Games with Multiplayers.

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
I am envisioning our future game at Historicon 2024 as a multiplayer game, with four distinct groups representing the composite Allied side. With larger groups having more than one players. And smaller groups having one or say a father child team. Two of the four groups have only a single SMC and three squads. To reduce confusion, I am proposing to have all four groups have a tie die roll for establishing a sequence. This would be done at the start of the prep fire phase. Each turn would have a different tie die result. This also could be redone at the start of the movement phase. Does anyone have any comments or think this a bad idea? Tim
 

Psycho

Elder Member
Joined
Feb 9, 2005
Messages
15,445
Reaction score
1,509
Location
rectum
Country
llUkraine
why? that's not how ASL is played. you don't play them in an assigned order. you choose what order you want yer units, all of them, whether firing or moving to be played. but you can do it however you want. just don't try & tell them they're playing ASL cuz they ain't if yer doing it that way. tell them there isn't a rule about rolling to see who does what in what order... that's something you added to the game. what happens if they wanna play ASL & they start playing the way you showed them? & they show other people that way? & suddenly they meet somebody who actually knows how to play & says what the hell are you doing? :unsure:
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
But my idea is to create at least the illusion of confusion among the various factions represented in a composite army of allies. The player at the giant map board cannot talk among themselves unless they were part of the same group. The confusion of allies not speaking the same language. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
I do sort agree with you that this is not a standard ASL format, But some of these players are likely never to have played ASL in their lives. And a sequential order of IFT fire would reduce confusion. Tim
 

Stewart

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
3,333
Reaction score
610
Location
Russia
Country
llRussia
To make it playable.
Both players move at the same time with assigned districts, the opposing players fire at targets of opportunity...
No more 1 DR at a time BS.
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Stewart, I agree. I like the order of separate commands doing shooting as well as moving being done in a variable sequence. One group shoots all units of that group, then the next group. Otherwise, there would be too much chaos at the tabletop. One DR at a time. On the Allied side are Jewish Partisans, Catholic Armed Civilians, Regular Italians, and American paratroopers. They have to shoot all their shots, then the next group shoots, etc; Bounding Fire would be done in another sequence. Not having the players being able to discuss what exactly is the plan seems like a realistic restriction. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Having a massive mapboard adds a different feel to ASL, Even the normal larger hex games adds a different dimension to ASL. There is a different feel to larger hexes. Note that this will be a flat one dimension mapboard, and the only minitatures are the GHQ figurines. No buildings. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Stewart, I reread your observation. I now understand your observation better. In the sense of a a player controlling a contiguous series of units, yes players will fire, at least during prep fire in groups. Defensive fire would seem to be a lot less organized, attacking targets of opportunity as the enter your LOS. Tim
 

Yuri0352

Elder Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2014
Messages
2,115
Reaction score
1,198
Location
25-30 Hexes
Country
llUnited States
The player at the giant map board cannot talk among themselves unless they were part of the same group.
What a great way to kill the social aspect of ASL.
Suppose some of the players decide to talk to each other during the game? Whatcha gonna do about it?
Maybe another DR to determine the penalties for communicating?
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Good question. We would allow talking among the Groups but not between them. Likely we have Lt Col Z….to yell at them. He is a retired New Jersey State Policeman. Neither I nor Don 2 are mean enough! We allow talking between the Groups during the Rally phase and after the Prep Fire phase is over, but before the movement phase. Don 1 played in a dozen or more multiplayer Squad Leader games at Avalon Hill during the late 70s and early 80s. He states that things, even if limited to four players, can get quite confusing. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
The German players will be able to talk among themselves as much as they want. It is the Allied side groups that will have restrictions. Tim
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2023
Messages
57
Reaction score
74
First name
Bunny
Country
llCanada
I like the idea over all, think you have the wrong game though.

Perhaps you need to step it up, and take ASL to 3d. Merge ASL design, but with 72nd scale minis. Or more practically increase the counter sizes to 2 inch from 1/2 inch. Fewer counters per person. Have only two sides, but have the rules as designed employed. So anyone that is going to prep fire does so, those that will move do in proper fashion. You would likely want an umpire at the game. But it would fire 'chaotic' while still managed by a well established design.
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
We have GHQ minis; they were designed for this type of game. Pico Armor is making the map boards for us, but only in a one dimension way. Three dimensional buildings are available but it would interfere with the flow of the game. This is a dumbed down version of my original scenario. Don 2 vetoed the complexity of my original design. The restrictions upon talking during fire and movement has a logical basis. The language barrier with the American paratroopers and the lack of radio communication is an important consideration. Three separate groups are coming randomly from off board to rescue the desperate and ammo shot Italian regulars. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
For instance, the Italian Communist volunteers who have built trenches along side of the regular Italian troops my talk to them and visa versa. The Catholic Armed Civilians should not talk with the American paratroopers. Tim
 

zgrose

Elder Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Messages
4,221
Reaction score
920
Location
Kingwood, TX
First name
Zoltan
Country
llUnited States
Cool idea. Seems like you'll definitely need a "judge" player to make it flow well. You may even want to roll with the whole "chain of command" concept where players should only talk to those in their chain of command. You comment on that above in post #11 but I just want to emphasize that is where the real "fun" is going to be.
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
There will be two judges. Lt Col. Z we will try to recruit to be Italian overall commander. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Don has ruled that we will insist upon players moving slow and deliberately so as to allow defensive fire if LOS is attained for defensive first fire and Subsequent Fist Fire. No pull backs! Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
Zgrose, Your idea of establishing a chain of command among the players of the same groups seems realistic. If people no not follow their orders so be it. The smaller allied commands, of which there are three, Jews, Communists, Americans, would seem to be suitable for a single players or a father and son team. All of the smaller commands have a single leader and three squads. For the other ASL game, I have proposed that each group instead of each side be allowed a single self rally. Otherwise, a loss of a leader would cripple a group. This has not been approved yet by Don. And two MMC per own rally phase for the Germans. This likely would statistically increase the number of leaders created by the Leader Creation Table. Tim
 

TimNiesen

Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
291
Reaction score
32
Country
llUnited States
The original scenario Battle for Rome does not seem to be a popular scenario. The powerful 548 German paratroopers, armed to the teeth with SWs, and their nearly invincible Stug 3s, seem to march across the mapboard cautiously in sort of a mass fist. SSR2 seems to greatly influence play, limiting German and Italian Stacking to one squad per building hex. The German units outnumber the Italian units slightly. Now the scenario has changed with the number of allied units have nearly doubling. Yet, most of the armed civilian units have low ELR and are likely to rapidly disappear if exposed to aggressive action; ie., removing concealment. The Germans, as compensation, get a platoon of mid war armored cars (two PSW 231 and a PSW 232) and a Marder 2. Don 1 insists that these German armored cars are powerful due to their high speed and large IFT firepower. I never have seen any used, and I am not sure how realistic is his assessment. Allied Command gets seven reinforcement groups instead of two, including a platoon of three 747 American paratroopers, lead by a 9-1 leader. Should be interesting! Tim
 
Top