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?
Register

Multiplayer Idea (one battle with several players)

Kraut said:
@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...
Click to expand...

It would of course need players to have discipline.. if they see the commander gives a wrong order, they still have to try to carry it out. But of course they can interpret the order in various ways.

To give even more of a challenge, thre could be a rule that the commander only got situation updates every, say, five turns. That would also mean that the game could be played faster because the commander would not have to get involved every turn.

Just some ideas.
 
Kraut said:
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?
Click to expand...

I would be happy to join either side. Like others have said I think a smaller battle like you described would be ideal to work out any bugs.
 
fivefivesix said:
I would be happy to join either side. Like others have said I think a smaller battle like you described would be ideal to work out any bugs.
Click to expand...

Okay, now we have @Gunner, @fivefivesix, and @Kraut. Let's take for the start a battle with two companies and one Battalion commander.

@PhilM, @JP48, Am I am allowed to write you in?

Any other fellow wargamers interested? We could need your experience and capabilities @Bulletpoint, @Buckykatt, @JTimo @Hardradi

If there are more than 6 players we can try to start a second battle simultaneously.
 
Kraut said:
Any other fellow wargamers interested? We could need your experience and capabilities @Bulletpoint, @Buckykatt, @JTimo @Hardradi
Click to expand...
Thanks for the invite, but my short “tanzen” card is currently full.

@Kraut, not sure if you are a new or returning member, but I’ve noticed your recent involvements, and I’d just like to say that it is much appreciated. People like yourself, @Gunner, and @Rico are big contributers here at FGM, and help to make it the great club that it is.
 
And just a few thoughts / suggestions on procedure ...

Need to distinguish between rules, that both sides / all players must follow, and options / guidance that may be used at discretion.

I think that the OCs have to see the actual game map as it evolves - too remote if not - but only every (say) five turns, to generate some FOW?

I had thought of the FCs submitting verbal requests for fire missions to the OC, with OC actually plotting the missions he decides to put into effect as part of his game turn ... so can only be actioned every fifth minute when OC sees the file ... and may get targeted wrongly if OC gets wrong message about what is asked for?
 
PhilM said:
Yep, please include me.
Click to expand...
Fantastic! I am glad about this.

Buckykatt said:
I have a full plate at this time as well but I’d love to be kept in the loop to see how things are going once the battle starts.
Click to expand...

That would be great! Maybe you can help us solving a problem with your multiplayer-battle experience and we can together experience if the third (highest rank) player makes sense and what can be improved regarding rules and gameplay and technical process.
 
Kraut said:
Fantastic! I am glad about this.



That would be great! Maybe you can help us solving a problem with your multiplayer-battle experience and we can together experience if the third (highest rank) player makes sense and what can be improved regarding rules and gameplay and technical process.
Click to expand...
I originally wanted to have a Battalion commander with 2 Company commanders for each side. The Battalion commanders would only be able to move/access his unit, but would supply strategic directions for the battles.

One player has to choose units for both players as you can’t save in the middle of the force selection screen, so those two players have to have some good communication prior to force selection.

One player from each side has to be the “First” one to access the turn then passing it along to the 2nd player. There can’t be any changing this I don’t believe so to make turns uniform each time. In our games I was the “First” player always passing the 2nd part of the turn to @Hardradi along with my opinions/thoughts. He then takes his turn and provides insight on it. (We have a PM just for this on FGM) I found this to be a fun way to see how others view the same battlefield.

All players involved have a PM for communication. It is used to set things up and provide info on RL issues if any.

I hope all this isn’t old news for you guys.
 
Gunner said:
Are you saying that the OC would be in contact with the FC's by radio (i.e. email)?
Would the OC see the map or turn files?
Click to expand...

My idea is that the OC would communicate with the FCs by email and the only type of screenshot he would be allowed to see would be a top-down shot of all the contacts. So he'd have to make decisions based on that.

But since there are no topographic lines in the game, the OC would be allowed to open up the map in the game before the battle started, and do a proper flyover to get a feel for the terrain. But only before the game. Not during the battle.

Also, the OC would not be allowed to micromanage his subordinates. For example, he would be allowed to say "You will advance to the farm and take up defensive positions facing NW", but not "You will advance to the farm and put your 76mm Sherman in hulldown next to the dead cow"
 
Last edited:
@Bulletpoint, you would be a perfect Battalions Commander for this multiplayer battle and also your help and ideas could be fantastic to improve this game mode. I am optimistic that we can find consensus for the rule of the Commander.

Sir, can I recruit you as a battle commander?
 
I'm not sure what the value of an OC is here.
The scenario already has VL's that supposedly the higher ups have deemed objectives the FC's are tasked at taking.
How they go about it should be up to the FC.
 
Gunner said:
I'm not sure what the value of an OC is here.
The scenario already has VL's that supposedly the higher ups have deemed objectives the FC's are tasked at taking.
How they go about it should be up to the FC.
Click to expand...
In my estimation the OC would improve immersion and also help to coordinate the two FC's. The OC would as highest ranked player decide the strategy and therefore there would be no discussion needed between the FC's about the the strategy and tasks. I also find this a cool feature which could improve realism and would be worth to give it a try. Maybe it will work, or not. Let us see...
 
I think I still like the idea of the OC having control over the allocation of reserves / reinforcements, and to do the actual plotting / calling in of any arty missions, based on what he wants to put in place versus the requests from the field commanders ... this probably means having a more "hands on" approach to the map, and actually needing to open the files at some points, versus the "no direct input / issue objectives only" (and thus no direct look at the map / battlefield) more hands-off approach advocated by others ...
 
PhilM said:
I think I still like the idea of the OC having control over the allocation of reserves / reinforcements, and to do the actual plotting / calling in of any arty missions, based on what he wants to put in place versus the requests from the field commanders ... this probably means having a more "hands on" approach to the map, and actually needing to open the files at some points, versus the "no direct input / issue objectives only" (and thus no direct look at the map / battlefield) more hands-off approach advocated by others ...
Click to expand...
To be honest I am still unsure what approach regarding the OC would be the best. At first I thought about a more active role for the OC and later after good ideas have been posted here I started to shift towards an off map (more passive) Commander. I think both approaches are very promising and it could be that both ideas are equally good and both will work, but it would be different gameplay; so that it will be a choice of individual taste as so many things. Helpful could be to gather experience and evolve the role of the OC due theoretic thinking/discussions and experience due play testing.
 
How and/or when would an OC allocate reserves? I'm guessing at the start of the scenario when the OC divvy's out the troops to the OC's?
Once the game starts there is no "OK send an extra platoon over there." correct?
Unless there are pauses, troops and casualties evaluated, setup zones readjusted, reinforcements allocated and then the scenario restarted.
 
Sort of "thinking out loud" here (i.e. may well be rubbish!), but ...

Two sorts of instances of "reserves":
- as OC have the power NOT to allocate 100% of the start-up forces to the field commanders, but rather purposely hold back some % of the total to keep as a reserve and use to support the fight as OC thinks fit (rescue failure or reinforce success ...) ... these units would be excluded for the orders given by the field commanders until such time as the OC releases them ...
- depending on the scenario set up, if in-battle reinforcements are available, likewise some % of them (or all of them?) could be allocated by the OC rather than automatically becoming available to the relevant field commander ?

Though of course depends on size of battle chosen ... a small battle as a test will perhaps be too small to warrant / be realistic for "reserves" ... though personally I always try to hold back some sort of option / reserve of any force I have, to allow some second choices!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top