Matrix Games Forums

Hi

There is currently a thread in the WITP forum about old PC and bord wargames. That reminds me something I have participated some ten years ago: playing wargames in teams. That is each side is divided into several commands and each player is responsible of his command and nothing else. That means that you are not onlmy fighting against your enemies, but also against your "allied" that are willing to use the same ressources as you.

At the time it was a boardgame and in clubs, but I think it is possible with UV. Example with 2 players on each side

1) Player IJN 1 gives orders and saves. He sends the turn to the Player IJN 2.
2) Player IJN 2 gives orders and ends IJN phase. He sends the turn to the Player USN 1.
3) Player USN 1 gives orders and saves. He sends the turn to the Player USN 2.
4) Player USN 2 gives orders and ends USN phase. He sends the turn to the Player IJN 1.

That means that the game is slower than usual.

From my experience and UV settings, the best team to play like that is to have a commander on each side, that will only give general strategy abd allocate ressources to one or the other commander and more important resolves conflicts. This should be an experienced player while the sub-commanders may be less experienced (and learn a lot, indeed, but also gives new bold ideas to the commander).

That will gives, for example, for the Allied:
1 high commander, 1 SOPAC commander, 1 SWPAC commander
and for the Japanese
1 high commander, 1 "New Guinea & Australia" commander, 1 "Solomons & islands" commander
or
1 high commander, 1 fleet commander, 1 land commander (planes & troops)

In the last Japanese case, the "land commander" will be given control of transports TF and escorting forces for operations.

It is also possible that the high commander has control of a part of the forces. But if he doesn't control anything and is contacted only it a conflict arises, the game will be faster.

The main benefit of this king of game is that all players are obliged to plan somewhat their operations, so sub-commanders can ask for more ressources. And there may be interesting strategical discussion as to what to do.

What do you think ? I think it could be done in a summer 1942 scenario.

Hmmm. Interesting. it could work. One player gives orders to his units, then sends a save file to his partner, who in turn forwards his results to the opposition.

I like the sound of this.

If you get anything going send me a PM and I'd be very keen to get involved.

I've been in multi-player games before (PacWar) and it is difficult to keep all players active. In fact I have a hard time just keeping one opponent to the end of the game in UV. Good Luck.

You would have to make sure you had known stayers involved, but the concept is definetely interesting

ORIGINAL: DoomedMantis

You would have to make sure you had known stayers involved, but the concept is definetely interesting

Stayers will of course be welcome but if someone wants to stop or disappears, he may be replaced as someone else will know the password of his side.

Actually I have in PBEM 2 quitters just disapearring after some defeats and another player that was unable to continue playing but OK to give his password to any taker. Three people agree to replace him and I play against all 3 new.

So is anybody is game to try a scen 6, 7 or 8 ? We need 2-men or 3-men teams for both side. I will play any side, any rank, any command.

As I said above I am willing to try. Be warned though I am a Newbie

Think it would work best with 2 day turns and Scen 12. That way the IJN guys don't have to hang on for a whole year just watching their men/planes/ships die and the game moves pretty fast with ample opportunities to intervene in operations at critical moments. It does mean you have to trust your TF commanders to do the right thing but so far I haven't found them to do anything any dumber than they do in one day turns and the game moves through those waiting for more ships/men/planes times sooo much faster.[:)]

BTW the idea of multi commander does sound pretty neat[8D].