AE PBEM Multiplayer

[Rugens]

I think this is the way it has shaped up. Let me know if I have goofed anything up.

DSwain - Allied (not Chinese)
Jonathan Pollard - Allied (non-US)
Roger Neilson II - Allied

EwingNJ - Japan
guctony - Japan
Carl Rugenstein - Slight preference for Japs

[EwingNJ]

Yep

[guctony]

Yes I would like to be in it. I fell the same it is much more fun to share commands.

I would prefer anything japan

regards

Guctony

[Jonathan Pollard]

Yes, I'd like to be on the Allied side as one or more non-US powers such as Dutch, Brits, Chinese, and/or Aussies. I would also not mind taking the Philippines. I would want to have one-day turns.

[P.Hausser]

I played 3 games in WITP as "Team's" we was 3 ppl pr team, and in last game 4 ppl pr team.

It is a great way of doing it, but I recommend setting up a system within the team of having daly xontact via Ie Ventrilo or other voice client.

[Rugens]

I think we have enough interested.  I will email everybody that responded and compile a list of the players and their emails.  If you see this before you get an email from me feel free to send me your email at:

Rugens at aol dot com (altered to prevent spam)

Since I've never participated in a PBEM WITP I would really welcome input.  Especially how many players and how to split up and the best actual mechanics to conduct the turns.  Any old PBEM vets please feel free to chime in even if not involved.

We have 6 individuals that have expressed interest if everybody sticks with it:

Carl Rugenstein - Slight preference for Japs
EwingNJ - no preference stated
guctony - Japan
DSwain - Allied (not Chinese)
Jonathan Pollard - Allied (non-US)
P.Hausser - no preference stated

[EwingNJ]

My primary preference is to get this off the ground so I am willing to play whichever side gives us three on three.  Ultimately there will be far more Allied forces but Japanese production management probably makes up for the workload difference.
 
I also recommend we delay the start till the first patch is out.
 
Carl, PM sent.

[Jonathan Pollard]

I agree that we should wait for the first official patch to come out.

[DSwain]

Seems a good idea to wait for the patch. Thanks for organising this, Carl.

[guctony]

Well I suggest Pre-issue Run.

We could use the time before official patch for establishing relations, commitments etc. Lets play a trial game so we wouldnt lose time when the patch is out and also any shortcomers would leave the game before it get serious.

I personally prefer pratice before things get serious. We could try some tactics which in real play not worth the risk etc.

What do you say.......

regards

[Rugens]

We probably have a little while until the first patch but figured we may as well start nailing down the setup options & preferences.  As far as setting the sides up since we have 6 players that have expressed interest, is 3 vs 3 acceptable to everybody?   Swiped the following from another thread as a starting point for discussion.  I've no real preferences so if anyone wants to change any of the following just post a message to open the discussion. 

Scenario: Grand Campaign 001 (don't think I ever specified but figure everybody assumed this one <G>)

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off - DISCUSSION OPENED
historical 1st turn-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
no unit withdrawal-on - DISCUSSION OPENED
reinforcements-fixed - DISCUSSION OPENED

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off

[Rugens]

ORIGINAL: DSwain

Seems a good idea to wait for the patch. Thanks for organising this, Carl.

You are most welcome. Am glad to help so that we can all have a good time.

guctony asks an interesting question.

[DSwain]

ORIGINAL: Carl Rugenstein

We probably have a little while until the first patch but figured we may as well start nailing down the setup options & preferences.  As far as setting the sides up since we have 6 players that have expressed interest, is 3 vs 3 acceptable to everybody?   Swiped the following from another thread as a starting point for discussion.  I've no real preferences so if anyone wants to change any of the following just post a message to open the discussion. 

Scenario: Grand Campaign 001 (don't think I ever specified but figure everybody assumed this one <G>)

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off
historical 1st turn-on
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on
no unit withdrawal-on
reinforcements-fixed

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off

That all seems good to me

[guctony]

REALISM
FOW- on
ADV weather- on
Allied Damage Control-on
Player Def upgrades-off "I prefer On"
historical 1st turn-on
dec 7 surprise-on
reliable usn torps-off
realistic r&d-on "I would prefer off"
no unit withdrawal-on
reinforcements-fixed "15 day could be nice"

OPTIONS
Combat Reports-on
Auto sub ops-off
TF/Plane move radius-off
Set All facilities to expand at the start-off
auto upgrade ship/air-off
accept air/ground replacements-off

[Jonathan Pollard]

I think I would prefer no unit withdrawal to be off. I think most of the AARs use the off setting for this option.

[EwingNJ]

My two cents;
&nbsp;
1. Historical first turn on is too limiting to the Japan team
2. No unit withdrawal - since I cannot remember what the toggle setting actually does I will say that by not requiring unit withdrawals you hand a huge advantage to the Allied team. So my vote is forced withdrawals.
3. Counterbalancing this I would favor realistic R&D for the Japan team.
&nbsp;
Regardless of the above I will live with whatever the majority&nbsp;desires.&nbsp;
&nbsp;
I am game for a practice run, if nothing else it would allow each side to work out the kinks in internal communications and organization.&nbsp; Hey, a wargame to prep for a wargame!

[Rugens]

What I was thinking on the options, after any discussion, unless there was a clear majority, to take the results of a vote.&nbsp; Since I have no preference I would obstain leaving an odd number.&nbsp;

[Rugens]

If anybody reads this thread, even though the game is presently full,&nbsp;if you would like to put your name in as an&nbsp;alternate in case someone has to leave the game,&nbsp;feel free to send me an email.

[EwingNJ]

Where is the fun in that? I say lets vote and if we get a 3-3 tie then form a committee of the whole to hammer out a compromise. Or we could separate into an upper house and a lower house; form a joint committee to hammer out a compromise bill between the two.

And while we are at I want an increase to my stipend, car allowance, raise in travel allowance, and a larger staff.

[DSwain]

Can we avoid voting? We'll have to vote on individual settings and that could get tedious! Though props to you Carl for being so fair.

Can we work from Carl's initial suggestion and just go with that? unless someone has a real 'red line' about something.