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)

To get it started I would suggest the following:

The two OC's will set up a meeting engagement on a medium map (096 meet, medium agriculture with 45 minutes).
Each side can spent in total 1500 points for a Battalion(-), with 2 companies. The OC's will buy the troops.

Players:
OC for the Allied side is @PhilM (edit: confirmed)
OC for the Axis side is @Gunner (edit confirmed)

FC A Company is @Gunner (edit: replaced by @Buckykatt confirmed)
FC B Company is @fivefivesix (edit: confirmed)

FC 1. Kompanie @JP48 (edit: confirmed)
FC 2. Kompanie @Kraut (edit confirmed)

reserve player: @VonPlutz and @Lethaface (confirmed)


Gentlemen, please let me know if we can proceed as described above.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kraut said:
To get it started I would suggest the following:

The two OC's will set up a meeting engagement on a medium map (096 meet, medium agriculture with 45 minutes).
Each side can spent in total 1500 points for a Battalion(-), with 2 companies. The OC's will buy the troops.

Players:
OC for the Allied side is @PhilM
OC for the Axis side is @Rik_atc

FC A Company is @Gunner (edit: replaced by @Buckykatt)
FC B Company is @fivefivesix

FC 1. Kompanie @JP48 (edit: confirmed)
FC 2. Kompanie @Kraut (edit confirmed)

Reserve FC is @Buckykatt (edit: now FC A Company)
(Edit: the new reserve player is: @Gunner)

Gentlemen, please let me know if we can proceed as described above.
Click to expand...

Yep, good for me.

Not material for a trial: but if, hopefully, we proceed to a second bigger, longer battle then I would hope for NOT a QB Meeting type battle ... the multi-player aspects may well mean it turns out differently, but I have a long-held dislike of CM QB Meeting type, they always seem the least realistic starting points ... two sides, supposedly in ignorance of each other’s presence, rushing to get to and take the one single central VL ... when of course in game we know the other one is there, and just happens to have a same points total force as you do ... but perhaps that’s just me!

Much prefer some sort of asymmetric start point, with victory expectations adjusted accordingly ...
 
With apologies, this is probably going to seem rude (perhaps it is ...), but has the other OC even taken part in this thread yet?

The tag doesn’t seem familiar to me ... no disqualification of course, and I don’t object ... but I thought that we’d had others who’d expressed an interest?

If this is out of line, I apologise ... happy to just kick things off as suggested.
 
Buckykatt said:
Looks OK for me as well. Did you get a confirmation from @Rik_atc for his participation?
Click to expand...
Not yet, Sir. I assumed you had already spoken with him about this?

If he can not participate, then I will play Axis OC and the reserve player @Gunner the 1. Kompanie, or @Gunner takes the Axis OC and I remain in command of 1. Kompanie.

PhilM said:
Yep, good for me.

Not material for a trial: but if, hopefully, we proceed to a second bigger, longer battle then I would hope for NOT a QB Meeting type battle ... the multi-player aspects may well mean it turns out differently, but I have a long-held dislike of CM QB Meeting type, they always seem the least realistic starting points ... two sides, supposedly in ignorance of each other’s presence, rushing to get to and take the one single central VL ... when of course in game we know the other one is there, and just happens to have a same points total force as you do ... but perhaps that’s just me!

Much prefer some sort of asymmetric start point, with victory expectations adjusted accordingly ...
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly you Sir did not like (as I also do) overcrowded QB, therefore I decided that only 1500 points can be spend in this medium QB map, which would normally allow to spent 2850 points in this size meeting engagement.

I hope all players can agree with that. I would like to start and produce experience with this kind of multiplayer battle. Then we can adjust rules and settings for the next (bigger) battles.

There are many fantastic new and unique ideas posted in this thread and we could discuss this for weeks, but I think it would be better to start getting experience and then compare the practical experience with theoretic ideas.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Kraut said:
Not yet, Sir. I assumed you had already spoken with him about this?

If he can not participate, then I will play Axis OC and the reserve player @Gunner the 1. Kompanie, or @Gunner takes the Axis OC and I remain in command of 1. Kompanie.


If I remember correctly you Sir did not like (as I also do) overcrowded QB, therefore I decided that only 1500 points can be spend in this medium QB map, which would normally allow to spent 2850 points in this size a meeting engagement.

I hope all players can agree with that. In my opinion I would like to start and produce experience with this kind of multiplayer battle. Then we can adjust rules and setting for the next (bigger) battles.
Click to expand...

Yep, fine for a trial, no problem. (And FWIW, it’s not the “crowded” nature that bugs me, it’s the assumption of both sides headed headlong for the same central VL (usually),rather than a more planned attack / defence scenario of some description.)
 
Buckykatt said:
I have not spoken to @Rik_atc. He was just a nomination...
Click to expand...
Then it is a communication misunderstanding. What has been the reason for the nomination?

PhilM said:
With apologies, this is probably going to seem rude (perhaps it is ...), but has the other OC even taken part in this thread yet?

The tag doesn’t seem familiar to me ... no disqualification of course, and I don’t object ... but I thought that we’d had others who’d expressed an interest?

If this is out of line, I apologise ... happy to just kick things off as suggested.
Click to expand...
We have had only 5 players until today and only one OC (@PhilM ).
@Gunner wrote he wanted to play FC, but only if his unit size is not above one company.

Did I forget someone?


One takeaway for me so far is that I find it difficult to coordinate this and to achieve a consensus. Maybe I lack experience setting this up, or bad leadership.
Is there are a fellow member who would like to supersede the coordination?
 
Kraut said:
Then it is a communication misunderstanding. What has been the reason for the nomination?


We have had only 5 players until today and only one OC (@PhilM ).
@Gunner wrote he wanted to play FC, but only if his unit size is not above one company.

Did I forget someone?


One takeaway for me so far is that I find it difficult to coordinate this and to achieve a consensus. Maybe I lack experience setting this up, or bad leadership.
Is there are a fellow member who would like to supersede the coordination?
Click to expand...
You are doing fine @Kraut it needs some time. This is not as easy as a tournament as its not to everyone’s liking. Need to be patient we will get everybody on board. @Hardradi could be an OC as well, not sure if he’s up to it though. He would do a fine job. I would also suggest @Wellsonian @MeatEtr or @Meat Grinder although MG has a weird schedule
I nominated @Rik_atc as he is a good player.
 
Kraut said:
Then it is a communication misunderstanding. What has been the reason for the nomination?


We have had only 5 players until today and only one OC (@PhilM ).
@Gunner wrote he wanted to play FC, but only if his unit size is not above one company.

Did I forget someone?


One takeaway for me so far is that I find it difficult to coordinate this and to achieve a consensus. Maybe I lack experience setting this up, or bad leadership.
Is there are a fellow member who would like to supersede the coordination?
Click to expand...
Definitely NOT bad leadership, I agree that you are doing great. My comments defn not meant as a criticism of you, getting people to agree on anything is like herding cats ...

Keep going, this is a promising start, which we wouldn’t have without your initiative and efforts.
 
Kraut said:
To get it started I would suggest the following:

The two OC's will set up a meeting engagement on a medium map (096 meet, medium agriculture with 45 minutes).
Each side can spent in total 1500 points for a Battalion(-), with 2 companies. The OC's will buy the troops.

Players:
OC for the Allied side is @PhilM (edit: confirmed)
OC for the Axis side is @Rik_atc

FC A Company is @Gunner (edit: replaced by @Buckykatt confirmed)
FC B Company is @fivefivesix

FC 1. Kompanie @JP48 (edit: confirmed)
FC 2. Kompanie @Kraut (edit confirmed)

Reserve FC is @Buckykatt (edit: now FC A Company)
(Edit: the new reserve player is: @Gunner)

Gentlemen, please let me know if we can proceed as described above.
Click to expand...

Looks good to me! Also want to say @Kraut is doing a fine job of assembling this game, I know it's no easy feat to organize among multiple people across the world. Looks like just a few key points to work out from here!
 
Please excuse me, Gentlemen. I had misled myself into a a bit frustration.

I am happy to say that we are now almost ready to start! Only the 2nd OC position could not yet be determinate.
After this six-player-battle will have started there will be even more obstacles emerge, but also great possibilities to come.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi guys, I will be more than happy to play. I know BK and 556 already and we have had a lot of fun during the last weeks. Let me read all the thread. Thank you BK for considering me!!
 
I have not finished the reading but, one question guys, which game are we playing this?
 
PhilM said:
I have a long-held dislike of CM QB Meeting type, they always seem the least realistic starting points ... two sides, supposedly in ignorance of each other’s presence, rushing to get to and take the one single central VL ... when of course in game we know the other one is there, and just happens to have a same points total force as you do ... but perhaps that’s just me!
Click to expand...

No, that is not just you. I think the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top