Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command.

[gila]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

I would rename the units for easier tracking so there is consistency. Players would be limited to only calling for fire/air by submitting a request and getting permission from the CO and coordinating it through him.

I'm thinking that the CO gets the file 1st each turn and then, after moving/shooting with his units, passes it to the other platoon leaders in sequence, with the CO and each platoon leader passing along a short briefing to the next player for reference. We could use the forums here with a special thread and when each player is done they upload the save file and post a short/brief kind of AAR for that part of their turn (say no more than 100 words maximum which is about 2/3 the size of this paragraph) for the next guy to download, play and repost. That way there is a flow to the story line that the players and lurkers can follow.

Also, it would allow me as the GM to snatch the file, from any point in the game, load it and take some screenshots and do a running AAR.

Yeah,you as GM,could rename each unit to make gameplay easier,but would that make it more labour intensive for you?

Trading turns,could be a bigger issue here,the most important thing to remember is never end turn unless CO does so,

And a good AAR will help keep interest going in the case of drop-outs and in eventuality of recuiting new commanders

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by gila

Yeah,you as GM,could rename each unit to make gameplay easier,but would that make it more labour intensive for you?

Trading turns,could be a bigger issue here,the most important thing to remember is never end turn unless CO does so,

And a good AAR will help keep interest going in the case of drop-outs and in eventuality of recuiting new commanders

The renaming should really only be needed in the 1st scenario of the campaign, then everything should carry over, at least for the Core Force.

You are right about the CO, he should probably go last and end the turn so he can assess the situation up until the very end of the turn, after the others have made their moves/shots and therefore get an idea of what to post for the next turn's order/guidance.

[Double_Deuce]

I will try to work up the base campaign outline and post more so we can officially make a call for players. We can then go from there.

[gila]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

I will try to work up the base campaign outline and post more so we can officially make a call for players. We can then go from there.

Thanks,for even considering this possibilty.
I'm still way in

[gila]

[quote=Double_Deuce;778417]

Originally Posted by gila

Yeah,you as GM,could rename each unit to make gameplay easier,but would that make it more labour intensive for you?

Trading turns,could be a bigger issue here,the most important thing to remember is never end turn unless CO does so,


You are right about the CO, he should probably go last and end the turn so he can assess the situation up until the very end of the turn, after the others have made their moves/shots and therefore get an idea of what to post for the next turn's order/guidance.

Exactly

[Double_Deuce]

Here's a draft of the map for Scenario/Mission #1.

The Orchard looking terrain is actually regular Orchards on top of Desert Rough and are meant to simulate extensive Vineyards in the area. They are intended to limit visibility and make movement harder.

The Mosque type building at the crossroads is a Police Station along the Palestine/Syria border.

[Roman]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

Here's a draft of the map for Scenario/Mission #1.

The Orchard looking terrain is actually regular Orchards on top of Desert Rough and are meant to simulate extensive Vineyards in the area. They are intended to limit visibility and make movement harder.

The Mosque type building at the crossroads is a Police Station along the Palestine/Syria border.

This sounds more like me MBT. But for me no problem.
If the map is small and the units are few believe that the battles would not delay.
One option may be several people playing against one.
3v1 or 4v1. Just to give you the human touch. If we manage to battalion level I offer to play alone.

[gila]

[quote=Roman;778423]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

Here's a draft of the map for Scenario/Mission #1.

The Orchard looking terrain is actually regular Orchards on top of Desert Rough and are meant to simulate extensive Vineyards in the area. They are intended to limit visibility and make movement harder.


This sounds more like me MBT. But for me no problem.
If the map is small and the units are few believe that the battles would not delay.
One option may be several people playing against one.
3v1 or 4v1. Just to give you the human touch. If we manage to battalion level I offer to play alone.

Hi Roman,
That map suits a Bn for WW2 for both sides,and suitable for 3-4 player per side,
just my opinion,but i think overly large maps (for the sake of manuever) are a waste of time.
Remember the whole concept,is to keep Multi-player interest in the game and keeps the action going,from the first turn to the last hopefully

[Roman]

[quote=gila;778424]

Originally Posted by Roman

Hi Roman,
That map suits a Bn for WW2 for both sides,and suitable for 3-4 player per side,
just my opinion,but i think overly large maps (for the sake of manuever) are a waste of time.
Remember the whole concept,is to keep Multi-player interest in the game and keeps the action going,from the first turn to the last hopefully

The map size is fine. Just saying it sounded like MBT, because Deuce names Palestine and Syria. Hitler had wanted to get there, but could not.