Matrix Games Forums

OK bear with me now. I know that there is no built in connection between these 3 massive games but - would this work as a simple set of 'house-rules' to create a multi-massive WW2 experience?

I find 5 insane friends who are willing to but/learn at least one of these games and agree to the following house rules:
1 - each of the players choose to play one front - so that would be maybe :
- Churchill WITW Allies
- Rommel WITW Axis
- Guderian WITE Axis
- Stalin WITE Axis
- Yamamoto - WITP Axis
- Halsey - WITP Allied
2 - The game plays out in real time with each player having a week to execute their turn or else lose their move
(Of course WITE would start first and the others would join in at the appropriate times...)
3 - As the war plays out the 3 axis or allied commanders could agree to 'lend' a player on another front one 'difficulty' level and the cost of one of their own. This would simulate the strategic shifting of resources from one front to the other. So for instance the Allies could decide that the war in Europe is going well enough that they could concentrate on the Pacific after Pearle harbor. This decision could be reversed by mutual agreement at any time.

This set of rules assumes that all 3 games allow for the changing of game options even after a multiplayer game has begun. Is this a false assumption? I know it's crazy sounding but actually pretty simple if 6 nuts were up for a 5 year multiplayer WW2 epic game...

The main issue is the scale difference between WitP and WitE/W. You could play WitP using 3 day turns so 'only' two turns in AE would be needed to match up with the other two games. However using 3 day turns in AE really hurts Japan in their expansion phase so 2 or 1 day turns would be needed instead.

If one day turns were used which is what most PBEM players prefer, then you would need 7 turns of AE to keep up with the other games time scale (1 week/turn). So there would be a huge burden on the players that were playing AE compared to the one doing the other two. Plus the level of detail in AE is FAR greater that the other games as well. So it is likely that whomever is playing AE would burn out pretty quick with having to play 3 or 7 turns in one week.

A far better option would be to play MWiF using Solitaire mode and Skype or some other communication system. There are threads on that forum on how to do this. Since World in Flames is designed to be played with multiple people.

Another other option is Strategic Command 2 (or wait for 3 to be released). Lastly you could do Hearts of Iron 3, either vanilla or using the Black Ice mod (which is great btw).

There are other options out there, like Making History II which I did not like due to the AI, but with human players it might be a lot better. Plus you can start in 1933 [X(]

Peronally, I would not want to play the way you describe simply due to the demands AE makes on players. I have played all these games and I can generally do a WitE turn in a few hours. While I have easily spent DAYS doing a single turn in AE. But if the people you have lined up are hardcore AE players and are willing to spend the bulk of their gaming time playing AE, then you might have a chance of making this work. All I can say is good luck to you and them [:)]

Edit:
I figured I'd better spell out WiF just in case [:)]