Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?

Multiplayer Idea (one battle with several players)

K

Kraut

Guest
The idea is certainly not new, but I would like to discuss it and try it if there are fellow wargamers willing to participate:

The game would be on a quick battle map (meeting engagement) in which each side has 2 Infantry Companies (750 points each) and a Battalion HQ with supporting units (on map mortar or on map artillery and/or some vehicles or tanks (750points).

Each side has then 3 Players. 2 Players command each one Infantry company and the third player commands the Battalion HQ and supporting units. Also the Battallion HQ player gives the order to Infantry Companies Commanders (where to move, capture, defend...) Both player commanding the Companies have to follow the orders of the player which plays the Battalion HQ, but they have some freedom how to accomplish exact their given task.

Technically I would suggest that each side has one shared password and after all 3 player of each side have given their orders the turn will be exchanged with the opponent team. (The first player gives his order to his units and then saves the game, only after all three have given their orders, the last player clicks „end of turn button“.
Therefore there would be one dropbox folder internally for each team and one shared dropbox folder for both teams where the turns are exchanged.

Now the important question: does this work, how could it be improved and are there fellow wargamers interested to play this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have played in a similar battle, though with only two players per side ... no OC per side, specifically.

The mechanics and turn exchanges worked fine, and I found it interesting and fun.

I think it sounds better with an OC per side to be honest, to give that overall direction, which we had to work out between the two of us in the battle I played ... provided that all three players per side agree on the boundaries of their commands!

I’d be interested in playing again ... but ideally not on a QB / meeting engagement map basis, as such QBs usually end up like a game of cowboys v Indians (with apologies for non-PC terminology) in my experience ... ie rather unstructured for my taste ...
 
think it sounds better with an OC per side to be honest, to give that overall direction, which we had to work out between the two of us in the battle I played ... provided that all three players per side agree on the boundaries of their commands!
In your opinion should the OC have also his own on map troops?

d be interested in playing again ... but ideally not on a QB / meeting engagement map basis, as such QBs usually end up like a game of cowboys v Indians (with apologies for non-PC terminology) in my experience ... ie rather unstructured for my taste
I agree, one suggestion would be that the ratio map size vs amount of units is heavily reduced so that there is more space, or to take a scenario.
What scenario do you have in mind?
 
Yes, I agree that the OC should have some direct control over the forces, as well as setting / amending goals, etc: perhaps control over artillery assets? Or over a reserve, to be allocated as he sees fit? Or perhaps include in-game reinforcements, that are allocated by the OC? There has to be enough of a “part” for the OC to play?

Sorry, haven’t yet tried to find / think of a specific scenario, but I would tend to go for one of the larger ones, to give enough physical map space, and number of units, to present a control challenge, so that each player isn’t fighting with just a few squads of infantry ...

The one I played was in CMBN, but any of the titles would work of course. (Personally I like CMFI ... some different forces and terrain challenge.)
 
For a CMFI scenario my first thoughts would be:
1. "GL Lost" modified so that the two German Company Comanders will each have a reduced Company (- one or two platoons), but maybe the battle is too small for 3 players at each side.
2. or maybe a huge scenario would fit better something like "GL Lancing the Abscess" where the players can command a battalion? Or "Hot Mustard"?

Also I think a quick battle with a large or huge map with fewer then possible units would be a good idea. Maybe only 75% points spending is allowed?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Hardradi,@JTimo and I are doing a battle like this. We had @Herroberst63 but he had to quit due to RL issues. If you need the system let us know.
Fantastic! Please let me know, if you like, how your setup for the multiplayer battle has been and what your experience about this kind of battle is? What needs to be considered in your opinion? Did you play 2 vs 2?
 
It had a bit of a learning curve but we settled in quite nicely. We played a CMFI campaign game, then we set up a large CMFB meeting engagement, which we are currently playing. I really enjoy the experience of commanding a battalion and @Hardradi commanding one as well. (We even named the battalions) I thought about your concept of having 3 players per side as well, but we play with only 2. We have a DB that we all share. @Hardradi and I share a DB. We have designated that I take the first turn after our opponents. I see the turn appear in CMH, once I do my part I “Save” the file and QUIT the turn. I drop the saved file into what I refer to as the bts DB (Saved files are bts files as opposed to ema files, this is the DB we share) @Hardradi then opens the file, does his part and drops it back into the DB we all share. It’s actually quite easy.
 
For this to work, I think there will be some rules to prevent communication betwen players turning into a discussion club about who should do what.

Also, the higher rank player should be prevented from micromanaging the units of his subordinates.
 
For this to work, I think there will be some rules to prevent communication betwen players turning into a discussion club about who should do what.

Also, the higher rank player should be prevented from micromanaging the units of his subordinates.
I envisioned the Battalion Commander making strategic plans, the Company commanders making the Tactical ones.
 
For this to work, I think there will be some rules to prevent communication betwen players turning into a discussion club about who should do what.
This is the reason I thought that the third player (highest rank) would be a good idea and that the other two player are company or battalion leaders. This should prevent most of the discussions in my estimation. The third player should be an experienced player who knows what he does. About what kind of specific additional rules are you thinking?

Also, the higher rank player should be prevented from micromanaging the units of his subordinates.
This means that the subordinates have (some) freedom in how they are going to accomplish their given task? Like the Auftragstaktik (mission command) which has been a doctrine of the Wehrmacht?
 
@Hardradi,@JTimo and I are doing a battle like this. We had @Herroberst63 but he had to quit due to RL issues. If you need the system let us know.
As Bucky said, our first multi-player competition was a, 3 game, CMFI campaign. The first two games were played 1v1, and the third battle was played multi-player, 2 v 2. The map for the third game was huge and included all of the game 1 and 2 maps with additional area between them, which held the game 3 victory locations, and additional depth beyond the northern edge of the first two maps, which provided strong defensive overwatch positions for the German players.
Our Allied plan was for an armor heavy strike up the east flank, penetrating deep across the rear to neutralize the German defensive overwatch positions while the non-mechanized infantry more methodically attacked from the west and south to take the victory locations in the center. @Herroberst63 aggressively commanded the armored thrust, while I conducted the infantry attack. The German players surrendered soon after their rear area overwatch positions were neutralized.

This campaign appeared to be a great opportunity to play a multi-player game, but overall, I think this must have been less than exciting for the defending players. The map size and force size were great for the Allied player, but the Germans didn't appear to have the forces that would allow many options, other than to setup, and watch the game play itself out.

Another issue was the turn rate. I prefer a detailed (i.e. ground level) style of play. For my part in this game, I commanded almost two battalions of infantry, an engineer platoon, and two tank platoons. It's a lot of work to play that style of game with that many units, and you often cut corners to keep the game going. To a degree, this was probably also true of the other players in the game, as it wasn't unusual for a single turn to take more than 3 days. Players playing the part of an FC should be ready to adopt a modified set of @A Canadian Cat 's Hard Cat Rules by exerting less direct fire control, particularly where they spend a lot of time trying to assign area targeting orders to locations where they have no known contact.

I'd suggest you try something small and quick to get a feel for the process, and only when you have 4 or 6 players who are comfortable with it, move up to a larger, more interesting game. Make sure that game will offer both sides some interesting options. Something along the lines of a scenario that offers some back and forth play.

Also, setup your sides to allow for a good flow across time zones

I like the idea of an OC with responsibilities for the command and control of support elements. Ideally, the OC would also have a reserve or scenario reinforcements to be assigned at his discretion. As for discussion between the OC, and his FCs, that is part of the fun, and the OC should have the final say, but the FCs plot the moves, and those moves cannot be modified by the OC, although a good OC could substitute at the request of an FC who is encountering an occasional RL issue.

The one hard and fast rule is that all parties involved be able to play their part in the spirit of having fun.
 
@JTimo
Thank you for posting your experience and ideas about multiplayer battles! This is helping me a lot.


The map size and force size were great for the Allied player, but the Germans didn't appear to have the forces that would allow many options, other than to setup, and watch the game play itself out.
Exactly, the best to avoid that would be a meeting engagement, or to make sure that the defenders have enough maneuver elements.

Players playing the part of an FC should be ready to adopt a modified set of @A Canadian Cat 's Hard Cat Rules by exerting less direct fire control, particularly where they spend a lot of time trying to assign area targeting orders to locations where they have no known contact.
I agree, that would be fantastic and more realistic approach. I saw that there is a new version 2 update for these rules.

I like the idea of an OC with responsibilities for the command and control of support elements. Ideally, the OC would also have a reserve or scenario reinforcements to be assigned at his discretion. As for discussion between the OC, and his FCs, that is part of the fun, and the OC should have the final say, but the FCs plot the moves, and those moves cannot be modified by the OC, although a good OC could substitute at the request of an FC who is encountering an occasional RL issue.
Exactly what I am thinking about this!


I'd suggest you try something small and quick to get a feel for the process, and only when you have 4 or 6 players who are comfortable with it, move up to a larger, more interesting game. Make sure that game will offer both sides some interesting options. Something along the lines of a scenario that offers some back and forth play.
That is a solid proposal and maybe the best way to get it started and produce own experience about this kind of battle setting.
 
I’m interested in joining! I was just thinking yesterday about how to do a co-op PBEM and ran a “proof of concept” test to see how multiple files for one turn would work. It would take some planning to keep things organized but can definitely work.
I like the idea of a scenario. A meeting engagement QB could also be interesting ... a large / huge map with limited point spending would allow for more recon and maneuver which would allow each individual player more flexibility in their approach.
 
I’m interested in joining! I was just thinking yesterday about how to do a co-op PBEM and ran a “proof of concept” test to see how multiple files for one turn would work. It would take some planning to keep things organized but can definitely work.
I like the idea of a scenario. A meeting engagement QB could also be interesting ... a large / huge map with limited point spending would allow for more recon and maneuver which would allow each individual player more flexibility in their approach.
I can help with how the turns work
 
I’m interested in joining! I was just thinking yesterday about how to do a co-op PBEM and ran a “proof of concept” test to see how multiple files for one turn would work. It would take some planning to keep things organized but can definitely work.
I like the idea of a scenario. A meeting engagement QB could also be interesting ... a large / huge map with limited point spending would allow for more recon and maneuver which would allow each individual player more flexibility in their approach.

Fantastic! Which side do you want to join?
I will start a list about who would like to play.
The idea would be a large or huge scenario or a quick battle with reduced points for purchase. Three players each side (OC and two FC).
Also we can discuss if we instead prefer to start a smaller battle before (2 companies + support) to learn the mechanics?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@Buckykatt explained how we have been doing it. The only things I can add are:

a) The quick battle scenario is cleaner because it is easier to get a nice division of troops between the players. We each have our own named Battalion as Buckykatt mentioned. Whereas in the scenario we had to do a split across battalions and other groupings.

b) I wrote a batch file file for my part of the turn. All I have to do is hit it and it copies all the files from "bts" Dropbox folder to my FB saved game folder. It just over writes all the files when I hit "A'" at the prompt as well as copying in the new file Buckykatt has put in the Dropbox folder. Its very primitive but does the job.

xcopy /s "C:\Users\Your user name\Dropbox\BTS files" "C:\Users\Your user name\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Final Blitzkrieg\Game Files\Saved Games"
pause

Before that I would just manually open the Dropbox folder and copy it to the FB saved game folder which is just as easy but more time consuming.

c) It works a lot better than I thought it would.
 
I agree with starting small just to get familiar with the mechanics.
Also I would keep it short, as JTimo says it could take 3 or 4 days per turn depending on time zones and availability.
That means a 30 minute game could take upwards of 3 months.

You can count me in if the FC's control a company size unit.
I'd rather not control a battalion.
 
Another idea for this kind of game:

The Battalion commander might not actually need to be "in" the game. He could give orders by email. And get regular updates, just a top-down screenshot of friendly and enemy contact markers on the map. Before the game begins, he could give preliminary orders about what each player is expected to achieve, and maybe a rough timetable.

He could also accept or deny player requests for fire missions. The player would plot the fire mission, and send the commander a screenshot that shows the firing asset, target line, and mission type. Then he might accept or deny. Or it could be done that each player would independently email the commander with their request, and then only be alowed to plot the mission in the game once he got the go-ahead.

This would mean that sometimes, a player would be turned down because the other player suggested a better target and got priority of fire.

The commander could also decide where pre-battle bombardments would take place - again by email, just by drawing for example a line on a screenshot.
 
@Bulletpoint
I like your idea and I think it is as good as if the highest ranking Commander would be playing on map. It is different, but also very promising as it would bring a different emersion. I think also a bit more realistic, because the Commander would rely on the message and reports he get from his FC‘s and there would be a lot more fog of war the Commander has to deal with (also the friendly units situation a bit foggy). The Commander would need constantly reports from his FC‘s about casualties, suppression, enemy movement and many more...
 
Back
Top