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

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

Something I was just pondering and thought that I would add is . . what about doing it at the campaign level instead of just a scenario?

Something similar to what Wulfir and I were doing with the custom user campaigns BUT instead of multiple parallel campaign games where each players is playing their own campaign, you have multiple commanders running in a single campaign game.

Basically, just like I was running BUT instead of one player commanding the core force through the campaign, you have 3-4 players passing the campaign save file around so each "commander" moves and shoots with only their own assigned units. Say for example that the core force is a reinforced company and each player is a platoon leader with one player being the overall company commander who runs the HQ units AND any artillery/air support and provides general orders to his platoon leaders.

It would take some coordination between players where the CO player plays his units 1st and then writes up a short set of orders (transmitted via radio) and passes the file to the 1st platoon leader, who moves his units and then passed the file to the 2nd platoon leader and so on. As the turns progress the platoon leaders can request support from the CO for artillery, air or other available support he has at his disposal and he would pass along the approval or not so that players could take control of the units or call artillery/air attack from their platoon HQ unit.

Perhaps a short campaign (3-4 battles) following a company of the Australian 2/16 Battalion during Operation Exporter (circa June/July 1941) in the Middle East?

Thoughts?

I like it, but coordinating moves and such things may be a little hard.

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by iCaMpWiThAWP

I like it, but coordinating moves and such things may be a little hard.

That's what keeps it interesting. In RL you do not have time to site down and discuss what each platoon should do in the heat of combat every few minutes. You might be able to give general guidance such as you attack x building while I sweep around the flank kinda stuff, but nothing in great detail.

[iCaMpWiThAWP]

Yeah, maybe limit the amount of characters that can be transmitted as orders to make it feel like you had little time to describe your plan. Sooo, when do we give it a go?

[Double_Deuce]

I think keeping the maps and core force small, like we did with the RCW II game you can aim for a 4-7 days per turn (12 turn game) turnaround time. However, with that time schedule you are looking at around 10-12 weeks per scenario/mission. That's 12 months for a 5 scenario campaign, a long time for a campaign to hold interest.

Questions is . . . are there 4+ people out there with that kind of time on their hands?

I have some ideas but might need to do a little testing to see if I could implement some special configurations like a really customized core force and how casualties are replaced.

Also, what if a platoon leader unit (the x0 unit) is wiped out, does he keep running his platoon or get replaced?

[gila]

Originally Posted by Double_Deuce

I think keeping the maps and core force small, like we did with the RCW II game you can aim for a 4-7 days per turn (12 turn game) turnaround time. However, with that time schedule you are looking at around 10-12 weeks per scenario/mission. That's 12 months for a 5 scenario campaign, a long time for a campaign to hold interest.

Questions is . . . are there 4+ people out there with that kind of time on their hands?

I have some ideas but might need to do a little testing to see if I could implement some special configurations like a really customized core force and how casualties are replaced.

Also, what if a platoon leader unit (the x0 unit) is wiped out, does he keep running his platoon or get replaced?

This will take some dedication,i'm up for it!

I beleive when the x0 is wiped out,then the x1 takes over "and so on down the chain" with it's own rally factors,usaully much less than the orginal x0, i don't think it should be replaced imo.

[Mobhack]

This thread is probably best in this sub-forum

Andy

[gila]

re Icamp,
I like it, but coordinating moves and such things may be a little hard.[/quote]

Cd users should use the *5* key utility,
Non cd users could just rename thier units,keeping units more cohesive that way

[Double_Deuce]

Originally Posted by gila

Cd users should use the *5* key utility,
Non cd users could just rename thier units,keeping units more cohesive that way

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.

[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.