Combined Arms Multi-Player // Any Interest?

W

WynnterGreen

Guest
Hey there.....

I've played a few 2v2 games now, and really enjoyed them.
So far the way they've been played is that each player picks their own mixed force and is responsible for their own Armour, Infantry and Artillery.

I've been toying recently with an idea to put a new twist on a multi-player game.

Combined Arms Multi-player.

Three players per side.
One player responsible for all Infantry.
One player responsible for Armour, and a third responsible for Artillery.

Turns would be passed between team members in much the same way as is currently done for 2v2, with each player plotting movement and giving orders then passing the turn on.

With Combined Arms, Infantry would plot movement for the footsloggers and mechanized, who'd then pass the turn to the Armour player who'd try to coordinate their Armour in support.

The Artillery Arm would be handled by having multiple Forward Observer teams on map to direct all OFFMAP Assets, with the Infantry Arm only being able to use their HQ units to call for fire from ONMAP Artillery organic to their Battalion.

I think it could make for some really interesting game play dynamics and create a real imperative for good planning, coordination and communication between the players.

I've been wondering if I could get a core of players who'd be keen to work out the details and try it out?
 
I'm up for joining this, if you have a space left ... like to try out this way of splitting a force, sounds interesting!
 
What an interesting concept. Once I am settled back into CM I would like to try this. I can see there being A LOT of emailing back and forth, unless H2HH can accommodate team chat?

Is there a format/procedure for something like this down on paper/word doc that anyone would care to share? Interested in the nuts and bolts of something like this, as always the Devil is in the Details.
 
I think the easiest way to do this would be either to open a conversation for each team or open a forum thread. If wynnter already has a system he prefers I'd be happy to document it in a standardized form.
 
This sounds cool.
Imagine if we could do RTS with more than 2x players!? :)
 
Separate conversations for each side / team, on TFGM, work for the comms.

Not so sure about the need for a thread(s), unless we want "the public' to be able to see what's going on? But then need to make sure that "the other side" doesn't peek??

I'd suggest two conversations, with three drop box folders: one folder per side to share the turn, with a common folder to swap them once done.

One player per side has the job of being the first to take the file from the common folder, begin that turn and pass it on in that side's folder, then the last player that side loads the finished turn back into the common folder ... etc, etc.

And FWIW, I'd be interested in a "non playing" CO role for a side, setting the objectives / broad orders for the different branches of the force, and giving (hopefully!) a cohesion to that side's aims, and trying to get the various parts to support each other ...
 
I guess now we just need to pick sides and who controls which branch :)
 
PhilM said:
And FWIW, I'd be interested in a "non playing" CO role for a side, setting the objectives / broad orders for the different branches of the force, and giving (hopefully!) a cohesion to that side's aims, and trying to get the various parts to support each other ...
Click to expand...

This sounds like a very good idea, even the smallest CM undertakings can use some "GM" support.
 
Well we have 5 volunteers... We might have to draft some officers:2charge:
 
PhilM said:
Separate conversations for each side / team, on TFGM, work for the comms.

Not so sure about the need for a thread(s), unless we want "the public' to be able to see what's going on? But then need to make sure that "the other side" doesn't peek??

I'd suggest two conversations, with three drop box folders: one folder per side to share the turn, with a common folder to swap them once done.

One player per side has the job of being the first to take the file from the common folder, begin that turn and pass it on in that side's folder, then the last player that side loads the finished turn back into the common folder ... etc, etc.

And FWIW, I'd be interested in a "non playing" CO role for a side, setting the objectives / broad orders for the different branches of the force, and giving (hopefully!) a cohesion to that side's aims, and trying to get the various parts to support each other ...
Click to expand...

@WynnterGreen

I would volunteer for "non-playing" CO role also as @PhilM describes also. If that is the way you want to take this effort.
 
I'm used to playing Huge games, but I think for a first attempt it might be a good idea to play something slightly more modest, approximately equivalent to a Large Engagement maybe?

I really like the idea of higher echelon, CO play.

What do people think of their being a CO Player and no direct communication between the Infantry, Armour and Artillery players [except real world stuff, like turn sequence coordination etc] and everything having to be 'directed' by the CO, who's job is to coordinate and set broad tasks.

Example:

Infantry: C Company 1st and 2nd Platoon recon and advance to contact with your objective being [position on map] this hill.

Armour: 2nd Platoon Shermans close support Infantry C company 1st and 2nd Platoon in their advance.

Armour: 3 Platoon Tank destroyers take up positions to overwatch this area [position on map].

Artillery: I want eyes on our Objective at small, soon to be smouldering ruins , village [position on map] to soften up defences for an Infantry assault at [minute 25].

etc... etc...

It's the job of the players to continue to try to achieve the objectives outlined by the CO until they order a change.

CO's should probably be restricted to giving orders to platoons as the lowest level for Infantry and Armour.

If we wanted to add additional complexity [up for discussion of course] you could create a few rules that affect COs, For instance, Communication Lag.

If a Platoon in the field loses coms, it's HQ is destroyed or radio lost, then CO players have to wait 2 game minutes every time they want to issue a change in orders to the affected Platoon.

I don't know if that's getting too complex, but it'd certainly make things interesting.
Especially if a Platoon has been given orders to Assault a position and they're taking heavy casualties, but the Platoons Coms are down and the CO has to wait two horrible minutes before he can call off the attack. :eek:

Thoughts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
@WynnterGreen

Your suggestions sound very good.

What is the size unit that is conducting the operation? Is it an infantry company reinforced with a tank company? Is it an infantry battalion with tank support? Also will you provide the game map in a picture so a graphical picture can be drawn for the players playing the battle? The reason that I ask is I am not up to the latest version of CMBN.

I am game for an experiment that might be able to scale to larger size units.
 
@WynnterGreen

I'm used to playing Huge games, but I think for a first attempt it might be a good idea to play something slightly more modest, approximately equivalent to a Large Engagement maybe?

I really like the idea of higher echelon, CO play.

What do people think of their being a CO Player and no direct communication between the Infantry, Armour and Artillery players [except real world stuff, like turn sequence coordination etc] and everything having to be 'directed' by the CO, who's job is to coordinate and set broad tasks. Agree with this idea.

Example:

Infantry: C Company 1st and 2nd Platoon recon and advance to contact with your objective being [position on map] this hill.

Armour: 2nd Platoon Shermans close support Infantry C company 1st and 2nd Platoon in their advance.

Armour: 3 Platoon Tank destroyers take up positions to overwatch this area [position on map].

Artillery: I want eyes on our Objective at small, soon to be smouldering ruins , village [position on map] to soften up defences for an Infantry assault at [minute 25].

etc... etc...

It's the job of the players to continue to try to achieve the objectives outlined by the CO until they order a change.

CO's should probably be restricted to giving orders to platoons as the lowest level for Infantry and Armour. Agree if there is only a reinforced company size unit. If it is battalion size, then it should only be for company size units and separate attached platoons that are not part of the organic battalion units.

If we wanted to add additional complexity [up for discussion of course] you could create a few rules that affect COs, For instance, Communication Lag.

If a Platoon in the field loses coms, it's HQ is destroyed or radio lost, then CO players have to wait 2 game minutes every time they want to issue a change in orders to the affected Platoon. This is reasonable.

I don't know if that's getting too complex, but it'd certainly make things interesting.
Especially if a Platoon has been given orders to Assault a position and they're taking heavy casualties, but the Platoons Coms are down and the CO has to wait two horrible minutes before he can call off the attack.

I think this post allows you to see what my real thoughts are concerning your ideas.

@fabishd aka Doug
 
For a first run I think a scale of roughly an Infantry Company with maybe two Armour Platoons plus Arty.
Some agreed points limit for each, maybe the CO makes the formation selection, or perhaps a third party [not actually playing] assigns the CO with units.

COs coordinate through messages as outlined above and visual aids.
When I was playing 2v2 games we'd take topographical shots of the terrain and share information and thoughts by making the maps and naming areas of interest or objectives.

Example:
WKMdnHcNbdKlhNyN8ejzo7zGSIffbEMRSy87UNhV7H0=w1056-h594-no


Sometimes very seriously, with a Lego theme, ha :)
wcTSGEy2Jk8fFXdrVksdho-aPEm-oGO-KrEWZWMJ9j0=w459-h220-no
 
WynnterGreen, what maps have you used here for your examples? I always like new maps :)

edit* sorry to hijack thread
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom