Jutland Multiplayer Campaign

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Ah, okay, no I plan a very simple project based on 1916 only that will be simple and essentially fun and fast - and manageable and stands a change of being played for a while. I understand big fancy projects are very attractive but having GM'd several wargame campaigns in the past I've learned my lesson and now at my age of life I play quick easy ones that require small teams of players and the SES game software seems to be a good tool to provide a solid framework for that.

Good luck with your monster project though.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
So... any interest from anyone? Having now seen how annoying the AI is in fighting a campaign I think everyone who took part would get so much more fun from being pitted in a campaign setting against other players.
 

anav

Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2008
Messages
129
Reaction score
1
Location
lakeside, CA.
Country
llUnited States
I am not a campaign guy. Other then some testing I have not really played one. I'm not interested much in playing against the AI. As I noted in a private e-mail I think your letting yourself in for a ton of work. That said though what you have here looks interesting to me. Since MP play is my thing I'd much rather be an on-line player in your campaign, then a campaign commander.

I would suggest that capitol ship refit times be thus:

Lightly damaged 1 week

Moderately damaged 2 months

Heavily damaged 4 to 6 months

This really hurts and will give both sides pause before they decide to keep a damaged ship in the line rather then send it home to fight another day.

There is no good way to apply the ACH option as any combination is unfair to someone, in some way. From the German view I don't think it fair to leave the chance to blowup up an English ship completely off the board. Without it the war at sea is simply a battle of attrition which the KM is unlikely to win. I prefer the variable ACH idea so that neither side will fight the battle in accordance with any set ACH option. Somehow a method has to be found to press both sides to be aggressive, yet give each something to fear. The beauty of fighting battles in the context of a campaign is that politics as well as strategy and tactics, are in play. So any successful, and unpunished, KM Op will cause great concern at the admiralty, while any loss of a KM capitol ship will give the Kaiser severe distress.

I also think that not allowing the RN side to play the long range battle tactic is opening up a can of worms, and could cause some unpleasant disagreement between KM and RN players. If your the RN fleet commander at what range is considered gaming the system? If a certain range is set then we are back to the unrealistic (as you note) precise control of ones fleet to stay just inside the accepted range.

I would suggest that Tactics not be limited but that the on-line player commanders, (Jellicoe, Beatty, Sheer, and Hipper), and anyone else who has a big ship command. Not use the Micro view map while fighting the battle. This will go a long way toward preventing the precision range dance that we both abhor, and would allow both sides greater ability to apply tactics to any given battle.

If you can pull this off, perhaps a campaign primer could be written on how to do MP campaigns in the future. I'd be happy to help out in any way I can.

Regards ANav
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Thanks for that, your support is greatly welcomed.

Your ideas on repair times are good ones. I will have a baseline of repair time to be slightly varied up or down slightly by a die roll and also varied down slightly for small craft (SS/TB/DD) and varied up slightly for large ships (BC/BB).

I've run many wargame campaigns in the past, all with pen and paper. They really are not that much work, you just need to keep clear records and a clear head and remember things and have the ability to make up a fair die roll chance of something happening or not happening if an event comes along that needs a decision. The advantage of using Jutland as basis is that the game can be a lot more complex with a lot more units going around and the software does much of the record keeping for you.

Yes an ACH variable system will be followed but I'd like to try my die rolls using a 1 d10 rather than yours using 2 d6 which weight the result to 'no change' somewhat too much for me.

I have not played that many online battles but the RN gun range dance does seem to be a problem. I would like to enforce a rule that if the RN engages then it does so within the range of the KM capital ships - all of them. So we're looking at realistic WWI battle ranges of around 16,000 yards, plus or minus. As long as all players are mature and gentlemanly I do not think it will be an issue, for me the extreme range dance makes the game too one sided in favour of the RN and a little silly and unhistorical.

I'm all for players being clever and using cunning tactics but I also want to see such tactics kept within the capabilities of the technology and organisation of the fleets of the day.

I would be prepared to commence the game with just two players. I am sure that once it gets going and the reports start getting written up, others will want to join.
 
Last edited:

Von der Tann

Schlachtkreuzer
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Location
Münster
Country
llGermany
We might as well give it a go and try a May 1916 campaign to try if this would be possible at all or just a waste of time. But I will not do this alone, as I am completely unaccustomed to the campaign, and would at the very least need one co-player with at least a vague idea of what to do. Also, I will need a bit of time off, since I will be leaving for a bit of vacation the following week - but I will have internet access there and take my laptop.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
I considered doing the May 1916 campaign and realised it is just like the full 1916 campaign only there's just less of it - less reason to be strategically cunning, less time to do clever and interesting things and less point in conducting trade protection and interdiction. In essence the May 1916 campaign seems a bit weak to me. If you think the full 1916 game is more work, it isn't really, though it is a good deal more interesting I think and more subtle.

I will send PMs to the online regulars to see who else would be interested.
 

Daedalus

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Knox Ky
Well I'm in, sounds like it will be quite a bit of fun.
Let me know what is needed and I will get to it.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Al I need right now is your interest and which side you would prefer. Von der Tann it seems is going to play on the German side. You can team up with him (he has declared he'd like at least one partner) or go for the RN.

Once you have chosen which side you want to play feel free to start up a new 1916 campaign with both sides player controlled (and pause it) and have a look at your forces and the map and begin thinking about your strategy.

The game is not just about sinking the enemy big ships, but for the Royal Navy it is:

1) Interdicting neutral ships trading to Germany. This blockade must be maintained as it is strangling Germany's ability to wage war. The Grand Fleet is needed to protect the cruisers and armed merchant cruisers (AMCs) that are the main tools of the blockade that stretches across the top of the North Sea from Scotland to Norway.
2) Protecting British cargo ships (these are shown on your side's map and run along regular shipping lanes). They are AI controlled, you cannot delay or divert them, only protect them. Essentially you need a strong patrol presence of light forces in the sea zones with a brownish colour (hit the F3 key to bring up the shipping lanes and patrol forces overlay).
3) Protecting military cross-channel traffic. This is a key duty of the forces based at Dover, Portsmouth, Dunkerque and the French channel ports. It's abstracted in the game.
4) Protecting the English east coast by way of light forces to catch the enemy should he try to bombard coastal towns as has been done in the past. This is a purely political consideration, not a military one but there are victory points to be gained by the Germans for bombarding towns.

The Kaiserliche Marine's main priorities are:

1) Break the blockade. This can be fully achieved only by defeating the Grand Fleet but since useful forces must remain after any victory the German team must play a careful game, preferably drawing out parts of the British forces and defeating them in detail until parity is achieved.
2) Interdict Entente trade. As most of the enemy trade is coastal, submarines are the most obvious tool for this job, however surface raiders are a possibility as well. There is a lot of trade that moves on the western side of the map, particularly in the Western Approaches to the Channel and in the Irish Sea that is largely unprotected. There is also a trade in colliers from Norway to France that supports the French war effort and from Britain to France across the Channel.
3) Interdict cross-channel military traffic. This seems to be mostly abstracted in the game - at least as the British player I have seen no worthwhile cross-channel traffic to speak of so I'm assuming the game does not represent it, however I will use a victory points system that rewards the German team for each "submarine day" and "surface raider day" that is spent in key areas of the Channel where it is assumed they would be disrupting this important traffic.
4) Bombard certain east coast English towns. This has a propaganda effect only but will also assist in winning the war in terms of victory points. It may also goad the Royal Navy into reacting with main surface units which can then be brought to battle on favourable terms.
 
Last edited:

Daedalus

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Knox Ky
I'll play with Von der Tann on the German side. That is the side I play the most and I know how to use there Fleet. If that is ok with him.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Excellent. Thank you very much. Now we need a couple of RN players...
 
Joined
Jul 15, 2009
Messages
50
Reaction score
0
Location
Germany
Country
llGermany
Have the players to fight the campaign and the battles on the same side, if they take part on both? Because each side will have some secrets which are not secure if a german campaing player plays a battle as the brits. Just as an example.

I prefer the Germans and fighting the multiplayer battles. But if it's necessary I will advise the (german) campaign leader.
 

Von der Tann

Schlachtkreuzer
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Location
Münster
Country
llGermany
Willkommen an Bord, meine Herren! The more, the merrier... but I hope we can get a few good opponents as well.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Hm, three Germans and no British yet!

The online players issue is a tricky one. I initially wanted our regular online group to be those who fought the battles and would not be involved in the strategic planning, hoping there would be enough forum members here who did not play in the multi-player group who would like to do the strategic side. Its beginning to look like we won't have enough players for that so I think it may come down to it that players may have to fight the actual battles on whichever side needs them.

Hopefully with Jess declaring his disinterest in the campaign he might be willing to host the battles. I was also concerned with a 'live' player being host which would allow him to see both sides at a scenario start but if Jess is prepared to do this that problem is overcome. This Saturday in the testing/training session I will try to host. I have a dial up connection but its an 8Mb line... we'll see how robust it is. If I can play host each time then that issue is also overcome.
 

Daedalus

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
698
Reaction score
0
Location
Fort Knox Ky
I'll play what ever side , if we need someone on the British side then I will move right over and play. That way it should be easier to get things going. Just let me know where I need to be and I will be there.
 

Von der Tann

Schlachtkreuzer
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
719
Reaction score
1
Location
Münster
Country
llGermany
We should wait a few more days. I'll be busy on the weekend anyway, and the next weekend will be spent with preparations for the upcoming vacation.
 

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Yep, there's no hurry. I don't plan to begin while VdT is out of town. People are beginning to take notice of this thread now so I hope we'll have a couple more takers. I'm in no mad rush to start.
 

Tanyrhiew

Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2006
Messages
159
Reaction score
1
Location
Blighty
Country
ll
Half-way through a 2 week holiday here in deepest darkest Wales, re-reading 'The rules of the game' and reading this thread with interest.

It has ocurred to me that there may be an alternative method of playing a psuedo multiplayer campaign by using the singleplayer campaign with both sides controlled and using Remote Desktop (standard with windows) or VNC or equivalent to share a single PC with 2 or more players. This assumes that the host has Jutland running in a window and that the remote desktop software can display the game and provide a high enough screen update to the remote players. I don't have Jutland installed on this laptop and so cannot verify this.

For example with 2 players it could be that 'turns' are taken to organise forces and schedule patrols etc. To preserve fog of war, the remote (in this example german, this also assumes rm 40 is on) player would advertise he was making a sally with the HSF by ploting a course say one hex outside wilhelmshaven to trigger the 'a large force is sailing' dialogue box. The german player would then temporaily disconnect or leave his PC while the Host/RN player plots an intercept as to where he thinks the sortie is going. The german player then reconnects and actually makes his actual moves without prior knowledge of the RN's intentions. No further orders are given to taskforces after they sail until contact is made or they RTB. Although both players would see both sets of forces on the campaign screen, the 'self-denying ordnance' of not making corse changes while at sea would represent well the position of the sea-commanders and shore based admiralty listening in to wireless intercepts and sighting reports without letting any player have an unfair advantage - a pseudo 'Henry Jackson' effect if you will.

On entering the 3D, 2 or 3 minute turns between paused 'order sessions' during which orders are issued by each player in turn. This I feel would also represent reasonably well the length of time to pass signals via flags and W/T which is missing from the game.

If care is taken with organising formations so that there is a minimum of single ship divisons e.g. Putting all of the RN 1st Cruiser Squadron ships into a taskforce seperate to the GF and with a ship spacing of 2000m (the maximum) and in line of bearing and plotting a campaign map course 1-2 hex to starboard of the GF's own course. More would then be made of scouting and there would be a higher likelihood of forces meeting (a broader front) and as long as forces are within 2 hexs of each other they seem to be spawned on entering 3D.

Once in 3D orders could be given to squadrons relatively easily using the OOB screen to select the division leader during the paused order sessions (there being no select next division leader shortcut key) thus minimising the use of the God's eye view mini-map and adding to the FOW effect (more reliance on players remembering where their ships are!). In practice this could work a bit like the hotseat mode in the old PC version of wooden ships and iron men if anyone has played that game.

As I said at the beginning of this long post, I cannot verify that it is technically possible and may prove to complicated in practise but it would certainly have advantages in that the game can be saved as normal and no-one has to make the scenarios!
 
Last edited:

saddletank

Forum Conscript
Joined
Jul 3, 2006
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
3
Location
UK
Country
ll
Interesting... but not really compatible with what I plan to do. I hope to have two teams of players - its looking like it might be as few as 2 players a side at the moment, but I can't see a campaign working as you describe it since it cannot deal with the myriad of tiny actions against merchant ships and patrols the game throws up. For that some kind of umpire or referee is essential, and really there are so many movements to plot on the map including submarines and Zeppelins and so on that I don't think the set up you describe is practical.

While I'm pleased you've shown an interest in the thread, it has already been nearly derailed once with some different ideas so I'm going to say that the campaign will follow the structure and form I laid out in my very first post. I see no easier or more robust way of doing it. Right now... I just need more players. If you want to play - fantastic, you're more than welcome. You do not need to be present for any of the multi-player online games, I hope the excitement and tension of just issuing orders and trying to outwit the opposition will be sufficiently enjoyable.
 
Top