Pbem Team CG.......or something like that...

[Vinnie]

Should we try and thrash out some rules here?
1. Principles: label every unit and SW with the Coy it belongs to.
Have agreed name and passwords for each side.
2. DEfensive fire: each player takes a turn cointrolling all te DF?

3. Movement: Take it in turns to complete movement with all but 10% of the units of a company to avoid flitting back and forth across the mapboard.

 

[serpico]

Hi Guys....

I would think a good sized scen would be best, given the interest generated here? Or not depending on theatre etc?

Road to Wiltz
Hill 621
Paw of the Tiger
The Last Bid
The Schoolhouse

I'm not familiar with the use of Japanese units unless someone wants to give me a crash course?

Just some ideas.......:nuts: I don't have any Schwerepunct scens or TOT, Fanatic Enterprise etc. so kept it simple.

Ideas for a moderator (Vinnie?)

1) All players send the logfile to the moderator before the next player sees the logfile....just to insure minimum errors etc.
2) Moderator has final judgement as to rules questions/decisions....unresolved questions resolved with DR etc.
3) Moderator has access to all passwords/usernames etc.
4) Maybe have separate VCs for each side's players depending on final VPs awarded etc.
5) Final VPs/VCs kept secret till conclusion of match or end of turn etc
6) Any reinforcements OOBs kept secret from opposing player/players, determined before game begins with knowledge by moderator.
7) Any OBA procedure handled by moderator? :surprise:
8) Any communication between team players handled in emails only.

Or, maybe this is all rubbish and some better ideas come forward....:smoke:

It's all good in the end right? :bite: Paul

 

[Vinnie]

I'd stick to RB CG I for the start. Let's not fool ourselves though, we will not manage to pay out the whole CG. The initial balance of forces is 3 russian Coys and support assets against 2 German coys supporting armour and 15 CPPs which wil probobly allow another Coy.If we can get 3 player a side then this allows a division of forces with support assets being allocated to each Coy.
Dealing Serpico's points:
1) All players send the logfile to the moderator before the next player sees the logfile....just to insure minimum errors etc.

I don't think there is a need for this. It wil slow things down by at least a day per turn. As long as the moderator gets a cop I don't think he eeds to approve things.
2) Moderator has final judgement as to rules questions/decisions....unresolved questions resolved with DR etc.
Seems fair enough although I'd expect most players to work things out for themselves but a court of last resort seems fair.
3) Moderator has access to all passwords/usernames etc
Seems sensible.

4) Maybe have separate VCs for each side's players depending on final VPs awarded etc.
5) Final VPs/VCs kept secret till conclusion of match or end of turn etc
This would basically need a whole new scenario to implement. Whilst I think it is a good idea in priciple I certainly have only rudimentary design and balence skills so feel we may be better gong for a scenario with a more nebulous victory condition.
6) Any reinforcements OOBs kept secret from opposing player/players, determined before game begins with knowledge by moderator.
If wego down the CG line then the in between CG day process would allow this again with the assets being assigned to the relevant Coy.
7) Any OBA procedure handled by moderator?
I'd assign OBA to a Coy commander. Then It's up to them where they drop it This will severely lit's utility since the plaer will not be able to consult with the neighbouring commander when he may need that help.
8) Any communication between team players handled in emails only.
This seems sensible but really given that we are in diffeent parts of the world it would be the onl;y way we could communicate. But more than this all communication between playersis limited to between scenario times or where their "leader counter" are in thesame hex or maybe allow the overal;l commander to issue 5 lines of commands per game turn with a set of 30? code words. Maybe allow greater communication where there is a working radio/ field phone.

 

[serpico]

Vinnie et al......

Thanks for the clarifications Vinnie.....so anyone want to give this a whirl?

I'm ready, willing and able........how about some scenario ideas?

How about the Stalnie Prostorie CG? Alot of boards and plenty of room for everyone........ It's readily available so shouldn't be a problem finding the CG DL.

Is it in the ASL Webdex?

:smoke:

 

[Vinnie]

Stalnie works quite well if I recall. The board is quite open but has some easily defineable areas to divide forces up in. Obviously the way a game plays is important since if the are ot "splittable" this idea is a non-starter.
If we can agree on what we should go for then I'd suggets starting a thread to get players.

 

[serpico]

Stalnie works quite well if I recall. The board is quite open but has some easily defineable areas to divide forces up in. Obviously the way a game plays is important since if the are ot "splittable" this idea is a non-starter.
If we can agree on what we should go for then I'd suggets starting a thread to get players.

I think it would work ok.....I sent the other guys a PM about it. If they agree I'll post a thread......

Paul

 

[countermanCX]

Hi guys, this 'team PBeM' thing sounds like a lot of fun, hope you can get it going & keep us posted w/ the results!

As far as VASL goes - Concealment & HIP depend on 'password' alone. So, the players on each team can continue to use their own 'usernames', but the members of each team must use the same (case-sensitive) 'password'.

Should work out OK - all the players can see which 'username' is taking the action, as reported in the chat. But each team-member will be able to see all his team's ?/HIP units, so long as his active 'password' is correct.

When you start VASL & load a logfile, you might have a different password 'active' in your prefs. That's no prob - just go to File > Edit Preferences > Personal tab > Password field, type in your 'team password', & OK the changes. The prefs dlog closes, then you might have to click somewhere on the map to make it take effect, but then all your 'team units' will be visible. You won't have to exit VASL & restart - the password-change will become active as soon as you close the Prefs dlog.

So it's Xtremely important that when team-members are exchanging files for scenario setup, that they both are using that 'team password' - it'd easily become awful if some units are ?'d or HIPped to a different 'password' - once that error is written to a savegame or logfile, it's v. difficult to correct.

hth

edit: I really don't think you need to have a moderator - all you really need is a robust 'log-file naming-convention', & an agreement to exchange logfiles in a set order, say Axis1 > Allied 1 > Axis2 > Allied2 for each phase. To keep things rolling on schedule, you might institute a house-rule of "5 CVP to the opponents" if any player takes more than 36 hours to email his logfile!

 

[serpico]

Hi guys, this 'team PBeM' thing sounds like a lot of fun, hope you can get it going & keep us posted w/ the results!

As far as VASL goes - Concealment & HIP depend on 'password' alone. So, the players on each team can continue to use their own 'usernames', but the members of each team must use the same (case-sensitive) 'password'.

Should work out OK - all the players can see which 'username' is taking the action, as reported in the chat. But each team-member will be able to see all his team's ?/HIP units, so long as his active 'password' is correct.

When you start VASL & load a logfile, you might have a different password 'active' in your prefs. That's no prob - just go to File > Edit Preferences > Personal tab > Password field, type in your 'team password', & OK the changes. The prefs dlog closes, then you might have to click somewhere on the map to make it take effect, but then all your 'team units' will be visible. You won't have to exit VASL & restart - the password-change will become active as soon as you close the Prefs dlog.

So it's Xtremely important that when team-members are exchanging files for scenario setup, that they both are using that 'team password' - it'd easily become awful if some units are ?'d or HIPped to a different 'password' - once that error is written to a savegame or logfile, it's v. difficult to correct.

hth

edit: I really don't think you need to have a moderator - all you really need is a robust 'log-file naming-convention', & an agreement to exchange logfiles in a set order, say Axis1 > Allied 1 > Axis2 > Allied2 for each phase. To keep things rolling on schedule, you might institute a house-rule of "5 CVP to the opponents" if any player takes more than 36 hours to email his logfile!

Thanks for the input Counterman! I will keep the password thing in mind.......

 

[TSUN]

I still like the idea that a player can "pass", let the colleague fire first and then get a chance (but only one) to fire on the same moves.
/Thomas

 

[Vinnie]

Seems fair enough. I was suggesting that to begin with, all DF is andled by one player each side to speed things along. After seeing how it's working we could then go oevr to each layer handleing their own DF missions.

 

[serpico]

I still like the idea that a player can "pass", let the colleague fire first and then get a chance (but only one) to fire on the same moves.
/Thomas

So if you "pass" as you say, you have to send the logfile on to your partner?

Then when he's done, he sends it back and you get one chance at the same moving unit(s)?

Paul

 

[TSUN]

So if you "pass" as you say, you have to send the logfile on to your partner?

Then when he's done, he sends it back and you get one chance at the same moving unit(s)?

Paul

Yes. Specially D1F is a bit tricky. My team mate might have a good chance to shoot, while I would prefer to keep my ATG hidden unless he misses, for example.
It is going to be difficulties to sort out. Usually when I play PBEM, I like the rule to stop the log when a HIP Gun appears or let my opponent redo move if he would walk into newly place residual or minefields etc. Otherwise he may only like to move one unit at a time in the log. The synchronizing of this will be hard if more players are involved unless the new info has no impact on later moves in the log. Each move must be analyzed by all players on the defender side, before it is really finished. Strictly going A1-D1-A2-D2 will be a different ASL flavor.
Maybe we need a scenario that isn't too big to start out with and iron out any problems?

 

[Vinnie]

This is the reason I'd prefer to start with only one player doing the DF per team, maybe a different player each turn. It's not ideal but I feel it's the only workable solution to begin with.
I play a lot of team games FtF due to there being 4 of us who turn up at difering times due to family commitments, To get things moving at a reasonable pace we will have to make comprmises.

 

[TSUN]

OK, so it's more like A1-D-A2-D, where an Attacker sends the log directly to the other
............................ \----/
Attacker if nothing is added (for the moment) in the MPh by him?

Could work.

 

[Vinnie]

That's what I'd go for to begin with.
I'd suggest that all logs are sent to all players.

 

[TSUN]

That's what I'd go for to begin with.
I'd suggest that all logs are sent to all players.

OK as long as it is clear who has the "token" to act.

 

[Vinnie]

It'll also increase the chance of @Why diod you do that for goodness sake!@
flying back and forth between the players!

 

[countermanCX]

The more I think about this, the more interestin' it becomes.

A side's players might be co-equal (w/ first-come first-served control over all their units), or could be assigned 'regimental sectors' (w/ total control over all assets setup inside each player's area), or they could be hierarchical, w/ one player subordinate to an 'overdog' who'd have control over 'shared' Gun/AFV/OBA resources. Naturally, the 'overdog' identity would switch back'n'forth between team-members, depending on who had the better kill-ratio in the preceding scenario!

And then during the day at work, overdog would be getting email from his team-mate, begging him let him shoot a HIP Gun at hex Y18, and overdog would mail back, "not before you've knocked its ? off w/ a shot from your Inf in X16."

What fun!

 

[serpico]

The more I think about this, the more interestin' it becomes.

A side's players might be co-equal (w/ first-come first-served control over all their units), or could be assigned 'regimental sectors' (w/ total control over all assets setup inside each player's area), or they could be hierarchical, w/ one player subordinate to an 'overdog' who'd have control over 'shared' Gun/AFV/OBA resources. Naturally, the 'overdog' identity would switch back'n'forth between team-members, depending on who had the better kill-ratio in the preceding scenario!

And then during the day at work, overdog would be getting email from his team-mate, begging him let him shoot a HIP Gun at hex Y18, and overdog would mail back, "not before you've knocked its ? off w/ a shot from your Inf in X16."

What fun!

Overdog eh? :laugh:

Have no Fear....Underdog is here!

 

[TSUN]

A long as you don't pick a scenario that is a three-legged canine. :b