Jump to content

4-Player Battle


Cranky

Recommended Posts

Hello Folks-

I've been working on a fairly large battle that recreates an amphibious landing, followed by capture of an airfield.

Attacking Forces add up a [CLASSIFIED] number of battalions of Marine Infantry with vehicles, plus Naval Gunfire support from a battleship, some cruisers and destroyers, as well as barrages from Rocketships and a heavy smokescreen.

It has occurred to me that it would play very well if TWO players commanded the landing forces - half each.

Another player would command the defenders, and yet another player (in this case, me) would act as umpire and control the naval assets.

The two attacking players will have to request Naval Gunfire support from turn to turn - TRP's will allow hopefully accurate and timely arrival of shells, once requests are granted :).

To distinguish between the two Combat Commands, units belonging to one will simply have an asterisk in front of their name: e.g *MAJ Magon.

In theory, turns would work like this:

(1)PLAYER A: Moves his forces, SAVES. Sends SAVEGAME to Player B, AND A copy to Player C (Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire Support.

(2)PLAYER B: Moves his forces, SAVES, sends SAVEGAME to Player C Umpire), together with any requests for Naval Gunfire.

(3)PLAYER C (Umpire): adjudicates Naval Gunfire Requests- those that are granted are acted upon by targetting the appropriate TRP.

He then finishes the turn-pressing by pressing GO, and sends it to Player D.

(4)PLAYER D (Defender): moves his forces, presses GO, sends turn to Player A, and a copy to Player C.

Now, I haven't tested this, and I'm probably missing something very obvious-

If anyone out there would like to tell me what it is, I'd be grateful.

Tanks in advance,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kingfish-

Number of units is of course CLASSIFIED to maintain FOW, and 'Battalions' is quite possibly an exaggeration :) Or maybe not :)

Like any map with a lot of fortifications, it naturally describes itself as 'HUGE'

As far as Player C goes, the idea is that Players A & B may request Naval Gunfire (represented by FO's at the far map edge and beyond LOS due to heavy smoke screen/fog) but Player C is gonna roll the dice to see if requests or granted or if they land on the right TRP. :)

The actual island being fought over is quite small, really.

Really just an airfield and some shore defences.

Player C also controls two destroyers, which are on-map and mobile :)

My question was really aimed towards whether a multi-sided PBEM battle is even possible, within the constraints of how CMBB works...

I've been testing a bit this morning, and so far so good...

cheers,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And may I also say that I understand people's concerns about MUHS (Massive Unplayable Huge Scenarios).

There is definitely an upper limit to what is actually playably fun :)

Hey, I've played my way through "Ghosts of Napoleon" for CMBB and Emar's Normandy scenarios for CMAK, both of which are at that upper limit, IMHO.

My proposed battle has the advantage of being played on terrain that is almost entirely flat (having been levelled for said airfield) so that using view level 1 constantly for every unit to check folds in the ground won't be necessary :)

cheers,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, and a big shout-out to Mark Gallear (whose name I just remembered) for 'Ghosts Of Napoleon' - great operation: 20 battles :) Highly recommended to anyone who wants to play an early Barbarossa scenario where the Soviets get at least one of every obsolete vehicle in the 1941 Red Army, and the 20mm cannon in German armored cars rules!!!

But thank god, no combat at night :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I designed a huge scenario with 3 players and a CinC on each side using the same 'system." The problem is that if one player is less responsible and doesn't do his turn within a day, the whole thing gets very slow and boring for the other players. I tried to make the CinC's responsible for the speed of their side, but even they had reliability issues. As a result, my 45 turn game took over 2 years... Most people had run out of ammo as well, despite reinforcements. (I recommend no longer than 25-30 turns variable.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Erwin-

That really is THE issue, isn't it?

I myself have plenty of time on my hands (hence designing complex scenarios).

Hopefully there are 3 other people out there who can at least commit to a turn a day :)

It promises to be a lot of fun.

It's probably about 85% finished.

I will return and advertise for players (and post screenies) closer to the mark....

Cheers,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking further about Kingfish's suggestion above to 'Cut out the Middleman' I realized that Player D (the defender) can be played by the AI.

The defender's role in this battle is to staunchly resist the landing - amid a situation of intense bombardment from sea and air which renders their communications useless and their responses uncoordinated.

I figure the AI can handle this: in fact, that's what it's good at :D

Judicious placing of victory flags will help.

The most important features of this particular multi-player battle - competition and/or cooperation between the two attacking commanders, and the need to obtain artillery support from higher command - are catered to with only 3 players.

cheers,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two players as the attackers. In fact if they plan at least two minute turns then only one player needs to do moves each turn.

As for using the AI for the defence that falls over doesn't it in terms of how it can be played and saved?

The actual concept - always tricky. I suggest you go to a club - I am at WeBoB - and pitch the concept. There are normally some souls who want something meaty to play. The reason that biggies generally do not take off and succeed is losing players or the Tournament Director[you] so we always arrange a deputy/assistant. I would always e loathe to join a long term project where one was totally reliant on a single person.

As it happens you proposal is tather akin to playing a big scenario with three players so not too lengthy.

Incidentally I was musing on PBEMHelper where in trusted mode I have played 60 turn battles in a fortnight or so [botrytisII]. The point I was contemplating was that in that you play two turns an e-mail so if that is added to the mix and the Allied* players alternate their two minute orders .... then it could be very speedy.

Curiously I also think it would actually be far more lifelike in that micro-management would be impossible.

*German landings are of course possible : )

Most clubs like guys who run successful tournamnets : )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"As for using the AI for the defence that falls over doesn't it in terms of how it can be played and saved?"

I figure like this:

Player A moves his forces. SAVES. Sends SAVEGAME to Player B, who moves his forces, SAVES, and send SAVEGAME to Player C, who determines fire support outcomes, and presses GO. The AI then makes it's move, and Player C sends the next turn to Player A.

Am i missing something?

"Two players as the attackers. In fact if they plan at least two minute turns then only one player needs to do moves each turn."

The kind of battle that it is, each player will want to control their own troops all the time, and make their own decisions.

Thanks for the tips about PBEMHelper and clubs - that's very useful.

I should point out too, that this battle is for CMBB - I posted in both forums :P

As far as depending on a single person goes, I find myself suddenly retired, with plenty of time on my hands :)

I can only spend so much time each day writing smut for lad's mags :)

cheers,

Matt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...