Front line for 100 players

[Fionn]

Let's do the math.

CM can do battalion on battalion games quite comfortably.

1 player would command each side.

1 Division = 9 battalions. Now you've also got to fill the intel, supply, Division commander, regimental commanders etc slots so you'd probably need another 9 players to run the staff side of things.

SO to model ONE division properly you'd need 18 players.

To model BOTH sides of a divisional conflict you'd need 36 players.

To model TWO divisions properly you'd need 72 players.

Obviously playing a staff officer is a bit boring THUS the people who are staff officers in one division would be the active component of another while the active component in division A would be the staff officers of division B. (it's the only fair way to do this)

This way 72 players would get you TWO armies, each of four divisions which could face off against eachother.

The other 28 players would form the corps commanders(2 divisions per corp) and Army level commanders and staff. Corps and army level commanders would NOT be allowed to actually play CM to determine conflict outcome. They should be VERY busy planning and collating intelligence.

Overall 100 people is just about enough to do a fair army vs army conflict based on realistic locations and OOBs.

What SOME people here are thinking simply won't work. You need structure, roles and gamesmasters.

BTW GMs.. You'd need at least 20 to run this in any way properly and also some dedicated webstaff, proofreaders and graphics artists to update maps etc.

I'm presuming that this would be played to a gallery with AARs etc right?

I've organised stuff like this in the past and I guarantee you THIS is the way to do it and about the only way it will work. Go-it-alone not fully thought out ideas will only degenerate into chaos.

You need to choose a battle, a scale and create roles rules, administration etc to ensure it runs smoothly and THEN it could be a great thing to follow. You would also get realistic behaviour since ANY player who loses his battalion in combat DOES NOT GET A NEW BATTALION. (thus simulating the "if you lose it you're out" of real war.)

hell, I'd favour the use of administrators to ensure that if the Battalion HQ gets wiped out, regardless of the success of the rest of the attack the player is deemed DEAD

It can work and I imagine enough people would volunteer but the time to talk about it is after CM is released. If enough people come forward to help with this project then it could be put into action very quickly after CM's release. I've thought about it and will broach the subject post-release and firm up the details if the interest is there. Until then lets just concentrate on CM ok?

Ps. I Gmed a PBEM with over 50 weekly participants for almost a year singlehandedly and part-GMed it for another year with another GM.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[guachi]

I'd be up for something smaller than a division sized battle. I wouldn't mind playing a regiment/brigade/battalion sized battle where each player controls a battalion or company.

The company-sized battles in the demo are plenty big enough for me. It probably wouldn't take more than 20 people to run a regiment-sized battle.

In any case, I have lots of free time outside of work. I would be happy to volunteer my time to doing this when the full game is released.

Jason

[Fionn]

You misunderstand.

The TACTICAL battles would be of 1 battalion vs 1 battalion BUT all these battalion-sized battles would form part of a higher-level army vs army conflict to add a little spice and some maneuvre and grandiosity to the event.

The battle resolution would be in the form of 72 players PBEMing eachother in battalion vs battalion type battles (give two weeks for each tactical battle to be resolved and hey presto you got a game which moves and could be engrossing )

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[killmore]

1) Sound like there might be a problem there because you will need everyone to play game by certain time. (Like two weeks you mentioned). Maybe separate game for those that want to see results fast.

2) I don't know if I would force a super-structure on that. I would just let people play for their content (yes - it is not realistic)

3) While the structure you propose could be considered as realistic by some - it might not be enough fun for some people.

4) Because of 3) and if you have a game like that why not let some people play a "less" realistic game if they want to! Say 10x10 sectors without any commanders telling them what to do. Let other people have fun too.

5) While you are proposing strict system of rules it is not automated. So you will need a lot of "staff".

6) I wanted an automated system - not realistic but you can see results quickly and turns are fast. No staff needed. Just a server. No control needed. As long as people will not be able to cheat it will result in chaotic battles which could be a lot of fun. (but not 100% realistic)

7) there would be equal amount of resource points per side (or it could depend on number of squares possed by a side) so losses would matter. So by the end of the game loosing side will have very few resources... Like in real war.

8) finally we could have players playing on different levels (fronts). There would be front for good, bad and ugly players

I am definitly glad that I started this thread. I see a lot of thought proccess.

[Fionn]

Killmore,

well you're welcome to do whatever you want if you run such a campaign. I'm simply saying how I'd do it.

Roleplaying the military system with intelligence reports and a "bigger picture" is a HELL of a lot of fun though if you get into role.

6. Can you program that automated system. if you can then let's talk. if you can't then plan to do it the old fashioned way like I am

7. Unrealistic and not something I think the hardcore wargamer would like to see. Still, you could find lots who would like your version so good luck to you

It all depends what you are aiming for. I would only be interested in doing this if the battle had a larger context with a command structure, role-playing and the capability to be followed by the gallery.

You are looking for something akin to a real-time resource type game.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[killmore]

Here is the honest answer:

Yes, I can do automated system for playing.

I have done somewhat similar stuff before for Xwing Alliance. That took 6 months and was interesting but never got finished. I had over 100 people playing it. It was single player (vs AI) - not multiplayer!

My main problems with Xwing Alliance were:

1) I was unable to accurately figure out the battle losses. I was reading the bitmap displayed on the screen after mission, but the bitmap was not showing number of ships killed just "points for kills" - so there were many possible outcomes.

2) No one was helping me in any way.

3) AI was able to build different structures and protect them as well as attack when it had a chance of winning!

4) It took 6 months!

5) Programming in windows is harder then in JAVA - I would write everything in JAVA this time.

6) I had to reverse engineer a lot of files to get right ships in missions. That took a lot of time. (I had no help whatsoever)

Now for CM:

1) + No AI (just points)

2) - Need Java server

3) Need a lot of help! I am not going to do this myself. In fact I would rather do a small part of it - not the whole thing. I got life to use up...

4) I am not going to do any Web related stuff just Java.

5) It would take a lot of time.

6) There were no maps to do.

I am only going to consider such project if I get some real help.

I would do it also the way I described not in the way that is realistic.

The reason? It is much simpler to do. I have been in many software projects so I have some experience with such things. (I worked on OSes and on Satelites before)

I am simply trying to be realistic about what can be acomplished.

[guachi]

Fionn, I understood you fine. (That is, if you were referring to me)

I was just saying that logistically it would be easier to do a smaller scale battle. Like a regiment sized with each player controlling a battalion or company. Or battalion sized battle with each player controlling a company.

I think it would be incredibly fun to play a corps against a corps. I even think it would not be too difficult to get enough dedicated players to do it. But as someone who has never done anything like this before, I would probably be overwhelmed by the complexity. I just finished my first ever PBEM game of any kind and I've done TCP/IP play with one game (Entrepreneur). So I might need to play in the kiddie pool, so to speak, before I jumped in the deep end.

If the people on this board and those I am playing PBEM games wiht are the kind people that would be involve in a game like this, I have no doubt it will be tremendously fun and a great learning experience.

Jason

[Fionn]

Aye, one of my points was the sheer number of players it would take to do what was being talked about here.

If you make a smaller playing group you end up with all the battles NOT being interconnected and very little actual player attachment to what is going on.

The key would be to put GOOD people in charge as staff officers as it would really be their thinking etc which would make the game viewable on the net.

------------------

___________

Fionn Kelly

Manager of Historical Research,

The Gamers Net - Gaming for Gamers

[Chris Jenkins]

Killmore,

This is exactly the kind of thing that hyperactive, obsessive-compulsive History Majors like me love.

Even though I study history, I think that a fictional scenario would be best. It allows for no end to the fighting. Also, some interesting OOBs could come of it. If you're looking for people to play with, you've got one.

------------------

Climb to Glory!

[killmore]

I am interested in people to help me right now. Not that much in playing itself. (Thought I would not mind a game or 2 on the board that is new to both players)

I bet I am not very good at most of games (except Xwing variety). I like being able to loose sometimes and still have a chance later.

I need help in doing program but I bet no one will be willing to help!

[Chris Jenkins]

Well, I can't program in any language yet, but I started learning C. Had to put that on hold for school. If I do, I'd love to contribute. What kind of language (s)would you be needing?

------------------

Climb to Glory!

[killmore]

Language: Java.

I have been a teacher at university and I doubt that any one who is just starting programming can be of any help.

I also takes 100 times more time then beginer thinks...

[Los]

A lot of people poo poo the staff work but it is precisely the staff work and the communications (as well as all the screw ups due to miscommunication) that would MAKE the game. I don't think there would be any shortage of staff volunteers and anyone who just wants to blows stuff up can be a manuever element commander. It is the collection and interpretatin of player intelligence reports as well as the dissemination of orders, resources, fire support etc that makes doing a larger scale game worthwhile. In the absence of a system to handle this type of large scale CPX (Like eth major does in TACOPS) then it has to bemanaged by a few hardy GMs. (Which by the way are full time jobs in themselves.)

I have been through this experience many times on the fligh sim side (my original suggestions were for a realtime LAN/online environment but PBEM is cool too). In fact I ave also playered a few PBEM Battelground Waterloo games working under a similar (manually administered) system and it's quite fun.

Los