|
Post by irishwonder on Jun 5, 2014 22:25:10 GMT
I've set up and been a part of a ton of online gaming communities for the purpose of getting a group of people together for regular sessions. If I could offer any advice at all, it would be to keep it as simple as possible in the beginning. Complexity will make it harder to manage for the admins and harder to follow and be excited about for the players. Getting it off the ground is the most important part. After that, you can add complexities each "season" (pardon my use of sports gaming lingo) if interest persists.
Personally I would recommend finding a way for the battles to be well scheduled so people know when to show up. Given the nature of this game, namely the fact that there can be multiple attacks per round, you could set up two or three different times through the week when an admin will be available to participate, and those who can be on during those times could play out battles for that turn until they are exhausted. Intra-turn maneuvers and strategies can be worked out on these forums between scheduled play times.
I would recommend against a "one battle group per player" setup, as this will leave some people out each turn and will lead to players leaving during the campaign. Perhaps admins can get together and determine a list of battle groups available to both sides and where those groups will start on the campaign map. Make those battle groups in the deck builder and share their import codes here on the forums so each player can readily download them. Then, when it's time to play, players can decide among themselves which group they want to play and load up the necessary deck. A person can play a different deck each round, and decks won't be player-specific. That would only require players to determine which side (BLUFOR or REDFOR) they will play for at the beginning of the campaign, instead of having to choose a specific battle group. It would also insure that all players who showed up on a game night would be able to play the game. Intra-turn maneuvers and strategies could be handled by team leaders between turns.
You have to think about attendance when planning all aspects. If each person controls a specific battle group, then you are dependent on that person to show up. If players are assigned only factions at the start, then attendance becomes less of an issue and gives us more flexibility on play nights. Given this is a team vs. team game, you still have the problem of one faction having more people show up to a fight, but problems like this can probably be answered by Wargame's starting point distribution and/or swing players.
Just some thoughts! I'm very interested in seeing this get off the ground. I've had a bit of experience playing games without any true community support, and it can be a bitch to start something like this. Once you get past the initial growing pains, it can be really rewarding. Let me know if there's anything I can do.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 22:32:08 GMT
I've set up and been a part of a ton of online gaming communities for the purpose of getting a group of people together for regular sessions. If I could offer any advice at all, it would be to keep it as simple as possible in the beginning. Complexity will make it harder to manage for the admins and harder to follow and be excited about for the players. Getting it off the ground is the most important part. After that, you can add complexities each "season" (pardon my use of sports gaming lingo) if interest persists. Personally I would recommend finding a way for the battles to be well scheduled so people know when to show up. Given the nature of this game, namely the fact that there can be multiple attacks per round, you could set up two or three different times through the week when an admin will be available to participate, and those who can be on during those times could play out battles for that turn until they are exhausted. Intra-turn maneuvers and strategies can be worked out on these forums between scheduled play times. I would recommend against a "one battle group per player" setup, as this will leave some people out each turn and will lead to players leaving during the campaign. Perhaps admins can get together and determine a list of battle groups available to both sides and where those groups will start on the campaign map. Make those battle groups in the deck builder and share their import codes here on the forums so each player can readily download them. Then, when it's time to play, players can decide among themselves which group they want to play and load up the necessary deck. A person can play a different deck each round, and decks won't be player-specific. That would only require players to determine which side (BLUFOR or REDFOR) they will play for at the beginning of the campaign, instead of having to choose a specific battle group. It would also insure that all players who showed up on a game night would be able to play the game. Intra-turn maneuvers and strategies could be handled by team leaders between turns. You have to think about attendance when planning all aspects. If each person controls a specific battle group, then you are dependent on that person to show up. If players are assigned only factions at the start, then attendance becomes less of an issue and gives us more flexibility on play nights. Given this is a team vs. team game, you still have the problem of one faction having more people show up to a fight, but problems like this can probably be answered by Wargame's starting point distribution and/or swing players. Just some thoughts! I'm very interested in seeing this get off the ground. I've had a bit of experience playing games without any true community support, and it can be a bitch to start something like this. Once you get past the initial growing pains, it can be really rewarding. Let me know if there's anything I can do. I love these points and think we should follow them. We could fix the different battlegroups and distribute them among the attendance.
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 5, 2014 22:56:37 GMT
To be honest, while we're sticking to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid, or alternatively Keep It Stupidly Simple) I'd say try out pre-made decks for the next campaign, otherwise we could get issues with people getting bored of the same deck that they didn't make, especially if it turns out to be deficient.
Just have people play a deck of a given nation and theme, let them make it and especially let them talk to other people in the faction forums about how to make it.
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 5, 2014 23:31:30 GMT
To be honest, while we're sticking to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid, or alternatively Keep It Stupidly Simple) I'd say try out pre-made decks for the next campaign, otherwise we could get issues with people getting bored of the same deck that they didn't make, especially if it turns out to be deficient. Just have people play a deck of a given nation and theme, let them make it and especially let them talk to other people in the faction forums about how to make it. I would personally become very attached to my particular deck, kind of how I did for my avatar and personalized army in Shogun II, but I see what you mean. I'd also want to get good at a particular deck rather than switch every five minutes and have that throw off my game.
|
|
|
Post by Sunny on Jun 5, 2014 23:47:33 GMT
A note on semantics: in the context of the game, the deck represents a battlegroup. In British doctrine, a battlegroup is a battalion with supporting elements eg. an infantry battalion has artillery, recon units, air defence, etc. this collection is known as a battlegroup. Just to clear up any confusion as we are throwing words around such as regiments, battlegroups, etc. In the context of Wargame RD, the deck is a [theme] battlegroup with supporting air and naval assets.
Story: This is a very interesting concept, however with the removal of personal decks from the mix-up this might be limited. However, I'm keen to make this a reality as roleplaying is half the fun.
Game Mode: I agree on Total Destruction with the ability to withdraw is the best option. It can present the idea of a team willing to go all-in or just try to whittle down the opponent, trading space for time etc. The withdrawal should be all units to the home reinforcement zone.
Decks: The only solution I can see is by irishwonder. It seems the only workable solution so far.
The Campaign Map: This is a good point. I am tempted to say we shouldn't bother with fleets and to save it for a later campaign, but the Korean peninsula lends so many exciting possibilities to this. I think it would be best to implement them. How about two fleets per team, with the ability to deploy West for REDFOR and East for BLUEFOR? Keeps it simple, and the movement would be between sea zones like the in-game campaign?
Generals: Generals would be the best term, especially for the easy identification of teammates and team leader. The team member would realistically be playing the rank of Lt. Colonel or Colonel, so the one directing strategy would be a 3-star General or above. To give flavour, the Korean terms for the General would be Daejang. However, if I was to play as the "General" of BLUFOR, it would be roleplayed as a US general, who undoubtedly be the coalition leader in the event of a second Korean war.
I'm also in agreement with irishwonder, and this should be a template for the first campaign at the very least. We have to remember we cannot have every aspect we want before we have a large enough community. How about we limit the number to 5 players for each team to begin with? As with the current interest, this is not out of the realms of possibility. Or even start with 5 battlegroups, and have another 5 in reserve with the system I suggested previously? I think this would work best. That way we don't limit players if they are unavailable one night and an unassigned player is available to play in their stead.
|
|
|
Post by wikingwarrior on Jun 6, 2014 8:01:37 GMT
So I assume to an extent prototypes are not going to be allowed?
Also how much are we going to be required to not use Obsolete units or out deck theme? IE I want to play as the 2nd ID which was assigned M1A1s, but that price of tank is a bit steep, would it be frowned upon if I used some late model M60s as reservists units to bolster my ranks (I would probably keep the Abrams as my primary tank though).
|
|
|
Post by Charles Murray on Jun 6, 2014 8:26:15 GMT
That would probably make sense for the ROK, China, and the DROK, but America is sending an expeditionary force which is likely not composed of antiquated units fielded out of desperation.
|
|
|
Post by imperator on Jun 6, 2014 8:34:46 GMT
I had an idea I think is interesting. Each player has 3 decks they can make to keep a variety of things going and help deal with potential low player count. After each battle based on losses taken decks may be forced to withdraw from the front line as they cannot immediately replace battle losses and must spend X turns in an area surrounded on all sides by friendly territory to replenish losses and cannot participate in combat unless it does so at reduced strength by removing all cards which took X% losses. Each territory can have up to 4 decks present in it. Battles can be fought in any combination of players available at the time with any not used in combat acting as a secondary force able to cover a withdrawal or make rapid secondary push if the initial battle is successful. This Ide is not very refined yet and just something I had and typed up on my phone real quick.
edit: Should also mention I would prefer '85 or '80 since that will remove some of the more OP shenanigan units as well as deal with why the US is deploying 14 M1A1's with a major armored formation in 1990 and things like that
|
|
|
Post by wikingwarrior on Jun 6, 2014 9:34:27 GMT
edit: Should also mention I would prefer '85 or '80 since that will remove some of the more OP shenanigan units as well as deal with why the US is deploying 14 M1A1's with a major armored formation in 1990 and things like that I think more to the point we should balance this out by not allowing too many of the OP players, but also by preventing those nations from taking the cheap alternatives, IE America will not take any tank cheaper than an M60A3 or possibly an Abrams, that way they are unable to meet the quantity advantage of other tanks, perhaps in general we should make an "allowed units" thread for each faction. Seeing as if we're anywhere near historical though, the lack of heavy tanks by North Korea might be a problem, but I think it'd make them an interesting faction to rely more on heavy infantry.
|
|
|
Post by Anonamous_Quinn on Jun 6, 2014 12:26:09 GMT
So not strictly related to the current discussion going on in this thread, but I had some thoughts on how we might actually play out the campaign map side of things based on the idea of battlegroups.
Each side takes turns on the campaign map. In general, each battlegroup on the map (which has a structure of 3 or 4 sub-units) can move one province on that sides turn. At the end of movement the battles take place when any province has battlegroups of both factions in them.
When setting up for a battle, each side picks which battlegroup they have in the province will fight. The battle then is organised and takes place and the results announced, probably on the forums and recorded in detail on a google docs. The loosing battlegroup is marked as 'defeated' and gains a point of 'attrition'. Whichever side has less total points then must decide to either fight on, or retreat. If they decide to fight on then another battle is fought, the winning side uses the same battlegroup as before but the side that lost must pick a new battlegroup, as battlegroups marked as 'defeated' may not be chosen. The results of the next battle are added to the first, thus points gained in battle are still important, though which side won the previous battle is used to determine 'defeated' status and who picks a new battlegroup. If all of a sides battlegroups are marked as 'defeated' then they must retreat. Note that 'defeated' doesn't mean destroyed, it means a battlegroup has fought a battle and lost, thus pulled back and cannot continue fighting, while the winning side pushes forwards with the initiative. Also note that it is the cumulative points used to decide who is loosing at any point, not who won the previous battle.
When all battles have finished, retreating units are moved into an adjacent friendly province, if there are no friendly adjacent provinces then that unit is destroyed and removed from the map.
Once all retreats have taken place, battlegroups on the side who's turn has just finished marked as 'regrouping' have that mark removed and return to full use. All battlegroups marked as 'defeated' change that to 'regrouping'. Note that 'regrouping' units can defend when attacked, but not attack another province themselves. Thus after a battle, a loosing battlegroups cannot attack in that sides next turn, but can afterwards.
And here's a big extra rule, when a battlegroup gains 3 or 4 attrition points it is destroyed and removed from the map. The survivors from the battlegroup are used to reinforce another, thus another battlegroup of identical type can remove one point of attrition.
The attrition thing is needed so we don't get a huge inflation of tokens on the map, but it also gives something back when a token is destroyed and a way to repair battlegroups. While a few people have talked about counting losses I don't think we should start with that. I think all battles should post their losses so that we can look over the data from this campaign and from that gauge what sort of losses can be expected, and where we should set values to replace attrition with losses in the next campaign.
The idea of the 'regrouping' units not being allowed to attack is so that any given battle is still important. Also it allows the possibility to blunt attacks by particularly good battlegroups, ie a big American armoured battlegroup only needs to loose once to not be attacking again next turn, and if it is chosen as the spearhead unit then if defending north koreans can keep throwing battlegroups at it to try and get a single victory, the bluefor side can't just use it for big victorys with it then shield it with slightly weaker south korean units.
So, that's a wall of text. What do people think?
|
|