https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NimglJxJ4aM&feature=youtu.be
The above is a clip from a PBEM game I'm playing against a friend.
Lovely scenario, particularly the map, but that's not the reason for the post.
It's, well, that'd be telling...
Suffice to say that you don't get a lot of that in IGOUGO. I just can't decide for whom I feel more compassion -- the Ami or Commander Heinreich. Neither of them can honestly be said to have covered themselves in glory...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Right in the tukus. :)
I've always been fond of the WEGO system, too. Really, it is the only system that makes sense in an age of spiffy graphics. I never got the point of loading up, say, a RTS game with highly detailed graphics. Unless there is a replay viewer, the player never gets a chance to appreciate them while actually playing! And, needless to say, WEGO also makes it possible to appreciate all the minutia that goes on in a battle. Simply, WEGO allows the player to fully enjoy the war movie he and his opponent created, which makes the experience all the more memorable.
If only Wargame: ALB/DR went WEGO instead of RTS....
One thing that always turned me off the WEGO system was the lack of hands on...and in particular the lack of info.
For example, whenever I played WEGO, I always ended up with units sitting doing nothing for part of the minute...20 seconds, maybe 30...because I couldn't tell how long it was going to take them, given the movement order I gave them, to move that distance. So I'd set a waypoint and have the unit move fast to that point. It would get there in 20 seconds and be sitting doing nothing for the remainder.
That has been somewhat eased by
a) me playing it a bit better (not being so hands on and letting the AI do the job better)
and
b) waypoints with different orders
But I still feel I want to make the most of the minute, and I often fall short.
Maybe it's just me still trying to control too much.
Quote from: RooksBailey on August 25, 2014, 11:32:28 PM
If only Wargame: ALB/DR went WEGO instead of RTS....
they can have my second born if they make this
I prefer the WEGO in CM, but it kills the joy when an artillery stonk lands and my guys run - yes RUN - into it, rather than hitting the dirt, and maybe crawling away. I haven't looked for that particularly in v3.0, but it sure does it in v2 or before. Otherwise, I totally cool with WEGO.
@Geek - Add EE too to your wishlist. I'm with you on the others! 8)
The example given above re: how men respond to stonks has indeed been a source of many "awww, c'mon" moments betwixt CM and I over the years. The TacAI certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's done a fair job of representing reactions during incoming fire moments. Turn-based games usually have some sort of reaction roll built in anyway which can, depending on a variety of factors cause results similar to the one decried above.
My main love in the clip is the Ami AFV that gets hit and then can't seem to decide whether to return fire or run away; at least based on the erratic rotation of the gun barrel. That much strikes me as historically plausible.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 26, 2014, 02:25:25 AM
One thing that always turned me off the WEGO system was the lack of hands on...and in particular the lack of info.
The lack of hands-on is exactly what I really like about WEGO, at least with the CM games. I think it serves as a necessary handicap for the player against the inevitably less capable AI. Playing real-time vs. AI, it's just too easy to micro everything to the point that you become almost invulnerable.
I like how WEGO simulates a certain lack of control over the tactical situation -- it actually adds to the realism, imo, since your different elements scattered across the map would not have anything approaching the 'omniscient' view you get as the player in charge of everything. So if they stand around befuddled for a bit, or don't see that Panzer IV emerging from the woods about to rip them a new one, well, I like how it adds to the drama -- even if it can be infuriating at times.
ive spent hours watching wego replays from different angles, particularly satisfying when a heroic deed is committed and you can watch it over and over and then you gain an affinity for the little guy and look out for him on the next turn and follow him through the game
Yeah, the fact that there's no rewind option when playing realtime is reason enough for me never to play that way. I absolutely need the rewind feature.
I come here not to praise CM, but to bury it...
You have both reminded me of my continued grievance that, from CM:B0 until this very day, there is no full-game reply available.
But I digress.
Jim
I only play WEGO, no Real-Time on this machine. And it's totally because of the Replay Feature. Recent battle had my engineer squad crawl to 20 meters to assault a German MG bunker. After using all their grenades without effect, I then had them crawl closer to use a demo charge. The bunker defenders spotted them and shredded the squad with MG fire except for one guy-- Pvt. Cox, who manfully held his ground and tossed a demo charge on top of the bunker where it exploded without effect but to temporarily stun the defenders. Damn those Germans can build a bunker! After that Pvt. Cox fled like the rest of his squad mates but after 3 or 4 steps, he stopped, turned to face the enemy again and using his last demo charge tossed it against the front of the bunker destroying it. And then stayed around to shoot down the Germans running out the back. In Real Time I probably would've missed the whole thing. And never get to give Pvt. Cox his Medal of Digital Heroism First Class. Well done Cox. O0
Quote from: sandman2575 on August 26, 2014, 09:37:51 AM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 26, 2014, 02:25:25 AM
One thing that always turned me off the WEGO system was the lack of hands on...and in particular the lack of info.
The lack of hands-on is exactly what I really like about WEGO, at least with the CM games. I think it serves as a necessary handicap for the player against the inevitably less capable AI. Playing real-time vs. AI, it's just too easy to micro everything to the point that you become almost invulnerable.
I like how WEGO simulates a certain lack of control over the tactical situation -- it actually adds to the realism, imo, since your different elements scattered across the map would not have anything approaching the 'omniscient' view you get as the player in charge of everything. So if they stand around befuddled for a bit, or don't see that Panzer IV emerging from the woods about to rip them a new one, well, I like how it adds to the drama -- even if it can be infuriating at times.
That is most definitely not my experience. I get absolutely slaughtered almost everytime I play this game....at least until undercovergeek mentioned letting go a bit and letting the commands do their thing.
I'm not saying the AI is superb - just I'm that bad
I also never used the replay. The game is time consuming enough what with setting up at the start, giving orders to each and every unit and doing so every minute without spending even MORE time watching the replay and not only once...but at different parts of the battlefield.
I just do not have the desire or the inclination to watch the replays...I just don't have the time.
I'll give it another go. It's not like I play the game anyway...so maybe, just maybe changing to WEGO and sticking it out for a game or two might change my outlook on the game.
oh man, youve no soul!!! :P
as a man who gets ass ache riding up and down the country you must see its about the journey and not the end result - watching all those beautiful vignettes is half the game
It's time...mostly
You know what a time sink Elite:Dangerous is just now - and that's with it not even half baked...what's going to happen to my gaming time when that universe comes alive?
Then I've now got Steelbeasts Pro PE...again, another time sink!
I probably should have made the distinction -- playing real-time in missions where you have to defend / hold territory, you can often micro to the point of crushing the AI. Assaults are difficult whether playing real-time or WEGO, but I still think you gain a decisive advantage over the AI if you play real-time. (Believe me, I'm no tactical genius either -- plenty of the the assault missions have stymied me in CMBN and FI/GL).
Sir Slash -- time to update your sig in commemoration of the valiant Pvt. Cox!
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 26, 2014, 10:30:10 AM
It's time...mostly
You know what a time sink Elite:Dangerous is just now - and that's with it not even half baked...what's going to happen to my gaming time when that universe comes alive?
Then I've now got Steelbeasts Pro PE...again, another time sink!
yeah, i fear everything been shelved when elite goes full on, so easy to forget its in beta and nowhere near feature complete
Quote from: sandman2575 on August 26, 2014, 10:38:50 AM
I probably should have made the distinction -- playing real-time in missions where you have to defend / hold territory, you can often micro to the point of crushing the AI. Assaults are difficult whether playing real-time or WEGO, but I still think you gain a decisive advantage over the AI if you play real-time. (Believe me, I'm no tactical genius either -- plenty of the the assault missions have stymied me in CMBN and FI/GL).
Sir Slash -- time to update your sig in commemoration of the valiant Pvt. Cox!
Ok - I agree definitely about defending.
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 26, 2014, 09:39:49 AM
ive spent hours watching wego replays from different angles, particularly satisfying when a heroic deed is committed and you can watch it over and over and then you gain an affinity for the little guy and look out for him on the next turn and follow him through the game
Playing pretty unevenly in Real time gives me much the same perspective as WEGO: I'm never sure when thing are going to happen and for the most part I have little idea what is going on. But that is never remedied by a replay and there's no replay so if I want to see something, I have to get over to where it is happening. This results in a certain amount of rather twisted playing techniques such as the rescue as in: things go wrong but you want to support some set of your troops -- surrounded in a house or something...So you hurry off and try with the closest forces and that doesn't work, so you go get some more...but of course real time doesn't abolish all the usual command control and panic and so on problems so you get sucked in to one dynamic part of the battle and there's a lot of suspense in some situations.
Quote from: Cyrano on August 25, 2014, 10:12:06 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NimglJxJ4aM&feature=youtu.be
The above is a clip from a PBEM game I'm playing against a friend.
Lovely scenario, particularly the map, but that's not the reason for the post.
It's, well, that'd be telling...
Suffice to say that you don't get a lot of that in IGOUGO. I just can't decide for whom I feel more compassion -- the Ami or Commander Heinreich. Neither of them can honestly be said to have covered themselves in glory...
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Nice. I am with you, WEGO is the reason CM is so successful imo. I still recall the magical moment playing the Carentan Op against a long time opponent in the original CMBO when I 'snuck' a lone reconnaissance Puma through no-man's land and came up behind a platoon of Shermans part way through the turn. The Puma KO'd two up the pipe before the turn ended then got two more before the Puma disengaged and the Sherman raced away. Lost the operation but that moment was worth every penny. :)
Quote from: Cyrano on August 26, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
The example given above re: how men respond to stonks has indeed been a source of many "awww, c'mon" moments betwixt CM and I over the years. The TacAI certainly isn't perfect, but I think it's done a fair job of representing reactions during incoming fire moments. Turn-based games usually have some sort of reaction roll built in anyway which can, depending on a variety of factors cause results similar to the one decried above.
My main love in the clip is the Ami AFV that gets hit and then can't seem to decide whether to return fire or run away; at least based on the erratic rotation of the gun barrel. That much strikes me as historically plausible.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
We share the same view. :) BTW I should have said, I loved the clip too. Oh, the indecision! ;D
It gets even better when you watch obsessively all the little things happening when you play PBEM
I need to see if I can pull out the move when I was playing Undercovergeek on a PBEM game where I have a half squad with no AT on one side of a hedge engaging a Canadian Sherman on the other. I order the other half squad luckily equiped with a Panzerfaust to sprint to support their comrades. Halfway to the hedge the AT gunner unslings the Panzerfaust and lets the rocket fly down range. Hitting the hedge in front of the Sherman and killing 4 out of 5 of his safely sheltering comrades. I think the game tracks which pixel-truppen owe each other money since I have never seen such a case of egregious fragging before. The second squad seeing the carnage before them decides that now would be a good time to panic and runs back into the field where the Sherman promptly chews them up. Oh the humanity
Con
Edit turns out that the 3.0 update is unable to open older saved games so this particular piece of CMBN gold is forever lost
@Con^^
Heh, heh! Great stuff. Sad about losing the save game, that clip would have been a good one. :)
Let me note here that one of my T-34s just shot one of Cyrano's halftracks in the ass, and he was so offended he killed my tank with a Panther. There was no indecision at all. I suspect his video is actually a subtle attempt to lure future opponents of his into taking posterior shots at him, just so he can distract you with them and then blow you up.
Do not trust this man. He is tricksy that way.
;)
For the record, that was not a halftrack. It was a TAXI, sent to convey those poor, sad, lonely Wehrmacht soldiers back home from your horrible, inhospitable country.
Most uncharitable of you to shoot at their mode of transport forcing them to walk!
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: RooksBailey on August 25, 2014, 11:32:28 PM
I never got the point of loading up, say, a RTS game with highly detailed graphics. Unless there is a replay viewer, the player never gets a chance to appreciate them while actually playing!
this is exactly why I like playing WoT so much. its slow enough where you can view the scenery.
ok I tried WEGO last night with the first small scenario as the Germans...the one where I have to conduct a fighting patrol to the Gangers Hut and then get the troops out.
It wasn't too bad.
Tense though...my troops met the objectives and headed back, but they were tired so I could only give a MOVE order...they got to the exit zone with 15 seconds spare!
It's medium and big scenarios though that eat HUGE amounts of time. Maybe playing PBEM is the answer.....?
Why don't you try just a small 1000 point PBEM and see how it goes.... A scenario w/o a tight time, or adjust the time
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 28, 2014, 02:19:12 AM
Why don't you try just a small 1000 point PBEM and see how it goes.... A scenario w/o a tight time, or adjust the time
You fire one up and I'll jump in...no bailing. :)
I meant to add - this scenario was tiny and it still took me about 2 hours to complete even though the scenario is only 40 mins(?) rt.
That's probably why I don't get into the game too much - it just takes so damn long. Maybe with pbem, as I'm only doing 1 or 2 turns a day it wouldn't be such a huge task to play it.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 28, 2014, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 28, 2014, 02:19:12 AM
Why don't you try just a small 1000 point PBEM and see how it goes.... A scenario w/o a tight time, or adjust the time
You fire one up and I'll jump in...no bailing. :)
oh man, id love to - but i dont have CMBN anymore - im sure theres plenty more will take up your offer tho
I was playing Red Thunder
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 28, 2014, 12:20:43 AM
ok I tried WEGO last night with the first small scenario as the Germans...the one where I have to conduct a fighting patrol to the Gangers Hut and then get the troops out.
It wasn't too bad.
Tense though...my troops met the objectives and headed back, but they were tired so I could only give a MOVE order...they got to the exit zone with 15 seconds spare!
It's medium and big scenarios though that eat HUGE amounts of time. Maybe playing PBEM is the answer.....?
My first attempt at that started really well until I blundered into an ambush a short while after I overran some Russian positions.
Judge, you want an RT game, I'd be happy to give you one on the terms you describe.
Just shout.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
P.S.: I never bail, even when things are going horribly, horribly wrong.
I bailed on UCG - mainly because at the time I didn't have my heart in a PBEM. We didn't start one - I bailed before it was even set up I think!
Well how would you like to fire up a small engagement (thanks for the offer by the way)...maybe a few platoons, a tank or two, scout car - that kind of size...nothing mega.
When I get home, I'll see if I can't find a small scenario that comes recommended for H2H and send it your way...unless you've a mind to cherry-pick your own toys? Six and two threes by me...
You set up for Dropbox?
Jim
Quote from: Cyrano on August 28, 2014, 09:37:49 AM
When I get home, I'll see if I can't find a small scenario that comes recommended for H2H and send it your way...unless you've a mind to cherry-pick your own toys? Six and two threes by me...
You set up for Dropbox?
Jim
No that's fine.
I do have a dropbox account (I think).
Are we on the same version (or is RT already V3)?
I can see this could very easily develop into team play on the campaigns with each side passing their turn through, then passing to the other side. With commanders only able to email when it's their turn, it adds a certain novelty to the game - "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" - could be fun though. :)
Judge --
RT is 3.0 out of the box. Your profile e-mail the one to send the link to? I'll send tonight.
Boggit --
One of the great losses in the history of gaming was the collapse of CM Campaigns. I've done hotseat team games at home where each player played a single command. Down time was huge, but people had a good time.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Quote from: Cyrano on August 28, 2014, 10:12:00 AM
Judge --
RT is 3.0 out of the box. Your profile e-mail the one to send the link to? I'll send tonight.
Boggit --
One of the great losses in the history of gaming was the collapse of CM Campaigns. I've done hotseat team games at home where each player played a single command. Down time was huge, but people had a good time.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Yes it is - thanks.
Quote from: Boggit on August 28, 2014, 10:01:06 AM
I can see this could very easily develop into team play on the campaigns with each side passing their turn through, then passing to the other side. With commanders only able to email when it's their turn, it adds a certain novelty to the game - "Send three and fourpence, we're going to a dance" - could be fun though. :)
ooooooooooooooooo!
^^So maybe it's worth a punt PBEM? I'm wimping out now as I have too much other stuff on to make the commitment, but I'd think it would be great fun, say 3 a side. If any of you guys do ever try it out, please, please, please do an AAR of it. That would be awesome. O0
i turned down my free copy of RT and im short on time, but it sounds like a blast
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 28, 2014, 10:56:36 AM
i turned down my free copy of RT and im short on time, but it sounds like a blast
Well it doesn't have to be RT, there's CMBN+MG, CMFI+GL, CMSF, and CMA. Say 3 players a side each a platoon commander, and one taking company command, it should'nt be too bad for 2-3 turns a week, assuming you can pass the save game on then the last player sending the the PBEM. Obviously bigger battalion size actions give you more to do, but the game size really should be settled on what people are happy to commit to. Dammit, I'm selling it to myself now! ;D
it sounds awesome, epic but awesome - might be worth a shout to see if theres 6 interested
I would be up for it but can you do this?
There would have to be some logistic for naming the turns for each player and an agreed upon sequence to do this on. Would the force commander only be able to issue orders via email (ie A plattoon advance and secure the hedgerow by 0835). I guess the commander would be the only one to call in Arty through the FO unless one of the subordinates was given permission).
Could be very interesting to do this if possible
Con
yeah i figure commander in charge of arty and maybe IAVs and three subordinates with their platoons - commander watches it first, tells platoons where to go and then the platoons numbered 1, 2, and 3 do their orders in sequence finishing with 3rd platoon and then send on
Maybe Con, I think you're right in your thinking. As I see it based on the company scenario, the order should be this.
3 player - Designate Company Commander, 2nd Platoon Commander, 3rd Platoon Commander (with more players a side just alter the commands) [4 players really would be ideal, with 3 being platoon commanders]
Turn -
Company Commander issues orders by email to platoon commanders (including standing orders, whether sub commanders to communicate with each other etc.).
Company Commander moves HQ unit/Exec Officer/Fwd Observer/Company assets/1st Platoon (if 3 platoons and 3 players)
Company Commander saves game and emails to Platoon Commander 2
Platoon Commander 2 moves units under command
Platoon Commander 2 emails feedback to Company Commander/other platoon commanders if permitted in standing orders e.g calls for indirect fire, airstrikes, support requests etc
Platoon Commander 2 saves game and emails to Platoon Commander 3
Platoon Commander 3 does the same, but sends the PBEM file to the Company Commander of the other side.
Wash and repeat by the opposing side. Easy peasy... ::)
It's important to limit emails to one message sent by HQ to any sub commander and vice versa a minute to simulate signalling issues, and time to formulate a response. Basically the idea is that the Company Commander could be getting two requests, updates or whatever, but can only sensibly take and reply to just one of them in a minute turn. This should create a little uncertainty, particularly for Platoon Commanders about what actions/support is available to them. It also means that the Company Commander is under pressure, especially if a lot of unexpected stuff starts to happen.
I've probably made some glaring error there, but that's how I'd envisage it.
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 28, 2014, 11:28:02 AM
yeah i figure commander in charge of arty and maybe IAVs and three subordinates with their platoons - commander watches it first, tells platoons where to go and then the platoons numbered 1, 2, and 3 do their orders in sequence finishing with 3rd platoon and then send on
You just beat me to it, but basically that's more or less the lines I was thinking on. :)
How do you go about implementing FoW? I'd like the idea that the Platoon COs could only see what they/their chaps can see and the Company CO is similarly blinded, but I'm not sure you could do this except by scout's honour.
Pretty sure it would have to be scout's honor, yep.
Dang, you guys are going to talk me into spending a few hundred bucks on CMx3, aren't you? :P
(Because even if I got only one game and its 3.0 update, eventually I'd want to get them all and their 3.0 update.)
Also, don't forget that once the game turn is generated, each commander on a side needs to be sent a file of the film simultaneously (first one team's film and then the other I suppose -- I remember how CMx1 pbem used to work, don't know what CMx+ has changed.)
Quote from: JasonPratt on August 28, 2014, 12:40:49 PM
Pretty sure it would have to be scout's honor, yep.
Dang, you guys are going to talk me into spending a few hundred bucks on CMx3, aren't you? :P
(Because even if I got only one game and its 3.0 update, eventually I'd want to get them all and their 3.0 update.)
It's compelling isn't it? The more we talk about it, the better the house rules will be - only don't overcomplicate it or someone will trip up.
Definitely, on FOW it's scouts honour and just tabbing on just your own units. Another commander can warn you of danger, but if you misinterpret, or still don't see it then - tough!
In principle you're doing well with four/five already sniffing at the bait;
Con
Geek
Jason
Judge
Father Ted
One more and you can start talking teams, positions, and pretty important - the scenario!
Just a thought - you might want to tap Pinetree, Michael Dorosh and Pak40 on this - all veteran CM players AFAIK, and even if they don't make up the numbers, their views are likely to be very helpful. :)
Maybe the platoon leaders only use ground level view
While I agree that commanders should only be limited to tabbing on their units are we talking about the following for FOW (this is a question for discussion purposes).
1. Limit to only the units you command
2. Limit the camera view to FPS for your units
3. Disable icons for both sides.
My take is that implementing some of these we will have some problems that are inherent in any game like this. The most obvious one being how to place orders at a distance. There is a certain amount of CMBN micromanagement that is required to make sure your troops get to the correct side of a hedgerow or will engage a certain target or arc at a waypoint. If we limit our order making ability to first person I feel that while the friction of war will certainly be felt it would be unrealistic as well given that in real life you could provide more detailed orders to your troops then you can in CMBN.
A potential solution would be to allow the commander to only allow replays with first person perspectives of only the command unit and any unit that is in good contact (redline) of the command unit. However allow orders to be given as normal. This would limit the intel of what happened to squads that are executing your orders unless they can clearly report back to their CO unit. Lose the CO and no replays allowed you only get the initial turn and that is it. Of course this would have to be as said earlier under house rules scouts honor.
What do you think or is this making it too convoluted?
Thanks
Con
I'll just offer this from my own experience:
For your first go, keep it brutally simple. Each player gets 1/3 of the force available to his side and commands only that. He's free to look at anything he wants, but keeps hands off the other stuff. The commander, if one be necessary, is the last person to get the turn and compile it for the opponents. He also gets the FFOs.
Otherwise, we let everybody talk -- even between teams. The game of "telephone" that's built into this in the same room, much less over the Internet, will give you more than enough confusion!
Again, my tuppence.
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I agree with Cyrano
The first try should be simple forces, simple map and simple commands. Lets see how that plays out before we start trying to make rules that we dont know if they will work
Con
Plus 1....
Let's refine our own system not get confused by it
Logistically potentially a nightmare, but it could work. It would certainly be fun! I'd give it a go.
I agree with Con, Cyrano, and Geek. Keep it simple, and refine as you get into the game. I'm beginning to think that restricting views to eye level may be a restriction to far at this stage, as Con seems to be suggested.
Anyway with Panzerde on board you now have your two teams, so pick your teams, choose a company commander and suggest some company sized scenarios, or a QB if you prefer. For the first game, I'll try to help (time permitting) as an impartial umpire (as required) - if you'd like?
I'm in on this on the basis that the first attempt is an experiment to see how it works and rules may change as we go along. Also I don't have RT. Sorry.
Usually with CMBN PBEM you use H2HH (head to head helper) synced with Dropbox. Since this is a departure from how those systems work I think it needs to be set up as a direct email to each player.
One way to do this would be for the force commander to be given a title (I am thinking regimental) HQ for example RegHQ
They would get the turn plot their moves and save it and this is important NOT SUBMIT IT
Nomenclature
(Scenario Name) (HQ giving Orders) (Phase can be Orders and Final when completed) (Turn number)
eg
Dawn Patrol RegHQ Order 001
Email it to A squad leader
A Squad Leader opens it plots their turn and renames the file
Dawn Patrol AHQ 001
Email it to B squad leader who saves as
Dawn Patrol BHQ 001 etc
When all orders are done RegHQ saves the file as
Dawn Patrol RegHQ Final 001 and submits (this is important no one but the regHQ can hit the submit button)
When the turn comes back RegHQ sends the replay to A squad along with the save file now retitled with the phase as Orders and the sequence repeats. A squad now needs to send the replay file AND the saved file to B etc. Rinse and repeat
Would this sequence work or is there an easier way?
Con
^^It seems perfectly rational to me. O0 Why not run with it and review it as a group after a few turns if it's not working as you'd like?
Just thinking, this could make an awesome AAR with reporting say 5/6 turns behind the current turn so you don't give much away to the other side? What do you think? :coolsmiley:
Judge -- E-mail with Dropbox link sent!
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
I think some other housekeeping needs to be discussed (again I am just throwing these out there if anyone has a better or more efficient suggestion I am all for it).
1. If a player can not make their turn (ie travel etc) then the RegHQ puts in the orders for that player as well.
2. The RegHQ needs to have a delegate that can take over for them if the same apples
3. A common password for the side must be provided for the players to open the turn
4. If a non RegHQ player hits submit by mistake they need to delete the now outgoing turn and load up the save that was sent to them and replot their turn and then send it to the next player. Only the RegHQ can submit the turn to the opposing sides and they need to setup the PBEM connection to their counterpart.
5. I think we need to try and commit to at least two hopefully three completed turns a week that means all players have to complete at minimum a turn every two days. It would be great if we could do a turn a night
6. Due to item 5 I would highly recommend that we chose a scenario not longer than 45 minutes
Communication in the game is going to be key everyone should be pretty open if they are going to be able to provide the time and their turn portion in a timely manner.
I wonder if we could setup a shared folder on dropbox that would make it easier for each player to go into the folder check and see if a turn has been moved forward to that particular players sequence in providing a turn. That would save emailing a lot. The RegHQ on each side could then use H2HH to send the Final turn in to each other
Quote from: Con on August 28, 2014, 07:32:47 PM
I think some other housekeeping needs to be discussed (again I am just throwing these out there if anyone has a better or more efficient suggestion I am all for it).
1. If a player can not make their turn (ie travel etc) then the RegHQ puts in the orders for that player as well.
2. The RegHQ needs to have a delegate that can take over for them if the same apples
3. A common password for the side must be provided for the players to open the turn
4. If a non RegHQ player hits submit by mistake they need to delete the now outgoing turn and load up the save that was sent to them and replot their turn and then send it to the next player. Only the RegHQ can submit the turn to the opposing sides and they need to setup the PBEM connection to their counterpart.
5. I think we need to try and commit to at least two hopefully three completed turns a week that means all players have to complete at minimum a turn every two days. It would be great if we could do a turn a night
6. Due to item 5 I would highly recommend that we chose a scenario not longer than 45 minutes
Communication in the game is going to be key everyone should be pretty open if they are going to be able to provide the time and their turn portion in a timely manner.
I wonder if we could setup a shared folder on dropbox that would make it easier for each player to go into the folder check and see if a turn has been moved forward to that particular players sequence in providing a turn. That would save emailing a lot. The RegHQ on each side could then use H2HH to send the Final turn in to each other
this bit makes a lot of sense
Quote from: Cyrano on August 28, 2014, 07:21:40 PM
Judge -- E-mail with Dropbox link sent!
Best,
Jim
"Cyrano"
:/7)
Got it thanks.
back in the day we kept it real simple.
you have 6 players each of which gets their kampfgruppe. each sides PBEM is password protected.
at the time the group I was playing with had lots of different games together so teamspeak was our primary comms.
the first guy would plot his moves and e-mail the file to the next teammate and so on. then the file would be sent to the first person on the next team and so on. it worked like a charm.
once you start adding all kinds of bullshit to the procedure it just fucks things up.
I remember one specific game where the team that had a very regimented command structure just collapsed due to our decentralized and fluid tempo.
the fact that I had the SS Panther group helped. :coolsmiley:
Wow this is great! RP in CM. Each commanding a platoon or so. If there still is a spot I would love to join in.
The turns can be saved in the planning phase, just the same as with CMx1, so player 1 plots his moves, then sends it to player 2, who plots his moves etc until all people on that side are done with their units and boom a gogo!
Me me me!
ok so CMBN? Commonwealth? MG? RT?
and 3.0 or not?
and then we can decide teams
Please write AAR!
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 26, 2014, 10:40:34 AM
yeah, i fear everything been shelved when elite goes full on, so easy to forget its in beta and nowhere near feature complete
When is the completion projected to be?
Quote from: undercovergeek on August 29, 2014, 03:12:22 AM
ok so CMBN? Commonwealth? MG? RT?
and 3.0 or not?
and then we can decide teams
I certainly need to know so I can buy properly. :P
Also, I strongly recommend that an ad/mod or Cyrano modify the thread title to show what it's about now, and add a link to the original post down to where the planning began.
As to icons... I'm a bit torn about that, as they visually represent feedback which don't translate well into game terms: noise contact primarily.
This is shaping up nicely. There are some good ideas coming up.
Title of thread changed.
Game on, gentlemen!
Jim
As for which game, I can do any of them, and all of mine are upgraded to 3.0.
I think the general idea of each player on a team plotting his moves and then the CO mailing the completed turn to the other side makes sense. I also agree with Star: keep it simple and avoid all extraneous BS! Complex systems break.
Do you guys have enough people? I bought RT a while back, though I'm not an expert at CM2.
I've only tried 2 RT scenarios. The first little one with the German patrol, and I've had a few false starts with the medium one where the Germans are defending a village and town against a large Russian force crossing a river. I call them false because nothing I tried seemed to work. In one go, my AT gun in the village got spotted and pounded by the "crack" Russian tankers before it could even move or fire. In another, T-34's smothered in riflemen came pouring into the village in an unstoppable horde. I thought tank riders were supposed to jump off when they got into action, but these guys were riding around in circles, AP rounds, MG's, and rifles blazing at anything that moved! ::)
Quote from: Ubercat on August 29, 2014, 07:04:50 PM
Do you guys have enough people? I bought RT a while back, though I'm not an expert at CM2.
I've only tried 2 RT scenarios. The first little one with the German patrol, and I've had a few false starts with the medium one where the Germans are defending a village and town against a large Russian force crossing a river. I call them false because nothing I tried seemed to work. In one go, my AT gun in the village got spotted and pounded by the "crack" Russian tankers before it could even move or fire. In another, T-34's smothered in riflemen came pouring into the village in an unstoppable horde. I thought tank riders were supposed to jump off when they got into action, but these guys were riding around in circles, AP rounds, MG's, and rifles blazing at anything that moved! ::)
There's 6 so far with Yskonym since interested, plus yourself, so making 8. I'd have thought 4 a side manageable. I don't think you'd want this first game - as it's pretty much an experiment - to get too much larger than that. What do the rest of you guys think?
I think it would be interesting form a game perspective if we have 4 a side to have a CO with HQ and maybe armor, two sub HQ platoons, and an FO for arty. I think ti would be challenging to coordinate arty if it was a separate command. I can totally see the wrong hedgerow getting pounded because of a mis-communication in the email orders from the CO.
I have CMBN both modules and CMRT all patched to 3.0. I dont have the FI modules so I can do West front and East Front
Con
If we get to the point of having enough people, and the scenario is a larger one (battalion combat team) we could always have some of the team take the role of staff rather than directly commanding units. On the surface is might not sound as interesting as actually getting to move pixel truppen. Having to act as the G2 or G3 and assess intel or develop and overall operations strategy and then get a bunch of eager to charge field commanders to listen and implement it adds some really fun an interesting immersion to something like this. If you've ever participated in the staff wargaming exercise at Origins you'll understand.
Something like that might lend itself best Teamspeak, however. It's probably also not the best idea for the first game out of the shoot.
Quote from: Con on August 29, 2014, 07:23:44 PM
I think it would be interesting form a game perspective if we have 4 a side to have a CO with HQ and maybe armor, two sub HQ platoons, and an FO for arty.
+1
Quote from: Con on August 29, 2014, 07:23:44 PM
I think ti would be challenging to coordinate arty if it was a separate command. I can totally see the wrong hedgerow getting pounded because of a mis-communication in the email orders from the CO.
Definitely a big +1. Imagine that with a platoon commander ordered to attack the following turn, and knowing the guns haven't taken out the opposition - kinda reminds me of the film Gallipoli where the Battalion Commander tells the Brigadier that the artillery has not disrupted the Turks, that they are sat waiting for them, and asks to abort the attack - he is then reminded of his attack order, and is told "sorry, but those are our orders..." with the inevitable result...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-kVrdc9g_s (Sorry I couldn't find a clip with the Battalion Commander/Brigadier as well)
BTW if you haven't seen it, I recommend the full film, which is a good example of the lack of common sense in the face of the evidence, and the problems of communicating the facts with a chaotic command structure.
I like the idea of this, if you need another guy count me in. Might have to be on the alternate list cause it looks like you have enough bodies, but my experience with these mp CM efforts is that RL will always create a need for alternate players to step in.
Quote from: Skoop on August 30, 2014, 03:34:53 PM
I like the idea of this, if you need another guy count me in. Might have to be on the alternate list cause it looks like you have enough bodies, but my experience with these mp CM efforts is that RL will always create a need for alternate players to step in.
"Speirs! Get down there and take that attack on in!"
Just to clarify: CMBN + modules + v3.0 = $95 (or maybe $105 since the dropmenu has the price $10 more, or maybe $115 to get download and physical.)
CMRT = $55 or $65 with physical as well as download.
CMFI + v3.0 = $85 or $95 with physical as well as download.
So.... yeah, I won't be buying them all at once. ::)
And relatedly, I'll want to make sure I know which one will be played before I order whichever it is.
I just looked and they have a bundle set for $55.
As it's experimental and could fall flat on it's arse why don't we make the first one vanilla cmbn.... well all have it and no major purchase required
just keep it simple and it wont fall flat on its face. you dont need a complex command structure or any at all. just a simple way of emailing turns to the right people is all you need.
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 31, 2014, 04:31:04 AM
just keep it simple and it wont fall flat on its face. you dont need a complex command structure or any at all. just a simple way of emailing turns to the right people is all you need.
Agreed - just trying to keep costs down for the likes of JP
If we agree games we can agree teams
And then command structure
Are you guys going to post a running 'DAR' here?
Quote from: GDS_Starfury on August 30, 2014, 09:03:34 PM
I just looked and they have a bundle set for $55.
Which bundle?? I was looking at their website when I typed up those prices. The only thing I saw for $55 was RT, which isn't a bundle (and which also doesn't need the 3.0 upgrade of course.)
{looking} Did you mean the CMBN + Commonwealth? It says game engine 2.12 -- is that with the 3.0 patch? I remember it doesn't actually patch other games to their versions 3.0 (for goofy tech reasons which make no sense since the number of a version is purely a human affectation for human convenience.)
{looking} Okay, no, the v3.0 patch requires 2.12 first. So actually it would $65. Or $75 if I get both the dl (for quicker play) and a physical copy for backup.
If you're doing CMBN instead of CMRT, I'll sit this one out. I already paid $10 for the 2.0 patch (Oh wait! Sorry, I meant upgrade!). I'm not prepared pay another $10 for the next one.
It looks like you have plenty of people, anyhow.
not decided yet uber - waiting for the masses to choose
Quote from: Skoop on August 30, 2014, 03:34:53 PM
I like the idea of this, if you need another guy count me in. Might have to be on the alternate list cause it looks like you have enough bodies, but my experience with these mp CM efforts is that RL will always create a need for alternate players to step in.
It makes sense to have a couple of reserves in case so drops out/can't make a turn or two.
Quote from: panzerde on August 28, 2014, 04:49:22 PM
Logistically potentially a nightmare, but it could work. It would certainly be fun! I'd give it a go.
I participated in one of the Tank Rumbles in CMBO years ago. It was similar, but each player on each team commanded a
single tank. It worked out quite well as I remember. The confusion was part of the fun.
I'm going to vote for CMRT. Less chance of version confusion, people don't have to buy upgrades, and if someone does have to buy the game, they only have to buy the game itself.
Just seems like the simplest solution.
OK so we need to decide (vote?) on the following key criteria. Unless someone has a better idea I would use the questions below and quote them in your answer (see my example below). Once the sides are chosen we will need to make sure that we have an easy way of communicating. I am thinking email address? Please feel free to edit delete or add to these questions but I think we need to try and keep it as simple as possible to start with.
Quote1. Game (Choices CMBN or CMRT) Base games only for the first round seems to be the consensus
2. Finalize number of players and sides
3. Determine Map and Forces (meeting engagement, attack etc) I am thinking that we will need to do a QB so that we can get forces to balance for the number of players. This would mean if CMRT then the Russians would perhaps require an extra body or two
4. Choose a leader for each side to setup the game and use H2HH for the macro turn between the sides
5. Decide if we are using Dropbox for passing turns or email. If dropbox we will all need to have access to the shared folder
6. Mode of communication (Email address)
7. Other
1. CMBN
2 I would prefer to be German Army
3. Small map Bocage Meeting Engagement Mixed forces no adjustment August Day Clear
4. TBD
5. I would prefer Dropbox (I already have it installed)
6. email (Do we give out emails in a forum or do we need to send each other a PM to do this?)
7 no other questions at the moment
Quote1. Game (Choices CMBN or CMRT or CMItaly) Base games only for the first round seems to be the consensus
2. Finalize number of players and sides
3. Determine Map and Forces (meeting engagement, attack etc) I am thinking that we will need to do a QB so that we can get forces to balance for the number of players. This would mean if CMRT then the Russians would perhaps require an extra body or two
4. Choose a leader for each side to setup the game and use H2HH for the macro turn between the sides
5. Decide if we are using Dropbox for passing turns or email. If dropbox we will all need to have access to the shared folder
6. Mode of communication (Email address)
7. Other
1.) For theater interest I'd rather go Fortress Italy or East Front (though I wouldn't say no to West); for financial interest, East Front makes the obvious sense.
2.) Still tbd. Do the base games feature any minors, or are they always Germs vs. Whoever? Greeks vs. Italians or something like that might make a good starting game.
3.) A 20 minute scuffle could run for 10 weeks!! A 10 or 15 minute game sounds better.
4.) Still tbd.
5.) How large are the turn files? They could be zipped here in a thread, or by pm, couldn't they? Team passwords would prevent enemy spying.
6.) Seems like texting players could get a faster comm than email. I only check my email once or twice a day; but my cell phone is always nearby somewhere.
7.) :uglystupid2: :smitten: O:-) :crazy2: :D :2funny: :-X
Quote1. Game (Choices CMBN or CMRT) Base games only for the first round seems to be the consensus
2. Finalize number of players and sides
3. Determine Map and Forces (meeting engagement, attack etc) I am thinking that we will need to do a QB so that we can get forces to balance for the number of players. This would mean if CMRT then the Russians would perhaps require an extra body or two
4. Choose a leader for each side to setup the game and use H2HH for the macro turn between the sides
5. Decide if we are using Dropbox for passing turns or email. If dropbox we will all need to have access to the shared folder
6. Mode of communication (Email address)
7. Other
1. Either, though I probably lean toward CMRT.
2. I'll play any side, whichever needs someone to complete the OOB
3. God save me from bocage. Still, I'll play it. If we're going to have armor the map needs at least a little size to it.
4. Agree that's the process, TBD on who is the CO for each side. I'm thinking probably Con and Geek, since they started this.
5. Dropbox. It's just easier. I have a IFTTT recipe to send me an email anytime anything shows up in one of my PBEM folders if anyone wants it.
6. Email. Mine is in my forum profile.
7. Rosebud
Quote from: Con on August 31, 2014, 07:30:20 PM
OK so we need to decide (vote?) on the following key criteria. Unless someone has a better idea I would use the questions below and quote them in your answer (see my example below). Once the sides are chosen we will need to make sure that we have an easy way of communicating. I am thinking email address? Please feel free to edit delete or add to these questions but I think we need to try and keep it as simple as possible to start with.
1. Game (Choices CMBN or CMRT) Base games only for the first round seems to be the consensus
2. Finalize number of players and sides
3. Determine Map and Forces (meeting engagement, attack etc) I am thinking that we will need to do a QB so that we can get forces to balance for the number of players. This would mean if CMRT then the Russians would perhaps require an extra body or two
4. Choose a leader for each side to setup the game and use H2HH for the macro turn between the sides
5. Decide if we are using Dropbox for passing turns or email. If dropbox we will all need to have access to the shared folder
6. Mode of communication (Email address)
7. Other
1. CMBN
2. US
3. QB, small map, meeting engagement
4. Not played by email before, so wouldn't make a good leader!
5. I have drop box
6. Happy to PM email address
7. Happy to sit out if RT is chosen - will watch with interest though!
I dont have CMFI.
CMRT or CMBN (with all modules) is fine.
Not a big deal cuz it's just pixel truppen, but I prefer cmrt in a sense that I can play either side and careless. I feel so dirty playing the Germans in cmbn.
Cmrt is looking popular
OK I just did a little test assuming the following
Platform = CMRT
QB - Map Rough Water - Forrest Mix 074 - Sept 1944 Day Clear
Battle = 30 minutes meeting engagements (I think it needs to be kept short and fast to force both sides to push to engage and keep the turn sequencing to go fast)
Force = Mix no adjustment
Using Germans I got the following forces for 25600 in points and same for rarity (I am not going to give the exact allocations but this is a guideline)
Player 1
HQ
2 Armor Vehicles
Player 2
1 Company (3 platoons) Infantry
Player 3
2 Company (3 platoons) Infantry
Player 4
1X FO
1X Off board large caliber Arty (not mortars)
I will try and do a similar trial with the Russians but I think it is safe to assume that they will need at least 4 players as well
Con
OK Same scenario rough outline of potential Russian Force with same points = 2560
Player 1
HQ
4 Armor Vehicles
Player 2
SMG Platoon (3 squads dismounted)
Player 3
1st Rifle Company 2 platoons, 1 MG platoon 1 Sniper
Player 4
2nd Rifle Company 3 Platoons, 1MG Platoon, 1 Sniper
Player 5
FO 1 Field Gun Battery
So the Germans got 25600 points and the Russians 2560?
Seems legit for Barbarossa... >:D
Quote from: JasonPratt on September 02, 2014, 04:23:09 PM
So the Germans got 25600 points and the Russians 2560?
Seems legit for Barbarossa... >:D
Yeah, but they get those same 2560 points a million times...
^^ Over and over again. 8)
We have lost momentum, chaps!
Quote from: JudgeDredd on August 28, 2014, 09:36:12 AM
I bailed on UCG - mainly because at the time I didn't have my heart in a PBEM. We didn't start one - I bailed before it was even set up I think!
Well how would you like to fire up a small engagement (thanks for the offer by the way)...maybe a few platoons, a tank or two, scout car - that kind of size...nothing mega.
hmmm I think I experienced this too! :P
oh - maybe it was you Tuna....I definitely didn't try it twice!
Quote from: Con on September 01, 2014, 08:59:57 PM
OK Same scenario rough outline of potential Russian Force with same points = 2560
Player 1
HQ
4 Armor Vehicles
Player 2
SMG Platoon (3 squads dismounted)
Player 3
1st Rifle Company 2 platoons, 1 MG platoon 1 Sniper
Player 4
2nd Rifle Company 3 Platoons, 1MG Platoon, 1 Sniper
Player 5
FO 1 Field Gun Battery
Player 5 (player 4 for the Germans) wouldn't have much to do IMO. Maybe the FO/arty could be under the remit of the HQ player?
How is it working out so far?
I think we need to dragoon someone into being the organizer.
Unfortunately, whilst I have the 3 original CM games, I have non of the new ones or I'd jump in. :(
Whichever way you guys go I would highly recommend keeping the scenario as small as possible (in the number of units for each player). I would also suggest a short test run of a few turns to make sure the play sequence is doable with the least amount of confusion. Maybe each player runs a single vehicle in a 3 on 3 or or 4 on 4 battle.