single opponent on a pbem, or team vs team.

- Main player is the CIC
- role players are Command HQ commanders and/or National leaders, effectively the Combined Chiefs of Staff
- Main player is also the tactical issuer of orders, within any constraints set by the role players.

That means each turn can still be done fairly quickly without the save file having to go through multiple hands each turn.
Only one clicker of the mouse.
The role players wouldn’t have to logon every day but can inject themselves as required via an AAR page on this here forum.
Details to be agreed game by game between the lead player and the role players.

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

One thing I thought of doing was giving each student a character (and thus a command domain) and then imposing restrictions on communications, including those induced by the characters themselves. This worked to some extent. Main characters such as King, MacArthur, Nimitz, etc., could not talk to each other directly, only by written note (passed through me, who sometimes injected gibberish), and some players were told to be hostile to others. This was done at the Japanese level too, especially between Navy and Army types. It led to some interesting confusion and misdirection. I know, hard to believe huh???? In all instances I acted as head of state of each nation involved (which says a LOT about me!).

You might be interested in this thread:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... ire�

where JWE explained how AE was CPX'd amongst a group of professional military players.

Alfred

Thanks, it is an interesting idea! Yet it misses what I was trying to explore, the underlying aspects of warfare that get little play but are so vital, supply and logistics (which really only comes to light in the longer scenarios). I agree however that if one is to introduce an umpire, that person would be key to a successful learning experience. Much like a dungeon master did for that game (as I understand it, as I never played it). But thanks again for pointing it out.

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

My idea is just a slight adaptation to remove a single player being in complete control of everything.

It could be a team vs a single opponent on a pbem, or team vs team.

Yes jdsrae I see the advantage of reducing the individual input as time would be a key factor in playability. However I would envision that players (below the CIC) would have to input their own moves so as to afford accountability. The CIC would not be allowed to change anything! Just give guidance at a strategic level. It would require multiple people inputting into a "move" before that "move" is sent to the opposite team. As Alfred points out, the only way to do this would be for 3 day turns in order to keep the game moving. Unlike the thread that Alfred pointed to, I would not require an umpire or key overseer as that role would be divided between the two CICs. If detailed guidelines are promulgated and players adhere to them, it actually might work.