Idea of multiplayer roleplaying huge battles with real chain of command. - Page 3

Double_Deuce · #21 June 6th, 2011, 08:04 PM

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 · #22 June 6th, 2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

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 · #23 June 6th, 2011, 08:31 PM

[quote=Double_Deuce;778417]

Quote:

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 · #24 June 6th, 2011, 09:21 PM

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 · #25 June 6th, 2011, 09:54 PM

Quote:

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 · #26 June 6th, 2011, 10:09 PM

[quote=Roman;778423]

Quote:

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 · #27 June 6th, 2011, 10:35 PM

[quote=gila;778424]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

Quote:

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

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.

gila · #28 June 6th, 2011, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

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.

I got your drift,Palistine Vs Syria? not what one would expect for WW2 action,more post WW2,i'm sure it was overlooked on which game.

Mobhack · #29 June 6th, 2011, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gila

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

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.

I got your drift,Palistine Vs Syria? not what one would expect for WW2 action,more post WW2,i'm sure it was overlooked on which game.

Palestine and Syria as an area in WW2 would tend to suggest the actions Vs the Vichy French by various Allied units in that area...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syria%E...banon_Campaign

(and the Luftwaffe did turn up there

!)

Andy

Double_Deuce · #30 June 6th, 2011, 11:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

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.

Actually German and Italian aircraft operated out of Syria against British forces in the Kingdom of Iraq. The primary reason the British invaded Vichy France held Syria from Palestine was to kick the Axis forces out of the airfields and prevent them from shipping armaments to pro-German rebels operating in Iraq via rail through Syria.

See also > > Führer Directive No. 30